Entry 9 Amendment 6

Source: Source 2010 Trial Likely for Rod Blagojevich. February 6, 2009.
http://www.huliq.com/3257/81668/spring-2010-trial-likely-rod-blagojevich

Constitutional Connection: Amendment 6, Right to Speedy Trail, Confortation of Witnesses.
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial."

Explanation of Connection:

 Rod Blagojevich will go on trial in the spring of 2010 but it wouldn't be a speedy trial. It will be at least three months before Rod Blagojevich's trial because the evidence they have against him will take long to represent. Rod Blagojevich has been arrested for multiple reasons. One reason he was arrested is because he tried to sell Obama's vacated senate seat to a high bidder he wanted to get the money and use it for his own purposes. Rod Blagojevich has said that he wouldn't have considered selling the seat if they didn't have financial problem. Rod Blagojevich's attorney argues that he should have a speedy trial because the Constitution gives citizens the right to have one.

This article clearly represents Amendment 6 from the Constitution. Amendment 6 says that everyone has a right to a speedy trial and they also have a right to an attorney. Even though the judge said Rod wouldn't have a speedy trial his attorney has argued that he should be able to have one because amendment six gives him the right. With the help of the Constitution Rod Blagojevich's attorney will help him to have a speedy trial instead of having to wait three months. Both the Constitution and the article tells how every citizen is entitled to an speedy trial but because prosecutors say that it will take long to present and talk about the evidence they have against Rod his trial start at a later date than when he was arrested.

I think that it is fair that Rod isn't having a speedy trial because it is for a reasonable cause. Rod Blagojevich was very wrong for trying to sell Obama's seat for that I think that he shouldn’t even be able to go on trial. The judge and the jury should just find him guilty and sentence him to jail, I know that everyone has the right to go on trial before sentenced but I feel that Rod doesn't deserve to because he committed a hideous crime. The judge should make it possible for Rod to have a speedy trial because by not doing so they are violating his sixth amendment right.

Entry 10 Amendment 8

Source: The Death Penalty. January 14, 2004
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/deathpenalty.htm

Constitutional Connection: Amendment 8, Cruel and Unusual Punishment.
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Explanation of Connection:

       The Supreme Court is determining whether the death penalty is considered cruel or unusual punishment. They want to determine is the death penalty unconstituional or not because in the Constituition it prohibits cruel punishment against citizens. Other courts argued that the death penalty is neccasary when people committ bad crimes. The court says anyone under 18 years cannot receive the death penalty the mentally retarded cannot also receive the death penalty.

       This article represents Amendment 8 from the Constitution. In Amendment eight it says "no one shall receive cruel or unusual punishment". In the article they were deciding whether the death penalty is unconstitutional or not because killing someone that committed a crime is a cruel thing to do. The Supreme Court should argue against the death penalty because that is a very unconstitutional crime. The makers of the constitution and the writer of the author both believe that the death penalty is a cruel and unusual punishment.
      I think that giving someone the death penalty is a cruel punishment because no one deserves to be killed even though they were doing something wrong. I also think that the courts doesn't follow the Constitution because they make laws and do things that are unconstitutional. The Constitution isn't followed in the U.S because people make laws that the Constitution prohibits. I think that the Supreme Court should take time out to eliminate the death penalty because it goes against the what the Constitution gaurentee's the U.S citizens.
     

Entry 8 Amendment Five

Source: Gulf Oil Spill: Top Oil Rig Official Doesn’t Know Who Was In Charge. August 23, 2009
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2010/08/gulf-oil-spill-top-oil-rig-official-doesnt-know-who-was-in-charge.html

Constitution Connection: Amendment 5, Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings.

“No person 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.”

Explanation of Connection:

            The article talked about the Deepwater Horizon explosion and whose fault was it that it exploded. A top official who owned the rig sold it to BP and which BP left Robert Kaluga in charge because the officials thought that he could seal up the well. Paul Johnson the Transocean rig manager didn’t know who Mr. Kaluza was or where he came from and when he asked to make sure he had experience BP said he was an experienced worker. Officials believe that Mr. Kaluza was the cause of the Gulf oil spill but he says he won’t testify against himself because to produce an incriminating testimony against him is offending his Fifth Amendment right.

