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.