Amendment 6- "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."
Court Upholds Sixth Amendment Rights
This article is about when a man was accused of raping his wife. There was a tape that had Crawfords wife tell her story, but what the wife said did not match Crawfords story. Crawford's lawyers were not able to examine the tape or Crawford's wife about the tape. So Crawford was never able to talk to his wife about the tape. Another case was about a man, Raleigh. who wasnt able to confront his accuser because the court wouldnt allow it.
This violates the 6th amendment because the court did not let Crawford or Raleigh confront thier accusers about the trial they are being put in. In the 6th amendment it states that the acussed has the right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him." But the court wouldnt allow Crawford to talk to his wife about the tape. And they also didnt allow the "witness" confront Raleigh about his trial when he demanded to see he/she. The court went against the 6th amendment in these cases, and shouldnt have since Crawford and Raleigh had the right to the 6th amendment.
I think that Crawford and Raleigh should have had the right to see the witnesses against them. I dont understand why the court didnt allow it. This was not a fair trial to Crawford or Raleigh. They probably could have had a chance to get out of trouble if they had the chance to see the witness face to face to talk about things. But the court took that right away from them when they shouldnt have. They had the right to the 6th amendment.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40431-2004Mar8.html
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Amendment 8
Amendment 8- "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
Report Warned C.I.A. on Tactics In Interrogation
This article is about how the CIA might have made torture procedures to war prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is all about 9/11, people who had to deal with the set up. In the article it states that CIA officers have captured prisoners and do a procedure called, waterboarding. This is a form of torture in which the victim thinks he/she is drowning, and is catching their breathe while gagging. One CIA officer is being charged charges for this cruel attempt. But in the article it also argues that Bush's administrations says that this cruel procedure is not violating the 8th amendment because the prisoners in Iraq are not US citizens.
This does however violate the 8th amendment because the constitution states that there should be no "cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." The CIA are US citizens who are causing torture to people as a punishment for 9/11. This should be constitutional because US citizens are involved in this torture waterboarding procedure. No one should make people suffer for a punishment. It clearly states that in the 8th amendment. CIA officers are violating the 8th amendment.
I think its completely wrong for the CIA officers to do this. They know they are wrong and should stop the cruel punishment. Its crazy what they are doing to people, especially making them feel like they are drowning. I can't imagine what other procedures they do to prisoners. Just because they are not US citizens, doesnt mean they have to be treated in that kind of way. The CIA are US citizens, so since they are part of America, they are violating the 8th amendment. Im sure if someone from another country did torture punishments to a US citizens they will be upset. So CIA officers should be charged.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/09/politics/09detain.html?_r=1&scp=4&sq=dick%20cheney%20violating%20the%20amendment%208&st=cse
Report Warned C.I.A. on Tactics In Interrogation
This article is about how the CIA might have made torture procedures to war prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is all about 9/11, people who had to deal with the set up. In the article it states that CIA officers have captured prisoners and do a procedure called, waterboarding. This is a form of torture in which the victim thinks he/she is drowning, and is catching their breathe while gagging. One CIA officer is being charged charges for this cruel attempt. But in the article it also argues that Bush's administrations says that this cruel procedure is not violating the 8th amendment because the prisoners in Iraq are not US citizens.
This does however violate the 8th amendment because the constitution states that there should be no "cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." The CIA are US citizens who are causing torture to people as a punishment for 9/11. This should be constitutional because US citizens are involved in this torture waterboarding procedure. No one should make people suffer for a punishment. It clearly states that in the 8th amendment. CIA officers are violating the 8th amendment.
I think its completely wrong for the CIA officers to do this. They know they are wrong and should stop the cruel punishment. Its crazy what they are doing to people, especially making them feel like they are drowning. I can't imagine what other procedures they do to prisoners. Just because they are not US citizens, doesnt mean they have to be treated in that kind of way. The CIA are US citizens, so since they are part of America, they are violating the 8th amendment. Im sure if someone from another country did torture punishments to a US citizens they will be upset. So CIA officers should be charged.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/09/politics/09detain.html?_r=1&scp=4&sq=dick%20cheney%20violating%20the%20amendment%208&st=cse
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Amendment 5
Amendment 5- "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
![]()
What this cartoon is trying to say is that the dog doesnt have to say anything in the court. And if the dog does want to say something then the judge has a way for the dog to say something. So if the dog wants to say yes the dog barks once, and if the dog wants to say no, it barks twice. And if the dog doesnt want to "bark" at all then he can plead the fifth amendment. Meaning he doesnt say a word and thats ok. But it is also like if the dog cant say anything anyways since the dog doesnt speak, so the dog wont really give away valuable and understanding information.
