Amendment XII

The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each State having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice President, shall be the Vice President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice President of the United States.

My Opinion: In a nut shell this amendment requires for separate electoral ballots are to be done for the President and Vice-President. This was created because of the tie between Jefferson and Burr in the election of 1800. It was a good thing this was created to prevent future confusion and fighting over elected president. Not the process is straight forward with no wiggle room.

The Twelfth Amendment



My Opinion: I wanted to post this video because this guy has done this for every amendment. He understands the constitution fully which a very slim few actually do in America which is sad. He gives some history of the amendment plus his insight which is very helpful to understanding this lengthy amendment.

THE TWELFTH AMENDMENT: A TIME BOMB

By SANFORD LEVINSON

How An Obscure Constitutional Provision Put Dick Cheney On An Airplane: Reflections On The Meaning Of The Twelfth Amendment

Because the original Constitution did not require electors to vote for president and vice-president separately, the electoral college in 1800 left Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr -- both members of the Democratic-Republican Party -- in a tie vote for first, even though it was clear to everyone that Jefferson was the party's candidate for president and Burr was to be his vice-president. Because the electors could reach no firm decision, the final decision was made by the House of Representatives.

The Twelfth Amendment attempted to solve this problem by differentiating the candidates for the two offices and then calling on the electors to indicate their favorite for each. Thus, the party system was, in effect, constitutionally recognized by the Amendment, whereas the original scheme of 1787 had been predicated on the Framers' loathing of the very idea of party politics.

Dick Cheney And The Twelfth Amendment's Inhabitant Clause

The Twelfth Amendment provides, among other things, that "Electors shall . . . vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves." This clearly doesn't prohibit all-Virginia or all-New York tickets; it simply generates a significant disincentive for such tickets inasmuch as the Virginia or New York electors are barred from voting for both of their party's candidates.

Interestingly, the Inhabitant Clause may well apply to the Republicans' Bush-Cheney ticket. Dick Cheney -- though originally from Wyoming and, indeed, a former Representative from that State -- has, for the past several years, been living and voting in Texas while serving as chief executive of a Dallas oil company. That is, Cheney is a former inhabitant of Wyoming who, like millions of other mobile Americans, has chosen new pastures, in which he indeed prospered. But then new opportunity beckoned via the possibility of serving as his Governor's running mate. The solution to the Twelfth Amendment problem, Republican lawyers suggest, was simple: Cheney flew back to Wyoming and registered to vote.

But not so fast. This opportunistic change is scarcely enough to establish that Cheney is now an "inhabitant" of Wyoming and, far more importantly, that he is not an inhabitant of the Lone Star State. His home remains in Texas; one would also have to be gullible indeed to believe, for example, that Cheney will, if unsuccessful in his aspiration to move back to Washington, move back to Wyoming. As a result, relatively few lawyers are satisfied that Cheney has complied with the letter and purpose of the Twelfth Amendment.

One might well ask, though, who cares? Precisely because we have become such a mobile population, few people really believe that state identity is particularly important anymore (save, perhaps, for Texans!). One might well feel that an anachronism like the Inhabitant Clause should either be ignored or, if that is impossible, solved by allowing inhabitancy to follow voter registration -- which would solve Cheney's problem and, possibly, that of any future similar ticket.

Why The Twelfth Amendment Matters: The Electoral College Time Bomb

One may agree to smile at (and ignore) the Inhabitant Clause. Far more ominous, though, is the Twelfth Amendment's provision laying out the procedure by which deadlocks in the Electoral College would be resolved. The House of Representatives selects the new president from the top three candidates. But the vote is by State, not by representative. So Vermont, Wyoming and North Dakota collectively outweigh, say, California and Texas.

This is a time bomb within the American political system, for it seems unimaginable that the public at large would accept as legitimate the House's choice of the person who came in second (or even third) in the popular vote because of a coalition of small states (perhaps from the Mountain West) representing a distinct minority of the population.

Is this a real problem? After all, the House has not been called on to choose a president since 1824. And one might argue that the two-party system is thoroughly hard-wired into the American system, thus removing the possibility of deadlock in the Electoral College. But no one should be so confident. Things might change.

Indeed, most educated Americans believed until very recently that the Impeachment Clause was of no real importance any longer -- because it had been invoked only once, in 1868, with regard to Andrew Johnson. But former Independent Counsel Ken Starr, together with the House, ensured that this supposed dead-letter clause was actually a live wire for President Clinton.

Moreover, taking the long view, the two-party system may turn out to be less of a permanent feature of our politics than one might think. Strom Thurmond received 39 electoral votes in 1948 as a Dixiecrat, and George Wallace gained 46 votes in 1968. The current two-party structure could conceivably have all the staying power of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics -- the demise of which was unpredicted by most even in 1988. A mature polity might contemplate the consequences of adherence to the Twelfth Amendment if (and when) a new third (or even fourth) party emerges that makes it impossible for the Electoral College to produce a winner.

If the House tie-breaking procedure -- giving the states equal weight and, therefore, giving small states a grotesquely disproportionate role in choosing the president -- is triggered, the result may well be unacceptable to the majority of the American public (as it should be). If this is so, their representatives should work to change that procedure now, through a corrective constitutional amendment that would (assuming we wished to retain the electoral college) give each representative (and not simply each state) one vote. We've just seen the impeachment that could never happen come true. Let's not wait to see the electoral deadlock -- and ensuing chaos -- that we also naively believe could never happen, come true, as well.

Sanford Levinson is the W. St. John Garwood and W. St. John Garwood, Jr. Centennial Chair in Law and Professor of Government at the University of Texas (Austin). He is author of Constitutional Faith (Princeton, 1988) and Written in Stone (Duke, 1998).

My Opinion: This article shoes a brief history of the Twelfth Amendment and how it still might be important today. I thought it was interesting to compare it to the impeachment clause saying that we thought we would never need it again until we did, this is how we need to think about this amendment. If the House has to decide on the leader of our country, who says they will pick the right one. Maybe the guy they choose actually came in second but what could anyone do. This is why this Amendment is so important to prevent this from happening ever again.

