Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People

Source:

Political Cartoon #1 - "Barack The Plumber"

Political Cartoon #2 - "GM Takeover"

Both illustrated by: William Warren

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."

Explanation of Connection:

            The two political cartoons above depict instances in which the Government has exceeded the boundaries of limited government and has stepped too far into the lives of the people in their state. In the first cartoon, Warren is showing viewers how President Obama is drawing way too much money from the working classes of the U.S., claiming that he invests it into the state's welfare. The looks on the faces of family in which money is being stolen from in the cartoon show confusion. They are unsure of what is really going on, but they are also furious, as would anyone be who falls victim to robbery. They also look scared, as if they don't know what's about to happen next. The second cartoon is particularly clever and interesting to me. In this cartoon, Warren is illustrating how the government has exceeded well beyond their "limits" when they shut down General Motors. He is also saying that the government has basically taken full control over the company, and not at all in a positive way. They have completely disregarded the separation between State and Federal powers, and Warren, as well as many others do not like it.

            These cartoons clearly ignore the demonstration Amendment 10 of the United States Constitution. This amendment of the U.S. Constitution does not give government the right to put restrictions on or remove any of our modern corporations, businesses, or institutions as long as they are for the good of mankind. Any incident of this sort is prohibited by the constitution in Amendment 10. However, the government clearly ignores this by taking over General Motors and robbing the money straight from the pockets of the working class of America to feed it into the "welfare of our states."

            To some extent, I do agree with most people. The government should leave our modern man-made institutions alone. Most people fear that these actions taken by Obama can lead to some form of a dictatorship, where citizens are being fully controlled by the government. However, I do also believe that the Obama Administration may truly just be trying to regulate things and prevent future chaos amongst us citizens. As states, I do not feel it is anything wrong with being monitored by the Federal government and having minor changes made here and their to ensure domestic tranquility, as long as those changes can always be argued by the states themselves. But with this right, the government must make sure that it contains itself from stepping too far into our freedom as states to make our own decisions, as long as they are all constitutional.

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings

Source:

Double Jeopardy; Until a Former Girlfriend Goes Before Grand Jury. July 15, 2002.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/25/48hours/murder/main325643.shtml

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 offence 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."

Explanation of Connection:

            This rather dated article tells the story of a case in which the constitutional law preventing double jeopardy is clearly abused by a particular individual. This person is being accused of murdering his girlfriend, yet even before investigations began, the family and friends of the victim as well as the rest of his community suspected him as the criminal. However, when it came time of his court trial, the jury found him innocent. The U.S. Constitution states that after a jury finds you innocent for a particular offence, you cannot be charged with that same offence a second time. So unfortunately, the man got away with his crime. And he did so with pride. Until his former girlfriend is forced to face the Grand Jury, which leads to an entirely different article.
           
            This article clearly demonstrates Amendment 5 of the United States Constitution. The Constitution prevents citizens of the U.S. from having to go before a jury and be prosecuted for the same offence in two different court trials. Our founding fathers used a specific term for this occurrence: Double Jeopardy. If a suspected criminal faces a jury in court, and they declare him an innocent man, the 5th Amendment of the constitution prevents the individual from being able to be charged with the same offence and be put in jeopardy again for something a jury has already proved him innocent for. This is why the suspected criminal in my article was able to walk the streets a murderer, without having to worry about going through a second trial based on the same charges and having to face the possibility of prison once again.

            I do agree that this amendment is needed in our society, because if it did not exist, I could imagine suspects being forced into several back-to-back court trials on the same charges because the jury doesn't give the verdict that prosecutors want. And that can be unfair, especially to a truly innocent man. However, this amendment is clearly being abused. The jury found the suspected murderer in my article innocent. They did not believe he was the killer of his girlfriend. So, the courts were forced to let him go without being able to make him face a second jury in hopes for a different verdict. Although this man had been declared innocent, everyone knew it was truly him. Family members, friends, neighbors,  etc. But they failed to present any evidence in the first court trial, which gave the jury reason to think he was innocent. I have mixed feelings about this, because this man can truly be a murderer. However, it is only fair that he is not forced into another court trial and have to face another jury. So he had to be let go.

Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure

Source:

DOJ Releases Bush's Post-9/11 Memos. March 2, 2009
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19536_Page2.html

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."

Explanation of Connection:

            In this article, it is discussed how former President Bush's post-9/11 memos seemed to be unconstitutional and overruling on our human rights. One of the opinions Bush discussed in his memo, and the opinion I paid most attention to declared that "American military forces operating on U.S. soil did not have to obey the Constitution’s limits on search and seizure of individuals and their property." This policy remained the "official but unannounced" policy of the U.S. until October of 2008 when the new head of the Office of Legal Council renounced much of the opinion, again without notice to the public.

