Judicial Branch

Source: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/35813.html  "America doesn't need another liberal judge" REP. Lamar Smith, April 15, 2010





Constitutional Connect:

     


Analysis of the Connection:


              Since Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens retired, Pres. Barack Obama has an oppurtunity to replace him with the most liberal judge he can find of the past 35 years with a more mainstream jurist committed to interpreting (not rewriting) the U.S. Constitution. President Barack Obama has already decided that he will fill Stevens' vacancy with someone that has similar qualities. By doing this he will be replacing a liberal justice with another liberal justice. There is nothing that requires a president to think about the political leanings of a departing justice when nominating a replacement. A new liberal justice could lead to future decisions that continue to take away personal property rights, put the Second Amendment's protections in jeopardy, weaken our national security and advance a radical agenda.

              
             A nominee with “similar qualities” to Stevens would likely vote to put restrictions on individual Americans’ Second Amendment right to lawful gun ownership. in past happenings, when the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to strike down the District of Columbia’s prohibition on gun ownership in D.C. v. Heller, Stevens wrote a harsh disconsent concluding, “There is no indication that the Framers of the [Second] Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.” John Paul Stevens argued that the right to bear arms was only for militias, not individual citizens. Fortunately, the narrow majority in this case disagreed.

             Also Stevens supplied a crucial vote that gave Osama bin Laden’s chauffeur the right to challenge his detention at Guantanamo, and avoid trial before a congressionally created military commission.

The Hamdan opinion which was written by Stevens, expands the judicial branch’s protection of terrorists’ rights and weakens the president’s ability with the help of Congress, to enact national security laws that keep America safe. As our nation continues to face the threat of terrorism, we cannot afford a Supreme Court nominee who would vote to weaken our national security.


            In my opinion, if we get another liberal justice like Stevens, our country will be in even more bad shape than it is now. With the new ideas of another liberal things that congress is trying to surpress can dramatically get passed as laws. By bringing a conservative justice in there migth be a little more caution and thinking before jumping right into action and throwing the traditional laws of the Constitution out of the box. With Stevens gone this an opportunity to either make a very good change or a very bad mistake. I think our President should look more carefully at the facts before making a decison.
             The power of the Executive Branch is vested in the President of the United States, who also acts as head of state and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. The President is responsible for implementing and enforcing the laws written by Congress and, to that end, appoints the heads of the federal agencies, including the Cabinet. The Vice President is also part of the Executive Branch, ready to assume the Presidency should the need arise. The Cabinet and independent federal agencies are responsible for the day-to-day enforcement and administration of federal laws. These departments and agencies have missions and responsibilities as widely divergent as those of the Department of Defense and the Environmental Protection Agency, the Social Security Administration and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Including members of the armed forces, the Executive Branch employs more than 4 million Americans.

Executive Branch 2

Source: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/24033.html  " OPINION: Conservatives rights about nominees" By Christopher L. Eisgruber,  June 23, 2009

Constitutional connection:

           The duties of the Executive Branch is vested in the President of the United States, who also acts as head of state and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. The President is responsible for implementing and enforcing the laws written by Congress and, to that end, appoints the heads of the federal agencies, including the Cabinet. The Vice President is also part of the Executive Branch, ready to assume the Presidency should the need arise. The Cabinet and independent federal agencies are responsible for the day-to-day enforcement and administration of federal laws. These departments and agencies have missions and responsibilities as widely divergent as those of the Department of Defense and the Environmental Protection Agency, the Social Security Administration and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Including members of the armed forces, the Executive Branch employs more than 4 million Americans.



Analysis of the Connection:

              Executive Branch lawyers Doug Kmiec, Ted Olson and Ken Starr stuck to their principles about executive branch nominations. What Kmiec, Olson and Starr have done is important. In the past few years over nominations to the lower courts and executive branch offices. This trend toward more violent confirmation battles does the country a great deal of harm.  It prevents presidents from forming an effective government, and it discourages good people from serving in public office.

                Nominations to the lower courts and executive branch positions are something altogether different. Lower courts rarely see the politically motivated and unresolved issues that take over the Supreme Court’s docket. Olson Starr and Kmeic agree that if you don’t like an executive branch official, the solution is to vote for the other party in the next presidential election not to destroy of make a riot out of their nomination.

