Entry 9: 6th Amendment

http://static.toondoo.com/public/u/s/m/USMstudent/toons/cool-cartoon-380984.png

 

    
The cartoon above shows a character and how they are expressing their 6th amendment right. The cartoon vividly shows the process, where as you are arrested, and shows where you met in a court for a trail. The cartoon does lack on some major issues like,due process, and showing a trial bu jury. The picture though, does clearly explain how this process works. The author clearly describes what the process is and how certain rights are to be given  in during this act and privilege of the Bill of Rights.
The sixth amendment of the Bill of Rights states that "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 where in 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 defence.".The cartoon above depicts the 6th amendment because of how the irony shows how fast the trial was for  the older lady. The cartoon shows that when you are arrested that you are either liable to a fast trial where as you get a prison sentence or where as you get a trial where there will be a jury present to help with determining the verdict of the trial. The cartoon shows how the governments bill of rights is composed one way but depicts in a whole new connotation. The cartoon is to show the simplicity but also shows the complicated matter of a trial.
    The Bill Of Rights is a very essential within the United States because it helps clarify the Constitution, and also helps stimulate the life of American citizens. In my opinion it helps stimulate the rights we already have as citizens, and helps make our lives easier. The 6th Amendment is essential because if a person was granted a closed trial without a jury, they would be less likely to have a fair amount of unbias people who would help decide their fate. The 6th Amendment is also essential because no one has the time and money to be going through a trial for eternity, but if a trial can be instilled, cases would continue to go swifter and judges can rule easier and faster.

Entry 7: 4th Amendment

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meGJ0Wiou3U

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-5th-circuit/1215043.html

     In the following incident, the man is currently being harassed by the police officer because they believe that he is not a United States citizen. The man, said before in the pre-screening that he has been through this process before, and decided to be prepared by placing cameras in his car. The man also was very direct with his answers and followed the directions given to him by the officers. He did ask, why was he being held in custody if he did not commit any crime. He clearly expressed his rights given to him by the fourth amendment, because he was unwilling to let the police to search the car without a search warrant.
    The fourth amendment states "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.". The fourth amendment is pretty much giving the man in this situation the ability to refuse for the police to search his car, as well as his arrest being for an unexplainable cause. The police in the video were also proving a case in the Supreme Court called US. vs MACHUCA BARRERA, where as Machuca and Barrera were searched without a warrant and also were arrested for no apparent reason. The Bill of Rights made this amendment for an apparent reason. They created this amendment for people to be independent and for them to know their rights as American citizens.
   In my opinion the fourth amendment is essential as any other amendment because it serves as a badge of independence for Americans. The fourth amendment shows that we can stand up to those who are law enforcement if they do not have a reason for arresting someone. This is essential because they can lead to more cases like Machuca barrera vs US., which are cases that help develop these laws more and more. More cases just help in enforcing the law in every aspect and detail, thus creating a better life for Americans.

Entry 8 : 5th amendment

http://www.joeizen.com/evans.htm
http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/12/051013P.pdf

The fifth amendment in the case of the case of Evans vs. the United States, was  a conflict dealing with how the defendant Mr. R Evans, against the Internal Revenue Service. Evans was trying to avoid the IRS, and saying that their allegations of his yearly earnings was fraudulent. They also have records that Evans did not have an accurate records of his taxes. Instead of reacting very dramatically Mr. Evans simply told the IRS, that he wanted to plead the 5th Amendment, and wouldn't answer any questions without legal representation. This case was taken to the Supreme Court and was ruled in his favor.
    The fifth amendment states that "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."  The fifth amendment applies to this legal situation because of the fact that the Bill of Rights gave Mr. Evans the right to not incriminate his self. He pleaded the fifth because he knew that his actions would get him incriminated. The Bill of Rights, gave him the ability not to hang himself. Mr.Evans, asked for legal representation because he knew if his actions would be dismissed or that the case would be adjourned. The fifth amendment is what saved him from these charges.
    In my opinion the fifth amendment is here almost as a guilty plea, and by not talking, a person can save or destroy their case. The fifth amendment is there to help with protecting a person's personal actions, and dismissing the fact of what they did by examining the whole process. By doing this, the defendant has more so of a chance to win a case, and actually make some type of history. I believe it would be essential because it can make or break any case. The fifth has a lot of benefits in ruling within a court.

