APPELLATE COURTS ISSUE OPINIONS ON AMENDMENT 7
http://www.foma.org/Amendment7.htm
Amendment 7 - Trial by Jury in Civil Cases. Ratified 12/15/1791.
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
This article basically about Florida trying to interpret the 7th amendment. They are saying that the 7th amendment is a self execution, basically saying that the 7th amendment is a way of people knowing others personal records. The 7th amendment gives people the right to view other's hospital records and other type of records known. Florida argues that this invades a person's natural born rights and gives people the right to invade others privacy. Florida is wishing to have this amendment changed or revised.
This relates to the 7th amendment because the constitution was constructed to help and secure the lives of the people. When someone's life could be at risk, or someone's personal records being at the hands of the public, it is certainly an invasion of privacy, in which the constitution also declares the right of the people. What if someone did not want their personal business revealed, while the constitution declares anyone and everyone that right to know. Florida was bargaining the privacy and safety of its inhabitants.
I personally believe Florida has a good point. Certain things are not meant to be revealed for a purpose. Although what if someone had been injured or killed, allowing the public to personal records will help a person rest in peace or will help the community and the world, knowing that a possible murderer is caught and charged for what he did. I do think the amendment needs to be changed because certain people do not want thier business out in the world like a landmark. If someone wants their records to be in the open, it should be delcared but if they don't that should be respected as well.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Amendment 6
The Trial of Orenthal James Simpson
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/Simpsonaccount.htm
Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.
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 defence.
This article was a rather interesting one, it involved a man who was accused of murdering his wife AND her aquaintance. Investigators were being supsicious and questioned just as much as Mr. Simpson was, being accused of framing Mr. Simpson for bloody gloves found in his home. Although the murder occured in Santa Monica, when Mr. Simpson was in Chicago, the trial had taken place in downtown Los Angeles. Prosecuters were worried that holding the trial in another area would spark old flames of the Rodney King case, in which police were accused of beating him to death.
This article ties to the 6th amendment because it clearly says:
"by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,". In Mr. Simpson's case, his wife was murdered in Santa Monica, but they were holding trial in the downtown Los Angeles area. This is going against the constitution, just because the courts were worried about this case sparking off something they could not finish relating to Rodney King. Part of the investigational team was racist, the detective FRAMED Mr. Simpson for the bloody glove, as well as lying about using the "N" word anywhere through out his career. The courts were changing the location of this man's trial, changing his natural born rights as a citizen to have his trial by jury in the town of the murder, because of their own personal beliefs.
This case could have went futher if you ask me, I think Mr.Simpson should have SUED the detective. The detective had no right to frame him , and he lied as far as being racist. The detective's neglegance could have costed Simpson his LIFE. Simpson has a family and he has kids, but did the detective care, no. He didn't care and he should have, I think Mr.Simpsons rights were neglected and he has more rights to take action.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/Simpsonaccount.htm
Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.
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 defence.
This article was a rather interesting one, it involved a man who was accused of murdering his wife AND her aquaintance. Investigators were being supsicious and questioned just as much as Mr. Simpson was, being accused of framing Mr. Simpson for bloody gloves found in his home. Although the murder occured in Santa Monica, when Mr. Simpson was in Chicago, the trial had taken place in downtown Los Angeles. Prosecuters were worried that holding the trial in another area would spark old flames of the Rodney King case, in which police were accused of beating him to death.
This article ties to the 6th amendment because it clearly says:
"by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,". In Mr. Simpson's case, his wife was murdered in Santa Monica, but they were holding trial in the downtown Los Angeles area. This is going against the constitution, just because the courts were worried about this case sparking off something they could not finish relating to Rodney King. Part of the investigational team was racist, the detective FRAMED Mr. Simpson for the bloody glove, as well as lying about using the "N" word anywhere through out his career. The courts were changing the location of this man's trial, changing his natural born rights as a citizen to have his trial by jury in the town of the murder, because of their own personal beliefs.
