1) Source:
Supreme Court Roundup; Justices Will Hear a Property Rights Case Contesting the Limits of Eminent Domain
September 16, 2010
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9903E5DB1438F93AA1575AC0A9629C8B63&scp=4&sq=private%20property%20be%20taken%20for%20public%20use,%20without%20just%20compensation.&st=cse
2) Constitutional Connection:
Amendment 5: "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."
3) Explanation for Connection:
In this article, New London in Connecticut sold property to a private developer to build a small neighborhood. But, the people who previously lived on the property that the city sold, rejected the compensation that the city offered them and filed a lawsuit so that their homes aren't wrecked for this project. This case has been brought up to the Supreme Court. Many people argue that people should keep their land if they don't accept the city's compensation and that everyone should voluntarily accept the compensation. Diana Berliner, who is a senor attorney with the Institute of justice, says, "The framers put 'public use' in the Constitution for a reason. A private corporation making a profit is not a public use". The city of New London argues, "the economic revitalization of New London is a valid public use,". They believe that selling the property so that a neighborhood of small homes and offices for research and development will help the economy.
This article clearly demonstrates the 5th amendment because the fourth amendment says that private property cant be taken without fair compensation. The city of New London is trying to sell private property, but the land owners don't believe that they are receiving just compensation, so they refuse to give up their land. This causes a debate because the 5th amendment doesn't specify if the land owner has to agree with the just compensation. But, the amendment does say that we cant be deprived of property without due process of law.
I think that the land owners should have the right to decide whether or not they agree to the compensation being offered to them, after all, it is their property that they paid for. If the 5th amendment hadn't been created, the government could just claim our property that we worked hard for, and use it for their own purposes. If the city of New London is allowed to do this, then in my personal opinion, they are violating the 5th amendment. The city shouldn't just be able to take our property because they believe that they are giving us just compensation. If they do, then the people have no say in what their houses and land are worth.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Entry7- Amendment 4
1) Source:
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)
September 16, 2010
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/f/foreign_intelligence_surveillance_act_fisa/index.html?scp=5&sq=search%20without%20warrant&st=cse
2) Constitutional Connection:
Amendment 4:
"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."
3) Explanation for Connection :
There was an act created in 1978 called the Foreign Agency Surveillance Act (FISA). This act was created to keep the surveillance of people in the U.S. in check and make sure it was being used properly. There was also a special court called the FISA court. They were in charge of hearing the requested warrants for surveillance, such wire tapping and eavesdropping, and allowing these warrants if they thought they were necessary. After 9/11, “Bush ordered an expanded program of surveillance by the National Security Agency", and he did so without the consent of FISA. This is an example of an executive order. Essentially, the government was using warrantless wiretaps. In 2008, some of the things that this program was doing were legalized, and Obama now relies on them in the war against the Al Qaeda. On March 31, 2010, it was ruled that the program was illegal.
This is related with the 4th amendment because it protects our "persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" unless a warrant is issued. What Bush did, authorizing surveillance of the people in the U.S. without a warrant from FISA was illegal. They were searching people for illegal activity without the permission to do so. FISA was created as a form of checks and balances. They were supposed to make sure that the government didn't abuse surveillance, such as wire tapping. But, if Bush uses his executive order to bypass was set forth as the law, he is violating the 4th amendment.
I think that the federal judge was right to rule the National Security Agency's Program was illegal. It was obviously in violation of the 4th amendment. If laws aren't followed, especially if not by the government who created them, then there is no purpose to them. Under no circumstances should laws be broken. I can’t imagine what it would be like if the 4th amendment wasn't created. We would have no hold over our possessions and they could be confiscated without reason.
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)
September 16, 2010
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/f/foreign_intelligence_surveillance_act_fisa/index.html?scp=5&sq=search%20without%20warrant&st=cse
2) Constitutional Connection:
Amendment 4:
"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."
