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.