The United States Constitution, The Bill of Rights, The Tenth Amendment
"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."
Archibold, Randal. "Arizona Enacts Stringent Law on Immigration." New York Times. 23 Apr. 2010. Web. 18 May 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us/politics/24immig.html
Unlike the others though the Tenth Amendment is about Federalism and how information not specified by the constitution is up to the state and the people. This is important because it allows for some sort of freedom as a opposed to one government that is in charge of all and controls all aspects of said society. This was an important point that the founding fathers tried to emphasize and is important because not only is it democratic it is independent. The Tenth Amendment is important because in the Bill of Rights where mostly all are about the rights of the people the Tenth Amendment brings something new that does relate to rights of the accused.
The article is about a recent legislation passed in Arizona that is the topic of many debates and it is about an immigration law which would require citizens to have legal documentation at all times and allow for police officers to serve as immigration officers, the name of this legislation is SB 1070. Although alot of speculation surrounded this subject it was passed in April 23, 2010 and is said to be put into action at the start of August. According to the Arizona Ms. Brewer who said that laws like the ones stated above are important because they help regulate immigration, because immigration is illegal and should be stopped and if the Federal Government will not it is the job of the State Government and People to try to do something. This shows that the constitution is living because the founding fathers belived that there should be a certain level of independence that states have and they should have the right to excersice their power.
Well seeing as how I have already expressed my views of immigration I shall talk about how I feel specifically just about the law. Well I think that the law is ridiculous but no matter how ridiculous is it can be passed becaue the states have the right to make legislation for what the Federal Government has not. I do not believe in this law because it tends to fall toward racial profiling and that is unethical and immoral because that means that all people would have to carry something extra that they should not because of the immigration dilenma that has engulfed the nation.
The Judicial Branch- State Jurisdiction
The United States Constitution, Third Article, Section Two, State Jurisdiction
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."
Nelson, Gabriel. "Supreme Court to Consider Revisiting 1922 Great Lakes Water Diversion Case." New York Times. 22 Apr. 2010. Web. 09 May 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/04/22/22greenwire-supreme-court-to-consider-revisiting-1922-grea-60249.html
The Third Article of the United States Constitution establishes the Judicial Branch, and more importantly the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is the highest Judicial body and is the leader of said government branch. The Third Article is important because it instills a level of authority that oversees a whole country and has come over some very important cases through its history. The Justices are usually nominated by the President then accepted or rejected with the consent of the United States Senate.
This article relates to a problem in the Great Lakes and surrounding areas, it is about how some states are worried about how Illinois is making itself the state in charge of Lake Michigan when there are other states that have direct connection with Lake Michigan. Many of the states are worried about how Illinois is treating said Lake and they are also worried about the Asian Carp population and how this will affect the natural wild life of the Lake's Habitat and how other invasive species might come to invade. This is going to be taken to the Supreme Court and be tried under one of the Supreme Court's responsibilities which is State Jurisdiction, or basically problems between states. This shows that the constitution is living and in action because the Supreme Court is the high judicial body as outlined by the Constituion and the State Jurisdiction cases still fall to the Supreme Court.
I think this is a very important issue becuause us Chicagoans primary water source is Lake Michigan and if we destroy the natural habitat or disturb the process that it has now there might be crticical effects in the future such as an impact to the fishing industry, which it states to the article. I think that we should be responsible for what we create and not just take the easy way out to avoid years of difficult recovery. I think that if we take care of Lake Michigan and surrounding water ways and Lakes it will have a generally positive result.
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."
Nelson, Gabriel. "Supreme Court to Consider Revisiting 1922 Great Lakes Water Diversion Case." New York Times. 22 Apr. 2010. Web. 09 May 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/04/22/22greenwire-supreme-court-to-consider-revisiting-1922-grea-60249.html
The Third Article of the United States Constitution establishes the Judicial Branch, and more importantly the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is the highest Judicial body and is the leader of said government branch. The Third Article is important because it instills a level of authority that oversees a whole country and has come over some very important cases through its history. The Justices are usually nominated by the President then accepted or rejected with the consent of the United States Senate.