              Personally, I think that these three men are correct indeed. Since the judges and electors have a position to vote people iin or out why not just make it a positive experience and instead of hastling that person just simpily vote for the other party. Since you dont like one candidate or nominee that doesnt mean you cant show respect and just get over your personal feelings for a cause that is way bigger than how you feel. 

Executive Branch 1

Source:  http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/e/earmarks/index.html?scp=8&sq=the%20executive%20branch&st=cse  July 6, 2010




Constitutional Connection:


               The Constitutional duties of the Executive Branch are made within the President of the United States, who also plays a role as head of state and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. The President is responsible for implementing and enforcing the laws written by Congress and, to that end, appoints the heads of the federal agencies, including the Cabinet. The Vice President is also part of the Executive Branch, ready to assume the Presidency should the need arise.

              The Cabinet and independent federal agencies are responsible for the day-to-day enforcement and administration of federal laws. These departments and agencies have missions and responsibilities as widely divergent as those of the Department of Defense and the Environmental Protection Agency, the Social Security Administration and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Including members of the armed forces, the Executive Branch employs more than 4 million Americans.






Analysis of the Connection:


              In December 2007 a bill passes that the use of earmarks could be put on the spending money of  Congress. This would show how cautious congress was on imposing its budget priorities on the executive branch. Earmarking boomed in the last decade, with lobbyists competing for the attention of committee members who control the money. Congress handed out more than $17 billion in awards in fiscal 2008. The budget  passed in December 2007, has earmarks that set aside money for bridges, highways and other public works such as museums, universities and research on topics like grape genetics; bicycle trails and parks; control of agricultural pests like the emerald ash borer beetle; and aid to military contractors producing missiles, munitions, "merino wool boot socks" and many other items used by the armed forces. With this budget cuts it was estimated to represent a 25 percent drop from years before.


              
             By the time 2008 rolled around, earmarks had become majorly bad in politics and were the midpoint in many scandals. Democrats and Republicans began trying to outdo each other in reducing the abuse of earmarks. Democrats taking control over congress since the 2006 elections have taken actions that they say helped bring more transparency and competition to the earmark process, even though outside critics did not always agree. In March 2010, the House leadership banned the use of earmarks.  by forming non-profit corporations under their control to receive new funds.


            Under the new restrictions, not-for-profit institutions like schools and colleges, state and local governments, research groups, social service centers and others are still free to receive earmarks. The new restrictions would still allow the type of award to local governmental agencies that became infamous in 2005 with Alaska's "Bridge to Nowhere." And a number of companies responded to the new rules by setting up nonprofits, often at the same mailing address as the company, and sometimes with company executives or relatives on their board of directors. Some members on both sides of the Capitol still defend earmarks, though but more on a hush hush situation. They say earmarks have gotten a bad rap from outside groups and critical colleagues who tend to portray them as poster children for Capitol Hill scandals.




              In my opinion the earmarks would be a good idea if the Democrats and Republicans could get along. If those two parties could get along and work together to make sure no scandals went into play and they both kept an honest outlook on the situation, earmarks could have succeeded.

Legislative Branch 3

Source: "Law makers vow action on abuse report" by Erika Lovely July 13, 2010
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39690.html

Constitutional Connection:
     The role of the Legislative branch is to make the laws discuss them and decipher which ones will come to play and which ones will not. The legislative branc is made up of Congress, which is the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Senate is responsible for approving treaties, confirming presidential nominations, and conducting trials. The House of Representatives powers are established in Article One of the Constitution. The major power of the House is to pass federal legislation that affects the entire country, although its bills must also be passed by the Senate and further agreed to by the President before becoming law (unless both the House and Senate re-pass the legislation with a two-thirds majority in each chamber). Each state receives representation in the House in proportion to its population but is entitled to at least one Representative.



Analysis of the Connection:


               A very serious report released Tuesday by the Office of Compliance gave the congressional workplace a bad look; abused employees have collected an average of $1 million per year in settlements over workplace disputes with their congressional bosses, which most of all includes sexual harassment charges.Not to mention the corruption and enviornment  reports have also revealed an estimated 6,300 safety hazards on the Capitol campus. One of those hazards is a fire hazard in the Library of Congress that will cost nearly $20 million to repair(20 million dollars we do not have). Another fire safety hazard in Russell Senate Office building could be deadly to aides and members if there should be a terrorist attack that involved fire. The reports also showed that the Office of Compliance, (which oversees the workplace rights of congressional staffers under the Congressional Accountability Act),  has not been able to sufficiently educate and communicate with its employees about their rights, including in cases of sexual harassment and other office misdeeds.

