http://www.amirite.net/home
I like visiting this website because...
1. Its entertaining(I like reading and posting).
2. I like the layout(It's very easy to use and organized).
3. The logo is pretty cool( The man holding his arms up on top).
4. Everyone knows who made the site(Its not a mystery). Its young guy(20's) who also has a page and posts stuff.
5. You can visit the site and post stuff, but you dont necessarily have to sign up(And its free if you do decide to sign up).
Monday, November 22, 2010
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Shereen's Thoughts(HTML)
I thought it was really cool when we learned how to make a webpage in computer info tech. Although it wasn't completely new to me(alot of kids my age learned how to do this when they wanted to decorate their pages on myspace) ,I still enjoyed learning the HTML tags. We learned how to create basic stuff such as the page itself, a title, titles, paragraphs, headings, lists, we learned how to add pictures,and we learned how to manipulate text. I would personally like to learn how to make my webpage presentable by adding wallpapers, videos, and music.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Growing Up Online Response
Although it first seemed like a public service announcement that was warning parents about the dangers of the internet, “Growing up Online” turned out to be very different. It was entertaining, especially for a teenager, to see if other teenagers do the same things I do online. I think it was a half way accurate representation of how kids use the internet, however.
Living their Lives Essentially Online
Even though I expressed my entertainment received by the film, some things about it bothered me, especially in this section of the film. Most teenagers I know DO NOT live their lives online. Living your life online, in my opinion, ,means that you wake up and get online and stay online until it’s time for bed, or you get off but get back on constantly. Students obviously have school and even if we did have the time to do this, we would not. The internet has a lot to offer, but it gets boring after a while. In the film, teenagers seemed like online zombies. It seemed like they ONLY got online all day, as if it was a sport. This is not usually the case.
As far as keeping in touch with parents, I only know one teenager who says that it is easier to connect with her parent through email. I find it silly to live with someone and feel like the only way you can talk to them is through email (I take this comment back ONLY if you guys have different schedules and don’t own cell phones, which most people do). Most teens I know discuss things with their parents when they get home or on the phone if their parent is not available.
This segment of the film was an accurate representation for some teenagers in the world today, but not all. I think this part might send the wrong message to someone who does not live with a typical teenager.
Revolution in Classrooms and Social Life
This segment of the film was a lot more accurate in my opinion. Many teenagers do use online as a way to cheat, which is why most schools stress the consequences of plagiarism. It saddened me to hear that one teacher say that she may have to find a new field of work because this is not the teaching that she is used to. If everyone felt that way (felt that they should just give up on their students, the ones that cheat AND the ones that do not cheat) we would have a screwed up education system.
Self Expression: Trying on New Identities
I think this was also a very accurate representation of teenagers and their online worlds. Most teens do create a different identity when they create social networking pages. However, unlike the girl in the film, most of them do not know it. People become bolder on the internet because they are typing these words into a computer and uploading these pictures into a computer. The computer does not judge you neither does it know you. Therefore, you feel like you can do anything because the computer is not going to look at you funny because you act out of character, or advise you not to upload those embarrassing pictures.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Experiences Online
Pre Shopping Experiences
Before I discovered that you could type in the name of your favorite store and view their clothes online, I just used to go shopping without any idea of what I want. Now that found out that you can view the clothes that are in stores (most of the time), I pre shop. When I decide that I want to go shopping I go online and look at clothes on the websites of all of the stores that I usually shop at. Then when I go to the store, I decide if I want to buy what I saw online (I don’t shop directly online because I might not like the item in person and I’m to lazy to ship it back). Therefore I save time. I also save money because when I go shopping randomly without planning (pre shopping) I just buy whatever I think I really like at the moment. However when I pre shop I have a couple of days to think if I really want a certain item. It may look good to me one day and a couple of days later I might not like it so much.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
From the Bronx, to the High Court
Sonia Sotomayor confirmed by Senate: First Latina on the U.S. Supreme Court. August 6, 2009.
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/08/sonia_sotomayor_confirmed_by_s.html
Article II, Executive Branch, Section 2
"He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the senate to...appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States"
Sonia Sotomayor will be making history as the first Latina on the U.S Supreme Court. She was Barack Obama's first nominee and was approved by a 68-31 Senate vote, in which nine republicans crossed party lines to vote for her.