This article relates to a problem in the Great Lakes and surrounding areas, it is about how some states are worried about how Illinois is making itself the state in charge of Lake Michigan when there are other states that have direct connection with Lake Michigan. Many of the states are worried about how Illinois is treating said Lake and they are also worried about the Asian Carp population and how this will affect the natural wild life of the Lake's Habitat and how other invasive species might come to invade. This is going to be taken to the Supreme Court and be tried under one of the Supreme Court's responsibilities which is State Jurisdiction, or basically problems between states. This shows that the constitution is living and in action because the Supreme Court is the high judicial body as outlined by the Constituion and the State Jurisdiction cases still fall to the Supreme Court.
I think this is a very important issue becuause us Chicagoans primary water source is Lake Michigan and if we destroy the natural habitat or disturb the process that it has now there might be crticical effects in the future such as an impact to the fishing industry, which it states to the article. I think that we should be responsible for what we create and not just take the easy way out to avoid years of difficult recovery. I think that if we take care of Lake Michigan and surrounding water ways and Lakes it will have a generally positive result.
The Legislative Branch- From Bills to Laws
The United States Congress, Article One, Section Seven, Clause Two- Bills and Laws
"Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approves, he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law."
"Senate Nod to Fed Audit Is Expected." Financial News USA (press Release). 8 May 2010. Web. 9 May 2010. http://www.financialnewsusa.com/finance/archives/15066-senate-nod-to-fed-audit-is-expected-
The First Article of the United States Constitution is possibly on of the most important articles because it establishes a Legislative Branch which is elected by the people, as a form of representation and they make laws or decide to reject other legislation. It is important because it gives United States Citizens a feeling of being heard and a means of representation, which many can thank the British for. Aside from that remark though, the First Article is important because it is not just about one person, like the second article, it talks about the Bicameral System and the specific duties of the parties and how they are elected and their privileges as legislators. Among those duties and privileges there is always debate about new legislation and if each member of each house agrees to it or not.
This article talks about legislation that deteriorated after discussion in the Senate. It is about a new legislation that would separate larger banks as a means of monitoring and possibly restricting the size of financial institutions. Many of the worries stated were of the economy at the time and the recession which many think is over but people still need to be cautious about. It talks about the bailouts and how even now after many experts say the economy has gotten better financial giants are still asking for government funds. In this article we see the United States Senate using their abilities to decide on a critical issue at this time and that decided not to continue will the bill that has many unexplained pros and cons. This shows that the constitution is living and in action because the processes that were used for legislation are still used today no matter how negligent the legislation may be.
I think that they should split the larger financial institutions up because it leaves for a smaller margin of fail, for example would I rather have a small corner store go out of business or the whole Wallmart chain. I know that example was a bit extreme but with the amount of money that these financial institutions owe the United States Tax Payers they should no longer have a voice and infact fired because of their terrible business skills. To be quite honest also are about 60% of those companies, in theory, owned by tax payers so people should voice their opinions to their representatives.
"Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approves, he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law."
"Senate Nod to Fed Audit Is Expected." Financial News USA (press Release). 8 May 2010. Web. 9 May 2010. http://www.financialnewsusa.com/finance/archives/15066-senate-nod-to-fed-audit-is-expected-
The First Article of the United States Constitution is possibly on of the most important articles because it establishes a Legislative Branch which is elected by the people, as a form of representation and they make laws or decide to reject other legislation. It is important because it gives United States Citizens a feeling of being heard and a means of representation, which many can thank the British for. Aside from that remark though, the First Article is important because it is not just about one person, like the second article, it talks about the Bicameral System and the specific duties of the parties and how they are elected and their privileges as legislators. Among those duties and privileges there is always debate about new legislation and if each member of each house agrees to it or not.
This article talks about legislation that deteriorated after discussion in the Senate. It is about a new legislation that would separate larger banks as a means of monitoring and possibly restricting the size of financial institutions. Many of the worries stated were of the economy at the time and the recession which many think is over but people still need to be cautious about. It talks about the bailouts and how even now after many experts say the economy has gotten better financial giants are still asking for government funds. In this article we see the United States Senate using their abilities to decide on a critical issue at this time and that decided not to continue will the bill that has many unexplained pros and cons. This shows that the constitution is living and in action because the processes that were used for legislation are still used today no matter how negligent the legislation may be.