This connects to the fifth amendment because the dog doesnt have to speak if he doesnt want too. Hes protected under the fifth amendment if the dog doesnt want to speak even if it knows something. In the fifth amendment it states that someone "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." Wich means that the dog cannot testify against himself. Nor can he snitch on himself. The dog is innocent until proven guilty. The dog can stay quiet about the case hes in.
I think this cartoon is kind of funny. The illustrator uses a dog for an example of "someone" being accussed of something. I think the cartoon brings a good visual idea of what the fifth amendment is about. Which is that someone cannot testify against himself. I also caught that the dog looks scared because he's worried about the case. If he should say anything or not. But Im sure he will plead to the fifth amendment.
http://www.cartoonstock.com/cartoonview.asp?search=site&catref=dro0383&MA_Category=&ANDkeyword=5th+amendment&ORkeyword=&TITLEkeyword=&NEGATIVEkeyword=
What this cartoon is trying to say is that the dog doesnt have to say anything in the court. And if the dog does want to say something then the judge has a way for the dog to say something. So if the dog wants to say yes the dog barks once, and if the dog wants to say no, it barks twice. And if the dog doesnt want to "bark" at all then he can plead the fifth amendment. Meaning he doesnt say a word and thats ok. But it is also like if the dog cant say anything anyways since the dog doesnt speak, so the dog wont really give away valuable and understanding information.
This connects to the fifth amendment because the dog doesnt have to speak if he doesnt want too. Hes protected under the fifth amendment if the dog doesnt want to speak even if it knows something. In the fifth amendment it states that someone "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." Wich means that the dog cannot testify against himself. Nor can he snitch on himself. The dog is innocent until proven guilty. The dog can stay quiet about the case hes in.
I think this cartoon is kind of funny. The illustrator uses a dog for an example of "someone" being accussed of something. I think the cartoon brings a good visual idea of what the fifth amendment is about. Which is that someone cannot testify against himself. I also caught that the dog looks scared because he's worried about the case. If he should say anything or not. But Im sure he will plead to the fifth amendment.
http://www.cartoonstock.com/cartoonview.asp?search=site&catref=dro0383&MA_Category=&ANDkeyword=5th+amendment&ORkeyword=&TITLEkeyword=&NEGATIVEkeyword=
Amendment 4
Two Officers Are Accused of Lying About Searches
Amendment 4- "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
This article is about two officers who are accused of doing illegal searches of cars. They were accused of stopping cars and searching them for no good reason, and if they found drugs or guns, they would arrest them. William Eiseman and Michael Carsey are the officers who are being accused. Eiseman is accused of stopping a van and then obtaining a search warrant for the drivers house where he found drugs and weapons. He stopped more cars illegally as well. Also in another car that Eiseman stopped illegally found cocaine in the truck of the car. He also stopped another car for no reason, and they pointed out that they knew a district attorney, and the police let them go.
The connection between the article and the 4th amendment is that the cops in this article are illegally searching cars. The police are supposed to have a search warrant that states they may search someone's things, house, car. The 4th amendment states that the "right of the people to be secure in thier persons." Meaning the poeple have the right to have privacy. And if anyone violates that, they must have permission to do so. What the police did was against the 4th amendment. They took away that right from the poeple they stopped. The police violated the 4th amendment.
I dont agree with what the police did. They did this illegally and should recieve the consequences for their actions. The took the poeple's rights away, from the 4th amendment. Its obvious they were scared of the car they stopped that pointed out they knew a district attorney. They knew they could get in trouble for this, so they let them go. The police might have caught some people, but that doesnt mean they came upon it the right way. They shouldvt have violated thier privacy, or searched thier cars without thier permission or without a search warrant. They should go to prison.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/16/nyregion/16cops.html?ref=search_and_seizure
Amendment 4- "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
This article is about two officers who are accused of doing illegal searches of cars. They were accused of stopping cars and searching them for no good reason, and if they found drugs or guns, they would arrest them. William Eiseman and Michael Carsey are the officers who are being accused. Eiseman is accused of stopping a van and then obtaining a search warrant for the drivers house where he found drugs and weapons. He stopped more cars illegally as well. Also in another car that Eiseman stopped illegally found cocaine in the truck of the car. He also stopped another car for no reason, and they pointed out that they knew a district attorney, and the police let them go.
