Kawakita vs. United States

Source: "Kawakita v. United States"
http://supreme.justia.com/us/343/717/

Constitutional Connection:
Article 3, Section 3
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted."


Analysis of Connection:
     This is a Supreme Court case of treason against the United States. The case is Kawaita vs. United States. Tomoyo Kawakita was an native born American citizen, he took a trip to Japan and from there things went downhill. Kawakita went to visit Japan on an American passport and due to the war was unable to return to the states. During that time he changed his registration from American to Japanese and began to show hostility toward the United States. 

     Kawakita worked as a civilian employee making war material for Japan and torturing American prisoners of war. After the war ended Kawakita registered as an American citizen and swore that he had not done various acts amounting to expatriation. But he was later convicted of dual nationality and accused of treason.
     The US takes treason very seriously, in this article they go into detail about the evidence they have against Kawakita. He was sentenced to the death penalty by the Supreme Court but President Clinton later pardoned  him on October 24, 1963 under the condition of perpetual exile to Japan. 

State of Union

Source: "State of Union: Obama makes Jobs Top Priority for 2010"
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/State_of_the_Union/president-obama-state-of-the-union-address/story?id=9678571

Constitutional Connection:
Article 2, Section 3
"He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union"


Analysis of Connection:
     This article and video is about Obama's State of Union on January 27, 2010. As stated in the constitution the president must, from time to time, make a state of the union. During Obama's speech, he talks about the major things he plans on making a priority during his term, those being the economy, health care and jobs. President Obama said "Jobs must be our number one focus in 2010", he will push for a new jobs bill that will make more jobs for citizens in this hard economic time. 
     President Obama states that he knows of the mistakes he made in his first year but he is moving toward living up to his campaign slogan "change we can believe in". That address seemed to be aimed to the Americans people and reassuring them that he is working towards a change. Obama's other focus is the health care reform, he suggest that Congress do not walk away from the reform because he will not walk away from the people who will lose their health insurance this year. He will work for them, and ensure that they have health insurance. 

    The president is entitled, by the constitution to speak to Congress and inform them of plans for the coming year and how those things shall be handled. Barack Obama made his state of the union an unforgettable one. Proposing more jobs, health care reform and ways to rebuild America's economy. 

Impeach the President?

Source:"The New Congress Will Consider Impeachment"
http://www.impeachobamacampaign.com/


Constitutional Connection:
Article 2, Section 4
"The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."


Analysis of Connection:
     On this webpage there are several articles and videos that the creators believe give reason as to why Congress should impeach the 44th president, Barack Obama. In this particular section, the new Congress to be elected in November will seriously consider impeaching president Obama. Many of the soon to be Congress men have already signed off on a petition to impeach Obama, along with a million citizens. It says that in incoming Congressmen will not back down on the issue once in office like the Republicans have. They have all come to this concusion because of the common belief between Tea Party activist that Obama is attempting to "systematically trying to hurt America". 

     "Barack Obama is a dishonest, manipulative liar who actually is pursuing an agenda that he hopes will take America off the international leadership stage. He wants America to fail so that the vision of international socialist can be realized. America is hated by the elite intellectuals of the world because we have been the single biggest roadblock to their plans to establish a one world governing system  with them in charge."

     These are the reasons behind the new Congress' decision to impeach Barack Obama. The words of the constitution have been manipulated and interpreted in the way they want it to be interpreted.  "The key phrase here is “high crimes and misdemeanors,” a concept in English common law that was well-known to our Founding Fathers but is grossly misunderstood in this day and age. “High crimes and misdemeanors” essentially means bad behavior." That is the simple charge that Congressmen charge Obama with, bad behavior. That is the major flaw in the constitution, its interpretation, and this matter is not in the hands of the judicial branch but the legislature and if they feel they want to impeach Barack on "bad behavior" no one can challenge that. 
     I personally do not agree with the new Congress' decision to impeach the president. I feel that the Congressmen voting for this are not open to the change that Obama is enforcing and they "think" it is bad for America. I feel like if we were more open to change as a nation we can potentially remain a top international powerhouse. I do not agree with Obama's impeachment

Religious Diversity in Congress

Source: "111th Congress reflects greatest religious diversity in the U.S."
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/05/local/me-beliefs5

Constitutional Connection:
Article I, Section II
The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.
No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.


