Source: Scalia: Video: Torture Is Not Unconstitutional April 28, 2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T72vgAEX66M&feature=related
Constitutional Connection: Amendment 8: Cruel and Unusual Punishment
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
Explanation of Connection:
While our society see torture and cruel punishment as inhumane not everyone feels that the 8th Amendment is being followed. A Supreme Court justice in 2008 had an interview with a news station and stated that "torture and other illegal things aren't seen or are written clearly in the Constitution". Therefore the interviewee has alot of explaining to do.
This video clearly demonstrates Amendment 8 of the United States Constitution. The video is connected to the constitution which states "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." This is clearly shown in the video because the man discussed how he feels that Torture is Unconstitutional and therefore isn't unconstitutional. The constitution is in action here because it states "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." The justices words went against this but the interviwer quickly reminded him of the constitution and it's say so on the issue.
I couldn't imagine what it would be like if the 8th Amendment wasn't in place. I believe that without it the misuse and innappropriate treatment of convicts and criminal accusses would be at a new level. Wihtout the constitution being in action here their could be alot of immoral and inhumane activity that could be accepted as consequences for criminal accusations and charges. What would happen if the whole world didnt have some type of laws against things talked about in the 8th Amendment?
Monday, September 20, 2010
6th Amendment
Source: Family in Ensign affair may lose house, By: John Bresnahan, September 20, 2010
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42436.html
Constitutional Connection: 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."
Explanation of Connection:
Doug and Cindy Hampton, a Nevada couple are at the center of criminal and ethics investigations. They are in jeoprady of losing their home in Las Vegas to foreclosure according to legal documents. The article is important because the couple owes over $1.3 million on their home and neither of them could find emplloyment since last summer. Ex Sen. John Ensign of Nevada had an affair with Cindy Hampton and many people believe he made wrongdoings in a financial agreements with the Hamptons and thus put them in that perdicament.
This article clearly demonstrates Amendment 6 of the United States Constitution. This amendment has given us power to have knowlege of criminal accusations as well as the ability to fight against those accusations in a trial by jury and under representation. This article shows how the constitution is in action today because the Constitution states "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." This article is well stated in the constitution under the 6th Amendment as seen from above it is apparent the 6th Amendment was in action today.
If we did not have this Amendment our rights to fight for our freedom and liberty when accused of criminal activities would be no longer applicable. Also, if we were accused we had the right to bring it into the courts and have a trial to help show our innocence. This article is interesting because it showed how some states and represenatives activities with common cititzens could put them and their families into illegal and or criminal activity or accusations. Lastly, I agree that this Amendment is needed in our society today.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42436.html
Constitutional Connection: 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."
Explanation of Connection:
Doug and Cindy Hampton, a Nevada couple are at the center of criminal and ethics investigations. They are in jeoprady of losing their home in Las Vegas to foreclosure according to legal documents. The article is important because the couple owes over $1.3 million on their home and neither of them could find emplloyment since last summer. Ex Sen. John Ensign of Nevada had an affair with Cindy Hampton and many people believe he made wrongdoings in a financial agreements with the Hamptons and thus put them in that perdicament.
This article clearly demonstrates Amendment 6 of the United States Constitution. This amendment has given us power to have knowlege of criminal accusations as well as the ability to fight against those accusations in a trial by jury and under representation. This article shows how the constitution is in action today because the Constitution states "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." This article is well stated in the constitution under the 6th Amendment as seen from above it is apparent the 6th Amendment was in action today.
If we did not have this Amendment our rights to fight for our freedom and liberty when accused of criminal activities would be no longer applicable. Also, if we were accused we had the right to bring it into the courts and have a trial to help show our innocence. This article is interesting because it showed how some states and represenatives activities with common cititzens could put them and their families into illegal and or criminal activity or accusations. Lastly, I agree that this Amendment is needed in our society today.
Friday, September 17, 2010
5th Amendment
Source: 5th Amendment Political Cartoon
Constitutional Connection: 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."
"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."