This case could have went futher if you ask me, I think Mr.Simpson should have SUED the detective. The detective had no right to frame him , and he lied as far as being racist. The detective's neglegance could have costed Simpson his LIFE. Simpson has a family and he has kids, but did the detective care, no. He didn't care and he should have, I think Mr.Simpsons rights were neglected and he has more rights to take action.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Amendment 4
Search and Seizure: Supreme Court to Hear Case of School Girl Strip- Searched for Ibruprofen
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2009/jan/23/search_and_seizure_supreme_court
Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
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 article was about an incident that occured involving 13 yr old, honor student Savana Redding and the accusation of the distribution of prescription drugs. One student was found with prescription drugs and claimed that Savana Redding gave them to her. When asked about the drugs, the honor student denied having them and school officials searched her locker and bookbag finding nothing. Upon not finding what they were looking for, school officials ordered 13 yr old Savana Redding to strip to her bare skin, still finding nothing.
This situation ties to the constitution because amendment 4 gives people the right to be safe and secure against unreasonable searches. Officials say they were checking the honor student for potential harms to their students, but when findind nothing in her locker and bookbag they continued with the search. Members of the Judicial system are puzzled on whether the act was constitutional or not, due to the fact that they were trying to protect their students, but they went to unreasonable terms when ordering a 13 year old, honor student, to strip.
Situations like this are very bias, because I can see where school officials may have been right to do what they did. Prescription drugs can kill a person, if taken in too many doses. It seems that the school was only looking out for the safety of their students. However, the safety of the students only extends so far when it comes to degrading another students. If the officials did not find anything in her locker, nor bookbag it was evident that she did not have anything, because anything beyond that point is her personal area and should not be invaded. So when it comes to a case like this, it may have been an honest mistake but it should not happen again.
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2009/jan/23/search_and_seizure_supreme_court
Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
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 article was about an incident that occured involving 13 yr old, honor student Savana Redding and the accusation of the distribution of prescription drugs. One student was found with prescription drugs and claimed that Savana Redding gave them to her. When asked about the drugs, the honor student denied having them and school officials searched her locker and bookbag finding nothing. Upon not finding what they were looking for, school officials ordered 13 yr old Savana Redding to strip to her bare skin, still finding nothing.
This situation ties to the constitution because amendment 4 gives people the right to be safe and secure against unreasonable searches. Officials say they were checking the honor student for potential harms to their students, but when findind nothing in her locker and bookbag they continued with the search. Members of the Judicial system are puzzled on whether the act was constitutional or not, due to the fact that they were trying to protect their students, but they went to unreasonable terms when ordering a 13 year old, honor student, to strip.
Situations like this are very bias, because I can see where school officials may have been right to do what they did. Prescription drugs can kill a person, if taken in too many doses. It seems that the school was only looking out for the safety of their students. However, the safety of the students only extends so far when it comes to degrading another students. If the officials did not find anything in her locker, nor bookbag it was evident that she did not have anything, because anything beyond that point is her personal area and should not be invaded. So when it comes to a case like this, it may have been an honest mistake but it should not happen again.
Amendment 5
The Trial Of Orinthal James Simpson
( was in the Suntimes Paper but it didnt have as much info so I used this link)
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/Simpsonaccount.htm
Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.
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.
This article was basically about the trial of O.J Simpson who was accused of murdering his wife and her aqcaintance. The trial lasted for 99 days, and was a rather interesting and suspenseful case. It was stated that the detective hired for the case was racists who denied being so, and had planted parts of evidence that would later on lead people to think O.J. Simpson was guilty. The Jury had 8 African-American's , and was held in another state, rather than the state in which the crime was committed. After the long 99 day trial, it was concluded that O.J. was not guilty, but a piece of evidence appeared that would absoluetly declared O.J. Simpson guilty.
Due to the fifth amendment which states, "nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;" (which is basically saying a person cannot get tried twice for the same crime), O.J. Simpson was not declared guilty because he had encountered the first trial. The fifth amendment gives O.J. Simpson his rights as a citizen to be free of this case now, because of the final decision of the Grand Jury.
I think O.J Simpson should be truly grateful for the fifth amendment becuase without it, he may have been serving life. It was already stated that people involved in the case were racists, including the detective who had fibbed about using the "n" word. It was thought that the detective framed O.J by possessing a glove from O.J.'s home and dropping it in the puddle of Nicole Simpson's (O.J.'s wife) blood. Others were trying to get O.J. caught up, and I think it was sad how fast the ones you call your friends will turn on you. A trial like that really brings out the worst in people and I think it was meant to open O.J's eyes. Personally I do not know what to think about the case because you cannot go off of "he say, she say" accusations because there is a 50% chance that the truth isn't whats getting told.
