Source : http://www.dglobe.com/event/article/id/40636/group/homepage/
Constitutional Connection : Article 2 "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."
The article talked about Minnesota's governor siging a executive order in his governing state to in general keep Obamacare out of Minnesota. he belives that the Medicare bill was recklessly spent and simply just another bailout.The author of the author feels otherwise. He says that not accepting help from the Obama health care bill will ocst the state millions of dollars, but some of the health care money will still get through due to a two loopholes in the excutive orders.
In my opinion, It it very selfish for the Governor to try to deny the health care bill and provisions that come with it to the people of his city. I also don't agree with how the bill was reckless spending, the bill made health care affordable for almost tens of millions americans who didnt have health care. I really don't see the reckless spending. i also believe he should have not signed those as excutive orders but had those go thru the state congress so he can see how the people of his state felt about it before it became a regulation.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Living Constitution : Executive Branch
Source : http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/75700
Constitutional Connection :Article 2 "
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."
Explanation : in the article republican senate memebrs proposed a bill that would require congressional approval for major regulations that are issued by federal agencies. The article also talked about this would allow for better checks and balances throuhgout the government. Up to 10 republican senators supoprted the bill. The amin point of focus for the bill was how the cost for federal regulations for the U.s increased to 1.75 4 trillion in 2009 and they believe with this bill things can change. I dont belive the bill will pass simply because the house is still controled by the democrats, they may have had a better chance after the elctions but even then I believe this bill would give more power to congress than I founding fathers inteeded. giving them the power to approve of regulations would allow house power to dictate the regulations voting. for example if a regulation was necessary for the nation but it didn't fit the party who was in control of the houses' agenda, it would be vetoed.
Constitutional Connection :Article 2 "
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."
Explanation : in the article republican senate memebrs proposed a bill that would require congressional approval for major regulations that are issued by federal agencies. The article also talked about this would allow for better checks and balances throuhgout the government. Up to 10 republican senators supoprted the bill. The amin point of focus for the bill was how the cost for federal regulations for the U.s increased to 1.75 4 trillion in 2009 and they believe with this bill things can change. I dont belive the bill will pass simply because the house is still controled by the democrats, they may have had a better chance after the elctions but even then I believe this bill would give more power to congress than I founding fathers inteeded. giving them the power to approve of regulations would allow house power to dictate the regulations voting. for example if a regulation was necessary for the nation but it didn't fit the party who was in control of the houses' agenda, it would be vetoed.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Living Constitution : Judicial Branch
Source : http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/05/westboro-baptist-church-defend-military-funeral-protests-high-court/
Constitutional Connection : Article 3, Section 1 The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
The article discussed how the supreme court has received a case about the Westboro Baptist Church who protest funerals and have started their own funeral protesting tour called the I-70 God Smack Tour.The article as talked about how they have picketed almost 44,00 thousand funerals and events. Their last event was at Arlington National Cemetery before they were bought to court.The church believes that they are defended by the first amendment right to protest. One member of the church said that their decision to protest and picket funerals was "is to use an available public platform, when the living contemplate death, to deliver the message that there is a consequence for sin."They believe that sin is homosexuality and any government policies that they think supports homosexuality.
The people in this article I believe are being very radical with their first amendment rights using their freedom of speech to picket funerals and that the supreme court justices should view the court case from the perspective of the families whose funerals are being picketted. I personally believe that this is very disrespectful to those families. I also don't understand what would posses a Christian church to do such acts. I honestly don't believe God ( I am Christian myself) would want for his people to be as disrespectful to families as the church is acting. This is why i hoope that the supreme court justices will rule against the church and do something about radicial protesting in the US. I believe radical protesting should be allowe dbut their should be some sort of restriction that I believe the US should look into
Constitutional Connection : Article 3, Section 1 The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
The article discussed how the supreme court has received a case about the Westboro Baptist Church who protest funerals and have started their own funeral protesting tour called the I-70 God Smack Tour.The article as talked about how they have picketed almost 44,00 thousand funerals and events. Their last event was at Arlington National Cemetery before they were bought to court.The church believes that they are defended by the first amendment right to protest. One member of the church said that their decision to protest and picket funerals was "is to use an available public platform, when the living contemplate death, to deliver the message that there is a consequence for sin."They believe that sin is homosexuality and any government policies that they think supports homosexuality.
