Entry 15: Freedom of Press

Evelyn Lozada Files Topless Pictures Stalker Lawsuit Against Vanessa Davis

http://www.techbanyan.com/11036/evelyn-lozada-files-topless-pictures-stalker-lawsuit-against-vanessa-davis/

Constitutional Connection:

Amendment I, Bill of Rights

"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of...press"

On Sunday, TV star Evelyn Lozada file a lawsuit against Vanessa Davis. This reason for this lawsuit was because of "leaked" photos of Mrs. Lozada nude, these pictures were soon spread all across the Internet world. The two women are both 'Basketball Wives', which is a show on TV of simply the lives of the wives of pro basketball players. Vanessa was had supposedly hacked into the email of Mrs. Lozada and ruined her reputation. These two have had a gossipy history because of the television series, but was taken to another level with these convicted actions.

This article demonstrates the protection that the first amendment gives to citizens rights. A clause in this amendment is that citizens have the right to freedom of speech, press, assembly, and petition. In this case the right to freedom of press is taking place. To distribute these pictures publicly is an expression of Davis's right to press.

I believe that in some aspect Mrs. Lozada was right to issue a lawsuit against Vanessa Davis, because if she did so called "tapped into her email and stole her topless picture" then this would be an obstruction of privacy which is apart of the fourth amendment. Maybe her accusations are wrong and Vanessa had no part in this, this argument is what keeps my opinion on the fence. Maybe she did do it.. Maybe she didn't really do it, maybe she hired someone to do it? The world may never *really know*.

Entry 14: Judicial Branch

Supreme Court Refuses Microsoft Appeal in Alcatel-Lucent Case

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/05/24/scotus-refuses-microsoft-appeal/id=10736/

Constitutional Connection:

Article III, Section 1, Clause 1

" The judicial power...shall be vested in one Supreme Court"

Today the Supreme Court did not give Microsoft the "writ of certiorari in Lucent Tech. Inc. v. Gateway, Inc. et al". This case was about whether Microsoft Outlook violated a specific documentation of a certain AT&T device. The Supreme Court used their powers of the Judicial Branch to determine their actions in this trial.

This article clearly demonstrates Article III, Section 1, Clause 1. This part of the United States Constitution depicts the power of the Judicial Branch and that it would consist of the overruling powers of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is the top of the court system, this court deals with more constitutional cases and trials that deal with actions against the country.

In my opinion I believe the Supreme Court did a good job on using there powers and dealing with this situation as simple as they could. The fact that this is a big corporation trial also brings along the fact of the usage of the Supreme Court not a regular superficial court. Myself is interested in the future result of the other trial that is said to take place between similar corporations, since they are some-what relative to each other.

Entry 13: Amendment 5

Double Jeopardy for Convicted Shooter Trail Starts this Week

http://blogs.philadelphiaweekly.com/phillynow/2010/05/18/double-jeopardy-for-convicted-shooter-trial-starts-this-week/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=double-jeopardy-for-convicted-shooter-trial-starts-this-week

Constitutional Connection:

Amendment V, Bill of Rights

"...nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy..."

During the time of August in 2007 charges were filed against William Barnes, who was once convicted of shoot a police officer William Barclay in 1966. He served 20 years in prison for this crime, and has been free since. In 07' Barnes was jeopardized once again, except that this this he was being trialed for the murder of the officer Barclay.

This article and event demonstrates a violation of Amendment V in the Bill of Rights. This amendment protects citizens rights to no self-incrimination, no double jeopardy, right to due process, and habeus corpus. No double jeopardy basically means a person cannot be convicted or trialed for the same crime twice, hence double. In this case Barnes was being trialed again for the same crime, but for a different type of felony. This case clearly violates the rights protected under the fifth amendment, since its against the amendment to be double jeopardized.

In my opinion I believe also that this case is obstructing the position of the "no double jeopardy" clause in the fifth amendment of the Bill of Rights. Sending this man back to trial was and would be a wrong thing to do, and for the attorney to once again start this trial knowing of the fifth amendment was just plain faulty. Okay Barnes shot the guy many years back, but it would have literally cause him to die in 2007. I understand the officer could have been emotionally damaged, but why become a cop if your not prepared to endure the physical and emotional burden?