Post 4: 1st Amendment.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=23366
    

   This article is about how a city council in Conneticut stated that Muslim prayers  by Muslim Americans would  not be included in their city council meeting. The situation worsened when officials denied the right to have any prayer involved in this meeting. Though after a plenty of emails and a lot of personal letters and threats, the citizens were granted a moment of silence to where they can individually pray and have religious worship. The citizens also protested against this event with prayer, but their voices were not heard. This is a direct violation of the 1st Amendment.
     The first amendment of the Bill of rights states "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". This amendment not only gives people the right to believe and practice their own religion, but also the right to petition. The unfortunately part about it, is that it doesn't state where it can or can not be done. The first amendment does give these AMERICAN citizens the right to live their life the way that they want to, but unfortunately they can not because of ignorant individuals who are unwilling to accept this fact. The Bill of rights was made to help with the rights of an American individual.
    In my personal opinion these individuals should have continued to protest and if not they should have sued the city of Hartford for their irresponsibility to enforce the 1st Amendment. I would have personally pursued this situation more because it is a national right. The lack of rights in America is considered prejudice. Prejudice should have died within the U.S. when slavery was abolished. Unfortunately peace will not be able to come forth because people are unwilling to accept new things in life.

Entry 5: 2nd Amendment

+

http://www.cartoonstock.com/directory/r/right_to_bear_arms.asp 

    In the cartoon depicted above, the artist is depicted vaguely yet efficiently the fact that the right to bear arms is in the constitution and that he has the right to carry and have a piece of weaponry. The second amendment give the rights to U.S. citizens to have weaponry as a form of personal security. In the cartoon the character is holding some type of automatic rifle and stating that he has the right to have one.Its purpose was that if there every was war or any type of heated conflict that people could easily do one thing, use their own weaponry to protect themselves and what they stood for. This is essential because this amendment shows some of the independence that Americans have as a country.

    The second amendment of the Bill of Rights states that "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." This is stating that militias should be founded in each and every state but the people have a right to have their own weaponry for their own public usage. The thing is that the law states that people have the right to have weaponry but it does not say if the process is strict or not. The process is usually very rigorous and very difficult thus why so many cases like McDonald vs. Chicago have occurred. The second amendment though is a very vague amendment because of the fact it does not specify what the procedure is to get a gun. Anyone can get a gun, but if the gun is registered and safe, is where the problem lies.

     In my personal opinion I believe that the Senate should do another Congressional Convention to ratify and change these bills because more strict and precise bills will lead us to have a more successful country. If so things would be more precise and more strict thus leading bewildering comments and ideas in to an area where as things would be more clear so cases like McDonald vs. Chicago would not happen again. A big issue is that this Amendment has a lot of contradictions and is very difficult to understand and to depict it's message. In my personal opinion I believe  that without this bill society would not be functional. I believe that people need this because of the fact that personal protectyion is needed. Thus causing confusion within the United States.

    

Entry 6: 10th Amendment

   Brewer: Feds 'after' Arizona
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/41884.html

     Govenor Jan Brewer is furious, because "they don't want to do their job". She is reffering to the Obama party, and how they are unwilling to help with the immigration issues within the state of Arizona. Gov. Brewer is upset because the Obama party will not help but instead attack her state, Arizona, because they can not handle the mass amount of immagration that is going into Arizona. There are several federal court cases with the state of Arizona vs. the United States, one where Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio was being accused of racial profiling.
     The tenth amendment is stated as "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". It pretty much enforces the rights of states under the Constitution. This issue deals with the tenth amendment because it shows how the state of Arizona has a right to try to detain the excessive amount of illegal immigration into the United States. The state of Arizona also has the right to petition the legislative branch for help with detaining this by the force of the Army, or Navy which could be approved by the president. Arizona also has the right to legally petition for a racial profiling bill where as though with several legal procedures that they can find out who is an illegal alien or not. This is also legit because this falls in a situtation where as the Constitution does not specify what should be done in this situation. Thus giving the right to Govenor Brewer to try to pass this bill to help control this issue.
    In my personal opinion the Governor has a right to be upset that the President and his party are not their job, but can not be upset of why he wont do it. Governor Brewer seems to not understand how complicated and hard it is to run a system that will efficently tell if someone is  an illegal or legal resident. The whole situation dealing with the Supreme Court trying to sue the sherriff is that is dealing with actually a legal U.S. citizen. I believe that there should be some type of national identification that everybody in the U.S., including children, should have so that people will know if they are a resident or not. Maybe once this issue is solved our immigration rate will decline, and maybe the act of naturalising will occur.