The people in this article I believe are being very radical with their first amendment rights using their freedom of speech to picket funerals and that the supreme court justices should view the court case from the perspective of the families whose funerals are being picketted. I personally believe that this is very disrespectful to those families. I also don't understand what would posses a Christian church to do such acts. I honestly don't believe God ( I am Christian myself) would want for his people to be as disrespectful to families as the church is acting. This is why i hoope that the supreme court justices will rule against the church and do something about radicial protesting in the US. I believe radical protesting should be allowe dbut their should be some sort of restriction that I believe the US should look into
Monday, September 13, 2010
Living Constitution : Legislative Branch
Source : http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/13/us-arms-deal-saudi-arabia
Constitutional Connection :
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Constitutional Connection :
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
the article discussed how the congress were coming close to the biggest arms deal in US history to sauida arabia to help support against iran. The U.S believe that Iran will be nuclear compatible by next year. The deal was estimated to worth 60$ billion. the package includes about 84 boeing f-15 jets and helicopters. The had been in talks for a while but were being stopped because of the relationship between Saudia Arabia and The U.S. Things like Osama bin Laden, also old congress bills thats topped deals with saudia arabia had slowed down the progress, but Congress is expected to recieve the porposal by tonight.
I believe that the deal is the U.S again unneccessary sticking their hand in other countries business, yes I do understand that Saudia Arabia is having troubles with Iran but if Iran see us helping Saudia Arabia, they might see us as enemies and all of their allies will se us as enemies also. This might cause more war issues in the future which our country doesn't need right now as we are dealing with mmore important issues like the weaking economy. These weapons might also end up being used against us in the future if the relationship between the U.S and Saudia Arabia becomes strained ( U.S and Iraq a wonderful example). I just believe more political ways could have been tried and evauluated before we began to give weapons to a country who has birthed the U.S's #1 enemy Osama bin Laden.
Living Constitution : Legislative Branch
Source : http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/09/welcome_back_congress.html
Constitutional Connection : Article 1, Section 1
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
the article discussed how congress was now back in session and how it had multiple things to get done that would affect the nation tremendously. some of these bills discussed were the new infrastructure bank, a food safety bill, the bush tax cut. Another one that caught my eye was the senate may pass a bill banning secret holds, which includes the filibuster. The bush tax cuts were also important as they expire at the end of this year, which brings up the question will congress re past those tax cuts or let them go. It also talked about the ratification of the START treaty.
I really enjoyed the article but I disagreed with the filibuster part. The author said that even if the senate proposed a bill that would ending secret holds, it wouldn't stop the filibuster, I disagree. If the consequences were strict enough and the evidence of filibustering as bill was very convincing then many politicians would resort to other methods for gaining support on a bill or disapproval of a bill
Constitutional Connection : Article 1, Section 1
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
the article discussed how congress was now back in session and how it had multiple things to get done that would affect the nation tremendously. some of these bills discussed were the new infrastructure bank, a food safety bill, the bush tax cut. Another one that caught my eye was the senate may pass a bill banning secret holds, which includes the filibuster. The bush tax cuts were also important as they expire at the end of this year, which brings up the question will congress re past those tax cuts or let them go. It also talked about the ratification of the START treaty.
I really enjoyed the article but I disagreed with the filibuster part. The author said that even if the senate proposed a bill that would ending secret holds, it wouldn't stop the filibuster, I disagree. If the consequences were strict enough and the evidence of filibustering as bill was very convincing then many politicians would resort to other methods for gaining support on a bill or disapproval of a bill
Living Consitution: Legislative Branch
source : http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_documents&docid=f:hd049.110.pdf
Constitution Connection : Article 1, Section 1 of the United States Constitution
"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United
States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
The pdf was a very detailed breakdown of the United States Congress. it began by explaining how bills or ideas for bills are unlimited and can be started from any where within Congress. It also informed me of something I did not know, That a bill in congress can be brought up in one of four different forms. These forms are: the bill itself, the joint resolution, the simple resolution, and the concurrent resolution. The other forms are very difficult so the form mostly used and talked about is the bill itself. Other new information I found out was that a bill becomes law if it is left untouched by the president after being apporved by both houses while congress is in session, that billl then becomes a law.
