8th Amendment

THOMPSON v. OKLAHOMA:CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF OKLAHOMA.November 9, 1987
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=487&invol=815
Amendment 8, Cruel and Unusual Punishment
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

 The article Thomas vs. Oklahoma is about a 15 year old boy who helped physically helped murder someone. The supreme court demanded that he be tried as an adult, so then he was convicted and sentenced to th death penalty,and the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma affirmed. His lawyer made it clear that this violated the eight amendment because it violated the sixth amendent, the sixth amendment prohibits minors under the age 16 to be executed. Therefore that would be a cruel and unususal punishment for a minor who commited the murder when he was 15.

    This connects to amendment 8 of the United States constitution. In the 8th amendment it says you can get cruel punishment, which he commited a cruel crime, but he still is under age and cant be treated like an adult because you is still very young and knieve. Anyways the constitution says that the supreme courts actions are unconstitutional because it says that you should not recieve an cruel punishment, and given the death sentence I would have to say is pretty cruel. So the constitution says it is unconstitution so it shouldnt be done.

   In my opinion the young boy should be tried like an adult because he took someone elses life away. But then again the judges to listen to what he says happen, like if it was for self defence then he should not have the death sentence. Then again if he commited the murder just to commit the murder then he should have life in prison, not the death sentence because remember he is still only 15 years old, and they are young and make mistake, but at that age you should know right from wrong.

6th Amendment

Rangel: Fire your best shot. August 30th 2010.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/40898.html

http://videoshare.politico.com/singletitlevideo_chromeless.php?bcpid=309045726001&bctid=507042042001

Amendment 6, Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses.
"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 defence."

The article I chose to represent amendment 6 is about a democrat Charle Range, who is on trial because he was accused of breaking 13 counts of house rules and federal regulations governing the behavior of lawmakers. His co workers want him to resign but he says he's not going to resign to make them feel comfortable, then the asserted his rights to a fair and speedy trial. Other co workers believed it was not healthy to have someone ike him in their work field.

   This article connects to the 6th amendment in the United Stated constitution. If the 6th amendment wasn't created then Charlie Rangel wouldnt have a chance to prove himself. The 6th anendment is relevent to our lives because it gives everyone at least a fair chance and try to prove that they are innoent. It also means even if you dont have the slightest chance of winning yhe trial atleast you now you have the privilege to try and defend themselves.

   I believe this is relevent in our lives because people go on tria all the time for all sorts of things. But every one on trial are not guilty and some people get off who are guilty because they proved themselves. So in some cases I believe that the 6th amendment helps us, but it sometimes hurts us because if someone actual did do something wrong and they are wealthy. They have the money to get a great lawyer who got them off and they were really guilty.

5th Amendment

Billionaire Stanford to Invoke the 5th amendment in fraud case. March 12th 2009.
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/billionaire-stanford-to-take-the-5th-in-fraud-case/

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings.
"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."

      The article talks about Robert Allen Stanford and his officials have asserted their rights to the 5th amendment rights against the federal fraud accusations brought fourth against them. He had made an investment and earned 8 million dollars. But the Stanford companies said that he stole the money and it didint belong to him. So now they are in court debating what really happened with the money. But they have no real evidence that this really didi happen so they cant take him to jail or make him do anything.

      This article connect to the 5th Amendment the the United States Constitution. In the 5th Amendment it says "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." meaning that the court or judge cant take the money back from Stanford because they have no real evidence that he stole anything. They have no eye witnesses or anything so he is off the hook.

      In my opinion the constitition made this easier on the court but harder on the defendants. What if the person really didnt do anything wrong then they are off the hook, but what if they did do something wrong to another person they are not going to get in trouble or arrest because they have no real proof. I think this amendment is working good in todays government but I dont think it is the best thing that could be done. Maybe if I was in tone of the people position then I would feel differently but im not. So inconclusion the 5th amendment is really helping americans out today.

4th Amendment

First and Fourth Amendment claims: Chavez vs. The city of oakland. June 11, 2009.
http://www.martindale.com/civil-rights-law/article_Davis-Wright-Tremaine-LLP_737718.htm
Amendment 4,  Search and Seizure.
"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."

        The article I picked out was about an officer(Charles Breyer) violated the first and second amendment. Well the officer arrest Chavez without a probable cause. First the Officer Breyer handcuffes Chavez and took him to jail for taking pictures of a highway crash it didnt break a state or federal law. Chavez had left his car to look at the accident. The officer asked Chavez to leave but instead he asserted his rights as a citizen. Although it was not against the law for Chavez to have the pictures the officer took them and arrested him.