3) Explanation for Connection :
There was an act created in 1978 called the Foreign Agency Surveillance Act (FISA). This act was created to keep the surveillance of people in the U.S. in check and make sure it was being used properly. There was also a special court called the FISA court. They were in charge of hearing the requested warrants for surveillance, such wire tapping and eavesdropping, and allowing these warrants if they thought they were necessary. After 9/11, “Bush ordered an expanded program of surveillance by the National Security Agency", and he did so without the consent of FISA. This is an example of an executive order. Essentially, the government was using warrantless wiretaps. In 2008, some of the things that this program was doing were legalized, and Obama now relies on them in the war against the Al Qaeda. On March 31, 2010, it was ruled that the program was illegal.
This is related with the 4th amendment because it protects our "persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" unless a warrant is issued. What Bush did, authorizing surveillance of the people in the U.S. without a warrant from FISA was illegal. They were searching people for illegal activity without the permission to do so. FISA was created as a form of checks and balances. They were supposed to make sure that the government didn't abuse surveillance, such as wire tapping. But, if Bush uses his executive order to bypass was set forth as the law, he is violating the 4th amendment.
I think that the federal judge was right to rule the National Security Agency's Program was illegal. It was obviously in violation of the 4th amendment. If laws aren't followed, especially if not by the government who created them, then there is no purpose to them. Under no circumstances should laws be broken. I can’t imagine what it would be like if the 4th amendment wasn't created. We would have no hold over our possessions and they could be confiscated without reason.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Entry 6- Ammendment 10
1) Source:
Illinois parental notification law goes into effect on Tuesday.
September 14, 2010.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-11-02/news/0911010332_1_parental-notification-notification-law-parental-consent
2) Constitutional Connection:
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."
3) Explanation for Connection:
Illinois has passed a law that if any girl under the age of eighteen is going to have an abortion, then a physician must notify the parent. Some people argue that this new law might make girls rely on unsafe procedures so that their parents don't find out. Others argue that this might decrease abortion. This law is an altered, fixed version of a law that was created on 1995. This law just requires that parents are notified, but their consent isn't needed.
The tenth Amendment gives the state power to make its own laws on subjects that aren't mentioned in the Constitution. Abortion and laws applying to it aren't mentioned in the constitution. Therefore, each state can create its own laws regarding abortion and its restrictions. This law was created by the state of Illinois. This is an example of federalism at the state level because they have the sole power of making their own laws of abortion without the interference. That is unless, of course, their law contradicts the constitution in any manner.
In my own opinion, I believe that it is appropriate that the states can create their own laws. The state court is able to make laws that specifically apply to their citizens because they are able to understand the problems within their own states better than the Supreme Court. When the Supreme Court makes laws regarding all states they tend to be more general. As if it were a compromise of all the states needs bunched up into one law. Just like this abortion law- it was purposefully created for Illinois. They know that many people take advantage of the tolerance for abortion and their lack of laws regarding it, so they imposed this law.
Illinois parental notification law goes into effect on Tuesday.
September 14, 2010.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-11-02/news/0911010332_1_parental-notification-notification-law-parental-consent
2) Constitutional Connection:
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."
3) Explanation for Connection:
Illinois has passed a law that if any girl under the age of eighteen is going to have an abortion, then a physician must notify the parent. Some people argue that this new law might make girls rely on unsafe procedures so that their parents don't find out. Others argue that this might decrease abortion. This law is an altered, fixed version of a law that was created on 1995. This law just requires that parents are notified, but their consent isn't needed.
The tenth Amendment gives the state power to make its own laws on subjects that aren't mentioned in the Constitution. Abortion and laws applying to it aren't mentioned in the constitution. Therefore, each state can create its own laws regarding abortion and its restrictions. This law was created by the state of Illinois. This is an example of federalism at the state level because they have the sole power of making their own laws of abortion without the interference. That is unless, of course, their law contradicts the constitution in any manner.