The pdf was very informative it discussed thigns within in Congress and shows how very difficult a congressional meeting can be with so many ways of starting bills, meeting for these bills, etc. Also the stress of having your bill which you might believe is very important might comne back from all these comittees with changes that you might not feel is beneficial as the original plan might really take donw your confidence. Also all the politics that goes along in it makes that job very difficult, but i do personally respect poeple who wokr in Congress
Constitution Connection : Article 1, Section 1 of the United States Constitution
"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United
States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
The pdf was a very detailed breakdown of the United States Congress. it began by explaining how bills or ideas for bills are unlimited and can be started from any where within Congress. It also informed me of something I did not know, That a bill in congress can be brought up in one of four different forms. These forms are: the bill itself, the joint resolution, the simple resolution, and the concurrent resolution. The other forms are very difficult so the form mostly used and talked about is the bill itself. Other new information I found out was that a bill becomes law if it is left untouched by the president after being apporved by both houses while congress is in session, that billl then becomes a law.
The pdf was very informative it discussed thigns within in Congress and shows how very difficult a congressional meeting can be with so many ways of starting bills, meeting for these bills, etc. Also the stress of having your bill which you might believe is very important might comne back from all these comittees with changes that you might not feel is beneficial as the original plan might really take donw your confidence. Also all the politics that goes along in it makes that job very difficult, but i do personally respect poeple who wokr in Congress
Friday, September 10, 2010
Amendment Entries : Fifth Amendment
constitution connection : the political cartoon shows a moment in the case of adamson vs the state of california. It shows connection to the constitution as the fifth amedment is pleadable after being arrested.
After googling the case seen in the cartoon, the cartoon describes how adamson was brought up on a trial of a 1st degree murder. The cartoon shows the part of the case where the porsecution made comments about Adamson decicded yto plead the fifth and not tesitfy for himself. The cartoon seems to take a shot at the case seeing as the prosecutors wanted to make adamson look as a bad person for committing the murder, but was distrubed at the fact he did not say anything but at the same time it also shows how adamson understands he commited a crime and did want to speak because he understood what he did and its consequences without the help of the prosecution or the judges.
In my opinion the political cartoon gives a good imagery of the fifth amendment in use and how people can use the fifth amendment to their advantage and disadvantages.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Amendment Entries : Tenth Amendment
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.
Source : http://www.nraila.org/legislation/read.aspx?id=5524
constitutional connection : This articles shows the 10th amendment through Chicago having the right to attempt to try to ban guns in the city
The article discusssed how a case had been picked up by the Supreme Court and they court was going to hear oral cases about it The case was for handguns to be banned throughout the chicago land area. Many people troughtout the city believe this should be allowed due to the strong gang violence throughout the cummunitites. Many politicians throughout the city are caught in-between. The bill is needed but they feel as the supreme court will order a Second amendment decision to the case. The case is Mcdonald vs the city of chicago. the NRA also had a case but was appealed. But they were allowed to be involved with the Mcdonald case as it would affect them equally.
In my opinion I fell that the case will be appealed under the second amendment. The city of chicago is making a very bold stand trying to get a ban on gun laws and taking their 10th amendment rights as a city very far, but the 10th amendment can only go so far. Trying to pit to bill of rights against each other is a eve battle. You might ( you being chicago in this sense) have the right to enforce laws that are not specified by the government under the 10th amendment, but the government also has giving all citizens the right to bare arms for themselves. Gun and Gang violence in the city is a very big problem that is growing wilder by the day, but maybe the use of the 10th amendment can be used in other and better ways than trying to take a way a right given to every citizen, that right being able to bare arms
Source : http://www.nraila.org/legislation/read.aspx?id=5524
constitutional connection : This articles shows the 10th amendment through Chicago having the right to attempt to try to ban guns in the city
The article discusssed how a case had been picked up by the Supreme Court and they court was going to hear oral cases about it The case was for handguns to be banned throughout the chicago land area. Many people troughtout the city believe this should be allowed due to the strong gang violence throughout the cummunitites. Many politicians throughout the city are caught in-between. The bill is needed but they feel as the supreme court will order a Second amendment decision to the case. The case is Mcdonald vs the city of chicago. the NRA also had a case but was appealed. But they were allowed to be involved with the Mcdonald case as it would affect them equally.
