1st Amendement: Freedom of Assembly

"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."

" Nearly two weeks after California voters narrowly passed Proposition 8, an amendment to the state constitution that effectively bans same-sex marriage, the backlash continues to build beyond the state's borders. Thousands of supporters of gay marriage carry signs during a rally against the passing of Prop. 8...
Thousands of supporters of gay marriage carry signs during a rally against the passing of Prop. 8 on Nov. 15, 2008 in San Francisco. People across the country continue to protest the passing of California State Proposition 8, which makes gay marriage in California illegal...One of the largest rallies was on the steps of San Francisco City Hall, considered ground zero in the battle for same sex marriage..."

Many gay marriage supporters were protesting the passing of proposition 8. Many of them went the streets in many cities (including Chicago) and peacefully (yet loudly) protested the bill. They found that the treatment they were receiving was unfair and that all people should have the right to marry no matter that their sexual orientation is.

They successfully used their first amendment right to work for them. They found that they were being discriminated and against and they all went out and protested peacefully. They might not have been the quietest protesters but they did what they had to do for their voice to be heard.

I personally believe that everyone should have the right to be married. They are being denied their rights so they decided to protest their treatment. Just the way many teenagers did with the Vietnam War and how kids and students are protesting teachers being fired. If you don’t like how something is going, protest it and get your voice heard. But it has to be done peacefully because violence would ruin the cause and it is also illegal and the cops will quickly put a stop to the protest.








http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=6262989&page=1

1st Amendment: Freedom of Press

"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 the picture there is a building aka democracy and it is being held up with pillars. The pillars are newspapers and in the caption it says infrastructure. According to the dictionary infrastructure is the basic physical systems of a business or nation. I interpret it as saying that for democracy to reign we must have the press.

This connects to the first amendment by saying he right to be informed through the news. Over the years the press has become an important tool for Americans. In colonial times people spread news all over the states. If the people aren’t inform it is almost impossible to pick the best leader for their country.

I believe the press is important but in recent years the newspaper and television news haven’t become the got to source that they were in earlier years. Most people go to the internet if they wanted up to date news. No matter what kind of new source you use for there to be a democracy the people need the press. The press is the way we find out about issues and problems that happened millions of miles from where we are. The people need to know about the issues so they could vote for someone to fix them. If they are clueless to the problems the nation is facing how can they pick the right leader to fix them?

1st Amendment : Freedom of Speech

"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."

"A St. Louis man landed in jail for joking about shoe bombs after he boarded a plane.
Michael Shafermeyer, 30, spent more than three days behind bars after making what he says was a joke at Lambert Airport.When a flight attendant asked him to close his laptop after boarding on Saturday, Shafermeyer told KMOV-TV in St. Louis that he jokingly asked her, 'Are you the one who checks for shoe bombs?' He was flying to Maryland to get married and had had a few drinks, the station reported.
Within minutes, federal agents removed him from the plane. He was booked at the St. Louis County jail and placed in solitary confinement, where he spent two-and-a-half days before being placed with other inmates on his final day."

A man in St. Louis was jailed for joking about bombs being on shoes. He had a few drinks before boarding the plane when a attendant asked him to close his laptop he joked and asked her “are you the one who checks for shoe bombs?” after a few minutes he was removed from the plane and booked. He was help in jail for two and a half days in solitary confinement.


This goes with the thought of freedom of speech because he was clearly drunk and it was clearly a joke. If it was a bomb on his shoe she could have seen it. Terrorism is a big deal in modern America but we as American’s do have our first amendment rights to freedom of speech. It applies to people saying bomb in the airport, fire in school, or shark at the beach.

I believe that it was utterly ridiculous for them to arrest him for a simple joke. Instead of it making a crime to say bomb on a plane it should be illegal to be intoxicated on a plane. Why would they let a buzzed guy on a plan anyway? For money and when he tells a drunken joke they decided to escalate it to another level. it is our human right to use freedom of speech and use it as we will.



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,477446,00.html

2nd Amendment

"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."

In this cartoon it shows the possibility of what could have happened if American’s were able to bring guns on planes. The side caption says ”what might have happened on Sept. 11 if this were truly The Land of the Free” it shows the terrorist shrink away as many Americans defending themselves with guns. The terrorist was resorting to lies saying they were only opening boxes for the pilot seeing how there are holding box cutters.

This relates to the fact of people putting restrictions on gun laws. All the laws are meant to protect but at the same time they prevent others from defending themselves. The amendments say that we as American’s have the right to bear arms and in most cases it is unconstitutional for states to ban them.

