http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/09/01/is-illegal-immigration-on-the-decline-for-good/
What About Those Broken Borders? Pew Says Illegal Immigration Declining
Amendment 10 states : " The powers not delegated.......... nor prohibited by it to the States , are reserved to the states respectively". This amendment means that all the powers that are not specifically stated in the constitution about the states are automatically given to them.
In the constitution is does not state any laws about immigration. Therefore all immigration laws concerning a state, may be created by the state.
Arizona passed an immigration law for there state. The Obama administration was trying to fight the law. They started noticing that the law was actually helping. the number of immigrants per year are beginning to go down. Deportation has helped as well. People are starting to feel that Arizona has sorta of made and example and things are starting to change.
I think its good that Arizona's law is working effectively. The immigration numbers are going down. I still think that its a compliment when immigrants want to come to America. They come to better themselves. I think its good that us the American people can provide that for them. Its still a good thing that Arizona's happy and America is happy with the decrease in immigration.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Amendment 8 - Cruel and Unusual Punishment
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23974.html
Death penalty decisions loom for Barack Obama
Amendment 8 states : " ...... nor cruel or unusual punishment inflicted." This means that no U.S citizen can have cruel or unusual punishment inflicted on them.
The article is about how Barack Obama is dealing with having to decided whether to give these inmates the death penalty or not. There was 3 different cases and there were six inmates on trial. The first case dealt with a gang banger with a death sentence for drug related murders. The second case dealt with 2 men with death sentences for abduction , sexual assault and murder of a 16 year old girl. The third was a man who was convicted of killing a prison guard. The article was also talking about how Obama was trying to figure out what he was going to do - as far as going through with the death penalty for the inmates. He feels that the death penalty should only be a option when the crime is "heinous". Obama feels like that a "heinous" crime would be , if someone raped a child under the age of 8 and they also killed them. However , he doesn't feel that a "heinous" crime if someone rapes a child older than 8 and wasn't murdered.
This article relates to Amendment 8 because , the amendment talks about " cruel and unusual punishment". Some say that the death penalty could be considered as cruel and unusual. when the death penalty is given out some say that its unconstitutional. That's why Obama wants to make sure that the death penalty isn't a option unless necessary , and in very special cases.
I could agree with Obama's decision in thinking about the case longer than usual. Having the power in keeping and taking away a mans life is a very big power to have. That decision shouldn't be taking lightly. I think that the death penalty sometimes are given unnecessary for the crime that the person committed. I think that the death penalty shouldn't be given unless the person was really crazy. I think that maybe serial killer , serial rapist , and people who hurt children and crimes of that sort, should be given the death penalty. I feel like the death penalty is given at the wrong times and not when they should really be given.
Death penalty decisions loom for Barack Obama
Amendment 8 states : " ...... nor cruel or unusual punishment inflicted." This means that no U.S citizen can have cruel or unusual punishment inflicted on them.
The article is about how Barack Obama is dealing with having to decided whether to give these inmates the death penalty or not. There was 3 different cases and there were six inmates on trial. The first case dealt with a gang banger with a death sentence for drug related murders. The second case dealt with 2 men with death sentences for abduction , sexual assault and murder of a 16 year old girl. The third was a man who was convicted of killing a prison guard. The article was also talking about how Obama was trying to figure out what he was going to do - as far as going through with the death penalty for the inmates. He feels that the death penalty should only be a option when the crime is "heinous". Obama feels like that a "heinous" crime would be , if someone raped a child under the age of 8 and they also killed them. However , he doesn't feel that a "heinous" crime if someone rapes a child older than 8 and wasn't murdered.
This article relates to Amendment 8 because , the amendment talks about " cruel and unusual punishment". Some say that the death penalty could be considered as cruel and unusual. when the death penalty is given out some say that its unconstitutional. That's why Obama wants to make sure that the death penalty isn't a option unless necessary , and in very special cases.