              The OOC report can be a scarer to its readers because of all the serious issues it brings up. It can make them feel uncomfortable and unsafe about the enviornment its workers are in. Republican Robert Alderholt says "It is very disappointing that there have been so many employee disputes in House offices, the United States legislative branch should be the national example of appropriate workplace relations and I believe that Congress should address this.”  The minority house leader John Boehner’s spokesman Micheal Steel says that thes problems could have been prevented if Nancy Pelosi had not appointed a Chief Administrative Officer who may have overlooked the email address blockade.

             In my opinion, some things could have been Nancy Pelosi's fault but it couldnt have all started with her. Corruption in the system and abusues in the system have started a long time ago back when the churches and the government were deciding if things like abortion were right or not. Bill Clinton had a mistress and who knows what type of sexual harassment could have been going on.. The main things that need to start happening are the use of religion in the system because right now there is no guuidance.

Legislative Branch 2

Source: "Congress Delays on Whistleblowers" by Erika Lovely  August 17, 2010 http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41178.html

Constitutional Connection:

          The basic role of the Legislative branch is to make the laws discuss them and decipher which ones will come to play and which ones will not. The legislative branc is  made up of Congress, which is the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Senate is responsible for approving treaties, confirming presidential nominations, and conducting trials. The House of Representatives powers  are established in Article One of the Constitution. The major power of the House is to pass federal legislation that affects the entire country, although its bills must also be passed by the Senate and further agreed to by the President before becoming law (unless both the House and Senate re-pass the legislation with a two-thirds majority in each chamber). Each state receives representation in the House in proportion to its population but is entitled to at least one Representative.


Analysis of the Connection:

                       Whistleblowers are the people who raises a concern about wrongdoing occurring in an organization or body of people. In this case Congress is having conflicts with its whistleblowers. These people are ratting our the corruptions of Congress and its employes. Whistleblowers usually dont come foward with what they know because of getting put on the spot or loosing their position. Maxine Waters is currently charged with three House ethics violations for her alleged interactions with a bank that received federal bailout money. Her chief of staff, who’s also her grandson, continued interactions with the bank in which her husband had invested after the congresswoman had been instructed not to the charges allege. Rep. Eric Massa (DNY) is exploring his legal options after alerting officials that the congressman was allegedly inappropriately interacting with male staffers.

                  The Senate Ethics Committee is investigating whether Senator John Ensign (R-Nev.) used his power to boost the career of his former mistress’ husband, who worked for Ensign. Reports by the congressional Office of Complianceare finding out that Congress has been failing to apply a plethora of workplace regulations to its own employees, including safety regulations and a law that gives veterans a leg up when applying for government jobs. Whistleblowers are needed to specify the things that arenot happening and to bring them to light so they corruption in the system can stop.In this past year, Congress has called whistleblowers from the financial sector, health insurance and other industries to testify before congressional committees because of the congressman and women who commit these corrupted crimes.

     
                   In my opinion, whisterblowers are a good idea and they need to start being more confident and bring these people out in the open. More and more each day people are noticing all the things that can possibly be going on behind our backs in the system and we are all a part of it even though we may not know it. Even though these whistleblowers might get oicked on and blackmailed the right thing is still the right thing and if the judges that hold the trials for the corrupted congressman and congresswomen are reliable we canmake our system better.






            

Legislative Branch

Source: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39707.html "Hill exempts self from veterans' law"
by: Erika Lovely and Marin Cogan, July 14, 2010

Constututional Connection:     
            The legislative branch is made up of the two houses of Congress; the Senate and the House of Representatives. The most important duty of the legislative branch is to make laws. Laws are written, discussed and voted on in Congress.