I think that all guns should be banned, but it is written that people can have guns and we shouldn’t infringe on their rights. Setting limits on gun usage and ownership is a different subject but banning is unconstitutional and American’s should have the right to carry their guns with them as along as they have the right documentation to have one.

http://www.scottbieser.com/images/Sept11_c540.jpg

4th 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."

http://videos.webpronews.com/2007/06/26/fourth-amendment-prevails

This video tells of Enzyme peddler Steven Warshak (not to be confused with Warshak the Watchmen character), and how he won his case again the Federal Trade for infringing on his 4th amendment right to privacy. In the video it tells that the government went through his emails (without his permission) and didn’t tell him about it until a year later. Then proceeded to sure them.

This is a landmark case because it no only did they not obtain a search warrant but because the failed to see email as “…papers, and effects…”. Which his hard to tell with new technology such as social networking cites and blogs. The judge sided with Warshak that email fell on the same lines of privacy as a phone would.

Personally I believe that by law it is protected by the 4th amendment, but whether I think it should be is another thing. Emails in my mind do not fall on the same lines because of the fact that it is on the internet. Something used to make everything viral and public. Would it have been the same thing if it was Facebook private messages? Both are password connected, and sent from one person to another. The only difference is that there is no privacy tagged onto the name Facebook. People see email as a private thing when really it isn’t.


<

5th 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 offence 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"

This political cartoon shows the use of due process using the Moussaoui trial as example. This trial was a great example because that particular case gave a fair trial with due process that would be given to American citizen to a man who was a terrorist. In the cartoon former President Bush is at his desk reading a newspaper about the Moussaoui trail is commenting that he got a fair trial. Former Vice President Cheney is expressing his displeasure by giving a sneering look at saying “how did we let that happen?”.

This connects to the meaning of due process “holds the government subservient to the law of the land, protecting individual persons from the state.”. Many american’s found it appalling that of all people a terrorist was givien the right that he was trying to threaten.

I am one of the people who believe this. Why shouldn’t a terrorist be given the rights a common thig, shop lifter, or murder be given? Because those people are American citizen that have turned down the wrong path somewhere in life. I believe that due process shouldn’t be given even if it is an american citizen that is being acccused of terrorism. There is no reason why someone who is trying to threaten a countries existence should be given that same countries rights. It is not only morally wrong but should be deemed unconstitutional.


blogs.chron.com/nickanderson/archives/2006/05/due_process.html

6th Amendment

"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 where in 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"

“…Last month, Stewart, a 42-year-old high school dropout, defended himself in a murder case in Prince George's County, where he was accused of beating a sleeping man to death with a baseball bat. The trial lasted three days. Stewart called no witnesses. The jury deliberated less than an hour. The verdict: Not guilty of first-degree murder. Not guilty of second-degree murder. ‘Everybody told me I was crazy to represent myself,’ Stewart said in an interview. ‘I had no choice. They were obstructing my rights.’ The obstructionists, in Stewart's view, included county prosecutors, the trial judge, the assistant public defender who represented him at his first trial (which ended in a mistrial), the private defense lawyer who represented him between the two trials, jail officials he says unfairly denied him access to the law library and the state Attorney Grievance Commission. Victories such as Stewart's are exceedingly rare. Veteran attorneys in suburban Maryland and the District said they had never heard of a pro se defendant -- a term that draws on the Latin phrase meaning ‘on one's own behalf’ -- winning an acquittal in a murder case.”

Harold J. Stewart a high school drop-out, unmarried, 4 time father, and Maryland native was arrested in 2005 on counts of first and second degree murder. His first attorney Assistant Public Defender Janet Callis won him a mistrial on the bases that one of the jurors (an Asian woman) didn’t speak enough English to get their argument. That won him a mistrial. Stewart's family hired lawyer David M. Simpson to represent him after the mistrial. Simpson instantly told him to go for a second degree pleas bargain, but he refused. He then came up with the idea to represent himself. Be begun to gather court files that were about 5 inches thick each. On the day of his trail his sister, who told an earlier testimony that he confessed to her about the murder, rephrase her testimony to say that he merely spoke that some might be hurt. He also criticized Kevin Green, (Stewart’s housemate) testimony that they had been drinking and he witnessed the murder and went for help even though a ambulance didn’t show up at the scene of the crime hours later. With only an hour to deliberate the jurors acquitted him of both crimes.

This not only displays the use of having a legal attorney but the right to a public and speedy trail. Harold Steward not only took the law into his hands when all odds were against him, but won a case that if he lost would earn him a minimum of 40 years if convicted of both counts. He used his resources and environment to win his case.

I believe that Harold made a very foolish choice to represent himself. It was documented that her used. “…long soliloquies, citing criminal codes without making a clear point…” A lot of lawyers said that self defending is common with trials of DUI’s or traffic violations but nothing of that stature. Legal counsels are there for a reason and it was only by pure luck that he won his trail. Many others’s have tried this and found themselves in jail. No matter how foolish his decision he did get himself acquitted and he did put his 6th amendment right to use.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/16/AR2008031603010.html