The Sixth Amendment

Source:
Defendant can cross-examine forensic experts, Supreme Court rules. June 26,2009.
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/26/nation/na-court-lab26

Constitutional Connection:
The Amendments, Amendment Six , Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses
"To be confronted with the witnesses against him"

Explanation of Connection:

   The accused, Luis Melendez-Diaz, was found guilty of selling cocaine. Melendez, denied that the nineteen bags of cocaine found in a car,that they believed to belong to him was his. Many crime labs test results have been challenged in the last decade due to faulty evidence. Melendez wanted to exercise his Sixth amendment right, after the evidence was prepared by forensic technicians. His request was first overruled. Soon after being found guilty, the high court reversed this conviction, on the grounds that Luis Melendez's Sixth amendment right had been violated.

   This Article clearly demonstrates The Amendments, Amendment Six, Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. The accused has the right to be confronted with the witness against him. In this trial, the forensic technicians would act as the "witnesses" against Melendez. Requiring the prosecution to present the technicians lab results as possible evidence, if asked to by the defendant. Which could help the defendant's case, if evidence was proved to be faulty, or if other issues were to come up with the forensic technicians.


  I think that it was a good idea for the technicians to be called to present the evidence in court. They are the ones who are either proving the defendant guilty or innocent, based on what should be strictly scientific conclusions. The defendant should have the right to cross-examine their "accusers".

The Eighth Amendment

Source:
Judge Postpones Oken's execution; state appeals. June 15, 2004.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/bal-oken0615,0,696812.story?page=1

Constitutional Connection:
 The Amendments, The Eighth Amendment, Cruel and Unusual Punishment
"Nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Explanation of Connection:

  Steven Oken is a killer in jail, faced with a death sentence. Oken's lawyers are using the Eighth Amendment to argue against their client's death sentence. They called for a hearing to determine if the execution procedures in the State of Maryland, where Oken would be executed, did not violate the Eighth amendment. Oken's lawyers presented the argument that there had been a violation of the Eighth amendment  in 1988, when Tyrone X. Gilliam was executed. They said that there was a leak in the line that delivered the deadly chemicals, to execute Tyrone X. Gilliam. Which means that he would have suffered inhumanely before death. Feeling the actual anesthetic and deadly chemicals being inflicted into his body. The Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services denied that Tyrone X. Gilliam was a victim of cruel and unusual punishment.

 This article clearly demonstrates The Amendments,The Eighth Amendment,Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Cruel and unusual punishment is not to be inflicted against anyone. Although Steven Oken was sentenced to death, his argument against cruel and unusual punishment was legitimate until proven wrong. He and his attorneys had the right to look into his execution procedures, to assure that they would not violate the Eighth amendment.
 
  Hopefully, the reports concluded by the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services were correct, and Tyrone X. Gilliam was executed "humanely and painlessly". Even though he must have committed a horrible crime to be put on death row, he still deserves his Eighth amendment right. If the chemicals delivered during an execution are strong and deadly enough to take some ones life, I could only imagine the pain that would be inflicted for someone to feel the entire thing.  

The Fifth Amendment

Source:
Treasury to Allow Anwar al-awlaki lawsuit. August 3, 2010.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/40616.html
Constitutional Connection:
The Amendments, Fifth Amendment, Trial and Punishment, Compensation for takings 
" 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."
Explanation of Connection:

Two civil liberties groups have been given the power to file a lawsuit for Anwar al-Awlaki an Islamic cleric, by the Treasury Department. Awlaki has been said to be an inspirational speaker speaking out against terrorism. Because of reports that Anwar al-Awlaki has been targeted to be killed by the U.S. Government, Mr. Awlaki has been added to the Treasury's "Sanctions list". Awlaki has preached at mosques against terrorism, but is also suspected to have been involved in many terrorism acts, which makes him a target of the U.S. government. The government is willing to do just about anything to catch and kill this man, whom is a U.S. citizen also. CCR director , Vince warren stated ,"President Obama is claiming the power to act as judge, jury and executioner while suspending any semblance of due process."

  In the whole chaos of trying to catch Mr. Awlaki , he has not be given the right of due process by the U.S. government members, that are after him. As stated in The Amendments, Fifth Amendment, Trial and Punishment, Compensation for takings, 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. Mr. Awlaki must be given the right to due process, if he is accused of some sort of crime. These steps must be taken, in order for Mr. Awlaki, a U.S. citizen, to be prosecuted constitutionally.

   I believe that instead of the government, destroying everything in this path to catch Awlaki, they should stop and think rationally in ways of negotiation, to catch this man. Without pushing him further away, making him harder to catch and having to do more damage. 