This article demonstrates Article II, Executive Branch, Section 2 because it shows the president, Barack Obama, appointing, with the consent of the senate, a judge of the Supreme Court. What makes this article even more interesting is that history is being made. Sotomayor is the first Hispanic person to be a Supreme Court judge. She is not the first Hispanic woman, but the first Hispanic person.
I think this is really remarkable how the first Hispanic to ever be a Supreme Court judge is a woman. It makes me question why this hasn't happened sooner. Why did it take so long for a Hispanic person to be appointed to the Supreme Court? Im sure she wasn't the FIRST person to be qualified and fit for the job? However those questions dont matter as much now because there is finally a Hispanic person, and to make it even more historical, a woman, on The Supreme Court. I hope she does an excellent job.
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/08/sonia_sotomayor_confirmed_by_s.html
Article II, Executive Branch, Section 2
"He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the senate to...appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States"
Sonia Sotomayor will be making history as the first Latina on the U.S Supreme Court. She was Barack Obama's first nominee and was approved by a 68-31 Senate vote, in which nine republicans crossed party lines to vote for her.
This article demonstrates Article II, Executive Branch, Section 2 because it shows the president, Barack Obama, appointing, with the consent of the senate, a judge of the Supreme Court. What makes this article even more interesting is that history is being made. Sotomayor is the first Hispanic person to be a Supreme Court judge. She is not the first Hispanic woman, but the first Hispanic person.
I think this is really remarkable how the first Hispanic to ever be a Supreme Court judge is a woman. It makes me question why this hasn't happened sooner. Why did it take so long for a Hispanic person to be appointed to the Supreme Court? Im sure she wasn't the FIRST person to be qualified and fit for the job? However those questions dont matter as much now because there is finally a Hispanic person, and to make it even more historical, a woman, on The Supreme Court. I hope she does an excellent job.
Treated!
Senate Panel Approves Arms Treaty With Russia. September16, 2010.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/17/world/europe/17start.html?scp=1&sq=obama%20makes%20treaty&st=cse
Article II, The Executive Branch, Section 2
"He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, to make treaties"
In an attempt to rebuild relations with Russia after many years of tension, Barack Obama made a treaty called New Start (this means the "new strategic arms reduction treaty"). This treaty bars The United States and Russia "from deploying more than 1,550 strategic nuclear warheads or 700 launchers starting seven years after final ratification. It is also establishes a new inspecting and monitoring regime." It has been approved 14 to 4 by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and now, under the Constitution, must recieve a two-thirds vote when presented to the Senate floor.
This article demonstrates Article II, The Executive Branch, Section 2 of the Constitution because it shows the presidents right to make treaties,which in this case, Barack Obama did. It also shows the process in which a treaty is finally approved.
If I were a member of the Senate, I would probably approve of this treaty because tension between countries always spells trouble. If there is anything that can lessen this tension, I'm all for it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/17/world/europe/17start.html?scp=1&sq=obama%20makes%20treaty&st=cse
Article II, The Executive Branch, Section 2
"He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, to make treaties"
In an attempt to rebuild relations with Russia after many years of tension, Barack Obama made a treaty called New Start (this means the "new strategic arms reduction treaty"). This treaty bars The United States and Russia "from deploying more than 1,550 strategic nuclear warheads or 700 launchers starting seven years after final ratification. It is also establishes a new inspecting and monitoring regime." It has been approved 14 to 4 by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and now, under the Constitution, must recieve a two-thirds vote when presented to the Senate floor.
This article demonstrates Article II, The Executive Branch, Section 2 of the Constitution because it shows the presidents right to make treaties,which in this case, Barack Obama did. It also shows the process in which a treaty is finally approved.
If I were a member of the Senate, I would probably approve of this treaty because tension between countries always spells trouble. If there is anything that can lessen this tension, I'm all for it.
Texas Law Slammed
A Yea For Gays.Monday, Jul. 07, 2003.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1005162,00.html
Article III, The Judicial Branch, Section 2
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority."