Entry 12: 8th Amendment

Life Sentences Without Parole: too cruel to the young

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-juveniles-20100519,0,5172858.story

Constitutional Connection:

Amendment VIII, Bill of Rights

"...nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

According to this article, a new law has been pushed that deals with juveniles and there punishments. Those who commit a crime other then murder are to be sentenced to life in prison without parole. As the Supreme Court has ruled recently this type of solution is against the Constitution and the eighth amendment.

This article clearly demonstrates an obstruction of the eight amendment of the bill of rights. This amendment allows those who commit a crime in America not to be punished cruelly or unusually. This idea of sentencing juveniles to life in prison clearly is against the US Constitution. Without this Amendment the country throughout history would have been truly corrupt.

From my point of view I believe that this type of punishment is truly against the Constitution and should have never been considered any wear in legislation. For a young man or women to be held in prison for the rest of their lives, without parole, for something they might have done mistakenly once is just corrupt. I agree that they should have decent type of punishment inflicted upon them, but nothing too severe like this. Obstructing the eight amendment is not the way to execute punishment in American and i feel what this idea is trying to do is misguided.

Entry 11: Judicial Branch

"Supreme Court Rules that Life Sentences without Parole for Juveniles Are Unconstitutional" http://www.civilrights.org/archives/2010/05/977/-graham.html

Constitutional Connection: "Article III, Section 2"

" The judicial Power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States..."

Recently a law has been in place that juveniles who's crime that are short of murder will be charged some what as adult by being sentenced to life without parole. As a result to this the Supreme Court has considered this punishment to be unconstitutional. It goes against the 8th amendment which says that there should be no cruel or unusual punishment for committing a crime of any sort.

This article clearly demonstrates Article III, Section 2 because it is showing the Supreme Court taking a case to were the law is going against the constitution. This article also demonstrates the power of the Judicial Branch, since one of the key principles in the constitution is Checks and Balances. The Judicial Branch is basically checking the legislative branches actions to make the juvenile go to jail for life and say it is against the constitution to do this.

As a young man my position on these events is very clear. I think it is wrong for juveniles to not have parole and have a life sentence for committing such a crime. No matter how bad the crime is the kid should not be charged near to or as an adult. I think its right for the Judiciary system to uphold there powers in this case and rule this as unconstitutional.

Entry 10: Executive Branch

Bush Announces Veto of Waterboarding Ban

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030800304.html

Constitutional Connection:

Article I, Section 7

"Every bill which shall have passed...shall...be presented to the President of the United States. If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it..."

A major controversy in politics during President Bush's era of Presidency was the waterboarding and torturing problems that took place withing the CIA. As a member of war George Bush felt it necessary to veto the waterboarding ban bill that expressed congress's view on the torture system. Congress, with the power to conduct bills, put together a fit bill that would ban waterboarding as a form of torture.

The first article of the constitution explains the powers of the legislative branch, but includes the right for the President to "veto" bills that he feels unnecessary. This article clearly demonstrates how the President has to the power to veto bills since it shows 2008 President Bush declaring he had vetoed the Waterboarding Ban Bill.

As a member of society i feel that President Bush was wrong to veto this bill. Torturing foreign prisoners who have done something wrong is not the solution the CIA or any executive agency should turn to. And the fact that the President of the United States supports Waterboarding is just plain wrong. I think that for Congress to be able to stand up to such actions is very righteous of them. Even though I know President Bush is very proud of his country and has did his part in the military and feels those who threaten or hate us should be punished, I think he just made a wrong decision for the country at the time.

Entry 9: Legislative Branch

Obama Wants Senate to Tackle Climate Bill After Wall St. Reforms

http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/04/19/19climatewire-obama-wants-senate-to-tackle-climate-bill-af-37578.html

Constitutional Connection:

Article 1, Legislative Branch, Section 8, Clause 1

"The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes."