Analysis of Connection:

     There is no direct connection between this article and the constitution, but it applies to Congress and its new diversity. In this article reporters talk about the religious diversity of the 111th Congress. In 1961 John F. Kennedy, a Catholic, took presidency, during that time only 18.8% of Congress were Catholic. As of January 12, 2009 30% of Congress that was sworn in were Catholic. It may not seem like such a big deal just talking about it, but looking into the religious background of Congress over the past years you will see that the diversity is a good thing. "The shift reflects greater religious diversity both across the nation and on Capitol Hill".
      This shift shows a lot more acceptance to people of different religious backgrounds on a national level. Not only has there been a decrease in the number of Protestant Congressmen, but an increase in Mormons and Jews. Not much, if any increase in the Buddhist and Muslim population in Congress. ABout 1% of Congress did not mention their religious orientation, but from the gathered information we can see a significant shift.
The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.
No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.

     This picture shows the make up of the 111th Congress. You can clearly see the percentage make-up of the different religions in Congress. Without knowing the numbers from previous congresses you cannot see the shift, but once looked into the shift of religious diversity is very significant.

     I am personally happy about the new religious diversity in Congress. It is a step in the right direction to a more accepting nation. It starts at the top and will trickle down to the rest of the country, hopefully for a positive outcome.

Congress Passes Green-Card Bill For Spouses of Deceased U.S. Citizens

Source: "Congress passes green-card bill for spouses of deceased U.S. citizens."
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/oct/21/nation/na-widows21

Constitutional Connection:
Article I. Section VII
      "Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it.---" 


Analysis of Connection:
     
      In this article "Congress passes green-card bill for spoused of deceased U.S citizens" the congress passed a new bill in October '09 in regards to citizenship for widows of U.S citizens before their green-card application has been accepted no matter how long they have been married. The previous bill stated that the couple had to be married two years before this could happen. In that, hundreds of widows were deported. 

     This bill has only passed in the Congress, it has been sent to president Obama for approval. I believe that the bill will be passed when it gets to the president even though, from reading this article there does not appear to be valid evidence as to why the bill should become law, it made it past congress so it has a good chance. On this topic, I do not have a solid stance because I am not familiar with the way citizenship works or the motives of non-U.S citizens who marry U.S. citizens. Some may marry just to become citizens, but others may be genuinely wed and deserve the right to be a citizen if they have been with someone fighting for our country. 
     Although people have different stances on this topic, they have come to an agreement that spouses of these U.S citizens should be granted citizenship no matter how long they have been married if they are widows of fighting citizens. 

Most Popular: Tenth Amendment

Source: "Conservatives rally around the Tenth Amendment"
http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/30/conservatives-rally-around-the-tenth-amendment/

Constitutional Connection: "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."


Analysis of Connection: 
     The tenth amendment has become a major cited source over the past years and it is controversial. This gives states and/or the people the right to prohibit or make legal anything not delegated in the US constitution or in the states laws already. In this article they give several examples of the new interest in the tenth amendment. 
     One case involves attorney generals suing the federal government over the new health care bill. Others range from states rebelling on gay marriage to the medical use of marijuana. The Tenth Amendment is becoming more and more popular and governments are finding more ways to manipulate its true meaning.

http://redstatewitch.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/didntbuyinsurance.jpg

      What does the Tenth Amendment really mean anyway? I did not find the real answer to that question, but i, just like many other US citizens, take what is written in the original constitution as its meaning. The way it is interpreted varies greatly. It can be interpreted in many different ways and we see that with with the development of new state laws. I personally believe that states are taking full advantage of their tenth amendment right and we cannot deny them that. It is not written in the original constitution, the limitations of the right, therefore; we can't label what they have chosen to do as unconstitutional or wrong. 