Amendment XI

The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another State, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.

My Opinion: Basically this amendment is saying that a state cannot be sued for any reason. I like to think of it as the example if you enter into a contract with the state of Georgia to build a bridge. Once you build a bridge, the state refuses to pay you. The 11th Amendment says you cannot sue Georgia for the money. In some cases it can be good but in some cases it can be bad.

Chisholm v. Georgia

Facts of the Case:

In 1777, the Executive Council of Georgia authorized the purchase of needed supplies from a South Carolina businessman. After receiving the supplies, Georgia did not deliver payments as promised. After the merchant's death, the executor of his estate, Alexander Chisholm, took the case to court in an attempt to collect from the state. Georgia maintained that it was a sovereign state not subject to the authority of the federal courts.

Question:

Was the state of Georgia subject to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the federal government?

Conclusion:

In a 4-to-1 decision, the justices held that "the people of the United States" intended to bind the states by the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of the national government. The Court held that supreme or sovereign power was retained by citizens themselves, not by the "artificial person" of the State of Georgia. The Constitution made clear that controversies between individual states and citizens of other states were under the jurisdiction of federal courts. State conduct was subject to judicial review.

My Opinion: This was the case that pretty much created the Eleventh Amendment. When cases like this come up between people, it is so much easier to already have it laid out how it is going to be handled so there is no room for error. Know people "should" know ahead of time what the law is so it eliminates worthless court fees.

The Eleventh Amendment's Curious History

Amending the Constitution to Overrule the Supreme Court

During the Revolutionary War a South Carolina merchant, Captain Robert Farquhar sold supplies to the State of Georgia on credit. Following the War, Georgia refused to pay Farquhar asserting that he was a British loyalist. Farquhar later died, and the executor of his estate, South Carolinian Alexander Chisolm sued the State of Georgia for the debt.

The Constitution Article III, Section 2

Chisolm sued Georgia in the Supreme Court of the United States on the basis of Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, which reads in relevant part:

"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity … ;--between a state and citizens of another state…”

In the case of Chisolm v. Georgia, the State of Georgia refused to appear in court. Georgia claimed that is was protected by the concept of sovereign immunity and could not be sued without its consent. The Supreme Court, led by first Chief Justice John Jay, disagreed relying on Article III, Section 2 and ordered Georgia to pay the debt to Farquhar’s estate.

Chisolm v. Georgia Leads to the Eleventh Amendment

The Supreme Court’s decision in 1793 was one of its earliest interpreting the Constitution, as the government under the Constitution was only four years old. The decision was also incredibly unpopular. It was so unpopular in Georgia, that the Georgia legislature passed a law providing that anyone attempting to enforce the Supreme Court decision would be subject to hanging.

The Chisolm v. Georgia decision was unpopular throughout the country. The decision was so disliked that the Eleventh Amendment was proposed and ratified very quickly. The Eleventh Amendment was ratified on February 4, 1795 and reads as follows:

“The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.“

Eleventh Amendment Overrules the Supreme Court

In Chisolm v. Georgia, the Supreme Court allowed a State to be sued in a federal court. The Eleventh Amendment effectively overruled the Supreme Court’s decision and modified Article III, Section 2. As a result of the Eleventh Amendment, States could no longer be sued by citizens of other States or foreign citizens in federal courts.

The Eleventh Amendment does not address the question of a State’s own citizens filing suit against the State in federal court, but in the intervening years, the Supreme Court has prohibited those suits as well, and also shielded States from having to appear before executive agencies as well. The Eleventh Amendment has been found to embody the concept of sovereign immunity and applied it to the States.

The Concept of Sovereign Immunity

The concept of sovereign immunity goes back to English common law. The thought was that since the king (the sovereign) was the source of the law, he could not break the law, or commit a legal wrong. When governments changed from monarchies ruled by kings to democracies governed by representatives of the people, the new sovereign became the State.

The Eleventh Amendment gives constitutional stature to the concept of sovereign immunity. As a result, States are immune to lawsuits unless they give permission to be sued. As with many things in law there are exceptions to this, and the major exception to State sovereign immunity arose with the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment.

My Opinion: This article gives a little more of what had to happen for this Amendment to become established. It's hard to imagine what U.S. citizens had go to go through for all of these Amendments to be permanently established to make the world we live in today what it is. Just one as simple as citizens cannot sue the federal government makes a huge impact as this article shows.

The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. If the Court makes an unpopular decision, the recourse is an amendment. This happened with the Eleventh Amendment.

During the Revolutionary War a South Carolina merchant, Captain Robert Farquhar sold supplies to the State of Georgia on credit. Following the War, Georgia refused to pay Farquhar asserting that he was a British loyalist. Farquhar later died, and the executor of his estate, South Carolinian Alexander Chisolm sued the State of Georgia for the debt.

The Constitution Article III, Section 2

Chisolm sued Georgia in the Supreme Court of the United States on the basis of Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, which reads in relevant part:

"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity … ;--between a state and citizens of another state…”

In the case of Chisolm v. Georgia, the State of Georgia refused to appear in court. Georgia claimed that is was protected by the concept of sovereign immunity and could not be sued without its consent. The Supreme Court, led by first Chief Justice John Jay, disagreed relying on Article III, Section 2 and ordered Georgia to pay the debt to Farquhar’s estate.

Chisolm v. Georgia Leads to the Eleventh Amendment

The Supreme Court’s decision in 1793 was one of its earliest interpreting the Constitution, as the government under the Constitution was only four years old. The decision was also incredibly unpopular. It was so unpopular in Georgia, that the Georgia legislature passed a law providing that anyone attempting to enforce the Supreme Court decision would be subject to hanging.