I could agree with Obama's decision in thinking about the case longer than usual. Having the power in keeping and taking away a mans life is a very big power to have. That decision shouldn't be taking lightly. I think that the death penalty sometimes are given unnecessary for the crime that the person committed. I think that the death penalty shouldn't be given unless the person was really crazy. I think that maybe serial killer , serial rapist , and people who hurt children and crimes of that sort, should be given the death penalty. I feel like the death penalty is given at the wrong times and not when they should really be given.
Amendment 4 - Unreasonable Searches and Seizures
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/09/expelled-student-sues-over-unreasonable-cell-phone-search.ars
Amendment 4 states : " The right of the people to be secure...... against unreasonable searches and seizures......". This means that the police or anyone can't search a citizen without probable cause or a warrant.
The article was about how a teenage boys cell phone was confiscated. At his school there is a " no cell phone " policy. He received a text message from his dad. He got caught by the teacher and his phone was taken. Everything was constitutional and right until they went through his phone and found a video of his and him dancing in his bathroom , when they saw his friend holding a bb gun. They then suspend him and eventually expelled him saying they the might have been a danger to there school. His parents sued the school because they said it was " unconstitutional" for the principal to go through their son phone without a warrant. They were violating his 4th amendment right.
In my opinion the school was violating his 4th amendment right. They shouldn't have went through his phone. They in return found something they didn't want to see. I don't think that the bb gun was a reason to say that he was a "danger" to their school. He shouldn't have been suspend and it was a good thing for his parents to take them to court.
Expelled student sues over " unreasonable" cell phone search
Amendment 4 states : " The right of the people to be secure...... against unreasonable searches and seizures......". This means that the police or anyone can't search a citizen without probable cause or a warrant.
The article was about how a teenage boys cell phone was confiscated. At his school there is a " no cell phone " policy. He received a text message from his dad. He got caught by the teacher and his phone was taken. Everything was constitutional and right until they went through his phone and found a video of his and him dancing in his bathroom , when they saw his friend holding a bb gun. They then suspend him and eventually expelled him saying they the might have been a danger to there school. His parents sued the school because they said it was " unconstitutional" for the principal to go through their son phone without a warrant. They were violating his 4th amendment right.
In my opinion the school was violating his 4th amendment right. They shouldn't have went through his phone. They in return found something they didn't want to see. I don't think that the bb gun was a reason to say that he was a "danger" to their school. He shouldn't have been suspend and it was a good thing for his parents to take them to court.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Amendment 10 - " Powers of the States and the People"
" Powers of the States and the People"
http://static.toondoo.com/public/u/s/m/USMstudent/toons/cool-cartoon-382425.png
The picture demonstrates the Tenth Amendment in action. The Tenth Amendment states that the power not specifically given in the US Constitution is granted to the States and/or the people.
In the picture a citizen is talking to George Bush. George Bush is saying that he likes the national government a lot because it gives the president " all the power" . The man is saying no it doesn't becausee of the 10th Amendment.
This picture is very clear in the message. It's true and the man is right. In my opinion I think George Bush would say something like that , just because he was a bad president and a bad leader. He should not have been the president of the United States. Him being the president has clearly gotten us into a very bad place. I'm glad Obama's in office now.
Amendent 2 - " Right to Bear Arms"
" Amendment 2 , Right to Bear Arms "
Council Committee Quickly Approves Daley Gun Restrictions
The Second Amendment states that we ( American citizens) have the right to bear arms. Which means that we are able to carry and posse guns.
Chicago's Mayor Daley has passed a policy saying that you need a permit to posse a hand gun. In order to get that permit you have to go through a series of test. Such as firearm training in a classroom and at a firing range. Each citizen that wants to have a hand gun in there house must register each gun every month and have a " Firearm Owner" ID card.
By creating this policy Mayor Daley thinks that this will limit the gun crimes , and keep guns out of the hands of the " gang bangers , and drug dealers". This is suppose to help keep Chicago's streets safe. Another qualification you have to meet to own and keep a hand gun in your home is you can not have convicted a violent crime or two or more DUI's ( Driving while Under the Influence). The council has agreed on this policy. They are saying that these are " reasonable " requirements.