I think that they should split the larger financial institutions up because it leaves for a smaller margin of fail, for example would I rather have a small corner store go out of business or the whole Wallmart chain. I know that example was a bit extreme but with the amount of money that these financial institutions owe the United States Tax Payers they should no longer have a voice and infact fired because of their terrible business skills. To be quite honest also are about 60% of those companies, in theory, owned by tax payers so people should voice their opinions to their representatives.
The Executive Branch- Presidential Appointments
The United States Constitution, The Articles of Confederation, Article Two, Section 2, Clause 2, Sub-Clause 2- Presidential Appointments
"...and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States..."
Baker, Peter. "Obama Picks Kagan as Justice Nominee." New York Times. 9 May 2010. Web. 9 May 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/us/politics/10court.html
The Second Article of the United States Constitution, like the First and Third outline the specifics about the jobs of the United States Executive Branch, Judicial Branch, and Legislative Branch. The Second Article although it is supposed to be about the Executive Branch seems to speak of only the President. The President and his duties, his responsibilities, his job outlines and so on and so forth. The Executive Branch is an important one because although the president never directly executes anyone there is a fine bureaucratic system, at play that is larger than most of the people in it, which he in theory leads. The Executive Branch is also important because it helps to jeep the checks and balances system as is shown here, where the Legislative Branch can impeach the President where he would be tried by the Supreme Court and [insert scenario here], but on the other side of those checks (and possibly balances) is a President that Appoints officials into the Supreme Court and can Veto Bills if he pleases.
This article talks about the recent talks about President Barack Obama and how he has nominated someone for the Supreme Court using his Constitutional Power to Appoint Officials and Dignitaries and so on and so forth, although he is not appointing more like nominating. For the momentous occasion which many call the retiring of soon to be retired Justice John Paul Stevens President Barack Obama has keenly chosen Elana Kagan to take his place. Although many make the argument that she is terribly ill-prepared for the task of being a Supreme Court Justice, she and the President think that she is suited fairly well for that job seeing as she can bring relative youth to the Supreme Court. This shows that the constitution is living and in action because it is clearly shown that the president is cleary assuming all of his presidential duties and using his privilages as written in the constitution.
I do not really care much about the subject and I will state why, I do not care much because chances are whatever happens is going to happen. She could either be appointed or not and in my mind there is really no big deal. Although she could have some pull regarding future legislation I think this is just a glorified publicity stunt because that news networks hope go terribly wrong to judge either President Barack Obama or Elena Kagan on bad decisions and and bad legislation that nine out of ten times will have to do nothing with the subject at hand. I also do not care much for it because although I am a citizen that is a choice that I do not get to make, unless I am the President, which would make my mother awfully happy, but I highly doubt. So why should I care about something that in theory I have no voice in?
"...and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States..."
Baker, Peter. "Obama Picks Kagan as Justice Nominee." New York Times. 9 May 2010. Web. 9 May 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/us/politics/10court.html
The Second Article of the United States Constitution, like the First and Third outline the specifics about the jobs of the United States Executive Branch, Judicial Branch, and Legislative Branch. The Second Article although it is supposed to be about the Executive Branch seems to speak of only the President. The President and his duties, his responsibilities, his job outlines and so on and so forth. The Executive Branch is an important one because although the president never directly executes anyone there is a fine bureaucratic system, at play that is larger than most of the people in it, which he in theory leads. The Executive Branch is also important because it helps to jeep the checks and balances system as is shown here, where the Legislative Branch can impeach the President where he would be tried by the Supreme Court and [insert scenario here], but on the other side of those checks (and possibly balances) is a President that Appoints officials into the Supreme Court and can Veto Bills if he pleases.