In my own opinion, I believe that it is appropriate that the states can create their own laws. The state court is able to make laws that specifically apply to their citizens because they are able to understand the problems within their own states better than the Supreme Court. When the Supreme Court makes laws regarding all states they tend to be more general. As if it were a compromise of all the states needs bunched up into one law. Just like this abortion law- it was purposefully created for Illinois. They know that many people take advantage of the tolerance for abortion and their lack of laws regarding it, so they imposed this law.
Entry 5- Ammendment 2
1) Source:
Fighting for our rights to bear arms. September 14, 2010
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/03/18/fighting_for_our_right_to_bear_arms/
2) Constitutional Connection:
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."
3) Explanation for Connection:
Many argue that it is unconstitutional to ban fire arms. Especially, when there is a need for self defense. The 2nd amendment ensures that it is every man's right to own a handgun. There are quite a few people who wonder how a ban has been placed in many cities against firearms- such as Washington. Washington has placed a ban only on handguns, allowing people to own shotguns and rifle. However, it is required that these guns are kept unloaded, dissembled, or with a lock on the trigger. The state of Washington argues that they have not violated any part of the constitution. They say that they have not outlawed firearms entirely- just handguns.
The 2nd Amendment protects our rights to have firearms, but it doesn't specify what kind, or if any at all can be banned. If the constitution proclaims that it is the right of the people to carry firearms, the state of Washington shouldn't have the power to override that by banning any kind of firearm, even if it is not specified in the second amendment. If the executive branch cannot enforce this law, then it is not a law.
I agree on the idea that there should be qualifications and licenses required for owning firearms. In my opinion, you can’t just grant anyone a gun just because the 2nd amendment says it's a right. If anyone could get a gun and carry it around, crimes would dramatically increase. It is a right, but there should be some limitation to it. If this 2nd amendment wasn't created, many people would feel unsafe in their homes. Many people depend on firearms to feel a sense of security.
Fighting for our rights to bear arms. September 14, 2010
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/03/18/fighting_for_our_right_to_bear_arms/
2) Constitutional Connection:
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."
3) Explanation for Connection:
Many argue that it is unconstitutional to ban fire arms. Especially, when there is a need for self defense. The 2nd amendment ensures that it is every man's right to own a handgun. There are quite a few people who wonder how a ban has been placed in many cities against firearms- such as Washington. Washington has placed a ban only on handguns, allowing people to own shotguns and rifle. However, it is required that these guns are kept unloaded, dissembled, or with a lock on the trigger. The state of Washington argues that they have not violated any part of the constitution. They say that they have not outlawed firearms entirely- just handguns.
The 2nd Amendment protects our rights to have firearms, but it doesn't specify what kind, or if any at all can be banned. If the constitution proclaims that it is the right of the people to carry firearms, the state of Washington shouldn't have the power to override that by banning any kind of firearm, even if it is not specified in the second amendment. If the executive branch cannot enforce this law, then it is not a law.
I agree on the idea that there should be qualifications and licenses required for owning firearms. In my opinion, you can’t just grant anyone a gun just because the 2nd amendment says it's a right. If anyone could get a gun and carry it around, crimes would dramatically increase. It is a right, but there should be some limitation to it. If this 2nd amendment wasn't created, many people would feel unsafe in their homes. Many people depend on firearms to feel a sense of security.
Entry 4- Amendment 1
Obama tries to cool Sept. 11 passions over Islam.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42009.html
2) Constitutional Connection:
Amendment 1
“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."
3) Explanation of Connection:
The months following 9/11, I remember hearing on the news that many Muslims or even people who looked like Muslims where stopped, questioned, and searched just. All of this was done just because of their appearance. I don't think that should have been allowed. They were assuming that they could be a possible terrorist just because they appeared to be Muslims. This in a way is unconstitutional because they were holding every Muslim responsible for 9/11, and persecuted because of their beliefs. I could not imagine what the
Friday, September 10, 2010
Entry 3- Judicial Branch
1) Source:
September 10, 2010
2) Constitutional Connection:
Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2
-"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
3) Explanation of Connection:
This article is referring to the Supreme Court's decision to overturn the decision that the City of Chicago had made. They had made this law because of the substantial amount of violence in the city dealing with firearms.They had passed a law making the carrying of handguns illegal, but the Supreme Court asked them to revise this decision because it was unconstitutional. The author then goes on to argue that this law would have made it harder for residents to harm others because acquiring handguns would have been much harder.
