http://www.nysun.com/national/reporter-invokes-fifth-amendment-then-is/82622/
Reporter Invokes Fifth Amendment, then is celebrated by the judge
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."
This article is about a man going to court, doing something wrong, and then the judge approves of it. Many times, the government condones things that are against the constitution. This is a horrible situation, because the amendment was broken with no reparation. The fifth amendment is fair, except for the part about being trialed twice and sometimes when the government takes property. If a person finds new evidence on a closed case, it is not legal for them to have another trial to convict a person. This is wrong . There are many stories about people doing further research on topics and finding out that the person who got away is wrong. Also taking property is wrong. It is different when a person can not pay their loans and when property is taken from people for the use of the government. This happens many times and this is not just.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Sunday, August 29, 2010
The fourth amendment
Political cartoon
http://105.wikispaces.com/file/view/cool-cartoon-263943.png/34351801/cool-cartoon-263943.png
The fourth amendment-Amendment 4 -" Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
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 cartoon agrees with the fourth amendment and so do I. The police should have the right to check people, but when they start checking people for prejudice reasons, they take it too far. This cartoon shows two teenagers smoking and are caught by the cops. This situation is appropriate, but when a Mexican is stopped for no reason, or an African American, or any other race or gender it becomes a problem. The amendment should be used to help, not invade other's rights. This is a great amendment, but it needs better means of enforcing.
http://105.wikispaces.com/file/view/cool-cartoon-263943.png/34351801/cool-cartoon-263943.png
The fourth amendment-Amendment 4 -" Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
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 cartoon agrees with the fourth amendment and so do I. The police should have the right to check people, but when they start checking people for prejudice reasons, they take it too far. This cartoon shows two teenagers smoking and are caught by the cops. This situation is appropriate, but when a Mexican is stopped for no reason, or an African American, or any other race or gender it becomes a problem. The amendment should be used to help, not invade other's rights. This is a great amendment, but it needs better means of enforcing.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
The Right to bear Arms
Political cartoon: the right to bear arms.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibtpmfo1eRC-il13qbADuWqk_PF6JApm3VX7YuSZQTi-XpL6BMizkclim44tJNUAarHXRK7oqSgQdn-zsPVN2CQ6v2rE9c70dDu-JW9rK5IJFQ5GM8JcGFXe2Jx3cOXyImJR6wj4tbjcA/s1600/6a00d8341cbb0453ef00e54f3a5eb28834-800wi.jpg
This cartoon is pro second amendment, and so am I. Even though it is pro second amendment, it shows that it is not in effect. We can not carry guns into public, but we can carry them at home. I, on another hand believe that it is not good for a person to carry a gun in a public place. Yes, we do deserve the right to have guns, but when that right affects the people around you, it becomes a problem. If a shot is accidentally fired and a person is hurt, whose problem is that?If someone gets into a fight and pulls out a gun, whose fault is that? If a shot is fired in an airport or on a plane, whose fault is that. Everyone would state that it is the fault of the government. Too many problems would arise if we were allowed to publicly carry guns. This is why I believe that this right is necessary, but it should be limited.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibtpmfo1eRC-il13qbADuWqk_PF6JApm3VX7YuSZQTi-XpL6BMizkclim44tJNUAarHXRK7oqSgQdn-zsPVN2CQ6v2rE9c70dDu-JW9rK5IJFQ5GM8JcGFXe2Jx3cOXyImJR6wj4tbjcA/s1600/6a00d8341cbb0453ef00e54f3a5eb28834-800wi.jpg
This cartoon is pro second amendment, and so am I. Even though it is pro second amendment, it shows that it is not in effect. We can not carry guns into public, but we can carry them at home. I, on another hand believe that it is not good for a person to carry a gun in a public place. Yes, we do deserve the right to have guns, but when that right affects the people around you, it becomes a problem. If a shot is accidentally fired and a person is hurt, whose problem is that?If someone gets into a fight and pulls out a gun, whose fault is that? If a shot is fired in an airport or on a plane, whose fault is that. Everyone would state that it is the fault of the government. Too many problems would arise if we were allowed to publicly carry guns. This is why I believe that this right is necessary, but it should be limited.
Is it always good to have freedom of speech?
Palin: Dr. Laura no racist. August 20, 2010
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41288.html
First Amendment- freedom of speech
This article upsets me. It talks about Dr. Laura stating the "N" word many times. Many people use this word and it is very disrespectful.This takes the freedom of speech too far. It stated that people of African-American descent also say this word, so why can't she. It is wrong for anyone to say or called anyone this word. I find it disrespectful coming from anyone. This is a case of taking this freedom too far. There are also many other ways people can take it too far. It can be by using too much profanity, calling people any name out of theirs, being offensive, and talking at times when a person should be quiet. There should be a limit on the freedom of speech and there is. It should just be bigger consequences for taking these limits too far.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41288.html
First Amendment- freedom of speech
This article upsets me. It talks about Dr. Laura stating the "N" word many times. Many people use this word and it is very disrespectful.This takes the freedom of speech too far. It stated that people of African-American descent also say this word, so why can't she. It is wrong for anyone to say or called anyone this word. I find it disrespectful coming from anyone. This is a case of taking this freedom too far. There are also many other ways people can take it too far. It can be by using too much profanity, calling people any name out of theirs, being offensive, and talking at times when a person should be quiet. There should be a limit on the freedom of speech and there is. It should just be bigger consequences for taking these limits too far.
Religion and our government- first amendment
Chicago Tribune: Muslim group slams NY Gov. Patterson for describing mosque developers 'as almost westernized'
http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/sns-ap-us-nyc-mosque-paterson,0,4085454.story
First Amendment-religious values
"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."
This excerpt is about the mosque that is going to be built two blocks away from ground zero. The Muslim believed that the government falsely advertised their religion. Is it truly fair that this group of people should not be bothered by the idea of moving their mosque. The amendment says, " Congress should make no law respecting an establishment of religion."To make them move would be unlawful. It seems like people only complain about this situation, because they want a power over others. They should not be forced to move and I don't believe they will.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/sns-ap-us-nyc-mosque-paterson,0,4085454.story
First Amendment-religious values
"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."
This excerpt is about the mosque that is going to be built two blocks away from ground zero. The Muslim believed that the government falsely advertised their religion. Is it truly fair that this group of people should not be bothered by the idea of moving their mosque. The amendment says, " Congress should make no law respecting an establishment of religion."To make them move would be unlawful. It seems like people only complain about this situation, because they want a power over others. They should not be forced to move and I don't believe they will.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)