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.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Amendment VIII, Cruel and Unusual Punishment (supreme courts)
Amendment VIII:"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
What are some key symbols you recognize? Well, obviously the judge, the convict, the ruling? The man sitting in the chair must have committed some kind of crime, or broken a law, and has went to the courtroom to get tried. The judge represents the Supreme Court Justice of the Judicial branch. The man looking to the judge represents ordinary citizens like you and myself. The sentence, some crazy, cruel and odd punishment for anything, three years in the police toilet cubicle?
This is a great illustrastion of amendment VIII which states:
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." Amendment VIII restricts anyone from the politicial system to inflict cruel or unusual punishment on ANYONE. So the judge in this picture would be breaking the law. How does this relate to modern day? Well, now days, when someone takes an indivisual to court, they want that person to suffer, they want revenge. Amendment VIII verifies that no matter how bad someone has broken the law, only necessary punishment is allowed. Anything else would be breaking the law. As well, when policemen or terroist take people hostage, and perform horrific things on them, (shoot them, burn their fingers, starve them, ect.) it makes me feel better to know that, what they are doing is illegal, and no matter how high of authority they have, they can and will be punished for their actions. Now two out of three times nothing can be done due to lack of evidence, but the thought is what counts.
How does this make me feel? It comforts me to know, that I still have rights as a citizen against the law. I am all for the law, do not get me wrong, but there are some crooked politicians and authorities of the law, who abuse their power. I am enthused to know that I have just as much of power as they do in a way. I agree 100% with this amendment though, because as I look back on the laws that were passed before my time, I think to myself, " I sure am glad those laws are passed." If the law against lynching would not have been passed just think, today, walking anywhere, you could come across a dead body, lynched body. So I am truly grateful for this restriction.
What are some key symbols you recognize? Well, obviously the judge, the convict, the ruling? The man sitting in the chair must have committed some kind of crime, or broken a law, and has went to the courtroom to get tried. The judge represents the Supreme Court Justice of the Judicial branch. The man looking to the judge represents ordinary citizens like you and myself. The sentence, some crazy, cruel and odd punishment for anything, three years in the police toilet cubicle?
This is a great illustrastion of amendment VIII which states:
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." Amendment VIII restricts anyone from the politicial system to inflict cruel or unusual punishment on ANYONE. So the judge in this picture would be breaking the law. How does this relate to modern day? Well, now days, when someone takes an indivisual to court, they want that person to suffer, they want revenge. Amendment VIII verifies that no matter how bad someone has broken the law, only necessary punishment is allowed. Anything else would be breaking the law. As well, when policemen or terroist take people hostage, and perform horrific things on them, (shoot them, burn their fingers, starve them, ect.) it makes me feel better to know that, what they are doing is illegal, and no matter how high of authority they have, they can and will be punished for their actions. Now two out of three times nothing can be done due to lack of evidence, but the thought is what counts.
How does this make me feel? It comforts me to know, that I still have rights as a citizen against the law. I am all for the law, do not get me wrong, but there are some crooked politicians and authorities of the law, who abuse their power. I am enthused to know that I have just as much of power as they do in a way. I agree 100% with this amendment though, because as I look back on the laws that were passed before my time, I think to myself, " I sure am glad those laws are passed." If the law against lynching would not have been passed just think, today, walking anywhere, you could come across a dead body, lynched body. So I am truly grateful for this restriction.
Article 2, Section 1 (The President)
The cartoon
displays a variety of things, but off the back, the first visible, recognizable person is President Barack Obama. Above Barack Obama there are four symbols. The first symbol is a man, with a navy type attire and the initials "U.S" on his collar, for United States. There is an eagle on his hat indicating that he is a high official of the United States. Next to him, there is a pig with the word "Corporations" across his chest. Pigs are usually symbols for people who do not do their job correctly or get a free ride. Then, there is Wall Street, which is the financial district, who seems to be overlooking or watching Barack. Last is a man who looks to be an army official for Israel, with the words, "AIPAC" and "Israel Lobby" written across his arm. This man seems to be controlling Barack Obama from a puppet string. Article 2, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states:
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." There have been rumors circulating around discussing and questioning President Barack Obama's race and citizenship to the United States. Because Barack Obama is biracial, people misinterpret this, twist it, and bend the truth to make it look like he is something he is not. Many say President Barack Obama is arab, most call him black, but his mother is caucasion and his father is from Kenya. The arab accusations is what results to pictures like this, with an Israel puppeteer controlling his puppet, or in this case, "arabic" Obama.
This picture really made me think, because I had heard so many times before, "Oh Obama is black!" or "Obama ain't black, he part Israelite or arabic." I did not even know what his race was at a certain point in time. It is amazing what people will do, to put others down. People accuse Barack Obama of being an illegal immigrant, and try to relate him to 9/11 stating how he is on the side of terroist and just want to destroy the U.S., as seen in the political cartoon.To me, even thought 9/11 has caused such destruction to the lives of U.S. citizens, it has also caused damage to those of other 3rd world countries. An arabic person cannot even walk the street in confidence with their scarves on, without being looked upon as a terroist. Not everyone is bad, not every arabic or Israelite wants to bomb or take over the world. We as a people need to open our eyes, and break stereotypes, because it really is horrible how hearing certain things over and over again can defy someones opinion of you. I sincerely hope, that within Obama's presidency, he will and can address racial profiling and stereotyping.
Article 1. Section 3 (The Senate)
Illinois Gov. Tries to Sell Obama's Senate Seat!
