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.