Due to the recent oil spill dilemma, Congress, or shall I say certain congressman have come to an agreement that there should be a new climate and energy bill that is wanted to be nationwide as soon as Wall Street is regulated. President Obama felt it necessary for Congress to grab a hold on this legislative change, as soon as regulation has been fully completed. The bills main duty is to " put a price on carbon dioxide across multiple sectors of the economy, while also expanding domestic oil, gas and nuclear power production". (Samuelsohn)

This article clearly demonstrates Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, since it show Congress expressing their power to lay taxes, in this case they are in the process of making a Climate and Energy bill. There is somewhat of a joint effort here between the executive and legislative branch, since President Obama has told Congress that they should "tackle" the Climate bill.

I think that this is an important piece to President Obama's idea of reform in America. Although Wall Street is in a difficult situation at the moment, I'm sure sometime this year the financial dilemma will decrease and this Bill will be much more sufficient and in place for the good of the American land. Even though Congress and the President are dealing with other problems, I think that they are making this bill with a righteous mind.

Entry 8: Legislative Branch

Obama's First Tax Increase

http://www.accountingweb.com/item/107316

Constitutional Connection:

Article I, Legislative Branch, Section 8

"The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes."

On the date of April 1st, 2009, President Obama and congress decided on their first national tax increase. This tax increase of cigarettes which is an additional 62 cents per pack of cigarettes has been set to hit a decent percentage of adults who smoke.

This article clearly demonstrates Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution which gives congress the ability to give out taxes and receive the taxes. It also shows the cooperation of two branches the legislative and the executive, although in this case the larger power sits on the backs of the legislative branch. Taxing the nation is a right that the legislative branch has under the Constitution and is being demonstrated clearly in this article.

Now I am not a smoker of course, but if I was I really would be unsure about my position due to this tax increase. Obviously if I was a person who bought cigarettes I would be upset about the fact of an increase in cost. The thing abut this article is that it shows how both the president and congress can work together for the better of the government. I think that with out the support of congress, and the ability to give taxes, then the Presidents job would be more difficult. Congress is a substantial part of what this nation has become today, and for that I give them respect.

Entry 7: Amendment 1

Reverend Al Sharpton leads Arizona Protest

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2010/05/06/vo.az.phoenix.sharpton.rally.cnn?iref=allsearch

Constitutional Connection:

Amendment I, Bill of Rights

"Congress shall make no law...prohibiting...or abridging...the right of the people peaceably to assemble..."

A major issue in these recent weeks has been Arizona's plan of a new immigration law. This law is meant to be placed in Arizona to allow police officers to stop people in Arizona who are suspected as illegal immigrants. The controversial part of this law is that for some people this can be seen as another way to easily racial profile. Some politicians and political figures feel that this law is unnecessary and wrong since they seem it would give a officer a reason to simply take a "suspected" illegal immigrant and send him somewhere where he or she doesn't belong.

This video clearly demonstrates the first amendments right to assembly. Assembly in this case is the right as people to come together to either protest or rally against something that they feel is wrong and not to have any faulty interaction with the government in the process. These people in the video predominantly Hispanic Americans have come together to rally against the Arizona Immigration Law (SB1070). This gathering is clearly protected by the right to assembly and shows the power of the constitution in the present day.

From my point of view I feel that this protest against the bill SB1070 in Arizona is righteous, these Hispanic Americans and other people should be out there expressing there feelings and views towards this atrocious law. The companionship between Reverend Al Sharpton and the members of the Arizona community is strong and fair. This immigration law is to much, I mean isn't boarder patrol enough and other forms of government that protect US from the additional illegal immigrants that enter these states day in and day out. Adding police to the list is in ways useless, they should be on the streets protect citizens from theft and murder, not taking people in because they think he/she is an illegal "alien". This is law is simply fault to me.

Entry 6 :Amendment 6

Due Process & Speedy Trial

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2WPfDykg3y

Constitutional Connection:

VI Amendment, Bill of Rights, United States Constitution

" In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial..."