       This article clearly connects to the 4th Amendment of the United states constitution. Chavez wasnt doing anything wong his occupation is photographer, so he takes these pictures daily. It also was not a law in california that said you can not do things like that. Chavez stated his right to cover the accident but in exchange Chavez was arrest, the officer said he should not take pictures like these. Plus Chavez asserted his rights so he shouldnt have been arrest because he was doing nothing wrong. But the court stll found Chavez guilty of leaving his car to go to the accident scene.

      In my opinion the 4th amendment was still broken because Chavez was only doing his job, he shouldnt have been assaulted by the police officer. Also the court was finding reasons to defend the police officers decision to arrest Chavez. I dont think that chavez was guilty I believe that the officer was guilty because he was the person breaking rules. The court should have took Chavez cases more serious. I think that they really didint care what had happened to Chavez or that the officer broken any rules. They just wanted to get rid of the accusations that was made about the police officer breaking the first and fourth amendments.

10th Amendment

Child Support Recovery Act. Febuary 2nd 2001.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3898/is_200106/ai_n8957874/


Amendment 10, Powers of the States and People.
"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."

     The article I picked out is about How the supreme court held the Child Support recovery act and they says it violated the 10th amendment. The say it holds criminal liablity on parents who fail to make payment to a child that live out of state. This exceeds the Congresses power to regulate interstate trade. The Supreme court finished by say that anyone who fail to make a payment for child support in another state is a failure to comply with an obligation to make payments in interstate trade.

     This connects to Amendment 10, Powers of the states and people of the united states constitution. The Congress does not have the power to make another state pay something to another person. Also it say they dont have the power to delegate, nor do the states. So another state cant tell another state to send another state money on their behalf.

     In my opinion I will have to say that this child supproort recovery Act is a good idea even though you live in another state. You still should pay some money to your child. Your child is your responsiblity, and if you cant be their with them you can at least send them some money. Well child support is not an opition you have to send them something reguardless.

The 2nd Amendment

'Guns don't kill people....'

http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/directory/S/Second_Amendment.asp

The 2nd Amendment, 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."

     The political cartoon is about how they are saying that Obama is taking your hand guns but for what. They say by taking away Guns it is destroying our country. They also say that " Guns dont kill people. People kill people". The author of this cartoon believes that taking away our guns is going to hurt us. But then again he says I know just the people I want to kill, so they obviously are bad and people are killing each other just because the know they can.

    

      This Cartoon is related to the 2nd Amendment, Right to bear arms in the United states Constitiution. People have the right to have guns and things in their homes, It says it in the constitution. But as you can see in the political cartoon because are just using them because they want too and not because they have too. It is a law in the constitution that citizens can have Militia but they cant violated their conditions. Plus it is a law in the states that you must have a note saying that you have a right to have a gun and you brought the gun from an efficent place.

      I believe this was not a good choice because today their are many many deaths of innocent people have been killed just because they know that they can. Also it says that the supreme court is trying to ban the states hand guns which is stated in the constitiution that you can hold one. So why is the supreme court trying to take them away? Well I believe it is because of the crime rates involve with the guns, there has been too many deaths when it comes to had guns.

   

The 1st Amendment

Burris to high court: Let me run. September 9th 2010.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/41956.html

Amendment 1, Freedom of Religion, press, and 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."

The article Burris to high court: Let me run is about Illiniois Senator Roland burris fighting to serve out his final tern of senator of rhe supreme court. The federal court said that only canidates who are running for the election will be able to serve his final weeks of term. But Burris asked the supreme court to squash the ruling because he feels that he should be able to serve his final weeks. The supreme court says Burris can not stay his final weeks because he didnt run for a full term. So Burris is taking his case to the supreme court saying
Burris’ petition to the nation’s highest court argues that Grady's decision, “deprives Illinois citizens of the rights to due process and equal protection, and to unfettered access to the ballot.”

However, all of that will be nullified if one of Burris’ petitions is successful. In addition to filing an emergency application with the Supreme Court, Burris has also asked the U.S. District Court of Northern Illinois to review his case.

       The Article clearly demonstatrated The 1st Amendment,   Freedom of Religion, press, and expression in the United states Constitution. Thr 1st amendment states that everyone has the right to petition for any reason, so no one can stop them for doing that. Burris took matters into his own hand and sayed that no one was helping him to keep his spot in the supreme court, so he had to talk to his fellow member and try to persuade them to het him serve his final weeks. So Burris used a petition to help him get to where he wants to be, saying that he made a good arguement and made his way back into the supreme court and ready to serve has final weeks.

      In my opinion this system keeps things in order. For example if freedom of petition was not in the constitution Burris wouldnt have been able to serve his final weeks in the supreme court. Also the I feel the constitution contributed to this because if made things alot more easier and solenm because there was not alot of diagreements. Burris had the right to prove himself and he did that by petitioning why he deserved to be where he is and I guess I alot of other people agreed.