In my opinion I fell that the case will be appealed under the second amendment. The city of chicago is making a very bold stand trying to get a ban on gun laws and taking their 10th amendment rights as a city very far, but the 10th amendment can only go so far. Trying to pit to bill of rights against each other is a eve battle. You might ( you being chicago in this sense) have the right to enforce laws that are not specified by the government under the 10th amendment, but the government also has giving all citizens the right to bare arms for themselves. Gun and Gang violence in the city is a very big problem that is growing wilder by the day, but maybe the use of the 10th amendment can be used in other and better ways than trying to take a way a right given to every citizen, that right being able to bare arms
Amendment Entries : Fourth Amendment
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.
Source : http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1332.pdf
Constitutional Connection : This article depicts a connection to the constitution because it was an actual supreme court case that used the foruth amendment of the constitution to help come to a verdict for the case.
The case was the city of ontario v. Quon. In the case print, It told how Quon was a member of a company that was given pagers that could recieve and send text messages for company purposes only from the city of ontario. The city had paid for a certain amount for text messages to be sent and recieved throughout the month. Quon began to become suspicious when for manyt months there swas overage charges to the cities bill. it was found that many of the message overages were from personal messsges while the devices were meant for work related purposes. They asked for transcripts of the messages , they being the Quon company. The employees of Quon sued filing, inter alia, satting that their fourth amendment rights were violated by the city for asking for the transcripts. In a 9-0 veridct, the court decided in favor of Quon and his privacy of text messages. In my opinion, I believe that the court made the right decision. No one should not just give out someones private tools 9ex.test messsages) out without the consent of the court. I really agree with the courts decision on the case
Source : http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1332.pdf
Constitutional Connection : This article depicts a connection to the constitution because it was an actual supreme court case that used the foruth amendment of the constitution to help come to a verdict for the case.
The case was the city of ontario v. Quon. In the case print, It told how Quon was a member of a company that was given pagers that could recieve and send text messages for company purposes only from the city of ontario. The city had paid for a certain amount for text messages to be sent and recieved throughout the month. Quon began to become suspicious when for manyt months there swas overage charges to the cities bill. it was found that many of the message overages were from personal messsges while the devices were meant for work related purposes. They asked for transcripts of the messages , they being the Quon company. The employees of Quon sued filing, inter alia, satting that their fourth amendment rights were violated by the city for asking for the transcripts. In a 9-0 veridct, the court decided in favor of Quon and his privacy of text messages. In my opinion, I believe that the court made the right decision. No one should not just give out someones private tools 9ex.test messsages) out without the consent of the court. I really agree with the courts decision on the case
Monday, August 23, 2010
Amendment Entries: Second Amendment
"Gun Ban Ban." Daryl Cagle's Professional Cartoonists Index. Web. 24 Aug. 2010. <http://www.cagle.com/news/GunBanBan/main.asp>.
Constitutional Connection : 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 picture demonstrates the second amendment right to bear arms as it has the Second amendment written in the image.
this picture was quite interesting to me because the artist , in my opinion, was trying to shoot out the part that many Americans don't pay attention too. It crosses out the part that says A well regulated Malitia, being necessary to the security of a free state, as many poeple do not pay attention to that part but only the part to bear arms. its also interesting how they have a supreme court justice shooting out that part of the amendment. THis imagery could mean that although many Americans only see the right to bear arms, but also the government only pays attention to the right to bear arms, which I fully agree with.