             There are 100 senators in the Senate, two from each state. Senators are elected by their states and serve six-year terms. The Vice President of the U.S. is considered the head of the Senate, but does not vote in the Senate unless there is a tie. The Senate approves nominations made by the President to the Cabinet, the Supreme Court, federal courts and other posts. The Senate must ratify all treaties by a two-thirds vote.
           There are 435 representatives in the House of Representatives. The number of representatives each state gets is based on its population. For example, California has many more representatives than Rhode Island. When Census figures determine that the population of a state has changed significantly, the number of representatives in that state may shift proportionately. Representatives are elected by their states and serve two-year terms. The Speaker of the House, elected by the representatives, is considered the head of the House.
         Both parties in the Senate and the House of Representatives elect leaders. The leader of the party that controls the house is called the majority leader. The other party leader is called the minority leader.


Analysis of the Connection:


                 As of right now there are complications in the legislative branch because they dont want to pass a job giving law for war veterens. Congress also put itself out of this law that would aid post-military employment for veterans. Congress has a veteran hiring act that goes into action when ever a veteran needs a job. They give these unemployed veterans jobs because they have good leadership experiance, do quality work, have had training, and know-how. The Congressional Budget Office and some support positions in the House and Senate do not receive this affirmative-action-type boost, potentially preventing veterans from getting jobs. 

            Representative Duncan Hunter says, "It’s incredible that Congress, years after applying VEOA to government jobs, has yet to finalize the regulations for veterans’ employment in the legislative branch. Veterans are some of the most qualified individuals joining the work force today, possessing quality leadership, training and know-how, we have made a commitment to these men and women, and it’s important that we follow through". Representative Lorretta Sancgez agrees with Hunter and says "It’s unacceptable for Congress to exempt itself from VEOA requirements. I believe we have an obligation to honor the service and sacrifice of our veterans, including those who are looking for jobs in government. They have certainly earned the right to every possible advantage". Congressional approval for this law is very important so that veterans can benefit from the accelerations congress was giving them in the first place.


          In my opinion, i agree that Congress should pass this law for veterans because they have surved our country well and sacrificed most of their life to fight for us as Americans. Even though it might not be fair to other citizens of this country because they feel like they got fired because of the budget cuts and they still have to support their family too, veterans have helped this country in many ways and with out them there would probably be no us.        

the 10th Amendment

Source: "Go, Arizona, go!  July 26, 2010

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40182.html

Constitutional Connection:
                The 10th Amendment cites the "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."




Analysis of the Connection:


                  There has been a debate on whether the states have the right to make their own laws and have their own establishments without the consent of the federal court. The 10th Amendment says so. Founding father Jean Jacques Rousseau believed in world simplicity and humanity. He also believed in liberity and that the voice of the community is more important than the voice of an individual. 

                 Sharron Angle a GOP nominee against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, spoke to a crowd of conservatives with a speech that embraced Arizona’s controversial immigration law and sketched out her tea party-infused values. She exclaims that AZ has taken their 10th amendment right to take care of their borders and their citizens. Angle’s appearance before the conference was preceded by alot of conservative activists and media personalities, who including former New Jersey AFP Director Steve Lonegan, who hinted at Democratic criticism that her views place her well out of place.  


                 Angle presses that the states have a right to protect whats theirs and to rule out what ever they dont like. It is the states' job to take care of what threatens them and to give their people what they want, not the federal government's authority to intervene. One of her quotes at the conference is “It’s one nation under God, not one nation under the government”.


               I agree with this amendment and I do believe that the delegates to the staes have a right to take care of their states, and the delagates to this country have the right to take care of their country. I beliebe the only time the delegates of this country should get involved with the decisions of the states is if there is a national threat or if the states violate any part of the Constitution with any law they are passing.

The Fifth Amendment

Source: "David W. Johnson" August 12, 2010

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/j/david_w_johnson_1972/index.html?scp=1&sq=the%20fifth%20amendment&st=cseid




Constitutional Connection:  The Fifth Amendment States-
            
              "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  "

                        

Analysis of the Connection:


                  A former founding father John Locke believed that all people had a natural right to life, liberty, and property. The fifth amendment says that "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" which in this case a hearing might have not been seen as public danger, but it was a case of domestic violence against a women.


                   David W. Johnson was a senior adviser, driver, and scheduler to New York Governer David A. Paterson until he was suspended without pay in late February 2010 because of his involvement in a domestic violence case. On August 12 Mr. Johnson did surrender to his charge of a misdermeanor assault charges on his longtime companion  Sherr-una Booker. Sherr-una Booker, went to court in the Bronx to testify that on October 31 he had violently attacked her and to seek a protective order against him.




