Executive Branch

 Source:

"Signing the Tribal Law and Order Act"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4K1UYCC0dQ

Connection to the Constitution:

  

Article 2, Section 3: "He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States."

Analysis to the Connection: 

       The founding fathers made sure that when the President was to make changes or laws that would affect the whole country he is to give reasons why he chose to commit this action that he did, but needing the fact that he has to have Congress on his side first.  That the President will have to discuss with the House or Senate if there was some type of disagreement.  That any laws would sign would be faithful to the country and executed correctly meaning that it has to benefit the country.

      The founding fathers had given certain regulations that the President will have to follow.  If he did not follow these regulations by all means right Congress has a right to impeach the President.

                    

                      

 

        In the video "Signing the Tribal Law and Order Act," a tribal woman Lisa Marie Iyotte saying how Obama will help improve conviction rates and how criminals will be prosecuted.  The tribal law will help so not one single piece of evidnece is set to the side.  Obama gives reasons why before Congress and American citizens he will be signing the Tribal Law and Order Act.  He says not only will it provide justice but will allow citizens in the country to feel safe without fearing an unjustifiable criminal act.  It will help bring criminal rates down especially in Indian country and national areas.  He gained support from Congress men and tribal law enforcement.  The bill will put great effort to accomplish these efforts that will better the justice department.  This bill will provide great future benefits not only for indigenous people but to all the people in the country.

       I agree with Obama that he will be passing the bill into a law because as said in article 2 section 3 a President cannot make any decisions that cannot benefit the country and its people and cannot be passed if Congress does not approve.  I believe he went through all of these steps to be able to sign this bill in to a law since Congress approved and will help the country improve its safety for indigenous people and others by enforcing the justice system.

Executive Powers

Source: 

"President Obama turns the page-to Afghanistan"

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41653.html

Connection to the Constitution: 

Article 2, Section 2: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

Article 2, Section 3: "He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient"

Analysis to the Connection: 

       The founding fathers made sure when there would be a time of war shall consult with military officers for actions he will execute.  Before any actions are committed by the President he requires the opinons of military officers and what they suggest he should do.  When the President would committ such actions he is to recommend Congress to consider his reasons for the measures he has taken.

       The founding fathers made sure when the President would want to take certain actions during a war he must discuss with military officers and after he does and they approve he must then convince Congress to stand by his side and agree with him.

President Obama sending troops to a Central Asian War

       In the article above "President Obama turns the page-to Afghanistan,"  Obama is stating that he wants to commit himself to a war in Central Asia rather the war in Afghanistan because the article says "now that the dumb war, in his estimation, is over, he appears more committed than ever to the good war in Central Asia."  That President Obama wants to send additional troops to the Iraq war and the other war.  He discussed his opinion with the General of the Army and both of them agreed that now they should focus on the Central Asian war and the Afghanistan war and provide additional troops.  He discussed with Congress that the reason for his actions of providing more troops in the Afghan War is that they are keeping Taliban forces from gaining momentum.  He says he supports the Central Asian war than the Iraq war since it is a silly war that is being fought.

       I have to disagree with Obama because it is not a silly war when over thousands of American citizens lost their life during a terrorist attack.  Instead of discussing his actions with Congress as he is told to do in article 2, section 2 he has no right to approve such actions until he has Congress on his side first.  I believe he will end up being like Bush when Bush declared war on Iraq without discussing it with military officers or Congress.  I believe this is a violation to the constitution because he is giving himself powers he does not even have.

Judicial Branch

Source: 

"Elena Kagan"

http://www.politicalcartoons.com/cartoon/31b8d77f-19e7-43d1-8466-07ba764c7d1f.html

Connection to the Constitution: 

Article 3, Section 1: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."

Analysis to the Connection: 

       When the founding fathers created article 3 to the constitution they never wrote down any requirements that supreme court justices should have when they are approved.  The only thing supreme court justices require is to have good behavior during their time in the office.

       So no where in article three did the founding fathers write any requirements in the Judicial Branch.  The only thing the founding fathers gave to the Judicial Branch was powers and fair compensation with good behavior.

       In the political cartoon shown above you see Elena Kagan one of the supreme court justices that was appointed by the President have a full body showing that she has full intelligence.  On the right you see Kagan as a stick when they compare her experience as a supreme court judge.  So what this cartoon is trying to point out is that Kagan has no experience as a judge and fails to comply as a supreme court justice and meets no criteria whatsoever to become a supreme court justice.