Explanation Connection:
Even though we all nationwide think of being independent and imagine we are owners and have rights of ownership to things like our homes. It is sad to say that the Supreme Court recently have been trying to bash and wreck our US property rights, which is a complete disregard to the Amendment clearly stated in out US constitution (Bill of Rights). While people can try and protest and fight against it, there would need to be a check from another branch to alieviate this issue.
This political cartoon clearly demonstrates the rights of the people written in Amendment 5 of the United States Constitution. This cartoon depicts the fact that our Supreme Court who has the power to carry out laws, has been trying to infilitrate property rights in hopes of gaining more land and profit for the US government. This a breaking of Amendment 5 of the Constitution which states " No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." In recent years as property has been constantly foreclosed and even stolen form US citizens by our federal govenrment under actions carried out from the Supreme Court.
If the 5th Amendment wasn't in place in our US Constitution we would have kinds of rights to anything we own. Thus implying that if there came a time when the government needed to build new sites for some kinds of government facilities people would have to leave their homes and anything else they had because they would've had the power to do that. I think that the Supreme Court could find another way to seize and occupy property under probable causes such as foreclosure or even illegal activity, but I know and believe that if someone is living a clean legal American way of life they should have everything to their possessions. Knowing this, the situtation depicted in the cartoon will be stopped when the constitution is put in action!
4th Amendment
Source: Elian Gonzalez Seized From His Miami Home, April 22, 2000
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7tZ_DU5o1E
Constitutional Connection: 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."
Explanation of Connection:
While our police and other officials who help protect us are working some people can be unconstitutional in their actions. Elian Gonzalez rescued a drown child back in April of 2000. The police and SWAT came to the conclusion that he was kidnapping the child and thus they seized the Gonzalez's home. Even though this man and his actions appear innocent police still chose to take matters into their own hands.
This video clearly demonstrates Amendment 4 of the United States Constitution. US citizens have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects. This situation went with the Constitutional right given to police officers and SWAT agents who successfully helped in a assumed kidnapping attempt. The constitution states " 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." This crime shows how the 4th Amendment was still in action today.
If this Amendment was not in action I believe things would be worse for both people and goverment officials such as SWAT agents and police officers. If this Amendment was not in place, when this child was kidnapped by Mr. Gonzalez the police would have had no way to search the home and retrieve the child. But, at the same time if this Amendent was in action and it involved the police wrongfully searching or seizing someones home it could have helped them retrieve their constitutional rights as well. I wonder what it would have been like if they never passed it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7tZ_DU5o1E
Constitutional Connection: 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."
Explanation of Connection:
While our police and other officials who help protect us are working some people can be unconstitutional in their actions. Elian Gonzalez rescued a drown child back in April of 2000. The police and SWAT came to the conclusion that he was kidnapping the child and thus they seized the Gonzalez's home. Even though this man and his actions appear innocent police still chose to take matters into their own hands.
This video clearly demonstrates Amendment 4 of the United States Constitution. US citizens have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects. This situation went with the Constitutional right given to police officers and SWAT agents who successfully helped in a assumed kidnapping attempt. The constitution states " 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." This crime shows how the 4th Amendment was still in action today.
If this Amendment was not in action I believe things would be worse for both people and goverment officials such as SWAT agents and police officers. If this Amendment was not in place, when this child was kidnapped by Mr. Gonzalez the police would have had no way to search the home and retrieve the child. But, at the same time if this Amendent was in action and it involved the police wrongfully searching or seizing someones home it could have helped them retrieve their constitutional rights as well. I wonder what it would have been like if they never passed it?
Monday, September 13, 2010
The 10th Amendment
Source:Gov. candidates in 20 states endorse anti-immigration laws: By: Carrie Bufford Brown September 02, 2010http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/41692_Page3.html
Constitutional Connection: 10th Amendment: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."
Explanation of Connection:
While Congress is our legislature and has the ability to make laws, the 10th amendment gives states the power to imply more powers than those expressed in our US constitution. Canidates for gubernational races in more than 2 states have endorsed to adopt an Arizona-style imigration law that will make it harder for imigrants to live, work, and access public benefits given to residents of the state. The gubernational legislatures are all up and ready to go up against anything Pres. Obama and any other branch of office that has any issue with what they are trying to do.