            David W. Johnson, who had risen to become one of the governor's most trusted aides, was suspended without pay in February 2010 after details of Ms. Booker's allegations became public. Mr. Paterson contacted Ms. Booker while she was trying to make an order of protection against Mr. Johnson, and indicated that the State Police might have tried to discourage her from taking legal action against Mr. Johnson. This led Mr. Paterson to drop his election bid and prompted the resignations of five senior administration officials, including the top two officials at the State Police.
 

               When attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo began an investigation, he had to hand it over to former Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye because Mr. Paterson was a onetime political rival with Cuomo. Mr. Johnson refused to cooperate with what was now Ms. Kaye's ivestigatation stating the fith amendment. Ms. Kaye found out that there were some errors of the governers and his advisers judgement on the case but they were not criminal acts. Ms. Kaye did recommend that the Bronx district attorney consider charges against Mr. Johnson over the incident at Ms. Booker's apartment on October 31, 2009.

          Mr. Johnson in his past has many criminal acts such as he was twice arrested on felony drug charges as a teenager, including selling cocaine to an undercover officer in Harlem, he has at least one other arrest for misdemeanor assault in the 1990s. He has also on three occasions been involved in altercations with women which two have been led to police calls. Ms. Booker went to Family Court and obtained an order of protection but when she didnt show up for her fourth hearing it was dissmissed. David W. Johnson went throught this whole case without testifying until he confessed he was guilty.


        I do not agree fully with this amendment because if someone makes a claim against someone else and has evidence of the crime the suspect should be held accountable to show up for a hearing in front of a juge and  a jury. I believe this because David W. Johnson made it for a year being a criminal and the governer of NY David A. Paterson's right hand man without being caught. Mr. Psterson has invited this criminal into his home, his office, and his personal life. Since David W. Johnson has a history of being a criminal he could have been planning to do something to Mr. Paterson and he wouldnt have known.

The Fourth Amendment

Source: "The Government's New Right To Track Your Every Move With GPS" TIME magazine, Adam Cohen. August 26, 2010
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/08599201315000




Constitutional Connection:


            The Fourth Amendment states " 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."





Analysis of the Connection:


            One of our founding fathers John Locke believed in natural/ inalienable rights. Under these rights are the right to life, liberty, and property. The fourth amendment grants the rights that people shall be secured in their homes, persons, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seziures. There has been some debate on which this should be used in all situations or just as it is proposed legally.


            There is a new right that government has to violate privacy. Government can in fact sneak onto any civilians property and attach a GPS tracking device onto your vehicle and track you where ever you go. Currently in California and eight other western states this rule is into play. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit who defends this jursdiction, recently decided that the government can monitor citizens this way anyway it wants with no needs of a search warrant. The fourth amendment ckearly states that people have right to be secure in their houses, persons, papers, and effects and that no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation particuarly describing the place to be searched, and any persons or things to be seized.


                  In one case the DEA, (Drug Enforcement Administration), decided to monitor Juan Pineda-Moreno, a man who resides in Oregon who they had suspected was growing marijuana. In the middle if the night they snuck onto his property, found his jeep in his drive way a few feet away form his trailer home and attached a GPS to the bottom of his car. Pineda-Moreno then challenged the DEA's actions in front of a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit that was ruled in January said it was perfectly legal. This month a larger group on the panel who were subsequently asked to reconsider the ruling decided this month to let it stand. 


               The government violated  Pineda-Moreno in a couple of different ways. One was the invasion of his driveway which the court has long held that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their homes and in the "curtilage," a fancy legal term for the area around the home. The government's invasion on property just a few feet away was clearly in this area of privacy. The judges say that this area was not private because it is open to strangers such as ddelivery people and m=neighborhood children who can wander across it uninvitedly.
           
               A big arguement is that the only peoples property that is absolutely private are rich peoples' because they are usually fenced inside a community, have electric gates and are protected with security booths. Therefore, people who cannot afford such barriers around their property have to put up with the government sneaking around it. Another rule is that once a GPS device is put unto the property the government is free to track the person without a warrant. Fortunately, other courts are coming to a different conclusion from the Ninth Circuit's which  includes the influential U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. That court ruled this month, that tracking for an extended period of time with GPS is an invasion of privacy that requires a warrant. The issue is likely to end up in the Supreme Court.