            The article demonstrates Amendment five of the Constitution because amendment five says that “you don’t have to deprive yourself of your liberty”. This article shows the constitution in action because with its rights from amendment five it is allowing Mr. Kaluza not to testify against his self, the constitution says that “no person shall be a witness against himself” with this right it makes it hard for anyone to find out who’s in fault for the oil spill. In the article Mr. Kaluza says “I will not testify before the panel because my amendment five right says that I do not have to produce an incriminating testimony against myself”. The right to not testify against oneself is a right that the constitution opposes to everyone of the U.S.

            I think that BP was at fault for the oil spill because if they wouldn’t have put Mr.Kaluza in charge of such of an important duty the explosion wouldn’t have happened. BP should have looked more into Robert Kaluza’s background to make sure he had experience with what he was trying to complete. I also respect the fact that Mr. Kaluza doesn’t want to testify against his self because of his Fifth Amendment right. Maybe the officials will later find out that he wasn’t the cause of the explosion or maybe he will speak up about what went on to cause the damage. I hope they find out what caused the problem and also find out whose fault it was that it happened.

Entry 7 Amendment 4

Source: Search and Seizure: Supreme Court Limits Police Car Search Powers. April 24, 2009http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2009/apr/24/search_and_seizure_supreme_court

Constitutional Connection: Amendment 4, Search and Seizure.

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated”

Explanation of Constitution:

            The Supreme Court had limited the police search powers saying that they cannot search someone’s vehicle after their arrest. The reason for limiting the police powers is to insure the person whose car they search privacy. In the article Rodney Gant had been arrested because of driving with a suspended license but he also was a suspect in a drug investigation so the police had searched his car while he was arrested. When Gant was placed before the Supreme Court they had told the police that they can only do a search with a warrant, they also explained that the police can only search someone’s vehicle if it contains evidence pertaining to the person’s arrest.

            This article represents amendment four search and seizure because amendment four insures that the police cannot invade your privacy without legal power and the article represents that law. Because of the constitution creating the search in seizure amendment it has helped the Supreme Court to limit the police search powers to make sure that amendment four was being enforced in the U.S. The article and the constitution both support the right of amendment four because in the article the Supreme Court ruled in the arrestee’s favor because the police had not went by amendment four, which didn’t give them the right to search Gants vehicle. The police’s inability to follow amendments four rule has forced the Supreme Court to limit their search powers.

            I think that the Supreme Court should have limited the police’s search powers because many police’s search people’s vehicle and homes without warrants. Many police don’t go by amendment four and I think that this is a bad thing because many of the amendments aren’t being followed by the government. I think the Congress and the President should also work harder to make limit the police powers and make sure they don’t do anything that’s illegal to the people they arrest. I wonder will the Supreme Court limit any other of the police’s powers.

Entry 3 Judicial Branch

Source: Supreme Court to hear challenge to Chicago gun law. September 30, 2009

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/09/supreme-court-may-decide-on-hearing-chicago-gun-cases.html

Constitutional Connection: Article 3, Judicial Branch, Section 2, Clause 2

“In all the other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

Explanation of Connection:

            The Supreme Court hears to make Chicago gun law legal because of Otis McDonald’s suit. Chicago doesn't want to make the gun law legal because they feel making guns legal is unconstitutional while the Supreme Court feels that is the citiznes right. In the article the Supreme Court argues whether they should consider Chicago’s ordinance because of the second and fourteenth amendments which gives citizens the right to bear arms and they also reduce the state powers over the citizens. McDonald argues that he wants protect his family from his dangerous neighborhood and from the people who lives in it. The Supreme Court still argues if the Chicago ordinance is constitutional or not with the help of the constitution the Supreme Court just might get the court to rule in their favor.

            This article clearly represents Article three of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has the power to interpret laws that anyone has an idea in creating. The constitution gives the judicial branch which is made up of the Supreme Court the right to hear to all laws and determine whether they think they are constitutional or not. In the article they talk about how they shouldn't consider Chicago’s ordinance because of Amendments two, four, and fourteen these amendment give citizens the rights that Chicago's gun ban are taking away from them. The state or local doesn’t have the power to tell citizens what they can and cannot have in their house citizens having guns inside their homes is a right given to them not a privilege. Banning handguns takes away that right from the citizen everyone has a right to protect themselves and that is what the citizens want to do.