The connection between the article and the 4th amendment is that the cops in this article are illegally searching cars. The police are supposed to have a search warrant that states they may search someone's things, house, car. The 4th amendment states that the "right of the people to be secure in thier persons." Meaning the poeple have the right to have privacy. And if anyone violates that, they must have permission to do so. What the police did was against the 4th amendment. They took away that right from the poeple they stopped. The police violated the 4th amendment.
I dont agree with what the police did. They did this illegally and should recieve the consequences for their actions. The took the poeple's rights away, from the 4th amendment. Its obvious they were scared of the car they stopped that pointed out they knew a district attorney. They knew they could get in trouble for this, so they let them go. The police might have caught some people, but that doesnt mean they came upon it the right way. They shouldvt have violated thier privacy, or searched thier cars without thier permission or without a search warrant. They should go to prison.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/16/nyregion/16cops.html?ref=search_and_seizure
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Amendment 1
Amendment 1- "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Student Suspended for Facebook Page Can Sue
This article is about a female student getting suspended for expressing her feelings in the internet. She made a facebook, and commented on one of her teachers. It wasnt a threat, it only said that the female student, Katherine Evans, said she didnt like her english teacher. The school prinicipal however found out about this being put on the internet, and suspended Evans for what she had said. Katherine sued the principal for suspending her just because of what she had said about her english teacher.
The connection to the first amendment is that Katherine had freedom of speech to express whatever she feels on the internet. The first amendment states that congress gives the people the freedom of speech. Meaning poeople could say whatever they want without getting in trouble for it. However in this case, Evans did get in trouble by gettung suspended because she wrote that her english teacher was the worst teacher she ever had. To Evans this was as if the first amendment was being taken away from her because she got in trouble. The first amendment should protect her from any trouble because the first amendment gives her the freedom to speak.
I think its dum that a teacher is suspending the student for epxressing herself. It wasnt as if she was threatening the teacher or anything. She just said she didnt like her and thats it. The only reason why they principal suspended her was because the nglish teacher got her feelings hurt or something. They should just talked to Katherine Evans about it instead of suspending her. Katherine should be able to say whatever she wants since she does have the freedom to say whatever she wants. Its clearly stated in the first amendment. And it for sure wasnt cyberbullying. The student didnt call her names or anything. Its wrong for the principal to suspend her, when Katherine has the first amendment by her side.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/education/16student.html?_r=1&ref=first_amendment
Student Suspended for Facebook Page Can Sue
This article is about a female student getting suspended for expressing her feelings in the internet. She made a facebook, and commented on one of her teachers. It wasnt a threat, it only said that the female student, Katherine Evans, said she didnt like her english teacher. The school prinicipal however found out about this being put on the internet, and suspended Evans for what she had said. Katherine sued the principal for suspending her just because of what she had said about her english teacher.
The connection to the first amendment is that Katherine had freedom of speech to express whatever she feels on the internet. The first amendment states that congress gives the people the freedom of speech. Meaning poeople could say whatever they want without getting in trouble for it. However in this case, Evans did get in trouble by gettung suspended because she wrote that her english teacher was the worst teacher she ever had. To Evans this was as if the first amendment was being taken away from her because she got in trouble. The first amendment should protect her from any trouble because the first amendment gives her the freedom to speak.
I think its dum that a teacher is suspending the student for epxressing herself. It wasnt as if she was threatening the teacher or anything. She just said she didnt like her and thats it. The only reason why they principal suspended her was because the nglish teacher got her feelings hurt or something. They should just talked to Katherine Evans about it instead of suspending her. Katherine should be able to say whatever she wants since she does have the freedom to say whatever she wants. Its clearly stated in the first amendment. And it for sure wasnt cyberbullying. The student didnt call her names or anything. Its wrong for the principal to suspend her, when Katherine has the first amendment by her side.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/education/16student.html?_r=1&ref=first_amendment
Monday, September 13, 2010
Amendment 2
Suspect’s Gun Proved Easy to Obtain
Amendment 2- The right to bear arms.
This article is about a man named Faisal Shahzad who was caught making a car bomb. Not only was he caught making a bomg, but he was also armed with a gun. He was however liscenced to a gun permit which gives him the ability to own a gun. But people dont really know if Shahzad fired the gun he had bought. It was said that he bought the gun at a store in Shelton, Connecticut. He is however in trouble for mkaing the car bomb, but he is still questioned for why he needed the gun for.