The Tenth Amendment

Source:
States Prepare to combat stimulus strings. February 20,2009.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/20/states-cite-10th-amendment-in-effort-to-cut-stimul/

Constitutional Connection:
The Amendments, The Tenth Amendment, Power of the States and People 
"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."

Explanation of Connection:

   Many states have pursued their sovereignty from Washington, in fear that the federal government was gaining to much power over their affairs. In doing so, worries arose as to whether these "sovereign" states, would be able to receive money from the incoming stimulus plan without there being a catch. Like Washington having the authority to tell the states what they could and could not use the money on. Some states, were up for receiving money from the stimulus bill, while others were strongly opposed to it for many reasons like additional costs and the bill not resulting in the benefit of the people.

  This article clearly demonstrates The Amendments,The Tenth Amendment, Power of the States and People of the United States Constitution. The people have decided to try and act under their tenth amendment right, and "reject the acts of Congress that go beyond its powers". In an effort to break free from the strings attached to being under federal power, and become sovereign states. The idea of states like, Hawaii, Michigan and Montana becoming sovereign states cannot be completely rejected, because of the power given to the people by their tenth amendment right.

  I believe that the states will have more problems trying to act under sovereignty and handle their own funding than just staying under federal power. They will have more issues equally managing money and policy to the people and things that need it the most in their state, and eventually will need to turn back to the federal government for help. They would be better of just staying under the rules of the federal government.

The Fourth Amendment

Constitutional Connection:
The Amendments, Amendment Four, Search and Seizures
"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."

Explanation of Connection:
 
  The fourth amendment states that the right of the people to be secure in their persons,houses,papers,and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,shall not be violated. This basically states that the people have certain privacy rights that should not be violated. The Fourth Amendment also states and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause. Meaning that, a warrant shall only be made to search someone's home/facility for good and constitutional reason .

    The cartoon above expresses both the constitutional way of the fourth amendment, and the exact opposite of the fourth amendment, in which some cases, does actually happen. Officers, are supposed to respect the person they may believe to be in question's "fourth amendment privacy rights". As the door states clearly, and knock and announce themselves as one of the officers states. But the other officer has decided to go against this, and invade the persons privacy,and disregard their rights.

   You can tell the artist believes that this happens all the time, from small details, like the sign the unrespectable officer is holding, saying "But its okay if you don't, signed the supreme court". Implying that the Supreme Court supports him going against the Fourth amendment, to get what they need done, and possibly gain evidence from the person on the other side of the door.

   I am aware that what is displayed in the cartoon does happen a lot in everyday life. Just like every government ours has flaws. The police officer not being honorable and respecting the fourth amendment being one of them.

The Second Amendment

Constitutional Connection:
The Amendments, Second Amendment, Right to 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." 

Explanation Of Connection:
  This political cartoon expresses the acts of old world militia and new world militia, both being the same and having the same destructive outcome. The only difference being, the time periods. The creator of the cartoon, is obviously against the right to bear arms, due to the irony they displayed on the "New World Order" image, when their is writing on each weapon saying "Have A Nice Day".

     It is ironic that a destructive weapon that would do anything but make some one's day, has this writing on it. This all goes back to The Amendments, Second Amendment, Right to Bear Arms where the regulated Militia have the right to bear arms.

   I do not believe war is right, but I do believe that if under the circumstances that war has been declared, the Militia should have the right to bear arms to defend themselves and our country. I also agree with the author's opinion that either way you put it, the arms will still lead to the same destruction each time, but i guess our country has not gotten the idea just yet.

The First Amendment

Sources:
Pundits Boo Obama Speech. June 16, 2010.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38609_Page2.html

Constitutional Connection:
The Amendments,The First Amendment, Freedom of Religion,Press,Expression
"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."

Explanation of Connection:

    This past June, President Barack Obama gave a speech addressing the recent crisis of the BP oil spill. Soon after President Obama gave his speech, it was declared to have been an "emphatic failure" , by much of the public. The public and news stations soon expressed their opinions on Obama's failure to rise to the occasion of the BP oil spill.

   Worldwide their were negative remarks towards the President. Keith Olberman commented " It was a great speech if you were on another planet for the last 57 days" . Other harsh remarks were indicated  by Fox news commentator, Charles Krauthammer. Such as, "I didn't feel any energy in the first two-thirds of the speech in which he talked about cleanup. He's not a cleanup guy. He's a guy who dreams," and "He said if we could land a man on the moon, so why not have this glorious green energy? That's the most tired trope we've ever heard,“People have said if you can land a man on the moon, so why can't you cure cancer? Well, we can't. We don't know how to." Since he is the President you might think people would have refrained from such dissonant remarks, either out of respect for the President or out of fear of  reprimand by the Oval Office. But people exercised their first amendment right to freedom of speech to the fullest extent. In full confidence of the amendment, when responding to the President's speech. They believed that his speech did not do his postion as the president justice, and found it very dishearteming and too broad for the topic at hand.