This article clearly demonstrate the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution. Why?, because the state gubernational candidates are trying to excersise their power given by the constitution, "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 gubernational candidates are trying to pass a law for anti-immigration. The constitution is in action here because the states are given power to imply other powers or laws in their states if the Constitution itself doesn't express it. The right given to states to imply powers is being used by the gubernational candidates towards an anti-immigration law.
I can imagine a country without the 10th Amendment. But, I do agree that this Amendment is a necessity for those who abuse their power in office. If legislature only comes up with laws they find to be beneficial to them you would never have a say so in anything you want. With the power to imply power in your states given to us by the 10th Amendment, anything our state gubernational leaders recieve or feel strongly about in order to better our state, we have been given the power to fix it. Therefore this is a very good example of the 10th Amendment in action.
Constitutional Connection: 10th Amendment: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."
Explanation of Connection:
While Congress is our legislature and has the ability to make laws, the 10th amendment gives states the power to imply more powers than those expressed in our US constitution. Canidates for gubernational races in more than 2 states have endorsed to adopt an Arizona-style imigration law that will make it harder for imigrants to live, work, and access public benefits given to residents of the state. The gubernational legislatures are all up and ready to go up against anything Pres. Obama and any other branch of office that has any issue with what they are trying to do.
This article clearly demonstrate the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution. Why?, because the state gubernational candidates are trying to excersise their power given by the constitution, "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 gubernational candidates are trying to pass a law for anti-immigration. The constitution is in action here because the states are given power to imply other powers or laws in their states if the Constitution itself doesn't express it. The right given to states to imply powers is being used by the gubernational candidates towards an anti-immigration law.
I can imagine a country without the 10th Amendment. But, I do agree that this Amendment is a necessity for those who abuse their power in office. If legislature only comes up with laws they find to be beneficial to them you would never have a say so in anything you want. With the power to imply power in your states given to us by the 10th Amendment, anything our state gubernational leaders recieve or feel strongly about in order to better our state, we have been given the power to fix it. Therefore this is a very good example of the 10th Amendment in action.
The 2nd Amendment
Source: High court strikes down Chicago handgun ban: By: Bill Mears, June 29, 2010
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/06/28/us.scotus.handgun.ban/index.html?iref=allsearch
Constitutional Connection: 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."
Explanation of Connection:
The 2nd Amendment is probably one of the more speculated amendments of the 27 amendments. This amendments gives the idea that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be removed. The amendment implies that a well regulated Militia (Military group) is a necessity to a free State. Therefore what decisions will be made to ensure that this amendment is kept, and that the Constitution is still being instituted.
This article clearly demonstrates the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution. We as US citizens have rights, among those rights, are the fact that we are entitled to freely bear arms for our personal use be it, protection or hunting. This article demonstrates how the Supreme Court has come to a decision recently that the rights for citizens in Chicago should be ratified. There was a handgun ban trying to be instituted in Chicago, but once the Supreme Court heard they used their Judiciary power to over rule their intentions.
I could only imagine what it would be like if this principle was really instituted nationwide. I personally feel that it would be both beneficial and a bit risky to try and institute the 2nd Amendment to law because, if it was instituted people both calm and conserative as well as wild and rowdy people. If they opened it to all people this amendment would allow people to have their own protection on them for their homes and as well give the supplies for thieves and thugs to use the same means of protection as a means of terror. Im have very contradictory thoughts toward this amendment?
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/06/28/us.scotus.handgun.ban/index.html?iref=allsearch
Constitutional Connection: 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."
Explanation of Connection:
The 2nd Amendment is probably one of the more speculated amendments of the 27 amendments. This amendments gives the idea that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be removed. The amendment implies that a well regulated Militia (Military group) is a necessity to a free State. Therefore what decisions will be made to ensure that this amendment is kept, and that the Constitution is still being instituted.
This article clearly demonstrates the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution. We as US citizens have rights, among those rights, are the fact that we are entitled to freely bear arms for our personal use be it, protection or hunting. This article demonstrates how the Supreme Court has come to a decision recently that the rights for citizens in Chicago should be ratified. There was a handgun ban trying to be instituted in Chicago, but once the Supreme Court heard they used their Judiciary power to over rule their intentions.