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/ConductUnbecoming/story?id=6424985&page=1
Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich tries to sell current president, Barack Obama's former senator seat. The FBI have recorded a conversation, Blagojevich was said to have with an Obama stating, ""I've got this thing and it's f***ing golden, and, uh, uh, I'm just not giving it up for f***in' nothing. I'm not gonna do it. And I can always use it. I can parachute me there." Explicit language shows the excitement the illinois governor was feeling. Barack Obama denies any contact with the Illinois governor regarding the ownage of the senate seat. Others confirm that they know for a fact Obama has spoken with Blagojevich about this topic.
Article 1, section 3 of the U.S. Constitution states that, "No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen." This quotes tells that the senator has to be elected, and nothing else other. Therefore, trying to sell the senate seat would be a crime, a crime that will be taken seriously.
"Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. said he met with Blagojevich yesterday "for the first time in years" and voiced his desire to fill Obama's empty Senate seat. He said he was "shocked" by Blagojevich's arrest, adding "If these allegations are proved true, I am outraged by the appalling, pay-to-play schemes hatched at the highest levels of our state government." - Abc News reporter
"No appointment by this governor under these circumstances could produce a credible replacement." -Sen. Dick Durbin
This is a very interesting case, I never would have thought in a million years that a congressmen would try and sell a senate seat. Usually dirty jobs like so are kept on the low, I wonder if someone in the past tried the same stunt, and succeeded. I wonder if tips were leaked and this is why the government was so sneaky and prepared for this case. I do not think President Obama had any knowledge of his senate seat being sold, and either way it wouldn't have happened because senators have to be elected. Charger have been brought upon on former Illinois governor Rod Blagoevich, but I think there was more people involved than what they are telling. If he had a convo with someone, that just so happens to get recorded, that means someone had to be in on it, and decided to turn against them and tell the authorities. Time will only reveal the truth, so stay tuned.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/ConductUnbecoming/story?id=6424985&page=1
Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich tries to sell current president, Barack Obama's former senator seat. The FBI have recorded a conversation, Blagojevich was said to have with an Obama stating, ""I've got this thing and it's f***ing golden, and, uh, uh, I'm just not giving it up for f***in' nothing. I'm not gonna do it. And I can always use it. I can parachute me there." Explicit language shows the excitement the illinois governor was feeling. Barack Obama denies any contact with the Illinois governor regarding the ownage of the senate seat. Others confirm that they know for a fact Obama has spoken with Blagojevich about this topic.
Article 1, section 3 of the U.S. Constitution states that, "No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen." This quotes tells that the senator has to be elected, and nothing else other. Therefore, trying to sell the senate seat would be a crime, a crime that will be taken seriously.
"Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. said he met with Blagojevich yesterday "for the first time in years" and voiced his desire to fill Obama's empty Senate seat. He said he was "shocked" by Blagojevich's arrest, adding "If these allegations are proved true, I am outraged by the appalling, pay-to-play schemes hatched at the highest levels of our state government." - Abc News reporter
"No appointment by this governor under these circumstances could produce a credible replacement." -Sen. Dick Durbin
This is a very interesting case, I never would have thought in a million years that a congressmen would try and sell a senate seat. Usually dirty jobs like so are kept on the low, I wonder if someone in the past tried the same stunt, and succeeded. I wonder if tips were leaked and this is why the government was so sneaky and prepared for this case. I do not think President Obama had any knowledge of his senate seat being sold, and either way it wouldn't have happened because senators have to be elected. Charger have been brought upon on former Illinois governor Rod Blagoevich, but I think there was more people involved than what they are telling. If he had a convo with someone, that just so happens to get recorded, that means someone had to be in on it, and decided to turn against them and tell the authorities. Time will only reveal the truth, so stay tuned.
Article 2, Section 1 (Executive Branch)
Presidential Oath
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Stated above is an excerpt from the United States Constitution, known as the Presidential Oath found in Article 2, section 1. The Presidential oath or affirmation, is required by the United Stated Constitution before the president can begin serving in office. The president says this affirmation at the inauguration, which have become solemn ceremonies and inhibited celebrations. This oath gives the president's word, that he will do any and everything in his power to protect the citizens of his land. The president must recite this oath with
the left hand on the bible, and the right arm in an upright 90 degree angle. The oath must be recited at 12 o'clock, Wednesday the 4th, in the senate chambers.
Obama is a citizen of the U.S., has been a resident of the United Stated for over 14 yrs, and is over the age of 35.Meeting the requirements for presidency, and winning the election Obama can now be sworn in.From the political cartoon above, it appears that Barack Obama, (our current president ) is in position to recite the oath behind the presidential stand. On the bible, there are different color arms which represent different races the president is promising to "preserve, protect, and defend". Obama is swearing into office, and giving his word to make sure the constitution is kept the same so that it benefits every race, rather than just one.
Is every president honest in the swearing in of this oath? No, but the principle of having a traditional oath is a fantastic idea. The oath sets boundaries and guidelines for the president, so that a slight possibility of doing the right thing is likely. I think this political cartoon is a great symbol in showing hidden or unmentioned parts of the oath. The constitution not only has to be beneficial to the president, or even just congress as a whole, but it has to help out the people as well. I think trust is a big issue when it comes to politics, because it has been agreed upon that politicians will say anything to get into office, but less likely will live up to their promises. The viewer should notice the little smirk or smile Obama has on his face, which gives me a feeling that he will be doing something that was not mentioned, or inscribed in the Constitution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)