            This article clearly demonstrates Amendment 4 of the United States Constitution. In no way, shape or form, should the government have the power to invade and "search" the homes of innocent civilians without a warrant to do so. This is not an opinion of my own, it is written in the U.S. constitution. Bush's post-9/11 memo violated this constitutional principle, and the public had no awarence of it. However, in 2008, Steven Bradburry reformed this policy. The Constitution protects citizens' property and other private possessions against unreasonable searches and seizures for a number of specific reasons. One of those is because it would not be right to invade the home of someone who is ultimately innocent because that is their personal space. When the government has no evidence of their wrong doing, their seaches must be based off of judgement, and that is not at all constitutional.

            I am glad this constitutional principle is set in place. I would be furious if an armed policeman rushed into my house, went through my belongings, and destroyed my right to privacy when I had not committed a single crime. I would assume many other angry citizens as well if this Amendment did not exist, and a large mass of angry citizens doesn't equal up to a peaceful, tranquil America.       

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms

Source:

White House Backs Right to Arms Outside Obama Events. August 19, 2009
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/18/AR2009081803416.html

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."

Explanation of Connection:

           When men were seen carrying loaded weapons outside presidential events, controversy amongst White House officials sparked. Some began saying that it is not right for citizens to bring firearms to such events, as it endangers everyone involved. Also, fear of violence from heated and emotional talks such as health care was considered. In the end, however, the words of the U.S. Constitution are what took effect. If  local laws state that it is alright, citizens are able to bear firearms.

            This article clearly demonstrates Amendment 2 of the United States Constitution. That is, citizens are allowed to bear arms if they are licensed to do so. In this article, the White House backs this right given to the people by the Constitution, and makes it possible for individuals to carry arms under local law even when attending events held by President Obama.

            This law was enforced with the general purpose of providing the people with some sense of personal protection. I do agree with this law, especially when considering the fact that there are tons of citizens who have to walk the streets of dangerous communities day and night with the thought of never seeing the sunrise again. Firearms provide these sort of people with a feeling of safety and comfort. I do plan on getting a licensee to carry a weapon when I am of age, simply because of the area and generation in which I live.

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Assembly

Source:

Anti Healthcare Protest - Town Hall Health Care Reform Protesters - Tea Party Rally
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKBa9K_vAm8\

 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."

Explanation of Connection:

            In this video, their are a group of furious protestors who are clearly against a law that President Obama has recently passed. These citizens strongly disagree with the decisions that Obama and his party have made, and in reaction, they have decided to assemble a group of people who share their opinions and protest so that their voices can be heard on a large scale and so that they can make an impact.

            This video clearly demonstrates Amendment 1 of the United States Constitution. Every citizen of the U.S., by the words of the constitution has been given the right to assemble amongst each other and express any disagreements they may possess. These disagreements may be directed towards the government, and instution or foundation, or even a person. Regardless of the cause, humans in the United States have the right to assemble in order to make their voices be heard. This is clearly what is happenning in the video above. Citizens disagree with the Health Care reforms established by President Obama and party, and assembly takes place.

            Personally, if I ever felt as if their were some absolute absurd decisions made that would affect me in some negative way, and there was some group of people that shared the same feelings, I would feel the need to perform acts of assembly. And if assembly was prohibited by the government, I would not be a happy individual. This is why I feel it is necessary to have this as a right, and I'm sure others feel the same way too. This video is interesting because I get to see well-educated people propose their arguments against the government in a very professional manner, and bot be consequenced. It's good to know that it is okay to disagree with our government, as it provides me with a sense of comfort.



          

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Speech

Source:

'Dr. Laura' Is No Free Speech Victim. August 19, 2010.
 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rashad-robinson/dr-laura-is-no-free-speec_b_688274.html

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."

Explanation of Connection:

            As addressed in this article, "'Dr. Laura' Is No Free Speech Victim," freedom of speech is not freedom from the consequences of the content of your speech. It is the freedom to express your opinions to the public. By consequences, I mean the feedback that you may receive from the people on hearing of the ideas that you express in your speech. Dr. Laura had recently expressed a few very racist comments on her radio show, and she was not pleased with the criticism she received. She claimed that her right to "freedom of speech" was being abused, however this is not true because she can continue to exercise her opinion to the public eye all she wants, but she must keep in mind that people will hold her accountable for what she says.
           
            This article clearly demonstrates Amendment 1 of the United States Constitution. Our government gives every citizen of the U.S. the right to be heard by the public. This right has clearly been given to Dr. Laura, however, she disagrees. She believes that since the opinions she has expressed have been shot down by most critics and activists, they are taking away her right to freedom of speech. But, if you refer back to the exact words of the Constitution, you'll notice that Dr. Laura is mistaken. No one has abridged her speech, they have merely exercised THEIR freedom of speech by providing their opinions on her content.
           
            I am glad, and very grateful that I do not live in a society where the government prohibits my feedom of speech. I can imagine chaos amongst tired and troubled citizens who only want to be heard. And a government much like a dictatorship, which is full of impurities and flaws that could easily be fixed if only they considered the intelligence of their people.