In 1998, an angry neighbor called the Houston police department reporting a disturbance next door. The end result was the arrest of two men and a fine of $200 for engaging in private homosexual conduct. The men were wrongfully arrested because at the time, there was a Texas law prohibiting private homosexual conduct. However, the arrest wasn't saw as wrongful until the Supreme Court stepped in.
The Lawrence vs. Texas case is an example of the powers of the judicial branch because it shows the Supreme Court enforcng the nations laws by saying what is and isn't constitutional. The Supreme Court, voting 6 to 3, threw out the Texas law on June 26, 2003. They claimed that it violates the "realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter."
I think that the Supreme Court was right to throw out this law in Texas. It shocks me that it was only banned seven years ago, however. I wonder how many other couples were wrongfully arrested for breaking this ridiculous law. It's a good thing that the judicial branch has the power to ensure constitutionality of laws because otherwise, this law would probably still be.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1005162,00.html
Article III, The Judicial Branch, Section 2
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority."
In 1998, an angry neighbor called the Houston police department reporting a disturbance next door. The end result was the arrest of two men and a fine of $200 for engaging in private homosexual conduct. The men were wrongfully arrested because at the time, there was a Texas law prohibiting private homosexual conduct. However, the arrest wasn't saw as wrongful until the Supreme Court stepped in.
The Lawrence vs. Texas case is an example of the powers of the judicial branch because it shows the Supreme Court enforcng the nations laws by saying what is and isn't constitutional. The Supreme Court, voting 6 to 3, threw out the Texas law on June 26, 2003. They claimed that it violates the "realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter."
I think that the Supreme Court was right to throw out this law in Texas. It shocks me that it was only banned seven years ago, however. I wonder how many other couples were wrongfully arrested for breaking this ridiculous law. It's a good thing that the judicial branch has the power to ensure constitutionality of laws because otherwise, this law would probably still be.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
"$$$"
Despite Soaring National Debt, Congress Goes on Spending Spree. May 26, 2010.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/26/despite-soaring-national-debt-congress-goes-spending-spree/
Article 1, The Legaslative Branch, Section 8, Clause 2
"The Congress shall have power to borrow money on the credit of the United States"
Despite the fact that the United States is $13 trillion in debt, Congress plans pass $300 million more before Memorial Day.
This demonstrates Article 1, Section 8, Clause 2 because it shows the Congress borrowing money on the credit of the United States.
Personally, I think this is a delicate issue. Fox news calls it a "spending spree" but of course the country needs to spend money in order to function. If i were apart of politics in any kind of way, I would have no idea on what to do when it came to spending money, considering that the US is in debt, and in a recession.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/26/despite-soaring-national-debt-congress-goes-spending-spree/
Article 1, The Legaslative Branch, Section 8, Clause 2
"The Congress shall have power to borrow money on the credit of the United States"
Despite the fact that the United States is $13 trillion in debt, Congress plans pass $300 million more before Memorial Day.
This demonstrates Article 1, Section 8, Clause 2 because it shows the Congress borrowing money on the credit of the United States.
Personally, I think this is a delicate issue. Fox news calls it a "spending spree" but of course the country needs to spend money in order to function. If i were apart of politics in any kind of way, I would have no idea on what to do when it came to spending money, considering that the US is in debt, and in a recession.
"Preparing for the Cleanup"
Oil tax increase would help pay to clean up spills. May 24 ,2010.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9FTDV7O1
Article 1, Legislative Brnch, Section 8, Clause 1
"The Congress shall have power yo lay and collect taxes"
To clean up the six million gallons of crude oil from the gulf oil spill, Congress has decided to raise the current 8-cent-a-barrel tax on oil to 32 cents a barrel. The increase is supposed to raise nearly $11 billion over the next ten years.
This demostrates Aritcle I, Section 8, Clause 1, because it shows the Congress's right to lay and collect taxes on oil, which is what it is doing so that the Gulf oil spill can be paid for. Obama and congressional leaders say that BP will be responsible for paying for the cleanup, and Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, says that "taxpayers will not pick up the tab."
However I feel that the price for gas will go up at BP gas stations, which means the people will be paying for it. When people realize that BP's gas cost more and the fact that many people are upset with BP, some people will stop buying their gas. My question is, will this tax raise actually raise $11 billion?