The United States Constitution gives convicted felons the right to a speedy and public trial which basically means once the criminal is charged the court does not have the power to hold him/her captive for a long period of time hence the phrase "speedy trial". In this video the central issue deals with the Colegrove murdering and the convicted man who killed his family in Bradford County. The killings happened one year before the convicted man was given trial dates, which does not show a right to a speedy trial mainly an corruption of that. In another aspect the trial brings along another piece of the Bill of Rights the right to due process.

In my opinion the right to a speedy trial is something that should not be under minded because without a speedy trial who knows when trials will happen if something serious like in this case murders or obstructions happen, without speedy trial then the convicted will be caught and arrested and waiting for a trial for who knows how long. I mean if the guy killed his family and has been caught and now has been waiting dealing with this guilt awaiting his trial then that's just patriotically wrong. I believe this amendment is righteous, but don't think that it is handled with by the court or use by the court to its full potential.

Entry 5: Tenth Amendment

The Progressive Mindset on Illegal Immigration

http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/04/29/the-progressive-mindset-on-illegal-immigration/

Constitutional Connection:

X Amendment, Bill of Rights, United States Constitution

" The powers not delegated to the United States by Constitution...are reserved to the states respectively..."

In these last few years one issue that has never left the mind of the government has been illegal immigration. Most of the topics on national news in this past decade has been related some way or another to immigration. Now of course there are various opinions on this issue and most of the opinions are from the view point of the true American people. In most cases Americans feel as though these illegal immigrants are endangering there way of life by filling in job positions and working for a lower pay. While on the other hand there are those people who feel this is a free nation and we should welcome all those who feel it necessary to live here, as well as those who's family members are those "illegal aliens".

In this article there is a controversy between the right for Arizona to pass laws against illegal immigration. One of these laws is to allow police officials in assisting the national authorities in charge of determining illegal immigrants by also helping determining those immigrants "status" (Klein paragraph 4). Now the tenth amendment allows the states to have the power to initial laws that are set under the national government, so this article clearly demonstrates Arizona ability whether they do or they don't have it.

I think that as a state that is bordering Mexico Arizona should have the right to make and pass laws that deal with illegal immigration and all the major details. As a whole the United States should allow Arizona to make its own resolutions to all of their immigration problems, as long as those solutions are constitutional. Since illegal immigration is now becoming a large factor and our population has risen over the past years, i think its only righteous that Arizona have the ability to fix illegal immigration. And by police officers assisting in finding illegal immigrants then I think that the rate of immigration will in time decrease.

Entry 4: 4th Amendment

IV Amendment Privacy Right Political Cartoon

http://www.truthdig.com/images/avboothuploads/dp_privacy_500.gif

Constitutional Connection:

Bills of Rights, Amendment IV

'The right of the people to be secure...against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation..."

This political cartoon demonstrates the IV Amendment, Bill of Rights, in the United States Constitution. As the viewer can see two police officers are in the position of kicking in a door as if unknowingly seizing the office. In one of their hands is a "legal" warrant, explaining the officers approval of entering and searching the place. In this case you can tell that the officers may be misusing their power of searching with "probable cause", since one of the officers response to "we're supposed to knock and announce" is " yeah sure". The IV amendment gives citizens the right to privacy, by making it mandatory for authorities to present warrants in order to search, or have a very sufficient cause for doing so.

As a citizen of these United States i believe that this Amendment is a righteous part of the Bill of Rights, and I am glad that it is in place. For people who live very clandestine lives, this amendment protects their way of life, unless of course if something they are doing is illegal and wrong then its a different story. I believe without this amendment America would be some-what of a different kind of nation, because now a days their are corrupt policeman and officials as well as corrupt people. So this amendment helps keep order and balance in America in substantial way.

Entry 3: Amendment 2

"Gun rights advocates rally in Washington, Virginia"
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/19/second.amendment.rally.html

Constitutional Connection:

Bill of Rights, Second Amendment, US Constitution
" 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."