Ads by Google

List Of United States at Bing™
Sort the States by Population, Region, & More. Try Visual Search!
www.Bing.com/VisualSearch

Help With Medical Debt
Get Help Paying Off Medical Bills. Fast, Effective Debt Relief Plans.
www.DebtReliefUSA.org

The Chisolm v. Georgia decision was unpopular throughout the country. The decision was so disliked that the Eleventh Amendment was proposed and ratified very quickly. The Eleventh Amendment was ratified on February 4, 1795 and reads as follows:

“The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.“

Eleventh Amendment Overrules the Supreme Court

In Chisolm v. Georgia, the Supreme Court allowed a State to be sued in a federal court. The Eleventh Amendment effectively overruled the Supreme Court’s decision and modified Article III, Section 2. As a result of the Eleventh Amendment, States could no longer be sued by citizens of other States or foreign citizens in federal courts.

The Eleventh Amendment does not address the question of a State’s own citizens filing suit against the State in federal court, but in the intervening years, the Supreme Court has prohibited those suits as well, and also shielded States from having to appear before executive agencies as well. The Eleventh Amendment has been found to embody the concept of sovereign immunity and applied it to the States.

The Concept of Sovereign Immunity

The concept of sovereign immunity goes back to English common law. The thought was that since the king (the sovereign) was the source of the law, he could not break the law, or commit a legal wrong. When governments changed from monarchies ruled by kings to democracies governed by representatives of the people, the new sovereign became the State.

The Eleventh Amendment gives constitutional stature to the concept of sovereign immunity. As a result, States are immune to lawsuits unless they give permission to be sued. As with many things in law there are exceptions to this, and the major exception to State sovereign immunity arose with the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Read more: http://law.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_eleventh_amendments_curious_history#ixzz0V9Uqm4Sx

Amendment X

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.

My Opinion: This is a very important Amendment that is constantly over looked or over shadowed by bigger and better things. People don't realize that without little amendments like this we would not have rights of rules for marriages, divorces, driving licenses, voting, state taxes, job and school requirements, rules for police and fire departments, and many more.

20 + States Declaring Sovereignty Under the Tenth Amendment



My Opinion: I think that this video hits on some really good points that most people do not think about. The Federal government is all for all these new programs and implementing them in all the states. But what happens if this state cannot support them financially. States can not just print their own money, but it seems like the Government suspects them to. Then the citizens get all upset because they once had this program that was great then it might be taken away from them. I do think that the Tenth Amendment needs to be amplified and put to use to stop this from happening.

Child Support Recovery Act violates Tenth Amendment

A U.S. district court held that the Child Support Recovery Act (CSRA), 18 U.S.C. 228, violates the Tenth Amendment. That statute imposes criminal liability on parents who willfully fail to make support payments for their children living in another state.

Here, King, a Texas resident, was indicted under the CSRA for failing to make support payments for his child, who resided in New York. King moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the CSRA violates the Tenth Amendment because it exceeds Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce.

Granting the motion to dismiss, the court noted that the Second Circuit rejected a Tenth Amendment challenge to the CSRA in United States ro. Sage, 92 F.3d 101 (2d Cir. 1996). In that case, the court employed the approach adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), which articulated three categories of activity subject to regulation by Congress under the Commerce Clause: (1) the use of the channels of commerce; (2) instrumentalities of, or persons or things in, interstate commerce; and (3) activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce.

In Sage, the Second Circuit held that Congress may regulate the obstruction of interstate commerce under its power to regulate things in interstate commerce. That court determined that a failure to make a support payment for a child residing in another state is a failure to comply with an obligation to make payments in interstate commerce. Therefore, the court reasoned, under Sage, the failure to make child support payments obstructs interstate commerce, and is thus subject to regulation under the Commerce Clause.

However, the court emphasized, after Sage the U.S. Supreme Court decided United States ro. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598,43 ATIA L. Rep. 242 (Aug. 2000). There, the Court struck down the civil remedy provisions of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and clarified the standards for regulating the obstruction of interstate commerce. In Morrison, the Court found that VAWA's civil remedies for victims of gender-motivated violence could not be justified based on congressional findings that gender-motivated violence (1) deters victims from engaging in interstate commerce, (2) increases medical and other costs, and (3) decreases the supply of and demand for interstate products. Even though these effects of gender-motivated violence relate to the obstruction of interstate commerce, the Court held Congress may regulate conduct that obstructs interstate commerce through the Commerce Clause only where that conduct has a substantial effect on such commerce.

My Opinion: Me being a child of divorced parents, this article kind of hit close to home. I know parents all over the country have problems obtaining child support and to throw in that the other parent cannot live in another state makes things even more difficult. In some cases this amendment is appropriate but in some it is not.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

My Opinion: This Amendment protected rights not yet determined. Without this Amendment there would be no gay rights, no right to privacy, no rights to be informed of wars, women would have no rights. So when you think about it this is a "silent" Amendment that opened the doors for many other things.


The Ninth Amendment

The 9th Amendment
Uploaded by microdac. - Up-to-the minute news videos.

My Opinion: I particularly like this video because it points out all the hidden meanings of the Ninth Amendment. I think this amendment is over looked quite-often when it shouldn't be. This amendment declared that people are not property, they are PEOPLE with RIGHTS. Maybe people do not pay attention to this amendment is not as clear as others which sometimes discourages people to pay attention to.


Demystify the Ninth Amendment

A 'living' Constitution might well be dangerous, but so can a frozen one

The Forgotten Ninth Amendment

Tibor R. Machan

In a recent talk, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia criticized his fellow justices for making law, a role he believes belongs to the legislature or the people themselves. Justices, he argued, are there to interpret the U.S. Constitution and this they must do by reading it as it was intended back when it was framed and when it was later amended.

In his dissent Scalia wrote of his concern that the high court is proclaiming itself the sole arbiter of the nation's moral standards.

The charge Scalia has leveled at his colleagues - five of them, the majority who ruled for abolition of the death penalty for juveniles and the mentally impaired - is the substance of the general criticism usually labeled "judicial activism."

This view decries it when the court rules as if there exist rights that are not explicitly mentioned or enumerated within the U.S. Constitution.

One of the most famous of these unenumerated rights is the right to privacy, and the majority of the court has ruled in several recent cases that various state laws violate this right and are, therefore, unconstitutional and invalid laws.