I could only imagine what it would be like if this principle was really instituted nationwide. I personally feel that it would be both beneficial and a bit risky to try and institute the 2nd Amendment to law because, if it was instituted people both calm and conserative as well as wild and rowdy people. If they opened it to all people this amendment would allow people to have their own protection on them for their homes and as well give the supplies for thieves and thugs to use the same means of protection as a means of terror. Im have very contradictory thoughts toward this amendment?
The 1st Amendment
Source: Obama Tries to Calm Religious Tensions: By: Helene Cooper September 10, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/11/us/politics/11obama.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=religious%20freedom&st=cse
Constitutional Connection: 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."
Explanation of Connection:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/11/us/politics/11obama.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=religious%20freedom&st=cse
Constitutional Connection: 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."
Explanation of Connection:
While our nation is filled with different nationalities and religious backgrounds. We still have prejudice and unconstitutional behavior that is carried out by our own citizens. This article is about Obama and his attempts in trying to calm down tensions expressed by Muslim and Non-Muslim US citizens. The Muslim community has been attacked verbally and physically by our non-muslim US citizens, who are outraged at their attempt to build a mosque near Groundzero, 9/11 memorial site. Even though the dispute was overall peaceful besides two quarrels outside a NATO reconstruction site that ended with 12 people wounded, 3 critcal, and one who was killed.
This article clearly demonstrates Amendment 1 of the United States Constitution. Which states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion." This article shows how the constitution is still in action today, because the article was informing the reader of how US citizens who weren't Muslim were trying to stop Muslim US citizens from building a religous site in rememberence of 9/11. This act was a direct breaking of the 1st Amendment which gives every US citizen the freedom of religion, press, and speech. President Obama being the Executive branch head, also reminded the other US citizen of their unconstitutional behavior.
I couldn't phanthom the idea of not having the 1st Amendment in place. In this article Muslim citizens of the US were being stripped of their constitutional right to freely express their religion, by building a mosque near the 9/11 memorial. Many people were outraged by this, but the fact still stands that the constitution doesn't work to benefit just Christians or a certain raice, it is a universal document of principles all US citizens should follow as well as be frequently used to protect our rights. If the 1st Amendment was no longer in action this somewhat calm dispute could have ended in an unnecessary bloodshed.
The Judicial Branch
Source: Political Cartoon: Major Consequences of Incompetent Vetting of Supreme Court Justices August 19, 2010
http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/lb0810cd20100810025611.jpg
Constitutional Connection: Article 3, The Judicial Branch, Section 1, Clause 1
"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."
Explanation of Connection:
While the Judicial Branch seems to be together in it's preceedings as well as it's officials and their powers. In recent months the attention of the Supreme Court has been on it's new associate justice of the United States Supreme Court (D) Elena Kagan. She is the 112th justice and the fourth female justice. Many officials are already outraged by the fact of Democrats being the Majority party in government now, but having a female be elected associate justice for the fourth time was the icing on the cake for our Supreme Court officials.
This article clearly demonstrates Article 3, The Judicial Branch, Section 1, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution. The Judicial Branch's power has been vested into one Supreme Court, and their officials shall hold their office during good behavior. This political cartoon demonstrates clearly the unconstitutional conduct of government officials in our Judicial branch and their prejudice toward their female co-official associte justice Elena Kagan. The ability to elect the new Suppreme Court justices is one the President has, and the Judicial official has powers to oversee the Supreme Court. But, even though they are concious of this they still belittle Kagan and her authority and try to babify and control her and her decisions in the courtroom very often.
I don't approve of people and their prejudices against other nationality's or genders. So seeing this political cartoon depict the irrational behavior of the other Supereme Court Justices and their belittlement of Kagan and her power, knowledge, and opion in the Court is something completly unconstitutional. If it were up to me I would re-evaluate the other Judicial Justices and re-establish their commitment to our nation. Why?, because a seperate house/branch is a corrupt and eventually decayed group. Will they ever try and correct it?
http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/lb0810cd20100810025611.jpg
Constitutional Connection: Article 3, The Judicial Branch, Section 1, Clause 1
"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."