Although the second amendment gives Americans the right to bear arms many citizens do not really understand the moral of the second amendment. We are given the right to have and own gun machinery, but in most parts of the nation there are some key qualifications that a citizen must go through. Overall Americans must have a license to the gun in order to follow the second amendmnets expectations. The conflict in this case is the government may think some Americans aren't responsible or worthy enough to have gun rights.

This article clearly demonstrates the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights. This amendment permits Americans the right to bear arms. This right has been very controversal through its existence since it is not entirely apparent to most Americans. The ability to have and own guns is a privelage that is given by the Constitution in order to protect the states from any circumstances. This article demonstrates the people of Washington being unhappy with the fact that their right to have guns is not fully functional. People are mad and convinced that most of their freedoms are not active in the present day. The amendment was part of the constitution to ensure the expression of liberty in American and to all its citizens.

Since I am at an early age in life I do not truly understand the feeling of basic liberty and expression. I realize that some people in American can use some specific amendments, such as the 2nd, to their advantage. If the constitution allows citizens to right to have and own guns, then why is it now illegal to own a gun. It is understandable that there should be some boundaries and qualifications towards the possesion of guns, but why continue to use this amendment, maybe fic it so that it is clearer to citizens. The significance of the second amendment should be special to every citizen in the US and people should have the right to have and own guns, all I'm saying is there should be a certain type of citizen that should have the ability to bear arms.

Entry 2:The Executive Branch, President

"Obama to veto bill without controls on derivatives" April 22, 2010
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/apr/22/obama-to-veto-bill-without-controls-on-derivatives/

Constitutional Connection:

Article 2, The Executive Branch, Section 3
"Every bill...shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that house in which it shall have originated"

Our economy has been through a tough 3 years, but after his election victory America was supposed to turn the tables and once again have our economy stable. During these last couple days and weeks the President of the US has been busy. With his wife off over sees and across boarders, President Obama is some what unfortunate. With tax season just ending, Barack Obama now deals with the countries financial reform. In this article it seems like he isn't focusing on any financial reforms just about yet. Obama says any financial reform bills sent to him will be vetoed.

This article clearly demonstrates Article II, Section 3 of the United States Constitution. President Obama has the power to object, or veto any bills he seems unnecessary and does not approve of. Although Congress has the ability to override this veto, in some way President Obama is right about his decision. This power given to the president is a strong part of the Constitution and also gives an example of checks and balances.

If the President didn't have the power to object bills that Congress passed, then his job would be close to incomplete. In my opinion Obama should take into consideration financial reform ideas no matter the control on the derivatives. The Presidents power to veto is a significant part of the structure of the US government and always will be. I think for now Obama should continue on the progress of the nations economy and soon do all that he can do, that he said he'll do for this country.

Entry 1: Amendment 1

Free Speech Defended In U.S. v. Stevens, Publishers Applaud Supreme Court April 21, 2010

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/21/free-speech-defended-in-u_n_546271.html

Constitution Connection:

Bill of Rights, Amendment 1, US Constitution

"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."

Publishing and selling videos of dog fights and other forms of animal cruelty is considered wicked and prohibited. Although some Americans part take in this type of action, many Americans find this degrading. The case of U.S. v. Stevens brought back to the supreme court a prosecution involving the 1st Amendment. The freedom of speech and some what the freedom of press was plead during the rulings of this case, which came into place because of the distribution of illegal dog fighting tapes for profit.

The first amendment gives Americans the right to freedom of speech which in this case is defined as the ability to express ones self to an extent. This article clearly demonstrates the first amendment in the Bill of Rights. Citizens of American do have the right to express their selves, and although this form of expression is corrupt Stevens has the right to publish these videos.

Its hard to think of American life without the 1st amendment. Not being able to have your voice heard and not be apart of anything that the government and country is apart of. There have been many cases were people plead the 1st Amendment and in most cases the government or supreme court can not really do anything about it since people do have the right to freedom of speech. I think some people take advantage of their right to speak freely against national things, and feel that there should be some specifics put into that right and maybe say Americans have the right to speak freely to a certain degree, then list boundaries. I think that would make inccidents like this a little more simpler to deal with.