This policy does go against the Constitution. The constitution gives everyone a right to bear arms. Even if you have DUI's on your record or if you have ever committed a violent crime. I don't know why the supreme court hasn't ruled against this policy. In my opinion I think that the policy goes against citizens Constitutional rights. I think that the policy is unfair. If someone had 3 DUI's on there record they wouldn't be able to posse a hand gun. What if they were in danger, they wouldn't "qualify" for a hand gun. I just feel like you shouldn't judge someone solely on there pass. Some of the qualifications are unfair. I think that even if you make a gun policy and the " gang bangers and drug dealers" don't qualify for the permit to have a hand , won't really change anything. The forget that the the " gang bangers and drug dealers" got those guns illegally in the first place. Why do they think a policy will stop them now? I also believe that it will still be crimes committed and killings will still occur. You don't have to shoot somebody for them to die. You can still beat them up. I think that the gun policy was a good idea but it still has it's flaws and things won't magically get all the way better.
Council Committee Quickly Approves Daley Gun Restrictions
The Second Amendment states that we ( American citizens) have the right to bear arms. Which means that we are able to carry and posse guns.
Chicago's Mayor Daley has passed a policy saying that you need a permit to posse a hand gun. In order to get that permit you have to go through a series of test. Such as firearm training in a classroom and at a firing range. Each citizen that wants to have a hand gun in there house must register each gun every month and have a " Firearm Owner" ID card.
By creating this policy Mayor Daley thinks that this will limit the gun crimes , and keep guns out of the hands of the " gang bangers , and drug dealers". This is suppose to help keep Chicago's streets safe. Another qualification you have to meet to own and keep a hand gun in your home is you can not have convicted a violent crime or two or more DUI's ( Driving while Under the Influence). The council has agreed on this policy. They are saying that these are " reasonable " requirements.
This policy does go against the Constitution. The constitution gives everyone a right to bear arms. Even if you have DUI's on your record or if you have ever committed a violent crime. I don't know why the supreme court hasn't ruled against this policy. In my opinion I think that the policy goes against citizens Constitutional rights. I think that the policy is unfair. If someone had 3 DUI's on there record they wouldn't be able to posse a hand gun. What if they were in danger, they wouldn't "qualify" for a hand gun. I just feel like you shouldn't judge someone solely on there pass. Some of the qualifications are unfair. I think that even if you make a gun policy and the " gang bangers and drug dealers" don't qualify for the permit to have a hand , won't really change anything. The forget that the the " gang bangers and drug dealers" got those guns illegally in the first place. Why do they think a policy will stop them now? I also believe that it will still be crimes committed and killings will still occur. You don't have to shoot somebody for them to die. You can still beat them up. I think that the gun policy was a good idea but it still has it's flaws and things won't magically get all the way better.
Monday, September 13, 2010
First Amendment - " Freedom of Religion"
" Freedom of Religion"
Obama defends handling of Pastor
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/41978.html
The first amendment in the Constitution states that " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ................ Abridging freedom of speech , or the press , ................." This Statement means that everyone has the freedom of practicing any religion they want.
This article was talking about Obama's response and decision about a pastor burning Quran's on September 11th ( the 9/11 incident anniversary) Obama felt like if they allowed the pastor to do this then it would endanger the troops over in the war. He also felt that the pastor wanted this to be a world controversy. He didn't like that and said that its a problem when someone want's to cause problems on purpose. There's nothing Obama and his administrators can do about the pastor. They can only ask him to not go through with the stunt. He can choose whether he wants to or not. If they somehow made him not burn them, They would be taking away his right to the first amendment. Which would be his "Freedom of Speech".
If the pastor goes through with this stunt then it would just make the lives harder for the troops. The troops are over there risking there lives for us. The least we could do is make sure everything is good over here and not making unnecessary conflict. It's people like that , that just makes the world stereotype of Americans true. That we are destructive and evil. Which isn't true at all.
