Source: "Supreme Court Declares Juvenile Death Penalty Unconstitutional"
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/jan-june05/death_3-02.html
From the Constitution
Article 3
Section 2
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.
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.
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
Connecting to the Constitution
In March of 2005 the Supreme Court declared juvenile death penalty unconstitutional. According to the article the Supreme Court believes that a lot of other things that have to do with the law are postponed to the age of 18, so the death penalty should be too. This connects to the constitution because the judicial is the only branch that can declare laws unconstitutional. This is apart of checks and balances.
Personally, I think if one is old enough to murder someone, then they're old enough to face the consequences. Doing something like that means you have mature intentions, so you should face what "mature" adults have to face. I think that the "child" should be held until of age, then given the death penalty.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
I Promised to Bring Troops Home!
Source: "Obama: ‘We have brought home more than 90,000 troops since I took office'"
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/08/obama-we-brought-home-90000-troops-iraq/
From the Constitution
Article 2
Section 2
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; 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, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
Connecting to the Constitution
When President Obama was elected into office he made an extreme impact on american history. In his inagural adress he promised to bring the troops in iraq home because it was time for the war to end. This article shows tha Obama sticked to his promise. According to the artcle Obama has brought home over 90,000 troops so far and he still isn't finished. This connects to the constitution because it has to do with the commander in all forces-- which is the president. He has the power to do what he wants with the troops, and right now he wants to bring them home.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/08/obama-we-brought-home-90000-troops-iraq/
From the Constitution
Article 2
Section 2
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; 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, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
Connecting to the Constitution
When President Obama was elected into office he made an extreme impact on american history. In his inagural adress he promised to bring the troops in iraq home because it was time for the war to end. This article shows tha Obama sticked to his promise. According to the artcle Obama has brought home over 90,000 troops so far and he still isn't finished. This connects to the constitution because it has to do with the commander in all forces-- which is the president. He has the power to do what he wants with the troops, and right now he wants to bring them home.
Health Care for Kids--VETOED
http://articles.cnn.com/2007-10-03/politics/bush.veto_1_veto-of-kids-health-schip-house-vote?_s=PM:POLITICS
From the Constitution
Article 1
Section 7
All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.
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 approve 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.
Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.
Connecting to the Constitution
This article was written in October of 2007 during George Bush's presidency. It was written to inform the public of Bush's decision to veto a bill proposed for health care for children. Many of the Democrats disagreed with Bush's decision. In order to override the presidents veto, many of the Democrats tried to get republicans to vote against the presidents veto in the rehearing of the bill. Nancy Pelosi -- the speaker of the house also tried to get the republicans vote. During the re-hearing of this bill the house of representatives got a 2/3 vote letting the bill go on to the Senate. Unfortunately the veto was not override because the senate vote 67 out of 100.
"I believe in private medicine, not the federal government running the health care system. I do want Republicans and Democrats to come together to support a bill that focuses on the poorer children," -- this is what President Bush said. I highly disagree with him. Why shouldn't the government try to help poorer children? Personally, I think the government should help poorer children because everyone needs health care. The world may never know, that child that died because Bush didn't help them could have came up with the cure for cancer, or the vaccine for aids.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Congress Messes Up Everything
From the Constitution
U.S. Constitution: Article I
Section 7. Legislative Process
Clause 1. Revenue Bills Section 7. Legislative Process
Insertion of this clause was another of the devices sanctioned by the Framers to preserve and enforce the separation of pow ers. 426 It applies, in the context of the permissibility of Senate amendments to a House-passed bill, to all bills for collecting revenue-- revenue decreasing as well as revenue increasing--rather than simply to just those bills that increase revenue. 427
Only bills to levy taxes in the strict sense of the word are comprehended by the phrase ''all bills for raising revenue;'' bills for other purposes, which incidentally create revenue, are not included. 428 Thus, a Senate-initiated bill that provided for a monetary ''special assessment'' to pay into a crime victims fund did not violate the clause, because it was a statute that created and raised revenue to support a particular governmental program and was not a law raising revenue to support Government generally. 429 An act providing a national currency secured by a pledge of bonds of the United States, which, ''in the furtherance of that object, and also to meet the expenses attending the execution of the act,'' imposed a tax on the circulating notes of national banks was held not to be a revenue measure which must originate in the House of Representatives. 430 Neither was a bill that provided that the District of Columbia should raise by taxation and pay to designated railroad companies a specified sum for the elimination of grade crossings and the construction of a railway station. 431 The substitution of a corporation tax for an inheritance tax, 432 and the addition of a section imposing an excise tax upon the use of foreign-built pleasure yachts, 433 have been held to be within the Senate's constitutional power to propose amendments.