Judicial Branches

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf 

    The Supreme Court case of McDonald vs. Chicago, was a federal case taken about in October 2009, about how McDonald was fighting against the city of Chicago, and it's gun laws. McDonald. was questioning, if the Second Amendment, gave the right to bear arms, why is the city of Chicago, stopping him from carrying his handgun. The trial was very extensive and left a shock onto the world. The shock was that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of McDonald. The constitutional connection is that how was his case taken all the way to the Supreme Court?
     Article 3 Section 2 of the United States Constitution states "The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed." This is meaning that Congress must approve of this case having some Constitutional disagreement, and then sending this case to the Supreme Court, where they would have to rule upon the case. What about it that makes it unconstitutional is that if the conflict breaks any of the amendments or the articles of the United States Constitution. Amendment 2 of the Constitution is that as citizens of the U.S. we have the right to bear arms. McDonald felt as though that he was able to carry his weaponry in cases of emergency and for personal protection. Unfortunately, Chicago has very strict gun laws, and McDonald was not going down without a fight. In the end though, he won.
    In my opinion McDonald is right and has nothing but every right to expound upon what the Constitution gives him a United States citizen. McDonald is the type of American that pushed on to reach richetness. The judicial branch was only able to judge on what the Constitution said. I myself would also do something like this. This case also was similiar to another case that was won named, District of Columbia v. Heller. It to me seems as though people today are fighting for their rights, and with a successful and effiecient legal sytem they have the right to do so.

Executive Branch

     A recent issue within Presidents Obama new campaign is that he appointed a new face to the Supreme Court. Elena Kagen is the new face towards the Supreme Court along with the eight previous justices. In the United States a plenty of people were upset at the president’s decision on adding a new justice to the Supreme Courts board.
     In Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution , "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments". This article gives the President, constitutional powers to appoint new supreme court justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. IN the constitution though, it has a check on this power, in Article 2 Section 1, where it says "by, and with the advise and consent of the Senate", meaning that if the President chooses just anyone and they do not surpass Congress, that they can not hold onto the job. As depicted in the political cartoon, Kagen is being questioned by Congress, to see if she is able to be a new justice.
    In my personal opinion, I believe this is great because there is a new face in the Supreme Court. The thing with the Supreme court is that justices serve for life and having a justice that serves for an unlimited amount of time, and having the same say so within the same court, can lead to a biased look upon federal cases. The ability to accurately judge cases in the federal courts, can lead to a better judicial system. The president's power to do this is what makes a federal court system powerful. I am very pleased with the president's decision, and support the new Supreme Court Justice, Elena Kagen.

Legislative Branch

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/42950 


     The United States and President Obama have been trying to do nothing but push the new U.S. stimulus plan to help increase the financial status of the U.S., and well as to help citizens out in this time of financial recession. The Senate is actually considering borrowing money from China, and using it to help the United States come out of this recession and become financially stable. The insufficiency within the state is that both of the Houses are unclear about what they would like to do. They believe that borrowing this money will only lead to more debt within the United States.


    This article is clearly demonstrating the powers found in Article 1, The Legislative Branch, Section 8, “The Congress shall have Power to borrow money on the credit of the United States.”, found in the United States Constitution. This article clearly demonstrates that Congress has the right to borrow money from other countries, and to use the money for different countries. Even though this decision, empower checks and balances, Congress still has the upper hands. A check that may come up is that, if the President will make a treaty with China or not to help with borrowing this money, this can be found in Article 2, Section 2 of the U.S. constitution, “He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur”. This is a controversy because, if all of the Senate is not willing to vote for borrowing money and making a treaty, Congress can veto and reject this causing the U.S. financial crisis to continue to deteriorate.

    In my own opinion, I am agreeing with the Senate by borrowing money to help bail the U.S. out of this crisis. This is a power that is constitutionally given to the Senate. I couldn’t see the United States surviving another depression where the cause is our society and its carelessness. I don’t understand how modern society is so advanced and how something small, as in managing our countries economical status is very unstable. This article is interesting because it deals with supporting China and importing and exporting goods. I also wonder is the president putting this off because the Senate is unsure about this action?