This article talks about the recent talks about President Barack Obama and how he has nominated someone for the Supreme Court using his Constitutional Power to Appoint Officials and Dignitaries and so on and so forth, although he is not appointing more like nominating. For the momentous occasion which many call the retiring of soon to be retired Justice John Paul Stevens President Barack Obama has keenly chosen Elana Kagan to take his place. Although many make the argument that she is terribly ill-prepared for the task of being a Supreme Court Justice, she and the President think that she is suited fairly well for that job seeing as she can bring relative youth to the Supreme Court. This shows that the constitution is living and in action because it is clearly shown that the president is cleary assuming all of his presidential duties and using his privilages as written in the constitution.
I do not really care much about the subject and I will state why, I do not care much because chances are whatever happens is going to happen. She could either be appointed or not and in my mind there is really no big deal. Although she could have some pull regarding future legislation I think this is just a glorified publicity stunt because that news networks hope go terribly wrong to judge either President Barack Obama or Elena Kagan on bad decisions and and bad legislation that nine out of ten times will have to do nothing with the subject at hand. I also do not care much for it because although I am a citizen that is a choice that I do not get to make, unless I am the President, which would make my mother awfully happy, but I highly doubt. So why should I care about something that in theory I have no voice in?
The First Amendment- Freedom of Assembly
The United States, Bill of Rights, The First Amendment "...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble..."
Preston, Julia. "Immigration Advocates Rally for Change." New York Times. New York Times Corporation, 1 May 2010. Web. 07 May 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/02/us/02immig.html?src=mv
The Freedom Assembly in the First Amendment is important it allows for people to safely assemble and does not allow congress to make any law impeding said freedom from the citizens. The Freedom of Assembly is a very important freedom along with the Freedom of Petition because it allows for somewhat of a rebellion that cannot and should not be contained by government. Not rebellion in the armed rebellion sense but, rebellion as in peaceful ways that express the feelings of what a person or group is feeling about any situation that arises.
The article is about the Immigrant Reform Marches that took place on May 1st, 2010. On May 1st all over the United States there was many marches over the legislation that took place on April 23rd in Arizona where laws that are basically racial profiling stated taking effect. This lead to many marches all over the United States asking for immigrant reforms as well as asking for some sort of law that goes against this law because many think that it is unusually unlawful and it is racist. This shows that the constitution is living and in action because if not than these immmigrant reform marches and protests would be unable to happen.
On the subject of immigration I have many different opinions that sometimes contradict each other but for one I think that the law that took effect in Arizona is unlawful and against what this nation is about. I do not think that racial profiling is appropriate and to be quite honest no different than how Hitler racially profiled the Jews in the 1930s and early 1940s. Although I do not believe in the law approved in Arizona I am not fond of illegal immigration, I am not fond because it is illegal and immigrants although they contribute to the economy do not pay income taxes yet use many benefits and sometimes take advantage of benefits for tax paying citizens of the United States. Although I do not agree upon immigration I am not anti-immigrant because my parents at one or another were illegal citizens. The founding fathers strongly believed in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but illegal immigration is wrong, so should people look down upon what Arizona has done?
Preston, Julia. "Immigration Advocates Rally for Change." New York Times. New York Times Corporation, 1 May 2010. Web. 07 May 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/02/us/02immig.html?src=mv
The Freedom Assembly in the First Amendment is important it allows for people to safely assemble and does not allow congress to make any law impeding said freedom from the citizens. The Freedom of Assembly is a very important freedom along with the Freedom of Petition because it allows for somewhat of a rebellion that cannot and should not be contained by government. Not rebellion in the armed rebellion sense but, rebellion as in peaceful ways that express the feelings of what a person or group is feeling about any situation that arises.
The article is about the Immigrant Reform Marches that took place on May 1st, 2010. On May 1st all over the United States there was many marches over the legislation that took place on April 23rd in Arizona where laws that are basically racial profiling stated taking effect. This lead to many marches all over the United States asking for immigrant reforms as well as asking for some sort of law that goes against this law because many think that it is unusually unlawful and it is racist. This shows that the constitution is living and in action because if not than these immmigrant reform marches and protests would be unable to happen.