I think that the Supreme Court shouldn't rule in Chicago’s favor for multiple reasons. In Chicago there is a lot of danger that everyone faces walking in and out of their doors every day. Chicago is a very dangerous place and many homicides have happened in the past few months, with that being said we should have a right to have guns inside of our homes to protect ourselves. I also think the Supreme Court shouldn't rule in Chicago’s favor because to not do so they are violating our 2^nd and 14^th amendments which gives us the right to protect ourselves and do whatever we want inside our homes. I wonder will the Supreme Court consider Chicago’s ordinance to be constitutional and reverse the gun ban law.

Entry 6 Amendment 10

Source: GOP Constitutes Task Force on 10^th Amendment

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/55_126/news/45815-1.html

Constitutional Connection: Amendment 10, Power of the States and People.

“The powers are not delegated to the U.S by the Constitution, but to the states and the people”

Explanation of Connection:

            Republicans want to launch a states right task force but want to avoid a debate over 10th amendment issues. Founders of the tenth amendment task force want to restore the states power because they feel it has been taking away from by the federal government the founders want to increase the options and choices people have on the state level. The founders also said that the group was formed to make sure the will of people is insured on state and local levels instead of the federal government interfering with the states matters. Debates of the 10th amendment have often leaded to arguments that health control, highway funding, and guns are unconstitutional.

           This article demonstrates amendment 10 of the constitution because it shows people trying to make sure the power is not giving to the federal government but to the states and the people. The constitution is in action the members of the tenth amendment task force are using the tenth amendment of the constitution to keep the power giving to the states and the people of the states instead of giving it to the federal government. Both the article in the constitution involves the people and the states having power, in the constitution it says that the power isn’t delegated to the U.S by the constitution but to the people and in the article it shows the people taking action of the power giving to them.

        The tenth amendment gave the power to the states and the people; this was a good thing to do because the federal government shouldn't have control on what goes on in other states. I feel that the states and the people should have the power because they can create and change things were they live instead of waiting on the federal government to come in and give those orders. I also feel that with the states having their own power it can cause some problems because the states might create laws that everyone doesn't agree on.

Entry 5 Amendment 2

Source: Illinois: Chicago City Council Passes Tough Gun Law. July, 2, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/03/us/03brfs-CHICAGOCITYC_BRF.html

Constitutional Connection: Amendment 2, Right to Bear Arms
          "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms"

Explanation of Connection:

       Chicago city council finally passes the gun law, now the city's that had banned handguns will be able to have them in their cities. The court has ruled that all American's have a right to own guns regarding self -defense, although the law has been passed that people can have guns there are certain recruitments. The person owning the gun can not step out of the house while holding the gun and Chicago also has banned gun stores. The article also discussed how this issue was the toughest to debate on.

       This article demonstrates amendment 2 because in the amendment people have the right to bear arms. Chicago and many other cities have now given the people of there states to bear arms by letting them own guns for self-defense. The constitution is in action because if it wasn't for amendment 1 in the constitution than people wouldn't have the right to bear arms and now that they have this right many sates are finally enforcing it among the people of their state. The right to bear arms is a right that the constitution guarantees to all people but the states in which the people live have to agree on the right in order for it to not be illegal many states now agree on this right and it is now legal for all people.

       I couldn't imagine the world if people didn't have the right to own guns in their house because many things are going on in the world today including house break inn’s. Now that people can own guns in their house it is insuring them that they are safe from the danger while in their homes. Many people have children so they need to own guns in case someone tries to endanger them they can now protect their children and their selves. The right to bear arms is a responsible and greatly needed right for everyone around the world.

Entry 4 Amendment 1

Source: Law Banning Blasphemy Is Upheld in Indonesia. August 25, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/20/world/asia/20indo.html?ref=freedom_of_religion

Constitutional Connection: Amendment 1, Freedom of Religion, Press, and Expression.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech"
                                       
Explanation of Connection:

         In Indonesia there Constitutional court has decided that a law banning unreligious people that curse god is constitutional. Now that they have a law it allows them to ban religious groups that don’t represent their faith or that doesn't represent god. If anyone is found guilty of committing this "crime" they will be sentenced up to five years in prison because of the law there can only be six recognized religions. Some of the six religions are Islam, Catholicism, Buddhism etc; the law was made to go against Islam because more than 70 percent of Indonesia's people are Muslim. The court's chief justice argued that the new law did not go against the Constitution which gave people all around the world freedom of religion.

