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.