Fifth Amendment, Not What It Used To Be.

Source: "Fifth Amendment: No Longer a Shield Against Government"
http://articles.latimes.com/1994-02-02/news/mn-18241_1_high-court

Constitutional Connection: "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."


Analysis of Connection: 


      The fifth amendment is the right against self-incrimination and it is definitely not what it was over two decades ago. In this article the changes are apparent. A person suspected of any crime can be forced to give up all kinds of evidence. "Fingerprints, hair samples, business records, a desk calendar and even pages from a private diary". This is possible because higher courts have recently narrowed the meaning of the Fifth Amendment. 
     One thing from this article was a case, Boyd vs. US. Prosecutors say that they "may seek to convict someone of a crime by compelling the production of his private books and papers". I believe that they should have their personal documents searched only if they are actually the person on trial and it is necessary to have that additional evidence. If they are only suspected of a crime, they have a right to not give up any personal items due to their self-incrimination right. 
      In other cases of the fifth amendment, tax payers that have believed that their records were private have come to realize that they truly aren't. Those records can be used against them in a case where those may apply. I believe that it is not right for these citizens to be told that their records are confidential, but can easily be given up without permission from that person. it is a violation of their privacy and their right of not having private property taken for public use. The fifth amendment, as well as many if not all of the other amendments have holes in them and government officials find ways hop through them.

     

4th Amendment Violation? Or Simple Routine Procedures.

Source: "Steroid Test Ignore the 4th amendment"
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/02/sports/baseball/02chass.html


Constitutional Connection: "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."


Analysis of Connection: 
     U.S citizens have the right to be secure in their person, home, papers and effects and it shall not be violated without reasonable cause, its in the constitution, but sports agents do not look at it in that manner. Major league baseball players and other professional athletes are tested for steroids frequently without reasonable reasoning. Everyone has begun to believe that it is probably written in their contract to be tested, or that it comes with the job, but it is not. It is a violation of their privacy. 

     "A 1997 Supreme Court case, Chandler v. Miller, found that a Georgia law requiring candidates for state office to submit to drug testing was unconstitutional. The court ruled, 8-1, that the candidates would most likely not be performing the kind of high-risk duties, nor was it establishing a good enough reason, to justify the invasion of privacy."

 

      I agree with the courts decision because there was not probable cause for a drug test in a state officers candidacy. They will not be performing "high-risk duties" or anything that would lead to suspicion of drug use if they become better at what they do over time. If there is a performance enhancer for becoming smarter or just adapting to your job quickly, then there would be probable cause, but they submitting a drug test before coming of office is not necessary. I strongly believe that if we are granted a right to be protected in our person, home, papers etc. then it should not be violated without proper preparation beforehand.

Protect my right to bear arms.

Source: "High court strikes down Chicago handgun ban"
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/06/28/us.scotus.handgun.ban/index.html

Constitutional Connection: "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."

Analysis of Connection:
      'The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed'. Taken directly from the constitution, this quote causes many problems. In Chicago the strict handgun restriction is being constantly debated because it is 'unconstitutional'. Citizens are granted the right to bear arms, but where is the limit? Is it limited to individual states or our nation in whole? If cities are able to instill bans on things that are otherwise acceptable, under the constitution, then where do our real rights come from?.

     In this video and article 'High court strikes down Chicago handgun ban' a local Chicago resident wins the fight against the handgun ban. Otis McDonald, a 76 year old man fighting against the handgun ban, says that with this ban in place he is unable to protect himself from gang members and robbers. He plead his case all the ways up to the Supreme court where he won the case. Not only because he stayed persistant in his fight but because there was ample evidence that he indeed did have a right to bear arm. Whether it was to protect himself or for show, his right was protected by the constitution and Chicago's restriction could not withstand the battle.