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9FTDV7O1
Article 1, Legislative Brnch, Section 8, Clause 1
"The Congress shall have power yo lay and collect taxes"
To clean up the six million gallons of crude oil from the gulf oil spill, Congress has decided to raise the current 8-cent-a-barrel tax on oil to 32 cents a barrel. The increase is supposed to raise nearly $11 billion over the next ten years.
This demostrates Aritcle I, Section 8, Clause 1, because it shows the Congress's right to lay and collect taxes on oil, which is what it is doing so that the Gulf oil spill can be paid for. Obama and congressional leaders say that BP will be responsible for paying for the cleanup, and Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, says that "taxpayers will not pick up the tab."
However I feel that the price for gas will go up at BP gas stations, which means the people will be paying for it. When people realize that BP's gas cost more and the fact that many people are upset with BP, some people will stop buying their gas. My question is, will this tax raise actually raise $11 billion?
"Burned By Taxes"
Feeling burned: Tanning salon owners say health reform bill targets their business. September 1, 2010.
http://billingsgazette.com/business/features/article_e843126a-b133-11df-9e77-001cc4c002e0.html
Article 1, The Legislative Branch,Section 8, Clause 1
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes"
Tanning salon owners and tanners are "feeling burned" by the Congress's decision to impose a ten percent tax raise on indoor tanning.
The tax raise is not only supposed to raise more than $2.7 billion for the health care reform bill, but it is also supposed to reduce the dangerous amount of tanning done by Americans all across the country. Although tanners do not realize it now, this tax could potentially save their lives. "The International Agency for Research on Cancer found that the use of indoor tanning by those under age 35 can increase that person's risk of melanoma by up to 75 percent. Of the $1.8 billion spent on treating skin cancer each year, $300 million is spent on treating melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer." Therefore, melanoma is for the most part preventable, and because of tanning, too much money is spent on treating melanoma.
However, not everyone, tanning salon owners in particular, agrees with this. Julie Wegner, owner of two Sun Haven tanning salons in Billings, feels that she is being “singled out” and that this is a “sin tax.” Despite this disapproval, the tax raise still takes effect.
This is an example of the Congress’s power to lay and collect taxes because that is exactly what they did, even though many disapprove.
I do not think that this will reduce the amount of tanning that people do, but I do think that the money will be raised for the health care reform bill. Some people in America are so addicted to tanning, that of course, they will notice the tax rise, but they want care. They know the risks of getting melanoma, and if that has not stopped their addiction, nothing but seeking professional help will.
http://billingsgazette.com/business/features/article_e843126a-b133-11df-9e77-001cc4c002e0.html
Article 1, The Legislative Branch,Section 8, Clause 1
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes"
Tanning salon owners and tanners are "feeling burned" by the Congress's decision to impose a ten percent tax raise on indoor tanning.
The tax raise is not only supposed to raise more than $2.7 billion for the health care reform bill, but it is also supposed to reduce the dangerous amount of tanning done by Americans all across the country. Although tanners do not realize it now, this tax could potentially save their lives. "The International Agency for Research on Cancer found that the use of indoor tanning by those under age 35 can increase that person's risk of melanoma by up to 75 percent. Of the $1.8 billion spent on treating skin cancer each year, $300 million is spent on treating melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer." Therefore, melanoma is for the most part preventable, and because of tanning, too much money is spent on treating melanoma.
However, not everyone, tanning salon owners in particular, agrees with this. Julie Wegner, owner of two Sun Haven tanning salons in Billings, feels that she is being “singled out” and that this is a “sin tax.” Despite this disapproval, the tax raise still takes effect.
This is an example of the Congress’s power to lay and collect taxes because that is exactly what they did, even though many disapprove.
I do not think that this will reduce the amount of tanning that people do, but I do think that the money will be raised for the health care reform bill. Some people in America are so addicted to tanning, that of course, they will notice the tax rise, but they want care. They know the risks of getting melanoma, and if that has not stopped their addiction, nothing but seeking professional help will.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
"I Plead The 5th!"
What Can Chris Brown, Rihanna Expect At Today's Hearing? Jun 22 2009.
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1614374/20090619/brown__chris__18_.jhtml
The Fifth Amendment:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."