This article demonstrates Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2. The judicial branch was given the right to overturn any laws, and also to handle affairs concerning the individual states.The Supreme Court ruled this law unconstitutional because it went against our rights to bear arms. This is an example of federal power of both the state level and the governmental level. Both the state court and the Supreme Court. Therefore, making laws is a concurrent power (quoted your article there Mr. Linderman). Even though the state passed the law, ultimately, if the supreme court wishes to overturn it, they can because it is within their power.
I think that the Supreme Court should have made an exception. The law would have really reduced the amount of violence in Chicago.There is a downside to the Supreme Court being able to overturn laws made by the State Court because the state understand the situations and the problems going on within the city of Chicago more than the Supreme Court does. But, I must also admit that the laws are unconstitutional, and that the judicial branch was given this power to make sure all laws are constitutional and fair.
Supreme Court's decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago usurps local control over public safety (Rep. Bobby L. Rush)
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/judicial/106089-supreme-courts-decision-in-mcdonald-v-city-of-chicago-usurps-local-control-over-public-safety-rep-bobby-l-rushSeptember 10, 2010
2) Constitutional Connection:
Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2
-"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
3) Explanation of Connection:
This article is referring to the Supreme Court's decision to overturn the decision that the City of Chicago had made. They had made this law because of the substantial amount of violence in the city dealing with firearms.They had passed a law making the carrying of handguns illegal, but the Supreme Court asked them to revise this decision because it was unconstitutional. The author then goes on to argue that this law would have made it harder for residents to harm others because acquiring handguns would have been much harder.
This article demonstrates Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2. The judicial branch was given the right to overturn any laws, and also to handle affairs concerning the individual states.The Supreme Court ruled this law unconstitutional because it went against our rights to bear arms. This is an example of federal power of both the state level and the governmental level. Both the state court and the Supreme Court. Therefore, making laws is a concurrent power (quoted your article there Mr. Linderman). Even though the state passed the law, ultimately, if the supreme court wishes to overturn it, they can because it is within their power.
I think that the Supreme Court should have made an exception. The law would have really reduced the amount of violence in Chicago.There is a downside to the Supreme Court being able to overturn laws made by the State Court because the state understand the situations and the problems going on within the city of Chicago more than the Supreme Court does. But, I must also admit that the laws are unconstitutional, and that the judicial branch was given this power to make sure all laws are constitutional and fair.
Entry 2- Executive Branch
1) Source:
Barack Obama Oath of Office / Sworn In - President Obama: The Inauguration - BBC New, September, 10 2010
2) Constitutional Connection:
Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8
-Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
3) Explanation of Connection:
This video shows Obama taking his oath in office, promising to preserve the constitution and complete his duties as much as possible for as long as he is president. The Inauguration used to be on March 4th, but under the twentieth amendment, the inauguration date was moved to January 20th. On this day, year 2009, Barack Obama was sworn into the office by The Chief Justice- John Roberts. The inauguration celebrations last ten days- from five days before it happens, to five days after.
This video demonstrates Article II, Section 1, Clause 8. Before the president can take his position at the office, he has to be sworn in by the Chief of Justice. This is to make sure that the president keeps his word and faithfully serves his term at office in an attempt to improve the well being of the United States citizens. This is also a legal thing, and probably for the media.
If the president wasn't sworn into the office, there would be no assurance to the people that the president would make an honest attempt to serve the country. This is like what is done in court- they make you swear an oath to be truthful, and if you don't, they could hold it against you. This procedure has been done since there was a first president. George Washington was sworn into office, and every president has done the same since then.I think that the Inauguration is mainly for the media. The president could just be sworn in anywhere of his choosing, but they do it while most of the nation is watching.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)