In his recent public talk, Justice Scalia argued that the idea of a living constitution is essentially wrongheaded because it leaves the country without a firm basis of law by which it can be governed. Instead of a stable set of constitutional principles, justices have come to make laws based on their "personal policy preferences," thus undermining the classic doctrine of the rule of law (as opposed to that of arbitrary governors).

The case Scalia makes has a good deal going for it because it is indeed part of the theory of politics in the USA that the role justices play does not include making laws, only interpreting the Constitution.

Yet, there is a problem here because Justice Scalia ignores the Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the one that states unequivocally that aside from rights enumerated in that document, the people have others as well.

The Ninth reads: "The enumeration in this Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

So, while this does not sanction any kind of loose, "living" constitutional doctrine, it does make clear reference to rights that aren't explicitly listed in the U.S. Constitution.

What could those rights be? Pretty much to do everything and anything the government isn't authorized to prohibit. Indeed, the point of the U.S. Constitution does not appear to be to spell out our rights in particular, other than to spell out for emphasis of some of the most crucial ones. It is, rather, to state what the strictly limited powers of government are.

As to whether this authorizes the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down state and federal legislation that permits the execution of juveniles or the mentally ill, the situation is complicated. It is arguable, however, that one role of the court is to spell out the logical meanings of terms within the Constitution for our own times, meanings that have clearly undergone some rational evolution.

If it is determined, for example, that children and the mentally disabled lack the full capacity of adult humans, this could reasonably require interpreting provisions of the U.S. Constitution and other laws accordingly.

And that is just what seems to lie behind recent rulings.

For example, the young, who in our day aren't permitted to enter into contracts, to marry on their own or to vote, would probably not warrant being judged guilty of crimes exactly as they were when certain nuances in understanding what human beings are had been overlooked or were not clearly understood.

Against Scalia it can be argued that although the idea of a living constitution is dangerous, so is the idea of a frozen one.

Reasonable development in the meaning of the terms in the fundamental laws of the society is to be expected and should not be thwarted in the US Supreme Court's deliberations and rulings.

Those who protest that this is anti-democratic need to consider that the founders were not pure democrats by a long shot - just consider the Electoral College, which is blatantly anti-democratic.

My Opinion: The part of this article that stuck out the most to me was that justices have come to make laws based on their "personal policy preferences," and forgetting about the governing doctrine we should all follow. Justices should not be authorized to make laws, in my opinion that should be solely up to the Legislative Branch of the government. I do agree with Scalia in that we do not need a living constitution but we also do not need a frozen one either. Times are changing and the hard part is making the adjustments in all the right places.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

My Opinion: I think that this Amendment is very controversial. Obviously people have different opinions on what this might mean. But quite frankly I am glad this Amendment is here because it prevents people from being: stoned to death, hanged, and other cruel punishments that they did 100 years ago. Now people just need to decide is what we are still doing still humane? Many states still do not have the death penalty which I personally think is wrong. I am for the death penalty, every inmate on death row has some good reason they are there. Yes, there might be a mistake, but hardly ever. I would rather see these ruthless heartless criminals get a taste of their own punishment then they sit in a cell for the rest of their lives. They are lucky we don't "take an eye for an eye."


Lethel Injection in America

Lethal Injection in America from Joseph P. Meyer on Vimeo.

My Opinion: The reason I choose this video is because it gives both stand points someone could have on the death penalty and dealing with the Eighth Amendment. Personally I do believe in the death penalty. Someone wouldn't be there unless they did some crime so vicious that they deserve it. Compared to what death penalty was 100 years ago, this quick and easy 3-dose shot is very humane and does not violate the Eighth Amendment. But with the advances that we are constantly having, I am sure we will discover something maybe even better.

Supreme Court rulings won't end lawsuits

By Deborah Hastings, AP National Writer

For at least a decade, the Supreme Court has declined to rule on the use of lethal injections and whether the death penalty applies to anyone who rapes a child. In its term ending Friday, the high court issued decisions on both, but neither solves the bitter fight over capital punishment.

Death penalty opponents have instead promised even more litigation claiming lethal injection can cause excruciating pain.

In disparate decisions, the court ruled in April that fatal injection, when done properly, does not violate Eighth Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment. On Wednesday, justices declared killing child rapists does violate it.

And it is the earlier decision, some legal experts say, that will most affect death penalty challenges. Not for what it clarifies, but for what it doesn't.

This spring's ruling was based on one Kentucky execution that encountered no problems while officials administered a three-drug injection. Defense attorneys argued the use of that protocol risked causing cruel levels of pain.

But the court established that challengers must prove "substantial risk of serious harm." Sparse evidence presented by defense attorneys in the Kentucky case did not meet that requirement, justices said.

Yet, say several death penalty experts, that new standard establishes a threshold while simultaneously opening a door to cross it.

Defense attorneys who can document that botched executions have caused serious suffering could gain great inroads for their death row clients, those experts said.

"This presents not just an opportunity, but an obligation to develop arguments with evidence about less-than-perfect protocols," said Douglas Berman, a law professor and death penalty expert at Ohio State University's Moritz College of Law. "And those states inclined to tweak their protocols may be setting themselves up for further litigation by people who will say 'Hey, they changed their protocols so that must mean there's something wrong with them.'"

Such challenges have already occurred in California, which has the nation's highest death row population at 669, and Texas, which executes more inmates than any other state.

Last week, Delaware attorneys seeking abolishment of lethal injection filed court papers saying an inmate three years ago suffered inhumane treatment during a botched execution that left him awake but paralyzed.

Advocates for capital punishment, meanwhile, say lethal injection is humane and claim the justices' decision as victory.

Besides, said Kent Scheidegger of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, execution is a punishment, not a medical procedure.

"We're dealing with a method that is relatively painless. There's no reason it should be totally without pain," he said. "There's a difference between saying we don't torture people to death and guaranteeing that death will be painless for a convicted murderer."

Thirty-five of 36 death penalty states use lethal injection. Legal fights cover myriad battlefronts -- from attacking the medical qualifications of those administering the drugs to questions about whether the chemicals used comply with controlled substances laws.