Chris Brown decides not to be questioned by the opposing party in his trial against Rihanna, otherwise known as pleading the fifth.
Chris faced felony charges of assault and making criminal threats against then girlfriend and pop singer, Rihanna.
This connects to the constitution because Chris Brown decided to exercise his fifth amendment right to "not be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself", or in other words put himself in a position that could hurt his chances of freedom.
Although I dont agree with Chris Brown's horrible actions against Rihanna, I do agree with his action to plead the fifth. If he was put up to the stand, I believe that the attourney would tear him apart. His character and manhood would be questioned, and rightfully so, especially judging by what he had allegedly done to her.
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1614374/20090619/brown__chris__18_.jhtml
The Fifth Amendment:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."
Chris Brown decides not to be questioned by the opposing party in his trial against Rihanna, otherwise known as pleading the fifth.
Chris faced felony charges of assault and making criminal threats against then girlfriend and pop singer, Rihanna.
This connects to the constitution because Chris Brown decided to exercise his fifth amendment right to "not be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself", or in other words put himself in a position that could hurt his chances of freedom.
Although I dont agree with Chris Brown's horrible actions against Rihanna, I do agree with his action to plead the fifth. If he was put up to the stand, I believe that the attourney would tear him apart. His character and manhood would be questioned, and rightfully so, especially judging by what he had allegedly done to her.
"You like the 10th Amendment? I'll give you the 10th Amendment!"
Judge declares US gay marriage ban is unconstitutional. July 8,2010
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/07/judge_declares_3.html
The Tenth Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Thanks to Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders ,attorney general Martha Coakley, and the tenth amendment, the Defense of Marriage law has been named unconstitutional. The 1996 federal law defines marriage as a union exclusively between a man and a woman. Martha Coakley says that it "violates the Constitution by interfering with the state’s authority to define and regulate the marital status of its residents." Apparently the judge agrees with her argument because the law has been struck down.
This is an example of the Tenth Amendment because, because of the federal law, states werent able to give the benefits that heterosexual couples have to same sex couples, and under the constitution, they have the right to do so.
In my opinion, every state should legalize gay marriage and they should have the same benefits that straight couples have. Love is love. They cant help who they fall in love with just like straight couples cant help who they fall in love with. I think this was a big step to the U.S accepting gay marriage more just as they did with interracial marriage(which was mentioned in the article).
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/07/judge_declares_3.html
The Tenth Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Thanks to Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders ,attorney general Martha Coakley, and the tenth amendment, the Defense of Marriage law has been named unconstitutional. The 1996 federal law defines marriage as a union exclusively between a man and a woman. Martha Coakley says that it "violates the Constitution by interfering with the state’s authority to define and regulate the marital status of its residents." Apparently the judge agrees with her argument because the law has been struck down.
This is an example of the Tenth Amendment because, because of the federal law, states werent able to give the benefits that heterosexual couples have to same sex couples, and under the constitution, they have the right to do so.
In my opinion, every state should legalize gay marriage and they should have the same benefits that straight couples have. Love is love. They cant help who they fall in love with just like straight couples cant help who they fall in love with. I think this was a big step to the U.S accepting gay marriage more just as they did with interracial marriage(which was mentioned in the article).
"Why Would I Play That In My House?"
Charges Dropped, Woman Alleges Strip Search and Plans Suit. July 6, 2001.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/06/nyregion/charges-dropped-woman-alleges-strip-search-and-plans-suit.html?scp=19&sq=was%20wrongfully%20searched&st=cse
New York: Manhattan: Strip-Search Suit Settled. March 8, 2002
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/08/nyregion/metro-briefing-new-york-manhattan-strip-search-suit-settled.html
The Fourth Amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Thanks to the Fourth Amendment, an 82 year old Brooklyn woman won a $50,000 civil rights suit against the police department. Mary Novak's has also been dropped of two counts of harassment and one count of criminal contempt for violating the terms of an order of protection filed against her by two next-door neighbors.
On January 12th, Ms. Novak was arrested and stripped searched for allegedly playing rap music in her house that was loud enough to disturb her neighbors. She was then taken to the 78th Precinct station and was strip searched. She claimed to not have been listening to rap music and says "You can't even understand what they're singing, why would I play that in my house?"