   I believe that the public and news stations may have been to hard on Obama's response to the BP oil spill.  I believe their was strategy and purpose to his speech, but people did not receive his message well, because of the way it was delivered. I also believe that the people who responded so harshly,as well as the few who responded optimistically are all entitled to the right to express their opinions.

Judicial Branch in action (Article 3)

Sources:
State land for Mosque would spur legal fight.August 19th, 2010.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41251_Page2.html

Constitutional Connection:

Article 3, The Judicial Branch, Section 2

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party."

Explanation of Connection: 

    Islamic leaders planned to build a mosque, in New York two blocks away from "Ground zero", where the Twin Towers were attacked on September 11, 2002. The problem arose between those who believe Islamic leaders building the mosque would be an indignity in the memory of those who died during 9/11 and the Islamic leaders looking to build their religious facilities two blocks away. The Islamic people were then offered state land to build their mosque on. The idea has been said to be unconstitutional, for the Islamic leaders to be offered other land, to move them away from they initially wanted. This issue is very similar to that of which the Supreme Court was faced with , when Congress wanted to swap an acre of land in the Mojave Dessert that was apart of a Veterans memorial for another acre of land. A court order was then made to block the land transfer,which was sent to the Supreme Court. The Supreme court sent the controversial issue back to lower courts to be reviewed again. The Supreme Court justices, left this issue unresolved.

   This article demonstrates Article 3, The Judicial Branch, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. The Judicial branch has the power to extend to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction to Controversies to which the U.S. shall be a party. In this specific article the Supreme Court is called upon to help resolve an issue involving the U.S. To judge and make, a responsible and fair decision over the case sent to their court. Although they did not resolve this issue, it is still in the Supreme Court's power to oversee controversies involving any part of the U.S.

  I believe the Supreme Court should have ruled against the court order blocking the land transfer. The land where the veteran memorial is, should be transferred over to it's rightful owners.

  

Executive Branch in action (Article Two)

Sources:
Obama, Russian President signs Arms treaty. April 8,2010.
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-04-08/politics/obama.russia.treaty_1_nuclear-weapons-nuclear-non-proliferation-treaty-nuclear-arms?_s=PM:POLITICS

Constitutional Connection:
Article 2, The Executive Branch,Section 2
"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."

Explanation of Constitution:
    President Obama has just signed the "New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty", this year. Along with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. Their new agreement will reduce the number of nuclear weapons kept by the United States and Russia. The Congress has a history of  agreeing to arm control treaties, but their were still high hopes for this bill to be ratified by the Congress, as for most bills.

    This article clearly demonstrates Article 2, The Executive Branch,Section 2 , Clause 1 of the United States Constitution. The president, head of the Executive branch has the power to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.This article demonstrates the President's power to make and sign treaties. Although, the treaty must also be ratified by the Legislative branch (Congress).

   I believe that that this treaty is good idea, in the past there have been issues of trust between countries, because of  the threat of nuclear weapons. While our nuclear weapons threat is being reduced I believe this will create more trust between the U.S. and Russia , while also protecting ourselves if needed.This will give us the upperhand in the future, at solving and discussing issues with Russia and other countries. Without them feeling the need to think two steps ahead and virtually pose a threat to our country.

Legislative Branch in action (Article One)

Sources:
FY2010 Supplemental Appropriations Bill.
 http://appropriations.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=623&Itemid=28

HR2918: Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2010. September 4, 2010
http://www.blogger.com/goog_649458117

Constitutional Connection:
Article 1, The Legislative Branch, Section 7
" All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."

Explanation of Connection:

     A bill has just been passed in the House of Representatives, called the "Legislative Branch Appropriations Act". After being passed in the House of Representatives , the bill was then voted on in the Senate, and passed with 67 Ayes and 25 Nays. The Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, was made to provide money for many services in our country such as, military operations, jobs, Vietnam war veterans, Haiti, the oil spill, and our country's other urgent needs.

    This Article clearly demonstrates Article 1, The Legislative Branch, Section 7 of the United States Constitution.When a bill originates from the House of Representatives, and must be agreed to by the House and the Senate, according to majority rule. This bill once passed by the House and Senate was sent to and signed by President Barrack Obama.

   Without the House and the Senate there might have been many good bills that were not recognized, or many bills passed that would not be in the best interest of the people. The Legislative branch Appropriations bill will benefit a wide range of American citizens.There will be large sums of money going to areas of our country that really need it , and have needed it for a long time now. I think that this bill will be in the best interest of a lot of the people who make up this country, those who have risked their lives for us and those who serve us everyday.