U.S. Constitution: Article I
Clauses 11, 12, 13, and 14. War; Military Establishment
THE WAR POWER
Declaration of War
In the early draft of the Constitution presented to the Convention by its Committee of Detail, Congress was empowered ''to make war.''1412 Although there were solitary suggestions that the power should better be vested in the President alone,1413 in the Senate alone,1414 or in the President and the Senate,1415 the sentiment of the Convention, as best we can determine from the limited notes of the proceedings, was that the potentially momentous consequences of initiating armed hostilities should be called up only by the concurrence of the President and both Houses of Congress.1416 In contrast to the English system, the Framers did not want the wealth and blood of the Nation committed by the decision of a single individual;1417 in contrast to the Articles of Confederation, they did not wish to forego entirely the advantages of executive efficiency nor to entrust the matter solely to a branch so close to popular passions.1418
The result of these conflicting considerations was that the Convention amended the clause so as to give Congress the power to ''declare war.''1419 Although this change could be read to give Congress the mere formal function of recognizing a state of hostilities, in the context of the Convention proceedings it appears more likely the change was intended to insure that the President was empowered to repel sudden attacks1420 without awaiting congressional action and to make clear that the conduct of war was vested exclusively in the President.1421
An early controversy revolved about the issue of the President's powers and the necessity of congressional action when hostilities are initiated against us rather than the Nation instituting armed conflict. The Bey of Tripoli, in the course of attempting to extort payment for not molesting United States shipping, declared war upon the United States, and a debate began whether Congress had to enact a formal declaration of war to create a legal status of war. President Jefferson sent a squadron of frigates to the Mediterranean to protect our ships but limited its mission to defense in the narrowest sense of the term. Attacked by a Tripolitan cruiser, one of the frigates subdued it, disarmed it, and, pursuant to instructions, released it. Jefferson in a message to Congress announced his actions as in compliance with constitutional limitations on his authority in the absence of a declaration of war.1422 Hamilton espoused a different interpretation, contending that the Constitution vested in Congress the power to initiate war but that when another nation made war upon the United States we were already in a state of war and no declaration by Congress was needed.1423 Congress thereafter enacted a statute authorizing the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Bey of Tripoli ''and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify . . .''1424 But no formal declaration of war was passed, Congress apparently accepting Hamilton's view.1425
Sixty years later, the Supreme Court sustained the blockade of the Southern ports instituted by Lincoln in April 1861 at a time when Congress was not in session.1426 Congress had subsequently ratified Lincoln's action,1427 so that it was unnecessary for the Court to consider the constitutional basis of the President's action in the absence of congressional authorization, but the Court nonetheless approved, five-to-four, the blockade order as an exercise of Presidential power alone, on the ground that a state of war was a fact. ''The President was bound to meet it in the shape it presented itself, without waiting for Congress to baptize it with a name; and no name given to it by him or them could change the fact.''1428 The minority challenged this doctrine on the ground that while the President could unquestionably adopt such measures as the laws permitted for the enforcement of order against insurgency, Congress alone could stamp an insurrection with the character of war and thereby authorize the legal consequences ensuing from a state of war.1429
The view of the majority was proclaimed by a unanimous Court a few years later when it became necessary to ascertain the exact dates on which the war began and ended. The Court, the Chief Justice said, must ''refer to some public act of the political departments of the government to fix the dates; and, for obvious reasons, those of the executive department, which may be, and, in fact, was, at the commencement of hostilities, obliged to act during the recess of Congress, must be taken. The proclamation of intended blockade by the President may therefore be assumed as marking the first of these dates, and the proclamation that the war had closed, as marking the second.''1430
These cases settled the issue whether a state of war could exist without formal declaration by Congress. When hostile action is taken against the Nation, or against its citizens or commerce, the appropriate response by order of the President may be resort to force. But the issue so much a source of controversy in the era of the Cold War and so divisive politically in the context of United States involvement in the Vietnamese War has been whether the President is empowered to commit troops abroad to further national interests in the absence of a declaration of war or specific congressional authorization short of such a declaration.1431 The Supreme Court studiously refused to consider the issue in any of the forms in which it was presented,1432 and the lower courts gen erally refused, on ''political question'' grounds, to adjudicate the matter.1433 In the absence of judicial elucidation, the Congress and the President have been required to accommodate themselves in the controversy to accept from each other less than each has been willing to accept but more than either has been willing to grant.1434
Connecting to the Constitution
I think this relates to congress because it displays their power to declare war. Its showed in this picture by the wourch that sats Middle East, which is the war we are currently in. It also shows their power to approve and declare bills laws. It shows this because of the torch that says economy. The touch that says ecomomy respresents powerr to make bills laws because congress has to approve the bills that made the ecomnomy bad today.