Judge Wayne Saitta of Brooklyn Criminal Court dropped her charges, and the city agreed to pay her $50,000.
This is an example of The Fourth Amendment in action because Ms.Novak was wrongfully searched.
In my opinion, the police had no right to strip search her because even if she had been playing loud music, there would be no reason to strip search her. What in the world would they be looking for?
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/06/nyregion/charges-dropped-woman-alleges-strip-search-and-plans-suit.html?scp=19&sq=was%20wrongfully%20searched&st=cse
New York: Manhattan: Strip-Search Suit Settled. March 8, 2002
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/08/nyregion/metro-briefing-new-york-manhattan-strip-search-suit-settled.html
The Fourth Amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Thanks to the Fourth Amendment, an 82 year old Brooklyn woman won a $50,000 civil rights suit against the police department. Mary Novak's has also been dropped of two counts of harassment and one count of criminal contempt for violating the terms of an order of protection filed against her by two next-door neighbors.
On January 12th, Ms. Novak was arrested and stripped searched for allegedly playing rap music in her house that was loud enough to disturb her neighbors. She was then taken to the 78th Precinct station and was strip searched. She claimed to not have been listening to rap music and says "You can't even understand what they're singing, why would I play that in my house?"
Judge Wayne Saitta of Brooklyn Criminal Court dropped her charges, and the city agreed to pay her $50,000.
This is an example of The Fourth Amendment in action because Ms.Novak was wrongfully searched.
In my opinion, the police had no right to strip search her because even if she had been playing loud music, there would be no reason to strip search her. What in the world would they be looking for?
Sunday, August 22, 2010
"Banned from Banning"
Daley: City will revise gun law after Supreme Court ruling
http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/06/united-states-supreme-court-scotus-gun-control-rifle-ban-chicago-police-mayor-richard-daley-nra-second-2nd-amendment.html
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms.
"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."
Mayor Daley has been forced to revise the gun ban law in Chicago because it violates the second amendment and the Supreme Court called it "unenforcable". It will be revised to protect second amendment rights ,but also to to protect Chicagoans from gun violence.
This article demonstrates the second amendment of the Constitution. I dont see how the city of Chicago were able to place a ban on guns in the first place because the second amendment clearly states that people have the right to keep and bear arms.
I personally dont think that the gun ban in Chicago was effective except for the fact that it made it harder for gang members to obtain guns. However, it obviously didnt make it that hard because this summer, large numbers of people have gotten hurt or been killd every weekend as a result of gun violence. I feel that the gang members just found other means of getting guns. I think this law only caused for the people who wanted guns for protection to hand over their guns, instead of gang members and criminals. However, this may have been a good thing in some ways because it is dangerous to keep a gun in the house , anyways. Especially if there are children living in the house. Nevertheless, whether its dangerous or not, under the second amendment, they have the right to keep a gun in the house.
http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/06/united-states-supreme-court-scotus-gun-control-rifle-ban-chicago-police-mayor-richard-daley-nra-second-2nd-amendment.html
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms.
"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."
Mayor Daley has been forced to revise the gun ban law in Chicago because it violates the second amendment and the Supreme Court called it "unenforcable". It will be revised to protect second amendment rights ,but also to to protect Chicagoans from gun violence.
This article demonstrates the second amendment of the Constitution. I dont see how the city of Chicago were able to place a ban on guns in the first place because the second amendment clearly states that people have the right to keep and bear arms.
I personally dont think that the gun ban in Chicago was effective except for the fact that it made it harder for gang members to obtain guns. However, it obviously didnt make it that hard because this summer, large numbers of people have gotten hurt or been killd every weekend as a result of gun violence. I feel that the gang members just found other means of getting guns. I think this law only caused for the people who wanted guns for protection to hand over their guns, instead of gang members and criminals. However, this may have been a good thing in some ways because it is dangerous to keep a gun in the house , anyways. Especially if there are children living in the house. Nevertheless, whether its dangerous or not, under the second amendment, they have the right to keep a gun in the house.
"Heck No ,We Won't Go!"
Birmingham won't require anti-abortion group to get protest permit. August 22, 2010
http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2010/07/birmingham_wont_require_anti-a.html
Amendment 1:Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression.