       I would have to completely disagree with this political cartoon because they have no right to judge her on Kagan's experience as a judge.  As stated in article 3, section 1 it says that the only thing that will be required from a supreme court justice is that they have good behavior as they hold their position in office.  The constitution states no requirements of any kind besides being appointed by the President and having good behavior.  So I believe this political cartoon has a wrong point of view of Elena Kagan as a judge since she is not missing any type of criteria to become supreme court justice.

Legislative Overpowering

Source: 

"PA Legislative Surplus"

http://www.politicalcartoons.com/cartoon/57dff3d0-e32e-40cd-848f-ff060367fde9.html

Connection to the Constitution: 

Article 1: Section 8: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

Analysis to the Connection: 

The founding fathers gave power to the Legislative Branch so it can collect and provide necessities for the United States and its people.  The Legislative branch will have to an equal amount of these things to keep the country in a uniform state and well being.  To mainly provide for the people.

That is why the founding fathers did not give all the power to one branch but divided the power equally between the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial.  All three of the are suppose to chech up on each other to make sure they are doing their jobs that were given to them correctly and that they are not violating the Constitution.

       In the political cartoon above is showing that the Legislative Branch (Woman in Blue Dress) is providing too much of the general assembly (plate with leftovers of food) than providing for the environment, libraries, and public television (kids that appear to be starving).  It is trying to say that it is violating article 1 section 8 because the Legislative Branch is supposed to provide for the people and the United States and to keep in a uniform state than just providing more of one thing.  Its job is to make sure it is balancing out everything perfectly and maintain it like that.  But the political cartoon is depicting that the Legislative Branch is not doing a great job at it and is violating the Constitution.

       I agree with the political cartoon that the Legislative Branch is providing too much of the General Assembly rather helping out with the environment or with libraries.  I  believe it is in violation of article 1 section8 because it is providing too much of one thing than keeping everything in a uniform state.  In my opinion I have not heard one news where Congress is trying to help out with schools or the environment.  So I have to agree with the politcal cartoon that the Legislative Branch is in violation of the US Constitution.

Legislative Branch

Source: 

"Health Care Reform Clears US Congress"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CY3Z4n35py8

Connection to the Constitution: 

Article 1: Section 7: "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. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law"

Analysis to the Connection: 

The founding fathers created a system which will determine which laws will be passed.  It is between yea which supports the law and nay which opposes the law.  If the president vetoes a bill, congress can override that ruling by a two thirds majority vote.  If a bill was to be passed by the President and Congress does not approve of the bill they can adjourn it and prevent it from becoming a law.

The founding fathers divided the power to pass law between Congress and the President.  So both can oppose each other by the right of the Legislative article in the US Constitution.  Both the President and Congress can adjourn each other and not pass any laws that are proposed to each other.

 

                                                        

       In the video "Health Care Reform Clears US Congress," says there were a majority of yeas than nays giving the President of the United States Barack Obama his victory.  Many people say that there is a lot of risk that is going to take place especially on the people and the economy.  Many say it will cost too much and others say it is what american citizens need right now.  Some say it would be disasterous because it will hurt the people of the United States.  Already many Republicans are preparing to go forward and challenge the bill and the outcome of the votes.

       I disagree with the people because no one in congress adjourned the bill which prevented it from becoming a law.  The votes came out fair and by those votes they determined the outcome.  This is what Congress forgot to do in Article 1 Section 7 in order to keep the people happy.  On another part I agree that Republicans have the right to challenge the bill because in Article 1 Section 7 it says if Congress objects a bill the President passed they have the right to override it by two thirds majority vote andis in any way a violation of the constitution.

Legislative Power

Source:

"Changes to Employment Law Legislation"  Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nn5z-LeZ7BI

Constitutional Connection:

Article 1: Section 8:"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

 Article 1: Section 8, Clause 18: "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

 Analysis of the Connection:

The founding fathers made sure that one power would have control to collect taxes, provide for the general welfare and the common defense.  If changes were to be made in the United States it had to be all the same everywhere throughout the country.  The Legislative Branch would have power to lay changes down if they were necessary and are executed at the right time.