Since the much-anticipated Supreme Court ruling, six states have moved to reinstate executions. There have been nine thus far -- two in Georgia, two in South Carolina, two in Virginia and the rest in Mississippi, Oklahoma and Texas. Another execution is scheduled Tuesday in Florida.

On their own, some state courts have already said lethal injection is unconstitutional.

Weeks after the Kentucky ruling, a judge in neighboring Ohio invalidated that state's three-drug protocol and ordered the use of a single, powerful barbiturate that would put an inmate to sleep -- much in the same way that veterinarians put down animals.

In many lethal injection appeals, inmates have supported that method.

Kentucky inmates Ralph Baze and Thomas Bowling Jr., both convicted of double murders, made the same argument. Justices disagreed, saying state standards and procedures had worked because the condemned died within 15 seconds, without incident.

From now on, legal experts contend, most court arguments will turn on that specific issue. "Every defendant will say our state is not like Kentucky. Every pro-death penalty state will say our protocols are just like Kentucky's," Berman said.

The high court's other ruling is more definitive. Justices declared that executing child rapists was disproportionate to the crime committed. Capital punishment applies only to killers, justices said, and to crimes against the state.

Death row lawyers said Kentucky attorneys had been barred from presenting evidence showing death by an intravenous line had caused severe pain in other jurisdictions. All lethal injection states use some kind of triple-dose procedure that first delivers an anesthetic to put the inmate to sleep, then a second paralyzing chemical, and a final dose that stops the heart.

It was developed by an Oklahoma coroner in 1977 and has little changed. It was designed to avoid distasteful deaths associated with electric chairs and gas chambers -- executions in which some inmates had been set afire and others choked and convulsed from toxic fumes.

Lethal injection was less objectionable, prison officials said, and its paralyzing agent would ease discomfort to those witnessing executions.

But if anesthesia is not administered correctly, or in a high enough dose, inmates remain awake and able to feel pain as the procedure continues, say inmate attorneys. Paralysis prevents the prisoner from speaking or expressing pain while enduring suffocation and, ultimately, cardiac arrest, they say.

Among their examples is a 1989 Texas execution during which inmate Stephen McCoy reacted violently to the toxic chemicals entering his body and began choking and seizing, despite being restrained. A male witness fainted, knocking over another witness. A state official later said a heavier dose might have been warranted.

Justices themselves appeared conflicted on the issue of lethal injection, as well as the death penalty. Despite their 7-2 vote, they issued seven separate written opinions.

Justices Anthony Scalia and Clarence Thomas agreed that the narrowness of the case would only create more death penalty lawsuits. "This never ends," said Scalia. Justice Samuel Alito disagreed, saying correct interpretation of the court's standard would not lead to "never-ending litigation."

For the first time, Justice John Paul Stevens -- who voted with the court majority to reinstate executions in 1976 -- said he'd changed his mind about capital punishment.

"I am now convinced that this case will generate debate not only about the constitutionality of the three-drug protocol ... but also about the justification for the death penalty itself."

My Opinion: I do admit that it is important for this to be administered correctly for the laws sake, but more times then not it works just like it should. There is always going to be a mistake, no one is perfect. I do think it is a good idea to find a drug that all is needed is one dose. The 3-dose injection leaves to much room for error.

Amendment VII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

My opinion: Amendment 7 guarantees a jury trial in civil suits where the value exceeds $20. When both parties agree, a judge, rather than a jury, can decide the case, this makes things alot simpler and straight forward; no room for question.

The Seventh Amendment



My Opinion: This video I thought gave a good representation of the Seventh Amendment. It is shamful seeing those political figures that were eventually fired for breaking the constitution. Shouldn't that be a requirement when going into politics... following the document that let's them stand here today and do as they please?

Seventh Amendment guarantees right to jury trial on amount of statutory damages under Copyright Act
Law Reporter, Jun 1998

The U.S. Supreme Court held that the Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial on statutory damages due under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 101 et seq. Here, Columbia Pictures Television, Inc., sued the owner of several television stations for copyright infringement when he continued to broadcast Columbia's programs after his licenses had been terminated for nonpayment. The trial court granted plaintiff summary judgment on liability, and plaintiff exercised its option under the Copyright Act's 504(c) to choose statutory damages instead of actual damages. The trial court denied defendant's jury trial request and awarded plaintiff statutory damages. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that neither the Copyright Act nor the Seventh Amendment requires a jury trial on statutory damages.

Reversing, the Supreme Court noted there is no statutory right to a jury trial when a copyright owner elects to recover statutory damages. Section 504(c) makes no mention of a right to a jury trial, providing instead that damages should be assessed in an amount "the court deems just." The word "court" in this context appears to mean judge. The Court noted other remedy provisions of the Copyright Act use the word "court" to signify judge. By contrast, the provision addressing awards of actual damages and profits does not use the word "court." Turning to the constitutional issue, the Court noted that even before the adoption of the Seventh Amendment, copyright damages actions were tried before juries. There is no evidence that the Copyright Act changed this practice. The Court rejected plaintiff's argument that statutory damages are equitable in nature. The general rule is that monetary relief is legal, and a statutory damages award serves purposes traditionally associated with legal relief, such as compensation and punishment.

The Court also noted the right to a jury trial includes having the jury determine the amount of statutory damages. The Court distinguished a previous case in which it determined that although the Seventh Amendment grants a right to a jury trial on liability for civil penalties under the Clean Water Act, Congress could constitutionally authorize trial judges to assess the amount of the civil penalties. In that case, there was no evidence that juries historically had determined the amount of civil penalties to be paid to the government. Here, there was clear and direct historical evidence that the consistent practice in copyright cases was for juries to award damages.

My Opinion: Since this was clearly stated under the Copyright Act, Columbia Pictures Television has every right to sue these television stations. And since they were given the option of statutory damages vs. actual damages, this is where it says that a jury trial is not necessary. I think it would of been easier to solve this by going to court and appointing these damages to a judge to make things fair and easy.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

My opinion: The part that sticks out the most to me in the Amendment is "to be confronted with the witnesses against him," I think this is working against the system now days. If you are a witness to crime, most people are afraid to be on the witness stand in fear of the repercutions of their actions. Maybe they live in a neighborhood where if you squeal then you know your fait. It is preventing people from standing up against these criminals and putting them behind bars.