On the subject of immigration I have many different opinions that sometimes contradict each other but for one I think that the law that took effect in Arizona is unlawful and against what this nation is about. I do not think that racial profiling is appropriate and to be quite honest no different than how Hitler racially profiled the Jews in the 1930s and early 1940s. Although I do not believe in the law approved in Arizona I am not fond of illegal immigration, I am not fond because it is illegal and immigrants although they contribute to the economy do not pay income taxes yet use many benefits and sometimes take advantage of benefits for tax paying citizens of the United States. Although I do not agree upon immigration I am not anti-immigrant because my parents at one or another were illegal citizens. The founding fathers strongly believed in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but illegal immigration is wrong, so should people look down upon what Arizona has done?
The First Amendment- Freedom of Speech
The United States Constitution, Bill of Rights, 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..."
Gentile, Carmen. "Student Suspended for Facebook Page Can Sue." New York Times. New York Times Corporation, 15 Jan. 2010. Web. 8 May 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/education/16student.html
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits making any law that impedes the freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of petition, and the freedom of assembly. The First Amendment was quickly established after the United States Constitution was ratified because there were elements that the founding fathers really cared much about. The Freedom of Speech is not really what people perceive it to be because the Freedom of Speech in the First Amendment only says that congress should make no law impeding the Freedom of Speech as oppose to giving the citizens Freedom of Speech.
The article "Student Suspended for Facebook Page Can Sue" is about a now college student who can sue after she was wrongfully suspended, yes I am being sarcastic, after she cyber-bullied a teacher via Facebook and was suspended when she was in high school in 2007. She is suing her old principle after the judge agreed that she can continue with her lawsuit because allowing not to sue would infringe the student, Katherine Evans, First Amendment right to Freedom of Speech. She is suing so that the take the suspension from her permanent record, the scandal came to light in 2007 when Ms. Evans created a Facebook page stating that her teacher was the worst she had ever had and about two months later was suspended for creating the page. This shows that the constitution is living and in action because no matter how ridiculous or insulting something may be the Freedom of Speech protects all and their rights.
Well I think that the whole lawsuit is ridiculous, and shows some flaws of the Constitution. It shows that anyone for such little reason can make such a large ridiculous problem about something negligible. Although neglecting Ms. Evans of her Freedom of Speech would infringe upon her rights there should also be discipline and respect for teachers and authorities and that there should be consequences. There should be consequences because without that people can be disrespectful and without discipline will lead to future patterns in behavior that one day might end in a fight. Should respect for others triumph and be above the rights of others?
Gentile, Carmen. "Student Suspended for Facebook Page Can Sue." New York Times. New York Times Corporation, 15 Jan. 2010. Web. 8 May 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/education/16student.html
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits making any law that impedes the freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of petition, and the freedom of assembly. The First Amendment was quickly established after the United States Constitution was ratified because there were elements that the founding fathers really cared much about. The Freedom of Speech is not really what people perceive it to be because the Freedom of Speech in the First Amendment only says that congress should make no law impeding the Freedom of Speech as oppose to giving the citizens Freedom of Speech.
The article "Student Suspended for Facebook Page Can Sue" is about a now college student who can sue after she was wrongfully suspended, yes I am being sarcastic, after she cyber-bullied a teacher via Facebook and was suspended when she was in high school in 2007. She is suing her old principle after the judge agreed that she can continue with her lawsuit because allowing not to sue would infringe the student, Katherine Evans, First Amendment right to Freedom of Speech. She is suing so that the take the suspension from her permanent record, the scandal came to light in 2007 when Ms. Evans created a Facebook page stating that her teacher was the worst she had ever had and about two months later was suspended for creating the page. This shows that the constitution is living and in action because no matter how ridiculous or insulting something may be the Freedom of Speech protects all and their rights.
Well I think that the whole lawsuit is ridiculous, and shows some flaws of the Constitution. It shows that anyone for such little reason can make such a large ridiculous problem about something negligible. Although neglecting Ms. Evans of her Freedom of Speech would infringe upon her rights there should also be discipline and respect for teachers and authorities and that there should be consequences. There should be consequences because without that people can be disrespectful and without discipline will lead to future patterns in behavior that one day might end in a fight. Should respect for others triumph and be above the rights of others?