The founding fathers had given much power to the Legislative Branch but it also limited each of their powers in order to not create a monarchy.  The powers given to this branch must be done through time and exercised carefully.  Only if it is necessary would the Legislative Branch make drastic or minor changes.

                                            

       In the video "Changes to Employment Law Legislation," says that the Legislative Branch has made significant changes which is to raise minimum wage.  They said this change will really help even though there is a financial crisis because it would help those who are paid less. This relates to article 1 section 8 of the constitution because they are making laws that are necessary and is keeping the country in a uniform state.  The changes that have been made mostly affects employment so there is a fair amount of compensation to all workers of all ages.  This relates to article 1 section 8 clause 18 because the new employment laws that are being executed are being done in a fair manner and also at the right time.

       I agree that the Legislative Branch is doing these changes without violating the US Constitution because these changes will help keep the country in a uniform state and is in no way executing these laws in any bad way.  These changes are being done to benefit the country and the employed population.

Powers of the States and People

Source:
"GOP Health Care Lawsuits"

http://www.politicalcartoons.com/cartoon/6e72db87-9921-424d-868f-8a0d6cb4d287.html

Connection to the Constitution:
Amendment 10: "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 to the Connection:
       When the tenth amendment was created the founding fathers had each state be in control of their own power and its people.  The powers could not be prohibited from the states and was reserved to them in a respectful way and manner.  The states could have done things their own way.
       The 10th amendment protects each states control and power and its rights.  The states had full protection from this amendment because they had control within their area.

       In the political cartoon above shows that the government is giving states healthcare but the states say its only a privilige which means they can take it whenever.  The government agents say they are on the same side as cancer which means there should a cure and a way to treat and remove it.  So this Political cartoon is saying that it is a violation of the tenth amendment because the purpose of the amendment is so that each state is control of its actions and decisions.
       I agree because the government means it is controlling the whole country but that of course is a violation of the tenth amendment.  The only way I believe this political cartoon is not violating the tenth amendment is that if it enforced the fourteenth amendment.

Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings

Source:
"Ashcroft Aide Threatens to Take the Fifth"

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/26745.html

Connection to the Constitution:
Amendment 5: "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 to the Connection:

       The founders made sure that citizens had the right to be involved or cooperating in a state or infamous crimes.  No person can can be subjected to cooperate in a same offense they already cooperated in.  The founders wrote that no one would be involved in a criminal case to be a witness against himself.  The person must be given some type of compensation for being a public use. 
       The founders created a certain process where any citizen can plead the fifth in a public matter or case.  The citizen cooperating shall recieve certain compensation for participation.

John Ashcroft Pleads the Fifth to from Testifying

       In the article "Ashcroft Aide Threaens to Take the Fifth",  Attorney Ashcroft is pleading the "Fifth to avoid from testifying in a case against a GOP lobbyist."  Ayres said that he is pleading the fifth because he is not going to give up information that will end up incriminating him.  He is not going to speculate on the problem because he is saying that he has no right to cooperate in a case he had no connections with.
       I agree with him because he has a choice and in this case he is being invovled it is a state matter and the fourth amendment says citizens have the right to keep silence if it is a trial against the state.  If he says he has no connection with the case then there is no way you can prove it wrong unless you have a different eye witness that can testify that he actually was involved.

Search and Seizure

Source:
 "Strip Search of Middle School Student Illegal: Supremes"

http://www.newser.com/story/62823/strip-search-of-middle-school-student-illegal-supremes.html

Constitutional Connection:
Amendment 4: "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 the Connection:
        The founders had made sure that not one person's safety would be violated unless probable cause.  No warrant should be in affect unless the person is the suspect of infridgement or treason.  If there was to be a seizure there has to be a confirmation of the warrant describing the place that is going to be searched. 
        The founders made sure that there has to be an Oath and affirmation of a search and seizure.  The founders made sure there cannot be unreasonable searches and seizures or this would a violation of the fourth amendment.

Associate Justice of the Supreme Court ruling the strip search on an Arizona Middle School

       In the article "Strip Search of Middle School Student Illegal: Supreme",  Arizona had ordered a warrant to search 13 year old teen who was suspected to carry prescription strength ibuprofen which was illegal.  The school went to get the warrant approved by the Supreme Court where it was successfully approved by an 8-1 ruling.  The teen was searched and no pills or drugs were found.  The search came up negative and the school officials could not be hold liable because they took it to the Supreme Court after the teen had filed a lawsuit.
       I for one agree the school officials could be held accountable for the results and violation of the teen's rights because the action they took did not break the fourth amendment.  The warrant had been approved by Supreme Court justices because of the probable cause.  The reason for illegal drugs was no unreasonable because it could have been a possibility.