Sixth Amendment Violation



My Opinion: This is an embarrassment to the judicial system. As a judge you need to be aware of the Amendments and know how to handle a situation that violates one of these amendments. If there was a extreme verdict to this case, the defendant could fall back on the impartial jury. Totally ridiculous that he just over looked it so easily.

Court Upholds Sixth Amendment Rights
By ANNE GEARANThe Associated PressMonday, March 8, 2004; 1:33 PM

WASHINGTON - The Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant may confront his accusers, and that right means prosecutors can't use a wife's taped statement to police to try to undermine her husband at trial, the Supreme Court ruled Monday.

The high court sided with a man convicted of assaulting an acquaintance he had accused of trying to rape his wife. Sylvia Crawford did not testify at Michael Crawford's trial, but prosecutors played a tape they claimed showed her story did not match his.

Michael Crawford's lawyers had no opportunity to cross-examine Sylvia Crawford about the tape, a unanimous Supreme Court said.

"That alone is sufficient to make out a violation of the Sixth Amendment," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote.

The Sixth Amendment guarantees that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him."

All nine justices agreed to throw out Michael Crawford's conviction and return the case to the state court system in Washington. Seven justices also took the unusual step of squarely overruling an earlier case that laid out complex rules for when statements can be used without the opportunity for cross-examination.

The 1980 case has needlessly complicated a fairly straightforward part of the Constitution, Scalia wrote. The Constitution's framers were wary of letting judges have too much power, he added.
"By replacing categorical constitutional guarantees with open-ended balancing tests, we do violence to their design. Vague standards are manipulable," Scalia wrote.

While that "might be a small concern in run-of-the-mill assault prosecutions like this one," the framers had in mind the darker specter of state trials such as Sir Walter Raleigh's in 17th Century England, Scalia wrote.

Raleigh demanded that the judges "call my accuser before my face," but they refused. Raleigh was sentenced to death for treason.

Justices John Paul Stevens, Anthony M. Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer agreed with him.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Sandra Day O'Connor dissented from the portion of the ruling that overturned the earlier case, and said the majority was complicating, not clarifying, the rules prosecutors should follow.

"The thousands of federal prosecutors and the tens of thousands of state prosecutors need answers as to what beyond the specific kinds of 'testimony' the court lists is covered by the new rule," Rehnquist wrote.

The Crawford case began in 1999, when Crawford and his wife went to find Kenneth Lee at his apartment in Olympia, Wash. The two men argued and fought, and Sylvia Crawford saw what happened. Michael Crawford got a cut on his hand that required 12 stitches to close, and he stabbed Lee in the stomach, seriously wounding him.

The Crawfords fled the apartment and were arrested that night. They both gave statements to police, but only Michael Crawford said he thought he had seen Lee reach for a weapon before he was stabbed.

Sylvia did not testify at her husband's trial because of the law protecting spouses from testifying against one another. Prosecutors used her statement to refute his claim that the stabbing was self-defense. In a closing statement to jurors, a prosecutor called the statement "damning evidence."

The case is Crawford v. Washington, 02-9410.

My opinion: This was clearly a mistake on the police's part. Trying to trick the defendant into confessing by illegally showing him tape of his so called wife's story. Luckily the court system caught it and overthrew the case. It's times like these when we are glad to have these Amendments protecting us.

Amendment V

No person shall be held at 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 jeoperdy 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.

My Opinion: This Amendment has quite a few parts that is worth talking about. First:

Indictment by Grand Jury: No one can be tried for a serious crime without being indicted by a Grand Jury first which is a important aspect to being able to sentence criminals correctly.

Double Jeopardy: that defendants, once acquitted on a charge, may not be tried again for the same offense at the same jurisdictional level. Prime example of this is the O.J. Simpson trial. I think this is totally ridiculous on some levels. For the people who are protected by this is no guarantee that they are totally innocent. Putting criminals right back out on the street and there is not a thing we can do about it.

Pleading the Fifth: The best known clause in the Fifth Amendment ("No person ... shall be compelled in a criminal case to be a witness against himself") protects suspects from forced self-incrimination.

The Miranda Rule: Just because a suspect has rights doesn't mean that a suspect knows about those rights. Officers have often used, and sometimes still use, a suspect's ignorance regarding his or her own civil rights to build a case. This is why the Miranda Rights were established so this would stop happening, and everyone is treated equally which is important.

Obama Further Damages the Fifth Amendment



My Opinion: I had not heard of any of this until watching this video. I think it is crazy that people cannot sue these companies unless the government makes it public. Obama is making a bad name for himself by supporting this. Since the program of TSP is not active anymore then this still shouldn't be happening, and if it is then something needs to be done about it. That is a extreme violation of privacy!

Computer Passwords & the Fifth Amendment

My Opinion: There are many who believe this ruling is wrong. They take the the view that a pass phrase is like a key to a door, a safe deposit box, etc. The accused would have to produce this type of key--such action is not protected under the Fifth Amendment. It is not compelled testimony. Rather, it is simply providing access to evidence defined in a warrant or subpoena. Therefore, an accused should have to provide a pass phrase or password to "unlock" electronic evidence. In my opinion--and I am not a lawyer--, a pass phrase is a key. It doesn't by itself incriminate anyone. It simply provides easy access to evidence. In the physical world, law enforcement personnel would simply gain entry by breaking a lock or door to gain access based on the dictates of a warrant. This is not possible in much of the electronic world where critical evidence might be encrypted. I'm all for privacy. I believe each of us should be protected from invasive acts by government. However, I also believe that court ordered searches of electronic media trump this protection. Law enforcement must be able to access electronic evidence--whether encrypted or in plain text--in order to protect all of society.

Amendment IV

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.