"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."
In February of 2009, nine Survivors, a nonprofit anti-abortion group in California, were arrested for standing outside Parker highschool with anti-abortion displays and for handing out literature. The group filed a federal lawsuit claiming that police interfered with their rights for free speech, peaceful assembly, and free exercise of religion. They came to an agreemwnt that the Survivors will not be required to get a permit to protest along city sidewalks or other public areas.
This article and situation demonstrates the first amendment of the Constitution. Because the protestors were having a peaceful assembly, there is no real reason why they should have been arrested. According to the first amendment, this was unconstitutional of the police oficers to arrest them.
I believe that the protestors have the right to protest whether the authorities agree with their protest or not. I did question why they would choose to protest outside of a highschool, however. I think this is the main reason why the authorities decided to arrest the group.
http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2010/07/birmingham_wont_require_anti-a.html
Amendment 1:Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression.
"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."
In February of 2009, nine Survivors, a nonprofit anti-abortion group in California, were arrested for standing outside Parker highschool with anti-abortion displays and for handing out literature. The group filed a federal lawsuit claiming that police interfered with their rights for free speech, peaceful assembly, and free exercise of religion. They came to an agreemwnt that the Survivors will not be required to get a permit to protest along city sidewalks or other public areas.
This article and situation demonstrates the first amendment of the Constitution. Because the protestors were having a peaceful assembly, there is no real reason why they should have been arrested. According to the first amendment, this was unconstitutional of the police oficers to arrest them.
I believe that the protestors have the right to protest whether the authorities agree with their protest or not. I did question why they would choose to protest outside of a highschool, however. I think this is the main reason why the authorities decided to arrest the group.
"God's love is so great that he gave up his only...CUT!"
Valedictorian sues Nev. school for cutting off speech. August 22,2010
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=17162
Amendment 1: Freedom of religion, press, expression.
"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."
On June 15th, 2006, highschool valedictorian , Brittany McComb, had the microphone cut off in the middle of her speech on graduation day. No, this was not a minor mistake, but a violation of her rights to fredom of speech and religion.
"God’s love is so great that he gave his only son up", is what was said before an employee of the school located in Nevada cut off the microphone. Without the microphone, McComb proceeded to finish her sentence and said “...to an excruciating death on a cross so his blood would cover all our shortcomings and provide for us a way to heaven in accepting this grace.” Some audience members then stood up and chanted "Let her speak!" McComb was warned that the microphone would be cut off if she didnt revise her speech. She didnt follow orders because she wanted people to know what "inspired her to keep going."
Because of the schools actions, Brittany McComb decided to file a suit on July that named the principal, assistant principal and the employee who pulled the plug.
If I were one of the audience members, I would probably be one of the people yelling "Let her speak!" She had every right to say who her biggest motivator was. If her inspiration had been her mother, no one would have ever thought to pull the plug on the microphone. This violates the first amendment because Brittany McComb, like every other American has the rights to freedom of speech. When the plug was pulled, her rights were ignored.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=17162
Amendment 1: Freedom of religion, press, expression.
"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."
On June 15th, 2006, highschool valedictorian , Brittany McComb, had the microphone cut off in the middle of her speech on graduation day. No, this was not a minor mistake, but a violation of her rights to fredom of speech and religion.
"God’s love is so great that he gave his only son up", is what was said before an employee of the school located in Nevada cut off the microphone. Without the microphone, McComb proceeded to finish her sentence and said “...to an excruciating death on a cross so his blood would cover all our shortcomings and provide for us a way to heaven in accepting this grace.” Some audience members then stood up and chanted "Let her speak!" McComb was warned that the microphone would be cut off if she didnt revise her speech. She didnt follow orders because she wanted people to know what "inspired her to keep going."
Because of the schools actions, Brittany McComb decided to file a suit on July that named the principal, assistant principal and the employee who pulled the plug.
If I were one of the audience members, I would probably be one of the people yelling "Let her speak!" She had every right to say who her biggest motivator was. If her inspiration had been her mother, no one would have ever thought to pull the plug on the microphone. This violates the first amendment because Brittany McComb, like every other American has the rights to freedom of speech. When the plug was pulled, her rights were ignored.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)