Healthcare
Source: "A Reckless Congress"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124779717982855785.html
From the Constitution
U.S. Constitution: Article I
Section 7. Legislative Process
Clause 1. Revenue Bills
Insertion of this clause was another of the devices sanctioned by the Framers to preserve and enforce the separation of pow ers. 426 It applies, in the context of the permissibility of Senate amendments to a House-passed bill, to all bills for collecting revenue-- revenue decreasing as well as revenue increasing--rather than simply to just those bills that increase revenue. 427
Only bills to levy taxes in the strict sense of the word are comprehended by the phrase ''all bills for raising revenue;'' bills for other purposes, which incidentally create revenue, are not included. 428 Thus, a Senate-initiated bill that provided for a monetary ''special assessment'' to pay into a crime victims fund did not violate the clause, because it was a statute that created and raised revenue to support a particular governmental program and was not a law raising revenue to support Government generally. 429 An act providing a national currency secured by a pledge of bonds of the United States, which, ''in the furtherance of that object, and also to meet the expenses attending the execution of the act,'' imposed a tax on the circulating notes of national banks was held not to be a revenue measure which must originate in the House of Representatives. 430 Neither was a bill that provided that the District of Columbia should raise by taxation and pay to designated railroad companies a specified sum for the elimination of grade crossings and the construction of a railway station. 431 The substitution of a corporation tax for an inheritance tax, 432 and the addition of a section imposing an excise tax upon the use of foreign-built pleasure yachts, 433 have been held to be within the Senate's constitutional power to propose amendments.
Connecting to the Constitution
According to the article attached above President Obama's plan to raise health care is not good towards the people that pay tax dollars. It states that revenue will be increased a sufficient amount because of this proposal. It also states that congress isn't giving honest numbers, therefore what they say it's going to cost is $300 billion less. The author states that the economy isn't ready for something like this to happen.
This relates to the constitution because it's a bill. This also shows that the people don't always agree with what congress decided; while others are all for it. In my opinion I don't think both sides of the story are shown on opinions of the people.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124779717982855785.html
From the Constitution
U.S. Constitution: Article I
Section 7. Legislative Process
Clause 1. Revenue Bills
Insertion of this clause was another of the devices sanctioned by the Framers to preserve and enforce the separation of pow ers. 426 It applies, in the context of the permissibility of Senate amendments to a House-passed bill, to all bills for collecting revenue-- revenue decreasing as well as revenue increasing--rather than simply to just those bills that increase revenue. 427
Only bills to levy taxes in the strict sense of the word are comprehended by the phrase ''all bills for raising revenue;'' bills for other purposes, which incidentally create revenue, are not included. 428 Thus, a Senate-initiated bill that provided for a monetary ''special assessment'' to pay into a crime victims fund did not violate the clause, because it was a statute that created and raised revenue to support a particular governmental program and was not a law raising revenue to support Government generally. 429 An act providing a national currency secured by a pledge of bonds of the United States, which, ''in the furtherance of that object, and also to meet the expenses attending the execution of the act,'' imposed a tax on the circulating notes of national banks was held not to be a revenue measure which must originate in the House of Representatives. 430 Neither was a bill that provided that the District of Columbia should raise by taxation and pay to designated railroad companies a specified sum for the elimination of grade crossings and the construction of a railway station. 431 The substitution of a corporation tax for an inheritance tax, 432 and the addition of a section imposing an excise tax upon the use of foreign-built pleasure yachts, 433 have been held to be within the Senate's constitutional power to propose amendments.