( was in the Suntimes Paper but it didnt have as much info so I used this link)
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/Simpsonaccount.htm
Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.
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.
This article was basically about the trial of O.J Simpson who was accused of murdering his wife and her aqcaintance. The trial lasted for 99 days, and was a rather interesting and suspenseful case. It was stated that the detective hired for the case was racists who denied being so, and had planted parts of evidence that would later on lead people to think O.J. Simpson was guilty. The Jury had 8 African-American's , and was held in another state, rather than the state in which the crime was committed. After the long 99 day trial, it was concluded that O.J. was not guilty, but a piece of evidence appeared that would absoluetly declared O.J. Simpson guilty.
Due to the fifth amendment which states, "nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;" (which is basically saying a person cannot get tried twice for the same crime), O.J. Simpson was not declared guilty because he had encountered the first trial. The fifth amendment gives O.J. Simpson his rights as a citizen to be free of this case now, because of the final decision of the Grand Jury.
I think O.J Simpson should be truly grateful for the fifth amendment becuase without it, he may have been serving life. It was already stated that people involved in the case were racists, including the detective who had fibbed about using the "n" word. It was thought that the detective framed O.J by possessing a glove from O.J.'s home and dropping it in the puddle of Nicole Simpson's (O.J.'s wife) blood. Others were trying to get O.J. caught up, and I think it was sad how fast the ones you call your friends will turn on you. A trial like that really brings out the worst in people and I think it was meant to open O.J's eyes. Personally I do not know what to think about the case because you cannot go off of "he say, she say" accusations because there is a 50% chance that the truth isn't whats getting told.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Amendment 10
Canada: Plea to resist the relaxation of Canada's gun laws
September 9,2010
http://www.iansa-women.org/node/283
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
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 article was basically about Canada's plea to congress to relax the gun laws which is asking them to let up on the banning of handguns. Canada pleas to Congress because they feel that single women should be able to possess hand guns to protect their children as well as themselves. Statistics show that 1 out of 3 women are killed by their husbands due to gunfire. Instead of handguns being restricted Canada is trying to direct its attention towards other dangerous weapons as well.
This article relates to the constitution because Amendment 10 is giving citizens the right to speak their minds and suggest improvisions that will help their communities and themselves. Canada stressing the gun laws is rights of the states, in which they know what is best for their state. Suggesting improvising the law showcases how Canada is thinking about the safety of their citizens and exercising their rights as a state and acting upon indivisual pleas for help. Canada is actually supplying for demand in a way seeing how women are dying off and are in need of help and protection.
I think Canada is doing a good job, they are aware of what is going on within their area and trying to correct it before it gets way out of hand. I believe that Canada is one of the most strongest, well put together places around. I feel that Chicago is in need of actions like those in which Canada takes. Anxious to see if Canada's suggestion works, I hope someone will propose a bill for Congress suggesting that weapons be kept for protection and nothing more.
September 9,2010
http://www.iansa-women.org/node/283
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
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 article was basically about Canada's plea to congress to relax the gun laws which is asking them to let up on the banning of handguns. Canada pleas to Congress because they feel that single women should be able to possess hand guns to protect their children as well as themselves. Statistics show that 1 out of 3 women are killed by their husbands due to gunfire. Instead of handguns being restricted Canada is trying to direct its attention towards other dangerous weapons as well.
This article relates to the constitution because Amendment 10 is giving citizens the right to speak their minds and suggest improvisions that will help their communities and themselves. Canada stressing the gun laws is rights of the states, in which they know what is best for their state. Suggesting improvising the law showcases how Canada is thinking about the safety of their citizens and exercising their rights as a state and acting upon indivisual pleas for help. Canada is actually supplying for demand in a way seeing how women are dying off and are in need of help and protection.
I think Canada is doing a good job, they are aware of what is going on within their area and trying to correct it before it gets way out of hand. I believe that Canada is one of the most strongest, well put together places around. I feel that Chicago is in need of actions like those in which Canada takes. Anxious to see if Canada's suggestion works, I hope someone will propose a bill for Congress suggesting that weapons be kept for protection and nothing more.
Amendment 1
Florida Church Plans 'Burn a Quran' Day on 9/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1LHqfa_GLY&feature=related
July 30,2010
Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
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.
