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.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
"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)