         This article clearly represents Amendment 1 from the Constitution because Amendment 1 guarantee’s the people of the U.S freedom of religion but many people around the world do not go by what is in the Constitution. Although in the article the people of Indonesia does not go by the Constitution it still is in action because the Islam people who are being subjected to crime still fight back and go against what the Indonesia's Constitutional court says. In the constitution under Amendment 1 it guaranteed the people freedom of religion, in the article the people of Indonesia had received freedom of religion until the constitutional court decided a law should be passed to not give the people freedom of religion. The people of Indonesia had fought back against this law and hopefully this law will change soon.

         My opinion on this article was that the constitutional court was wrong for making a law banning blasphemy of their faith and god. I feel this way because everyone doesn’t believe in the same thing always and everyone is obligated to serve less than one religion. I also didn't understand how the Indonesia's court chief justice could come up with such a law when the Constitution insured everyone freedom of religion. This is an important topic and I think that people should look more into this issue to change what is going on in Indonesia.

Entry 2 Executive Branch

Source: Troop Withdrawal: Obama to end Iraq War. February 27, 2009
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2009/0227/troop-withdrawal-obama-to-end-iraq-war-by-august-2010

Constitutional Connection: Article 2, the Executive Branch, Section 2, Clause 1
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States"

Explanation of Connection:

           Barrack Obama is working to bring back the troops that are fighting in Iraq. Even though Obama wants to bring the troops in Iraq back it has been said that situation out there has gotten better because of the U.S and Iraq military surge and also because many Sunnis have traded on the Al Qaeda in Iraq and now work for the U.S forces. Bringing the Iraq troops back is a good idea but it also has many problems. Many experts are afraid that if they bring the troops back the security in Iraq might vanish they also fear that the equipment that the U.S has in Iraq would be hard to bring back with the troops.

          This article demonstrates Article 2, The Executive Branch, Section 2, and Clause 1 of the Constitution because it tells us that the president is commander in chief of the army and navy of the U.S. The president has the power to withdrawal the troops from war or tells them to stay at war the power of commanding war clearly lies under the Executive branch. This article shows Obama taking action of his power to command the army by wanting to bring the Iraq troops back home. Obama has been said to be putting in end to the Iraq combat missions by August 31, 2010.

          I support the fact that Obama wants to bring home the Iraq troops because the fight in Iraq needs to be put to an end. Many Americans are still fighting for over problem that Bush caused and I think they shouldn't be risking their lives for him anymore because he is no longer our President. Making Obama the President and giving him the power to command the army was the best thing the nation could have ever done. I also think that the troops worked hard to make Iraq a secure place and now the troops don't have to be in Iraq still in combat.

Entry 1 Legislative Branch

Source: Dems May Punt on Bush Tax Cuts. September 9, 2010.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/41944.html

Constitutional Connection: Article 1, the Legislative Branch, Section 8, Clause 1

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises"


Explanation of Connection:

        The Democratic and the Republican parties are debating whether they should pass a bill for tax-cuts or extend the tax-cuts for upper income earners. While Obama is in between both of the party’s debate he is trying to decide whether he should veto the bill of extending all tax cuts or pass it. The Republicans want to create a compromise with the Democratic by saying they will support a temporary extension for high income earners. While most Democratic are debating there should be a tax cut others feel that it should be a raise of taxes for upper income earners.

       The article connects to Article 1, The Legislative Branch, Section 8, and Clause 1 from the Constitution because the Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes. In this article it showed an example of the Congress trying to cut taxes and raise taxes which is clearly showed from the Constitution that it is in their power to do so. The debate on whether Obama should pass or veto the tax intends bill will be a problem for the Democratic and Republican Party, however they will try to create compromises and come up with other ideas to get the bill handled in their favor.

        I think that Obama should veto the bill of extending tax cuts because our economy has many problems already because of the high tax that is imposed to the people. Even though there are some wealthy people that don't need the taxes to be cut that shouldn't be changed because there is still a large number of middle class or lower class people. Obama should think about the lower people in the U.S instead of raising taxes, if taxes get raised then many people would really go into poverty. This is a big issue for the people who live in Chicago because our tax is already very high.