Freedom of the Press

Source:

"U.S. Students say Press Freedoms go too Far"

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2005-01-30-students-press_x.htm

Connection to Constitution:

Amendment 1: "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."

Analysis of the Connection:  

     The founders created the first amendment so that citizens could have all the freedoms they could want, but with certain limits.  When they created this amendment they were careful of what rights should be given and that everything had to be in a respectful way.  
     The founders made sure that all rights to all citizens would be equal and that not one race had the upper hand.  The rights could only be taken to an extent as long as it did not become offensive to people.  

Students protesting about Freedom of the Press

       In the article "U.S. Students say Press Freedoms go too Far", students say that the press should be more careful and strict of what they release in the public.  Many students took surveys of what they thought about the freedom of the press.  Other students say that the press should release stuff out to the public that helps people better understand the first amendment and its purpose.

    I on one part agree with the students because sometimes the press releases stuff out to the public that is either necessary or appropriate for adults and young adults.  I believe that the freedom of press should be studied thoroughly so the press knows what is right to publish or what is wrong because the 1st amendment limits the rights to the press to an extent where it does not become a violation of the amendment.

Right to Bear Arms

Source:

"Mexico Calls for Weapons Crackdown"

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39957.html

Connection to the Constitution:

Amendment 2: "Right to Bear Arms-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 to the Constitution:

       The purpose of the second amendment is to provide weapons for only militia and law enforcement.  People cannot carry weapons if they are to violate the second amendment and will be prosecuted for infringement.   When this amendment was created it was only to ensure the safety and well being of other people.

       The founders made a loop hole in this amendemnt that only certain people such as military and law enforcement to carry weapons and not citizens.

Ambassador Arturo Sarukhan asking Congress to Help Stop Weapon Smuggling

       In the article "Mexico Calls for Weapons Crackdown," Ambassador Arturo Sarukhan asks Congress to help out with weapons smuggling.  Arturo says they are not violating the second amendment but the weapons smuggling has to stop.  He said, "that cartels are purchasing nearly all of their assault weapons and other guns from American vendors."

       I would have to completely disagree with Arturo because they are violating the second amendment and are not following by its purpose because cartels are buying the weapons and they are not a militia but gangs.  What he should actually be saying is that Mexico and American vendors are violating the 2nd amendment and they should be stopped.

Freedom of Speech

Source: 

"Dr. Laura, Sarah Palin, and the Fight over Free Speech" August 20, 2010

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews_excl/20100820/pl_ynews_excl/ynews_excl_pl3441

Constitutional Connection:

Amendment 1: "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."

Analysis of the Connection:

       The founding fathers had given each citizen of America certain rights that could not be violated by any law or by congress or anyone.  They had created certain limits to each right so not one person would violate the amendment.  When it comes to freedom of speech the limit it reached was that it could not become offensive to the people.  

       The people and government are both in control of this first amendment as long as none of them violated it.  The founders made sure that if anyone would violate the amendment would be charged for infringement. 

Dr. Laura Schlessinger opinion of the First Amendment

        In the article " Dr. Laura, Sarah Palin, and the Fight over Free Speech," Dr. Laura says that she wants her first amendment rights to be given back.  She says that "special-interest groups were limiting her freedom to express herself."  Sarah Palin leaves a tweet in twitter saying that America should not being criticizing her for expressing herself but being thankful for Dr. Laura standing up for what she believes is right.  Laura Schlessinger states that in the constitution it says "Congress shall make no law" which denies her to express herself freely.

       On one part I disagree with Dr. Laura because there are certain things you are allowed to say on national tv like when she had said the N-word many times on air.  This violated the freedom of speech right because what she had said was offensive to many people watching the show.  On another part I actually agree with her because she had apologized and shared with the people of what her opinion was on the first amendment which was in no violation of it in any kind of way.  Even though she had shared her opinion she did not violate the amendment but the special-interest group did because they had no right to limit her freedom of speech beside the government or state.