The second amendment states that someone has the right to get bear arms. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Shahzad is protected by this amendment because if he wasnt then he would have gotten in trouble for owning a gun without a permit. But since the second amendment gives the people the power to own a gun, Shahzad will not get in trouble with the law for owning a gun. The only thing he will be questioned about is what he needed it for. Other than that, the second amendment gave him the ability to own a gun.
I dont know how i feel about poeple owning a gun. Its a little scary bevause you cant always trust people. You dont know if they are planning to kill anyone or something. But in this case, it is obvious that he was going to use his gun for something violent. He was making a car bomb, so it will only make sense if he was planning on killing people. He is however lucky that he got the permit to own a gun under the second amendment. But you cant always trust people with the gun. Guns arent so friendly.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/06/nyregion/06gun.html?ref=firearms
Amendment 2- The right to bear arms.
This article is about a man named Faisal Shahzad who was caught making a car bomb. Not only was he caught making a bomg, but he was also armed with a gun. He was however liscenced to a gun permit which gives him the ability to own a gun. But people dont really know if Shahzad fired the gun he had bought. It was said that he bought the gun at a store in Shelton, Connecticut. He is however in trouble for mkaing the car bomb, but he is still questioned for why he needed the gun for.
The second amendment states that someone has the right to get bear arms. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Shahzad is protected by this amendment because if he wasnt then he would have gotten in trouble for owning a gun without a permit. But since the second amendment gives the people the power to own a gun, Shahzad will not get in trouble with the law for owning a gun. The only thing he will be questioned about is what he needed it for. Other than that, the second amendment gave him the ability to own a gun.
I dont know how i feel about poeple owning a gun. Its a little scary bevause you cant always trust people. You dont know if they are planning to kill anyone or something. But in this case, it is obvious that he was going to use his gun for something violent. He was making a car bomb, so it will only make sense if he was planning on killing people. He is however lucky that he got the permit to own a gun under the second amendment. But you cant always trust people with the gun. Guns arent so friendly.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/06/nyregion/06gun.html?ref=firearms
Amendment 10
Arizona Enacts Stringent Law on Immigration
Amendment 10- Power to the state and to the people.
This article is about Arizona making a law that will "get rid" of illegal immigrants. Arizona strongly believes that this law ahould be passed. This law will allow the police to detain anyone they suspsect to be an illegal immigrant. The article also states that president Obama feels strongly against this law. He thinks this law is wrong and shouldnt be passed. A lot of people have thier own opinions about this situation in the article. Roger Mahony says that this lay is like Nazism. Meaning there is racism and discrimination in this law.
The connection to this article to the tenth amendment is that this shows that the states and people have power. Amendment 10 states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The state Arizona definently took advantange of their power and made a law themselves to "step up." This is an example of Arizona having the power to make a law, and as well as the people, in this case the police, to detain anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant. The amendment gives the state/people the power to do what they want for themselves without any real consent of Congress. The Tenth amendment protects them.
I strongly disagree with this law. I think its wrong in every way. This to me does seem like racism and discrimination. In other words, this law is allowing you to look at someone who looks Mexican and you have the "power" to say they might be an illegal immigrant. And then your words will be taken seriously. Its like history is repeating itself. Im glad to hear that president Obama is against this law because his head is in the right direction. He sees that Arizona is wrong, and they ARE.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us/politics/24immig.html
Amendment 10- Power to the state and to the people.
This article is about Arizona making a law that will "get rid" of illegal immigrants. Arizona strongly believes that this law ahould be passed. This law will allow the police to detain anyone they suspsect to be an illegal immigrant. The article also states that president Obama feels strongly against this law. He thinks this law is wrong and shouldnt be passed. A lot of people have thier own opinions about this situation in the article. Roger Mahony says that this lay is like Nazism. Meaning there is racism and discrimination in this law.
The connection to this article to the tenth amendment is that this shows that the states and people have power. Amendment 10 states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The state Arizona definently took advantange of their power and made a law themselves to "step up." This is an example of Arizona having the power to make a law, and as well as the people, in this case the police, to detain anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant. The amendment gives the state/people the power to do what they want for themselves without any real consent of Congress. The Tenth amendment protects them.
I strongly disagree with this law. I think its wrong in every way. This to me does seem like racism and discrimination. In other words, this law is allowing you to look at someone who looks Mexican and you have the "power" to say they might be an illegal immigrant. And then your words will be taken seriously. Its like history is repeating itself. Im glad to hear that president Obama is against this law because his head is in the right direction. He sees that Arizona is wrong, and they ARE.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us/politics/24immig.html
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)