In my opinion I don't understand why some people think its a good idea to disrespect some one's beliefs , or anything in that matter. Just because they did something wrong to you. You can't fight fire with fire. Some people just need to know that sometimes you have to let things go. If that man was a good pastor he would know that your not suppose to hurt someone just because they hurt you. I don't feel that it's a good idea to burn those Quran's . The pastor wouldn't like if the Muslims burned the holy bible. Don't judge or mistreat the things they believe in.
Obama defends handling of Pastor
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/41978.html
The first amendment in the Constitution states that " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ................ Abridging freedom of speech , or the press , ................." This Statement means that everyone has the freedom of practicing any religion they want.
This article was talking about Obama's response and decision about a pastor burning Quran's on September 11th ( the 9/11 incident anniversary) Obama felt like if they allowed the pastor to do this then it would endanger the troops over in the war. He also felt that the pastor wanted this to be a world controversy. He didn't like that and said that its a problem when someone want's to cause problems on purpose. There's nothing Obama and his administrators can do about the pastor. They can only ask him to not go through with the stunt. He can choose whether he wants to or not. If they somehow made him not burn them, They would be taking away his right to the first amendment. Which would be his "Freedom of Speech".
If the pastor goes through with this stunt then it would just make the lives harder for the troops. The troops are over there risking there lives for us. The least we could do is make sure everything is good over here and not making unnecessary conflict. It's people like that , that just makes the world stereotype of Americans true. That we are destructive and evil. Which isn't true at all.
In my opinion I don't understand why some people think its a good idea to disrespect some one's beliefs , or anything in that matter. Just because they did something wrong to you. You can't fight fire with fire. Some people just need to know that sometimes you have to let things go. If that man was a good pastor he would know that your not suppose to hurt someone just because they hurt you. I don't feel that it's a good idea to burn those Quran's . The pastor wouldn't like if the Muslims burned the holy bible. Don't judge or mistreat the things they believe in.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Legislative Branch - Article 1 , Section 9 , Limits on Congress
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/41692.html
Gov. candidate's in 20 states endorse anti-immigration laws
Article 1 , Section 9 , states " The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing................ but a tax or duty may be imposed..........."
This statement means that the congress can't stop someone from going to another state they either have to make them pay taxes. This relates to the article because , in the article 20 states wanted to have the " Anti-immigration" law.
Since 20 states wanted that law to be passed. I think that they don't want immigrants in their state. So if that law is passed then it will be illegal for immigrations to go to that state. Immigrants are illegal , they don't pay taxes because they aren't even supposed to be in America. Some of the representatives think that it's unfair that the people in there state are paying their taxes, but immigrants are coming in their state and not paying taxes. That's why they want the bill passed they want everything to be fair.
Another representative think it will be a good idea to create an " unwelcoming environment to immigrants" . I don't think that's a good plan. America is the land of the free, not the land of the " we don't want no immigrants."
In my opinion I think it's a compliment when immigrants want to come to America. They think our country is great and want to be apart of a free nation. They come here to better themselves. I think it's a good thing that we can provide that for them. It would just make things easier if they got all their paper work so they could be here legally and pay taxes like everyone else.
Gov. candidate's in 20 states endorse anti-immigration laws
Article 1 , Section 9 , states " The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing................ but a tax or duty may be imposed..........."
This statement means that the congress can't stop someone from going to another state they either have to make them pay taxes. This relates to the article because , in the article 20 states wanted to have the " Anti-immigration" law.
Since 20 states wanted that law to be passed. I think that they don't want immigrants in their state. So if that law is passed then it will be illegal for immigrations to go to that state. Immigrants are illegal , they don't pay taxes because they aren't even supposed to be in America. Some of the representatives think that it's unfair that the people in there state are paying their taxes, but immigrants are coming in their state and not paying taxes. That's why they want the bill passed they want everything to be fair.
Another representative think it will be a good idea to create an " unwelcoming environment to immigrants" . I don't think that's a good plan. America is the land of the free, not the land of the " we don't want no immigrants."
In my opinion I think it's a compliment when immigrants want to come to America. They think our country is great and want to be apart of a free nation. They come here to better themselves. I think it's a good thing that we can provide that for them. It would just make things easier if they got all their paper work so they could be here legally and pay taxes like everyone else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)