Constitutional Connection : 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 picture demonstrates the second amendment right to bear arms as it has the Second amendment written in the image.
this picture was quite interesting to me because the artist , in my opinion, was trying to shoot out the part that many Americans don't pay attention too. It crosses out the part that says A well regulated Malitia, being necessary to the security of a free state, as many poeple do not pay attention to that part but only the part to bear arms. its also interesting how they have a supreme court justice shooting out that part of the amendment. THis imagery could mean that although many Americans only see the right to bear arms, but also the government only pays attention to the right to bear arms, which I fully agree with.
Amendment Entries: First Amendment # 2
"Dems Urge Obama to Take a Stand - John F. Harris and James Hohmann - POLITICO.com." Politics, Political News - POLITICO.com. Web. 23 Aug. 2010. <http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41356.html>.
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.
Connection : As hard as it is for many people to see, president obama has created many new laws to stop Americas fall into a second great depression, but thats hard too see. Many off his own democratic comrades are startting to voice how Obama's not specifically detailed responses to questions about his governing ways.
this articl shows the first amendment as the Democratic party urge obama to talk. This demonstartes the freedom to speech because they want their own president to excerise the rights given to him by former presidents and men who helped form the law of the land over hundreds of years ago.
I agree witht he democrats. President Obama has done multiple thigns to help the country during a horrible time including wall street and health care reform, and he continues to allow the GOP excerisze their free speech and down how his efforts have not helped the country. i believe that if Obama excersized his first amendment right and spoke about what he has done, things would be very different.
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.
Connection : As hard as it is for many people to see, president obama has created many new laws to stop Americas fall into a second great depression, but thats hard too see. Many off his own democratic comrades are startting to voice how Obama's not specifically detailed responses to questions about his governing ways.
this articl shows the first amendment as the Democratic party urge obama to talk. This demonstartes the freedom to speech because they want their own president to excerise the rights given to him by former presidents and men who helped form the law of the land over hundreds of years ago.
I agree witht he democrats. President Obama has done multiple thigns to help the country during a horrible time including wall street and health care reform, and he continues to allow the GOP excerisze their free speech and down how his efforts have not helped the country. i believe that if Obama excersized his first amendment right and spoke about what he has done, things would be very different.
Amendment Entries: First Amendment
Anti-Islamic Rhetoric On The Rise: Is Free Speech Taking Aim At Religious Freedom? : NPR." NPR : National Public Radio : News & Analysis, World, US, Music & Arts : NPR. Web. 24 Aug. 2010. <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129330121&ps=cprs>.
Constitutional Connection : Bill of Rights 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."
During a time in America where freedom of speech is exercised to its strongest potential, many Americans are expressing it more than ever right now. As the proposal for the Mosque/Community center debate is raging throughout New York, many other Americans around the country are voicing how they fell about the proposal.
The freedom of speech is demonstrated in both the constitution and this article. In the bill of rights its stated that congress cannot make a law to prohibit speech, press, or encouraging religion. the article demonstrates this showing how many Americans our voicing how they feel about ground zero being used as a building site for A Muslim center.
The way many Americans are reacting to such a small matter is really interesting to me. one quote that stuck out to me in the article was this one "I don't want them here opening mosques in every city, trying to open it up on ground zero in New York, where they killed thousands and thousands of people. They don't belong here." That quote really disturbed me because many people not only the person from this quote are excersizing their freedom of speech but strongly for no reason. Telling someone they don't belong here is quite unnecessary.
Constitutional Connection : Bill of Rights 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."
During a time in America where freedom of speech is exercised to its strongest potential, many Americans are expressing it more than ever right now. As the proposal for the Mosque/Community center debate is raging throughout New York, many other Americans around the country are voicing how they fell about the proposal.
The freedom of speech is demonstrated in both the constitution and this article. In the bill of rights its stated that congress cannot make a law to prohibit speech, press, or encouraging religion. the article demonstrates this showing how many Americans our voicing how they feel about ground zero being used as a building site for A Muslim center.
The way many Americans are reacting to such a small matter is really interesting to me. one quote that stuck out to me in the article was this one "I don't want them here opening mosques in every city, trying to open it up on ground zero in New York, where they killed thousands and thousands of people. They don't belong here." That quote really disturbed me because many people not only the person from this quote are excersizing their freedom of speech but strongly for no reason. Telling someone they don't belong here is quite unnecessary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)