6th amendment

http://www.triblocal.com/Schaumburg/detail/212744.html
http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/08/schaumburg-man-living-in-front-yard-demands-jury-trial.html

Schaumburg man living in front yard demands jury trial(August 27, 2010)

This article was a man who wnated a trial by jury. He had a court ordered cleanup and was facing foreclosure threats. The village of schaumburg have already cleaned the mans yard twice so far. The clean up would cost the village 10,000 to 15,000 dollars. The house was condeemed and had to be unlocked for the man. The house is consdiered a healh hazard and should be cleaned for the saftey of others living in the village.

The amendment 6 states In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. The trial would take place two days from when the article was written. This shows the amendment in affect today because the man gets a trial by request and he has that right to request a trial. Also the trial is only two days after the man requested it which shows the speedy trial.

The man had the right to reuqest a trial I dont think it is such a good idea because the mans house is unsanitary and he will loose the trial. I think he is using it to stall time and this amendment can be used for reason such as that. The good side is that its a speedy trial so it will be over soon. Also anyone can request a trial but it cost too much money to carry out these orders.

8th Amendment

http://www.fox5sandiego.com/news/kswb-teens-torture-classmate-sentenced,0,1693.story
 2 girls sentenced for torturing romantic rival(September 16, 2010)

This article was about two tees girls that were convited for 17 years for toturing and stabbing another girl. The girls ages 15 years old were both tried as adults and pleaded guilty.They were charged with burgulary,attempted murder and tryng to dissuade a witness. The victim was a fellow 8th grade classmate who was only 14 years old.

Amendment 8 says :Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.   This article is about the amendmnet because the girls had a quick trial. They were tried as adults and had the fair trial where they pleaded guilty.The girls also got a sentence of 17 years and were tried as adults.

This amendment was very useful in the consitution because they allowed the girls to be treated like an adut. The punishment was justified because they did a crime that their state. the California penal code section 664/190 calls for a sentence of 10-25 years in prison and sometime on parole. The sentence was just and legal even though they wre under the age of 18.

5th amendment

Minn. court says hoisting pants not illegal search


This article was about a Minnesota police officer who was checking on a routine check and searched a man. The man when putting his hands up allowed chance to his pants that feel down. The officer picked them up but "found" a gun in the process. Conservers is over whether that counts as an illegal search or not.

Amendment 4 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. This article is related to this amendment because the amendment states no one can illegally search you. Within this article it has examples of it in use because the officer even though the man had a gun he was searched. Even if the officer was pulling up their pants he was in someway searching him.

I believe this amendment isn’t used enough today. The article showed an example of the amendment because the officer didn’t have the right to search him even though it wasn’t an actual search but the officer was touching him. He could have asked the young man to pull up his own pants and didn’t have to touch him. They could say it was an illegal search because the officer was touching him.
http://www.kcci.com/r/25019727/detail.html

4th Amendment

The carton shows the lawyer talking to the jury. The lawyer is laid back and seems to be just chatting with jury. He is saying how he wished he can show off but the defendant won’t speak for himself. The defendant’s expression is shocked but yet stern and determined.

Amendment five 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. The carton is related to the amendment because it shows the defendant is expressing his right not to speak. The defendant has that right because of this amendment because he has the right not to answer any questions he doesn’t want to.
I think that the amendment can be used to others advantage. It’s a good thing to have because sometimes when it comes to corruption the defendant has that right not to talk. I also think it can be used for others in bad ways like when they are guilty and they know they are guilty and they have that right not to talk.
　

1st amendment

Mosque debate becoming signal event for Islam in US ( August 30,2010)
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/08/30/mosque_debate_becoming_signal_event_for_islam_in_us/

The article was about how the Muslim religion today although not accepted in America it is respected. When some of the Muslims wanted to build a mosque (a Muslim place of worship that usually has a minaret) near the World trade center. This new idea has gotten a lot of controversy from all over. The article expresses their oppression and how they aren’t given the same rights as other religions. They wanted to build an after school center modeled after any YMCA or other club for their youth.

This article shows the 1st 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. This amendment is present in the article because the amendment states that the government has no right to prohibit or discriminate based on religion. This is why the government can’t tell them not to build the mosque and why they don’t prevent them from making it. Although aloft of people want the government to stop them it’s against the constitution so they can’t. The amendment shows how the government can’t prohibit or stop them from building something based on religion.

I believe that the constitution does apply to everyone’s religion and they have the right to express their religion. The government or congress allows them to build their mosque because it’s a right. I think this will help their culture become more known for a culture not for what is known for now. By building the mosque it will not only help Muslims feel more comfortable but they can keep their religion close and have a place to go. They can build it because they have to right to express their religion without any government interference.

10th amendment

This cartoon is titled "medicial marijuana smoking accessories" it depicts the woman giving the man marijuana and the next is a man with a bat hitting it out of his hand. This woman represents the state of california, while the man with the bat is Uncle Sam. Uncle Sam is usually the representation of America but in this cartoon he represents the federal governement.The woman or California state is holding a piece of paper that says" California vote to legalize marijuana use", America is holding the piece that says " federal NO-exception policies" This cartoon is about Californias new policy and how the federal government is reacting handling it.

This political cartoon shows Amendment 10 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. This is relevant to the amendment because it shows the powers given to the states by the constitution. The amendment says that the states have some own powers for their individual states. The artist was depicting how this amendment can be hard to deal with especially when in your state you can do something but than when you arent there its still illegal.

I think this cartoon is very interesting. It shows how some of the relationships between states and the federal government works. The cartoon depicts the California state government “passing” the citizen some marijuana while the federal government is knocking it out his hand. This allows a reader better understanding of the tenth amendment and how it doesn’t always work. I think its going to be hard for individual states to make laws that federal government can say arent appropriate and they would have more control.



  

2nd Amendment

Home intruder fatally shot by homeowner.( June 1,2010)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwvdNSnxc64&feature=related

This video was about an elderly man who when his home was being invaded shot the intruder.The family that lived there was being attacked by a man and needed to protect themselves. The man who was intoxicated had been dropped off by his friend randomly in front of the family’s house. This man was becoming violent and had an assault weapon. These cases happen all the time, even now the desperation for money is becoming higher nad more intense causing more things like this to happen.

Amendment 2: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. This amendment was shown in the video because Mr. Hoover had that right to protect himself. The right to bear arms means they have a right to have weapons used for purposes like this. As a civilian in America it’s a right to be allowed to protect you from any situation where you might be serverly hurt or end up being killed.

I think it’s a good amendment because without it Mr. Hoover wouldn’t have been able to protect himself or he would have been arrested for having a gun. I also think that this amendment isn’t such a great one. I think this, because if we didn’t have the right to bear arms the intruder wouldn’t have had a gun either. This whole situation would have been avoided without the use of a gun. No gun would be in use becaue it would be illegal to have them making it harder for everyday people to buy. This amendment can help protect everyday people but it also can give the attacker a weapon to use.