The Fifth Amendment- The Refusal to Testify in a Criminal Case
The United States Constitution, The Bill of Rights, The Fifth Amendment, "...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..."
Lorber, Janie. "Uninvited White House Guests Take the Fifth at Hearing." New York Times [New York] 21 Jan. 2010, New York ed.: A24. New York Times. New York Times Company, 20 Jan. 2010. Web. 6 May 2010.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/us/politics/21crasher.html
The Fifth Amendment in the Bill of Rights of the United States allows for protection from government authority during the legal process. The Fifth Amendment covers a wide spectrum of legal protections from legal procedures and Refusal to Testify in a Criminal Case is one those. The Refusal to Testify in a Criminal Case is when the government cannot punish a criminal for exercising his right to silence. This is seen very often usually in Television shows where the criminal usually says, "I plead the Fifth" excising his right to silence.
In the article "Uninvited White House Guests Take the Fifth at Hearing" by Janie Lorber, it recounts the events of a court hearing that took place on January 20, 2010. On November 24 of the previous year, a couple was accused allegedly sneaking into the White House for the First State Diner although they were not invited to attend. In the court hearing the couple, Michaele and Tareq Salahi, freely used their Fifth Amendment right when asked to recall the events of that night on November 24. Although many thought that, their events were immoral and that the Fifth Amendment did not apply when taking about the safety of the President their rights were not denied. This shows that the constituion is still living and in action because even though there are some tough situations the constitution is protecting everyone with no discrimination or law takes opposes or strips the rights of said people.
In my opinion, this article is bittersweet. It is bittersweet because it perfectly shows how the Constitution was set up to be, yet the people in the article used it as an advantage and as a slap to the face to the government. I say this because no one can do anything in this situation because it is unconstitutional to strip someone of their rights, rights that the founding fathers had a difficult time trying to achieve. I think that this article is important because it shows how sometimes the Constitution was not set up to foretell future situations and it is important because the safety of the President and other important officials is now at hand. If people are getting smarter and using the Constitution to connive is it unconstitutional to strip them of their constitutional rights?
Lorber, Janie. "Uninvited White House Guests Take the Fifth at Hearing." New York Times [New York] 21 Jan. 2010, New York ed.: A24. New York Times. New York Times Company, 20 Jan. 2010. Web. 6 May 2010.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/us/politics/21crasher.html
The Fifth Amendment in the Bill of Rights of the United States allows for protection from government authority during the legal process. The Fifth Amendment covers a wide spectrum of legal protections from legal procedures and Refusal to Testify in a Criminal Case is one those. The Refusal to Testify in a Criminal Case is when the government cannot punish a criminal for exercising his right to silence. This is seen very often usually in Television shows where the criminal usually says, "I plead the Fifth" excising his right to silence.
In the article "Uninvited White House Guests Take the Fifth at Hearing" by Janie Lorber, it recounts the events of a court hearing that took place on January 20, 2010. On November 24 of the previous year, a couple was accused allegedly sneaking into the White House for the First State Diner although they were not invited to attend. In the court hearing the couple, Michaele and Tareq Salahi, freely used their Fifth Amendment right when asked to recall the events of that night on November 24. Although many thought that, their events were immoral and that the Fifth Amendment did not apply when taking about the safety of the President their rights were not denied. This shows that the constituion is still living and in action because even though there are some tough situations the constitution is protecting everyone with no discrimination or law takes opposes or strips the rights of said people.
In my opinion, this article is bittersweet. It is bittersweet because it perfectly shows how the Constitution was set up to be, yet the people in the article used it as an advantage and as a slap to the face to the government. I say this because no one can do anything in this situation because it is unconstitutional to strip someone of their rights, rights that the founding fathers had a difficult time trying to achieve. I think that this article is important because it shows how sometimes the Constitution was not set up to foretell future situations and it is important because the safety of the President and other important officials is now at hand. If people are getting smarter and using the Constitution to connive is it unconstitutional to strip them of their constitutional rights?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)