Connecting to the Constitution
According to the article attached above President Obama's plan to raise health care is not good towards the people that pay tax dollars. It states that revenue will be increased a sufficient amount because of this proposal. It also states that congress isn't giving honest numbers, therefore what they say it's going to cost is $300 billion less. The author states that the economy isn't ready for something like this to happen.
This relates to the constitution because it's a bill. This also shows that the people don't always agree with what congress decided; while others are all for it. In my opinion I don't think both sides of the story are shown on opinions of the people.
Tax Dollars Going Towards Healthy Lunches
Source: "Senate passes $.4.5B nutrition bill"
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/40719.html
From the Constitution
U.S. Constitution: Article I
Section 7. Legislative Process
Clause 1. Revenue Bills
Insertion of this clause was another of the devices sanctioned by the Framers to preserve and enforce the separation of pow ers. 426 It applies, in the context of the permissibility of Senate amendments to a House-passed bill, to all bills for collecting revenue-- revenue decreasing as well as revenue increasing--rather than simply to just those bills that increase revenue. 427
Only bills to levy taxes in the strict sense of the word are comprehended by the phrase ''all bills for raising revenue;'' bills for other purposes, which incidentally create revenue, are not included. 428 Thus, a Senate-initiated bill that provided for a monetary ''special assessment'' to pay into a crime victims fund did not violate the clause, because it was a statute that created and raised revenue to support a particular governmental program and was not a law raising revenue to support Government generally. 429 An act providing a national currency secured by a pledge of bonds of the United States, which, ''in the furtherance of that object, and also to meet the expenses attending the execution of the act,'' imposed a tax on the circulating notes of national banks was held not to be a revenue measure which must originate in the House of Representatives. 430 Neither was a bill that provided that the District of Columbia should raise by taxation and pay to designated railroad companies a specified sum for the elimination of grade crossings and the construction of a railway station. 431 The substitution of a corporation tax for an inheritance tax, 432 and the addition of a section imposing an excise tax upon the use of foreign-built pleasure yachts, 433 have been held to be within the Senate's constitutional power to propose amendments.
Connecting to the Constitution
Michelle Obama proposed that school lunches should be healthier for the children of America. She believes this will decrease the number of child obesity cases. Her husband pushed the bill to be heard on the bill so it would meet the September expiration date. Sen. Blanche Lincoln read the bill proposal on the floor. There were many Senators that agreed with Obama's bill. This bill requires a $10 increase in childhood nutrition program for 2011.
This relates to the constitution because the bill had to be heard by the Senate. Senators had to vote on the bill to make it a law, that's what happened and now it's a law. This relates specifically to revenue bills because the demand for money for funding means taxes will eventually increase for the funding.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/40719.html
From the Constitution
U.S. Constitution: Article I
Section 7. Legislative Process
Clause 1. Revenue Bills
Insertion of this clause was another of the devices sanctioned by the Framers to preserve and enforce the separation of pow ers. 426 It applies, in the context of the permissibility of Senate amendments to a House-passed bill, to all bills for collecting revenue-- revenue decreasing as well as revenue increasing--rather than simply to just those bills that increase revenue. 427
Only bills to levy taxes in the strict sense of the word are comprehended by the phrase ''all bills for raising revenue;'' bills for other purposes, which incidentally create revenue, are not included. 428 Thus, a Senate-initiated bill that provided for a monetary ''special assessment'' to pay into a crime victims fund did not violate the clause, because it was a statute that created and raised revenue to support a particular governmental program and was not a law raising revenue to support Government generally. 429 An act providing a national currency secured by a pledge of bonds of the United States, which, ''in the furtherance of that object, and also to meet the expenses attending the execution of the act,'' imposed a tax on the circulating notes of national banks was held not to be a revenue measure which must originate in the House of Representatives. 430 Neither was a bill that provided that the District of Columbia should raise by taxation and pay to designated railroad companies a specified sum for the elimination of grade crossings and the construction of a railway station. 431 The substitution of a corporation tax for an inheritance tax, 432 and the addition of a section imposing an excise tax upon the use of foreign-built pleasure yachts, 433 have been held to be within the Senate's constitutional power to propose amendments.
Connecting to the Constitution
Michelle Obama proposed that school lunches should be healthier for the children of America. She believes this will decrease the number of child obesity cases. Her husband pushed the bill to be heard on the bill so it would meet the September expiration date. Sen. Blanche Lincoln read the bill proposal on the floor. There were many Senators that agreed with Obama's bill. This bill requires a $10 increase in childhood nutrition program for 2011.