Explanation of Connection:
While the Judicial Branch seems to be together in it's preceedings as well as it's officials and their powers. In recent months the attention of the Supreme Court has been on it's new associate justice of the United States Supreme Court (D) Elena Kagan. She is the 112th justice and the fourth female justice. Many officials are already outraged by the fact of Democrats being the Majority party in government now, but having a female be elected associate justice for the fourth time was the icing on the cake for our Supreme Court officials.
This article clearly demonstrates Article 3, The Judicial Branch, Section 1, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution. The Judicial Branch's power has been vested into one Supreme Court, and their officials shall hold their office during good behavior. This political cartoon demonstrates clearly the unconstitutional conduct of government officials in our Judicial branch and their prejudice toward their female co-official associte justice Elena Kagan. The ability to elect the new Suppreme Court justices is one the President has, and the Judicial official has powers to oversee the Supreme Court. But, even though they are concious of this they still belittle Kagan and her authority and try to babify and control her and her decisions in the courtroom very often.
I don't approve of people and their prejudices against other nationality's or genders. So seeing this political cartoon depict the irrational behavior of the other Supereme Court Justices and their belittlement of Kagan and her power, knowledge, and opion in the Court is something completly unconstitutional. If it were up to me I would re-evaluate the other Judicial Justices and re-establish their commitment to our nation. Why?, because a seperate house/branch is a corrupt and eventually decayed group. Will they ever try and correct it?
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Executive Branch
Source: Rethinking U.S. war in Afghanistan: By Steve Clemons September 08, 2010
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/41871.html
Constitutional Connection: Article 2, The Executive Branch, Section 2 , Clause 1
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."
Explanation of Connection:
This articles is about President Obama and his plans and actual decisions he is now making on the War in Afghanistan. The war has recently until now been causing financial decay for Afghanistan and the United States. President Obama is trying to come up with some kind of military system of some sort, that will help migrate US troops who are still in Afghanistan and help them return home safely. But, regardless of Obama trying to work something out, many other leaders in the Arab land believe that the idea's he's coming up with will do nothing but add to what already is. They feel the war is still going to go on and troop won't be coming in or leaving out.
This article clearly demonstrate Article 2, The Executive Branch, Section 2, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution. It states that "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." This articles show this section of the constitution in action because, it lays out all of the commanding decisions Obama's trying to make as far as the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. He is trying to remake the military set up and try to create some way or form that can allow the troops there return home and hopefully end the war. This article as well has quotes and other facts from other legislatures of the Arab world and President Obama himself to better explain the issue at hand.
I can imagine what our military would be like in situtations like this if our president wasn't in position to decide on these issues. The military would more than likely make multiple careless mistakes on the war as far attacking or even not trying to create sensible less violent ways to get our remaining troops out of Afghanistan. I believe with this piece of the constitution in effect that chances that our military would decay or be over thrown would be very slim. Why, because when we elected our president we observed what he or she was able to do and would do when inducted in office, and in situtations like this we trusted in our Commander to be in Chief of the US Army and Navy.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/41871.html
Constitutional Connection: Article 2, The Executive Branch, Section 2 , Clause 1
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."
Explanation of Connection:
This articles is about President Obama and his plans and actual decisions he is now making on the War in Afghanistan. The war has recently until now been causing financial decay for Afghanistan and the United States. President Obama is trying to come up with some kind of military system of some sort, that will help migrate US troops who are still in Afghanistan and help them return home safely. But, regardless of Obama trying to work something out, many other leaders in the Arab land believe that the idea's he's coming up with will do nothing but add to what already is. They feel the war is still going to go on and troop won't be coming in or leaving out.
This article clearly demonstrate Article 2, The Executive Branch, Section 2, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution. It states that "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." This articles show this section of the constitution in action because, it lays out all of the commanding decisions Obama's trying to make as far as the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. He is trying to remake the military set up and try to create some way or form that can allow the troops there return home and hopefully end the war. This article as well has quotes and other facts from other legislatures of the Arab world and President Obama himself to better explain the issue at hand.