The video is seen from a perspective of one of the people encouraging the burning of the quran. The reporter is firing back siding with what is right. The preacher (with burning the quran) is all for freedom of speech, religion and accepting Muslims but he wants to burn the quran because he feels it is misleading it's people. The preacher feels that what his church is performing, is correct, but what the muslims are doing is not. The preacher tells that he doesn't see why people defend oppression and the reporter is questioning why they would burn Islam's most sacred book.
This story relates to the Constitution in many ways. Constitution has passed an ammendment that gives citizens freedom of speech, expression and religion, so when this church is burning the quran, they are exercising their freedom of expression, but violating Islam's freedom of religion, speech and expression. Only because the first amendment gives these people the right, they will not get punished for their actions.
I understand the first amendment, and how the church is performing only what congress allows them to, but are they not violating Islam's natural rights as a religion? They may not agree with the acts and beliefs of Islam but there are better ways of going about this issue rather than burning their most sacred book. The Islamic religion may have argued about Christian beliefs and what not but they have not organized a burn King James day. I think the church should be punished because they are intruding Islam's rights and Islamic people should be offended. I think this church is being very stubborn about the topic and I think they are intimidated rather than disgusted by Islam. The preacher mentioned something about how fast Islam is spreading, and how lots of people are being mislead. I think he is trying to make Islam seem bad so Christianity can have a chance to spread.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1LHqfa_GLY&feature=related
July 30,2010
Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
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.
The video is seen from a perspective of one of the people encouraging the burning of the quran. The reporter is firing back siding with what is right. The preacher (with burning the quran) is all for freedom of speech, religion and accepting Muslims but he wants to burn the quran because he feels it is misleading it's people. The preacher feels that what his church is performing, is correct, but what the muslims are doing is not. The preacher tells that he doesn't see why people defend oppression and the reporter is questioning why they would burn Islam's most sacred book.
This story relates to the Constitution in many ways. Constitution has passed an ammendment that gives citizens freedom of speech, expression and religion, so when this church is burning the quran, they are exercising their freedom of expression, but violating Islam's freedom of religion, speech and expression. Only because the first amendment gives these people the right, they will not get punished for their actions.
I understand the first amendment, and how the church is performing only what congress allows them to, but are they not violating Islam's natural rights as a religion? They may not agree with the acts and beliefs of Islam but there are better ways of going about this issue rather than burning their most sacred book. The Islamic religion may have argued about Christian beliefs and what not but they have not organized a burn King James day. I think the church should be punished because they are intruding Islam's rights and Islamic people should be offended. I think this church is being very stubborn about the topic and I think they are intimidated rather than disgusted by Islam. The preacher mentioned something about how fast Islam is spreading, and how lots of people are being mislead. I think he is trying to make Islam seem bad so Christianity can have a chance to spread.
Amendment 2 (Judicial and legislative)
Chicago's new gun law goes into effect today
http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/07/chicagos-new-gun-law-goes-into-effect-today.html
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
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.
In regard to the City's ban on handguns, a new law was needed, which is where Chicago's new gun law comes into play. The article is basically discussing the needs and safety for handguns. The old law stated that no one could own a hand gun , which Chicago citizens felt was not fair, due to the high need of protection. The new law approves of citizens owning handguns, but the guns must be registered and the owners must have a permit. Criminal backgrounds relating to gang violence and gun violence will hurt your chances in getting a permit as well as DUI charges and other troubles witht he law.
How is this revelant to the constitution? Amendment 2 clearly gives citizens "right to bear arms" or the right to protect themselves using fire arms. When it comes down to banning and laws regarding guns it has to do with the constitution simply because the constitution says "It is ok for you to own a gun to protect yourself." So when congress is passing this law prohibiting guns they are saying "Ok, the constitution might give you the right to own a gun, but we aren't." The constitution was created to help congress as well as "the people". When congress starts making new laws that conflict with the constitution it is a big deal and needs to be addresed.When congress banned handguns altogether it sparked many questions and wonders, so they altered it and granted people the right to own guns, but only with permits and guidelines.
This case reminds me greatly of the elastic clause, which has been bent and twisted just to meet the needs of everybody or a specific group. To me congress should not have banned guns all together but instead keep a watchful eye for the people who possess them. "Our big thing is knowing who has these weapons." states Jody Weis, which is a major factor. Although they want to know who has these weapons, everyone is not going to register, so congress will have to just make laws that will ease the path into cracking down on murderers and gunmen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)