     Mayor Richard Daley stated, "that person has a right to a gun in his arms, does he have the right to point a gun at his child, he's the parent. Does he have the right to point a gun at his spouse? Does he, those are valid questions to ask". That statement had very little, if anything, to do with the case. I believe it was uncalled for. Just because people want to fight for their right to bear arms does not mean that they will point a gun at their spouse or child! The people just want to protect themselves and their families if and when necessary. The handgun restriction prohibits them from doing so. Even though people are allowed to keep larger and more dangerous guns there are still people who cannot keep those in their homes or even use them properly, which give them a slim chance to protect themselves.  I am glad that they are taking the restriction on handguns back to the drawing boards to be reevaluated. I understand that they want to keep as many gang members and drug dealers from having a handgun, but a ban will do nothing but make them conceal the weapon even more and pose a even larger threat to their law-abiding fellow citizens.

Do I have the freedom to assemble

Source: "No right to freedom of assembly says 500 arrest" and "Freedom of Assembly/Speech- yea, right."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PfVjmnTmZA
http://vodpod.com/watch/3923366-no-right-for-freedom-of-assembly-says-500-arrests

Constitutional Connection: First Amendment "-- the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." 
Source Cited: http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights#amendmenti

Analysis of the connection:
     Do we truly have the right to assemble peacefully or is that limited to how long the police decide to tolerate it? The first amendment grants citizens the right 'peaceably to assemble', but in these two video the people are punished for doing so. The freedom of assembly and speech go hand in hand, they are both a simply part of democracy.

     In the 'No right to freedom of assembly says 500 arrest' video over 500 people were arrested in Toronto "for "unlawful assembly'. A riot broke out when police decided that it was time for the protest to end, but the protesters refused. There were several charges ranging from mischief to conspiracy charges, but lawyers of those arrested believe that their clients did nothing wrong. The reporter Paul Jay says "so where is there a right to free assembly if as soon as a police officer tells you that you cant assemble its now unlawful assemble". Paul Jay makes a very good point because if we have the right to peacefully assemble, just as those protesters did, then how is it unlawful. Is it because the police say so, or because there are underlined restrictions to that freedom.

     I personally agree with the reporter on this topic because we are given the right to assemble, but once the police tell the group to disband they can say what they want to make it seem as if the people are unlawfully assembling. Even though the people gathered in the designated area for assembly, they are still in custody waiting to plea their case. There are many things that lye beneath these right granted to us by the constitution and you may never know what they are until you are charged and fighting your case.

I Have the Freedom of Speech

Source: 'Don't ask' survey in crossfire.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39539.html

Constitutional Connection: "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."
Source Cited: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1

Analysis of Connection: 

     The first amendment should allow any US citizen to speak as freely as they please on any topic, but the "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy prohibits homosexual troops from openly speaking of their sexual orientation. The 'Don't ask, Don't tell' policy is intended to 'protect' closeted gays or lesbians from being discovered or having to reveal their preference. In the government efforts 'protect' those few, they take away the right of openly gay or bisexual troops to speak freely or even enroll in the armed forces. 

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chief's Adm. Micheal Mullen on the 'Don't ask, Don't tell' survey/

     The article "'Don't ask' survey in crossfire" talks about the survey that was recently sent out to all military participants and their families. The survey focuses on a wide variety of topics and scenarios that will give the government a better idea of whether or not the repeal of the 'Don't ask, Don't tell' policy is a good idea. Alexander Nicholson, executive director of Service member Union stated, "the survey isn't just slightly bad, its far more skewed than we even expected it to be, given the working group's commitment to staying neutral".  Sending out a biased survey does not give a clear cut idea of whether or not the repeal is a good idea because  it does not allow the people to give their own opinion. 

     I agree with the repeal of the "Don't ask, Don't tell' policy because it is in violation of the first amendment, those troops have the right to speak as they please about the preference. Just because other military participants feel uncomfortable with them does not give the government a right to take away their first amendment rights. Plenty people feel uncomfortable or do not agree with some things people talk about, but does that give the government the right to tell them they cant say it? No, because it is granted to them, in the constitution, to speak freely.