I can imagine what our military would be like in situtations like this if our president wasn't in position to decide on these issues. The military would more than likely make multiple careless mistakes on the war as far attacking or even not trying to create sensible less violent ways to get our remaining troops out of Afghanistan. I believe with this piece of the constitution in effect that chances that our military would decay or be over thrown would be very slim. Why, because when we elected our president we observed what he or she was able to do and would do when inducted in office, and in situtations like this we trusted in our Commander to be in Chief of the US Army and Navy.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Legislative Branch
Source:
Rob Blagoevich's Impeachment January 30, 2009
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-blagojevich-impeachment-removal,0,5791846.story
Constitutional Connection:
Article 1 Section 5 Clause 2
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.
Explanation of Connection:
While times in America are hard, the government has still been concious of officials and their work in office. Rob Blagojevich (IL) ex governor was impeached January 30, 2009 for charges of scandal and an abusement of his power. The corruption charges among many he was accused of, was him trying to sell the vacant senate seat President Barack Obama had left after his election into office. A statement given by Lieutenant governor Pat Quinn after governor Blagojevich's actions establishment. "In this moment, our hearts are hurt. And it's very important to know that we have a duty, a mission to restore the faith of the people of Illinois in the integrity of their government."
This article clearly demonstrates Article 1 The Legislative Branch, Section 5, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution. Congress has the power to expel a member, (with the concurrence of two-thirds), for disorderly conduct. This article shows that in instances when accusations and evidence is found that questions someone who is in office and their conduct as an official. Congress has the authority to expel a member and upon doing so, that officials predeccesor is then put in their place. The impeachment powers are given solely to the Legislative Branch to expel members in all branches of government. No Checks & Balances was an reoccuring issue under the Articles of Confederation.
I couldn't imagine what government or society would be like if there was no way to remove different government officials for dissorderly conduct. If that wasn't possible our democracy would be a dictator type of monarchy that we elected an official, but didnt have the power or wasn't allowed to impeach or expel that member from office if they ever exhibited inappropriate behavior throughout their term in office. I completely agree with this constitutional power and do find it to be a neccessity in a possibly corrupt governement. Another thing I thought was good about this constitutional power was if the circumstance did come that an official was impeached they have already prepared people who will be a predeccessor, regardless of when it occured.
Rob Blagoevich's Impeachment January 30, 2009
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-blagojevich-impeachment-removal,0,5791846.story
Constitutional Connection:
Article 1 Section 5 Clause 2
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.
Explanation of Connection:
While times in America are hard, the government has still been concious of officials and their work in office. Rob Blagojevich (IL) ex governor was impeached January 30, 2009 for charges of scandal and an abusement of his power. The corruption charges among many he was accused of, was him trying to sell the vacant senate seat President Barack Obama had left after his election into office. A statement given by Lieutenant governor Pat Quinn after governor Blagojevich's actions establishment. "In this moment, our hearts are hurt. And it's very important to know that we have a duty, a mission to restore the faith of the people of Illinois in the integrity of their government."
This article clearly demonstrates Article 1 The Legislative Branch, Section 5, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution. Congress has the power to expel a member, (with the concurrence of two-thirds), for disorderly conduct. This article shows that in instances when accusations and evidence is found that questions someone who is in office and their conduct as an official. Congress has the authority to expel a member and upon doing so, that officials predeccesor is then put in their place. The impeachment powers are given solely to the Legislative Branch to expel members in all branches of government. No Checks & Balances was an reoccuring issue under the Articles of Confederation.
I couldn't imagine what government or society would be like if there was no way to remove different government officials for dissorderly conduct. If that wasn't possible our democracy would be a dictator type of monarchy that we elected an official, but didnt have the power or wasn't allowed to impeach or expel that member from office if they ever exhibited inappropriate behavior throughout their term in office. I completely agree with this constitutional power and do find it to be a neccessity in a possibly corrupt governement. Another thing I thought was good about this constitutional power was if the circumstance did come that an official was impeached they have already prepared people who will be a predeccessor, regardless of when it occured.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)