My Opinion: This is a very important Amendment that keeps our police in check. Without this nobody would have any sort of privacy or personal security whatsoever. For all the good people of America this is a great right to have but for all the criminals who are protected by this Amendment, lets just call them lucky. I guess the main point I want to get across with this Amendment is if I were put in the situation where I was searched for no reason, I would not be upset for the fact that I am glad they are trying to catch criminals, and if you have nothing to hide then what do you have to worry about. I would rather them search someone and find something then not search at all.

Screw the Fourth Amendment in Boston



My Opinion: This plan for safer streets in Boston does sound a little sketchy to me. Although a great idea for a country in desperate need of crime control, I do believe that this is walking the line with violating the Fourth Amendment. A good point was made that the neighborhoods that is in the most need of this is lower income neighborhoods. And that usually these people are already familiar with police abuse, so whose to say this wouldn't make it worse? If the cops raid a kids room and finds something else besides a gun, I guarantee they will find a way around the law and arrest him and take him to jail. I do think this is a good beginning to safer streets but needs a little adjustment to the rules.


Bond v. United States 529 U.S. 334 (2000)

Steven Dewayne Bond was indicted for conspiracy to possess, and possession with intent to distribute, methamphetamine in violation of a Federal statute. He had been traveling on a Greyhound bus bound for Little Rock, Arkansas from California. When the bus stopped at a Border Patrol checkpoint in Sierra Blanca, Texas, Agent Cesar Cantu boarded the bus to check on the immigration status of its passengers. Agent Cantu walked from the front of the bus to the back and after verifying the status of the passengers, he began moving back to the front of the bus. As he did, he squeezed the soft luggage passengers had placed in the overhead storage area of the bus.
When Agent Cantu reached Bond's green canvas bag, in squeezing the bag, he felt what he described as a "brick-like" object inside. Bond admitted the bag was his and consented to a search. Inside the bag was a "brick" of methamphetamine wrapped in duct tape and rolled inside a pair of pants.
Bond moved to suppress the seizure of the drugs, arguing that Agent Cantu's seach was illegal. The District Court denied the motion and found him guilty on both counts, sentencing him to 57 months in prison. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's ruling, holding that "the fact that Agent Cantu’s manipulation of petitioner’s bag was calculated to detect contraband is irrelevant for Fourth Amendment purposes". Therefore, the seizure of the methamphetamine was not a search under the Fourth Amendment.
Chief Justice Rehnquist, in reversing the ruling of the Appeals Court, delivered the opinion of the Court, basing the decision on the analysis of two questions. (1) Did Bond, by his conduct, exhibit an actual expectation of privacy and (2) Was his expectation “one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable"? Rehnquist held that the answer to both questions was yes. First, Bond used an opaque bag and placed it directly above him. Second, Bond's expectation that others would not touch his bag in an "exploratory manner", as Agent Cantu did, was a reasonable expectation under the Fourth Amendment.

My Opinion: This is one of those examples where the guy should of got caught but the circumstances where sticky. But with drugs becoming such a problem in America, cops are looking for any reason to bust that one suspicious person. Yeah this is unfortunate that he couldn't keep his meth and sell it to get more people addicted, but instead it was in a way illegally found. The court system will cover the cops story in order to put these addicts behind bars.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

My Opinion: The originally meaning of this law was more effective at the time of the American Revolution. It prevented British soldiers from staying in private homes without the consent of the owners. This was more of a guarantee of civil liberties then anything. With the advancement of everything from our technology to our protection, I don't think this amendment is particularly important for us now. Our Armed Forces are so taken care of that they would never need to stay in citizens homes. And for some reason if they did, I'm hoping that most Americans would be kind enough and proud enough of their country that they would open their doors without hesitation if a crisis occured.

**Since this is so irrelevant to us in the 21st Century, people have taken this meaning to a privacy issue. Does the government have the right to our privacy? No I don't belive they do. If a person wants to do something then they have the freedom to make that choice to do it.

Third Amendment with Bob Badnarick



My Opinion: I think the most important thing to remember from this video is that our military is so advanced that I hardly doubt we will have to worry about this happening. Property is the main point if this Amendment and just like Bob Badnarick said "If we don't fight for our property then what will we fight for?"

Griswald vs. Connecticut (1965)

Facts of the Case: Griswold was the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut. Both she and the Medical Director for the League gave information, instruction, and other medical advice to married couples concerning birth control. Griswold and her colleague were convicted under a Connecticut law which criminalized the provision of counselling, and other medical treatment, to married persons for purposes of preventing conception.

Question: Does the Constitution protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on a couple's ability to be counseled in the use of contraceptives?

Conclusion: Though the Constitution does not explicitly protect a general right to privacy, the various guarantees within the Bill of Rights create penumbras, or zones, that establish a right to privacy. Together, the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, create a new constitutional right, the right to privacy in marital relations. The Connecticut statute conflicts with the exercise of this right and is therefore null and void.DecisionsDecision: 7 votes for Griswold, 2 vote(s) against

My Opinion: It think that this case is a little extreme. People take birth control all over the country, but it is this specific group of people who get convicted. It is a doctor's respobsiblity to help their patients with what ever their problems is, and that is all he was doing. The patients have the option to listen to the advice or throw it out the window. They are not forced to do nothing.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall bot be infringed.

My Opinion: This is the most controversial amendment in the Constitution. Most people just cannot seem to agree upon a happy middle with this one. Either people want no guns at all or couldn't live without having one. I think it is important to remember that when they state the word "militia," you have to remember what a militia meant when the Constitution was written compared to today. I personally have no problem with the right to bear arms. That is the part of being an American Citizen, the freedom to own a gun. No matter what people do to take these guns away, people who want them are going to get them no matter what.

Second Amendment and Gun Rights



My Opinion: This video really made me think on my views about gun control; more of just confirm them even more. People should have the right to protect themselves. The main point in this video was people who are "law abiding citizens" shouldn't be able to not protect themselves. The laws on gun control would be passed to prevent the criminals access to them. But most criminals don't abide by the law anyways! If it is stated in the constitution then it should stay.