This relates to the constitution because the bill had to be heard by the Senate. Senators had to vote on the bill to make it a law, that's what happened and now it's a law. This relates specifically to revenue bills because the demand for money for funding means taxes will eventually increase for the funding.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Same Sex Marriage
Source
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/same_sex_marriage/index.html?scp=1&sq=10th%20amendment&st=cse
From the Constitution
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.
Connecting to the Constitution
Personally, I don't see a problem with gay/lesbian marriage because they're people just like the rest of us. I feel as if they shouldn't be denied what should be their right. I also don't think it's right for them to have to stay in a specified place for them to be considered married. If they have a valid marriage license for one state then it should apply for all.
I Plead The Fifth
From the Constitution
Fifth Amendment- 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.
Connecting to the Constitution
The political cartoon shows that the attorney is trying to help his client by not making him talk as much as possible. This is the Fifth Amendment; it gives you the right not to speak. In order to make the case go on for an long as possible, the defendant won't speak, giving the attorney time to tell them what to say. The carton also shows that attorneys sometimes abuse the amendments.
The Fifth Amendment is a shield for the guilty. I feel as if one doesn't want to speak then they have something to hide. If you're innocent then you should be able to explain yourself and elaborate on the situation. Pleading the fifth is just giving time for someone to come up with a lie.
Full Body Scans
Source: "O’Hare to begin full-body scans Monday" March 2010
From the Constitution
Fourth Amendment: 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.
Connecting to the Constitution
Are full body scans unconstitutional? The fourth amendment gives people the right to secure themselves from unreasonable searches. Are full body scans unreasonable searches or are they to ensure safety? Full body scans are devices that insure that no passengers have anything to harm anyone else. They are starting to be used in airports throught. One of the first ones were right he in Illinios.
Full body scans are used at O'Hare Airport. Some have no problem with it, while others think it is a hassle. Personally I don't think there is anything wrong with it. The scans are to ensure everyone's safety, and it's not like it hurts or harms the person being scanned in any way. The photo's are said to be earased upon exit of the machine, there is no way anyone could see it besides the machine operator.
Monday, August 23, 2010
It's Unconstitutional
Source:
From the Constitution
Second Amendment: 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.
Connecting to the Constitution
Washington claims that a gun can be present in the house, but it must be disassembled. Having it is pointless then. There will be no sense of protection with a gun that is not put together. In case of sudden emergency, the gun is useless. If one isn't using their gun for bad, or if they don't have a record, then they should be able to keep the gun in their household.
Let Me Talk!
Source : "Shop, Walk, Work, and Protest" August 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/29/opinion/shop-walk-work-and-protest.html?ref=freedom_of_assembly
From the Constitution
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.
Connecting to the Constitution
We're giving you the right, we're just sdjusting it a little. Is this right for a state to do? Well New York does it. The state of New York feels that as long as they give you the right, everything is ok. They don;t annitially menation thet you can only protest or speech in certain places or at certain times. Are they deny the poeple of New York city thier rights in the constitution?
Some think so. If one goes through the work to get the permit to say what they need to say than they should have the right to speak whererver their audience is. The set time or place may not suit them and what they're trying to enforce.
Other feel differently. Protestors may be disruptive to thir day or their work. They may feel that New York is just trying to keep the peace. If time and place is regulated then the protestors won't make an impact on someones everyday life.
Watch What You Say
Source: "Dr.Laura to End Her Radio Show" April 20, 2010
http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/celebrity.news.gossip/08/17/doctor.laura.ends.show/index.html?iref=allsearch
From the Constitution
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.
Connecting to the Constitution
People abuse their right to freedom of speech all the time. But can we justify when is the right and wrong time to say something? Celebrities must always watch what the say to the public all the time. They don't know how fans will react to their statements. They also don't know if they'll offend fans/ listeners. When you're a celebrity should you use the first amendment as loosely?
Dr. Laura used her right to the first amendment during her radio show. She did say some things that she regrets though. During her radio show, she was talking to an African- American listener, and she used the "n-word." She argues that she was trying to make a philosophical point; listeners disagree. Due to her poor use of the first amendment, she is now stopping her radio show. She says she's going to continue her legacy online.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)