               

Freedom of Speech Political Cartoons

Source: http://www.cartoonstock.com/sitesearch.asp?performSearch=TRUE&mainArchive=mainArchive&newsCartoon=newsCartoon&vintage=vintage&animation=animation&ANDkeyword=freedom+of+speech

            These political cartoons represent how we have freedom of speech in America, but then again we don't. In america you are permitted to say absolutely any thing you want, at any time you want, where ever you want, to any one you want, etc. The problem is that some people believe in it and others dont. There are many reprecussions for saying the wrong things to people in authority though. For instance, you cannot just go up to a police officer and say "I'm going to kill your whole family" or "BOMB!!" in an airport without going through some type of trial and serving some tyoe of sentence.

             Voltaire believed  in freedom of speech and said that "I may not agree with what you say, but i will defend  to the death your right to say it". The first amendment in the Constitution was written to protect the rights of freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, and freedom of religion. If there are consequences to freedom of speech, then are the authorities contridicting the Constitution? Federal Government has found a way to restrain freedom of speech with getting the attention of many other people in authority. The First Amendment was created to protect human rights such as freedom of speech and more laws are being made that are sloely taking that right away.
          
            One main preticular reason freedom of speech is limited is because humans can be offending. Total freedom of speech provides humans to disregard anyone they want to and get away with it. Total freedom of speech can lead to the banning of laws because then people can say anything they want to say and won't be legally able to get punished for it. Total freedom of speech can lead to chaos. Is the Federal Government right for putting a restain on speech, which Virginia, New York, and North Carolina where trying to prevent from happening when the First Amendment was made?

Sarah Palin and Freedom Of Speech

Source: "Sarah Palin gets in dustup with teacher" August 9, 2010
             http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/40821.html


Constitutional Connection

The First Amendment   "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."


Analysis of the Connection

              One of many of our founding fathers Voltaire believed in and pressed the right of freedom of speech. Now we have it as a right in the United States today.Voltaire's most famous quotes is "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". The First Amendment was created with the help of the New York, Virginia, Rhode Island, and North Carolina who all requested that amendments concerning freedom of religion, freedom of press, freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. These states requested this to restrain federal government of using powers that weren't givin to them. 



    In this article, Sarah Palin former governer  of Alaska, is arriving in Homer, Alaska where her new show on TLC is going to take place. A teacher named Kathleen Gustafson greets her with a sign saying "Worst Governer Ever". In America people have freedom of speech where they can say whatever they want to say, but there are penalties and consequences if you say it to the wrong person. After seeing this totally disrespectful sign, Sarah Palin decides that she will have a stroll on over to Ms. Gustafson and have a little chat with her.

                 Ms. Gustafson starts off by making the statement that "You swore on your precious Bible that you would uphold the interests of this state, and then when the cash is waved in front of your face you quit". "Whats up". Sarah Palin is no longer governer of Alaska and quit that job because she got offered a job to hav a show/ documentary about Alaska and her trying to help people in America. Sarah Palin replied that she is no longer governer and is free to be out there fighting for Americans to be able to have a Constitution protected so that we can have free speech. Sarah Palin stated that she has been working to “elect candidates who understand the Constitution [and will] protect our military interests so that we can keep on fighting for our Constitution that will protect some of the freedoms that evidently are important to Americans and citizens of Alaska. Butting in to the conversation, Sarah Palin's daughter Bristol made the statement that her mother is not representing just Alaska any more but also the United States. Ms. Gustafson said that yes she understands that Mrs. Palin belongs to America now.
             
              By the end of this long confrontation Palin finally decides to ask what Gustafson does in Alaska. Gustafson says that she is a teacher and that her husban is a commercial fisherman jus like her husband, Palin tries to bond with Gustafson. Palin came to the conclusion that they both believe in the freedom of speech and the protection of it.

             I believe that if it wasnt for Palin trying to find a connection by the end of this confrontation it only would have gotten uglier. Neither women were going to back down from what they believe in and both had very different opinions. Freedom of speech is very important and opinions are very much implied in America.