PRESS RELEASE: SUPREME COURT TO HEAR McDONALD CASE
Published by Alan Gura under news release
Read the the U.S. Supreme Court docket

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The U.S. Supreme Court announced today that it will hear the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, and decide whether the right to keep and bear arms secured by the Second Amendment protects Americans from overreaching state and local governments.
At issue is a 27-year-old Chicago law banning handguns, requiring the annual taxation of firearms, and otherwise interfering with the right of law-abiding individuals to keep guns at home for self-defense. The case was brought on behalf of four Chicago residents, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the Illinois State Rifle Association.
Last year, in the landmark case of District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. However, as that case concerned the actions of the District of Columbia government, a federal entity, the high court was not called upon to decide whether the right bound states and local governments. Over the years, almost the entire Bill of Rights has been held to apply to state and local governments by operation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
“The freedoms we enjoy as Americans are secured to us against violation by all levels of government,” noted Alan Gura, of Gura & Possessky, PLLC, lead counsel for the McDonald plaintiffs. “State and local politicians should be on notice: the Second Amendment is a normal part of the Bill of Rights, and it is coming to your town.”
Otis McDonald, a Chicago resident since 1952 who led the fight to integrate his union local in the 1960s and is a plaintiff in the case, welcomed the news.
“I am grateful the Supreme Court has agreed to hear this case,” McDonald said. “I now pray that the Court secures me and all other law-abiding citizens the right to defend ourselves and our families.”
SAF founder Alan Gottlieb said the case is of paramount importance to American citizens, to see that their constitutional rights are respected not only by the Congress, but by state and local governments.
“SAF was delighted to bring this case in cooperation with the Illinois State Rifle Association and the four local plaintiffs because a gun ban is no less onerous to civil rights in Chicago than it was in the District of Columbia,” Gottlieb observed. “Such a law cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged.”
Chicago attorney David Sigale commented, “The City of Chicago cannot take from millions of Americans the fundamental freedom of self-defense in one’s own home. We are confident the Court will stand on the side of the law-abiding citizens and the Bill of Rights.”
“We’re pleased to hear that the Supreme Court has decided to take a look at Chicago’s gun laws,” added ISRA President Don Moran. “In this time of economic uncertainty and increasing lawlessness, the good people of Chicago ought not have to choose between violating Chicago’s gun ban, and protecting themselves and their loved ones.”
The Chicago gun ban challenge will likely be among the most closely watched constitutional law cases in decades. At stake is not just the question of whether the Second Amendment secures the right to arms against state and local governments, but also the extent to which the Supreme Court preserves individual liberty against encroachment by state and local governments.
Oral argument will possibly be scheduled early this coming winter, with a decision expected by June 2010. Gura will argue the case on behalf of the McDonald plaintiffs.

My Opinion: I think that his case is a little extreme. If you want to own a gun for self protection, then so be it. The government should not be able to tell a citizen of their state that they cannot protect themselves what-so-ever. Now, I do think that laws should be in place to monitor the gun industry but not totally ban it.

Amendment I

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.

My Opinion: To me this amendment is the most abused. We all know we have these rights but do we really know where they came from and what this country went through to get to this point? We are all content until one of these rights are taken away, when really it is our own fault for not abiding by the constitution. There are many subjects the First Amendment hits on that get us through our everyday lives.

Religion: Our government is prevented from establishing a offical religion which gives us free reign to believe in whatever we want.

Speech: Freedom of speech is the most controversial part of this amendment with people today. As much as we don't want people to say certain things, by law we cannot. They have the freedom to say what they want and when they want.

Press: The government cannot control where we hear our news from. They cannot specify that Americans are to only listen to CNN and nothing else. This allows different stand points to be spoken and criticized.

Assembly: Freedom of assembly has become more important in my opinion. With the free reign to meet with who ever you want whenever you want for any specific reason is important. When groups can gather and accomplish a common goal, their word can be spread more quickly and efficiently.

Petition: To petition the government for a redress of grievances means that citizens can ask for changes in the government. They can do this by collecting signatures and sending them to their elected representatives; they can write, call or e-mail their elected representatives; they can support groups that lobby the government.

Restricting the First Amendment on the interent





My Opinion: The reason I choose this video is because I feel that this is something that needs to be done. Regulating the internet could prevent us from potential future disasters. Where do you think kids find out how to make a bomb? FROM THE INTERNET! Why should this stuff be available? What use could it possibly offer to anyone! I think by coming up with some sort of restriction on the internet should be considered greatly.

March 3, 2006

A Colorado teacher who was suspended after making controversial comments about President Bush -- which were recorded by a student during class -- is filing a lawsuit against the school district in Aurora, Colo., this morning.
Sean Allen, the sophomore who took his tape to KHOW Radio.(thedenverchannel.com)
On the tape, the student, Sean Allen, repeatedly asks questions, and teacher Jay Bennish actually compliments him. But that may not be good enough for school officials, who will conclude their investigation within the week.
The district says the key question is whether Bennish violated policy by failing to allow ample opportunity for opposing views. On Thursday, dozens of students walked out of class at Overland High School, picking sides in the debate between the geography teacher and Allen. The controversy started Feb. 1, the day after Bush's State of the Union address.
"Who is probably the single most violent nation on planet Earth?" Bennish asked his class. "The United States of America."
He went even further, comparing Bush to Adolf Hitler.
"I'm not saying that Bush and Hitler are exactly the same, obviously they're not," Bennish said. "But there are some eerie similarities to the tones that they use."
Bennish told the class he was only expressing his opinions.
"I'm not in any way implying that you should agree with me," he said. "What I'm trying to get you to do is to think, right, about these issues more in depth."
"His whole goal," said David Lane, Bennish's attorney, "is to fire these kids up, and you have to take some extreme positions to fire these kids up. Let them debate it."
Bennish is on paid leave. Allen is thinking about transferring schools because he is afraid of reprisals.

-ABC News [Good Morning America]

My Opinion: Although it is disturbing to hear a teacher telling his students that Bush is like Hitler, he was expressing his opinion which he is protected to do by the First Amendment. At first you think that as a teacher you should be teaching your students things that will influence them so I can see the other side of this story. This goes back to me saying sometimes we wish we could tell people to just be quiet, but unfortunately we cannot and that is part of being an American that I can deal with.