Amendment X: Rights of the States under Constitution

Drinking Age

Source #1: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3112/2318827747_ab403aa777_o.jpg

Source #2: http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/42563

Quotes: "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."

"What it means is that the powers that the federal government should have are detailed in the Constitution, and also that there are rights and powers which are specifically given to state governments and explicitly forbidden to the federal government -- and that if something is not mentioned, if the power in question is not explicitly detailed in the Constitution, then the _default_ is that the federal government does not have that power."


Explanation of Connection: In many different states and countries the drinking age varies, they range from as young as 16 to about 21. According to the tenth amendment, the states have a right to make their own laws; and they don't have to have the exact same ones as other states. I think, this is a good thing because every state/country should be able to express its own individuality and have a different set of laws/rules from other states, countries and regions.

This can be connected to the tenth amendment, which allows the right of the states under the constitution because no where in the constitution does it say there has to be a certain drinking age that all states have to obey. Many states ca have different ages in which they choose to let their people drink, but they will have to deal with the consequences, if there happens to be a problem.

If you ask me, letting young teenagers drink is one of the main reasons for so many teenage car accidents and deaths. They are letting these teenagers drink, and of course they will be and are tempted to drink and drive, which of course will end in terrible consequences. I think, that the drinking age in all states should at least be 21, because then the people will be fully grown and should know better (even though the teenagers should also).

Amendment V: Provisons concerning prosecution

I Plead the Fifth

Source #1: http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/J/g/1/justice_fifth.jpg

Source #2: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_the_5th_Amendment_mean

Quotes: ''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 offence 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.''

"The Fifth Amendment protects witnesses from being forced to incriminate themselves. To "plead the Fifth" or to "take the Fifth" is a refusal to answer a question because the response could form self incriminating evidence."

Explanation of Connection: This political cartoon is showing how people have a right to not talk on the stand if they don't want to. The fifth amendment was created in order to protect the people, basically from themselves and a government that uses its power in an unjust matter. For example, if some one is on the stand for murder, and they are being asked questions about the murder or the victim, they can plead the fifth and choose not to say anything, and they can't in anyway be forced to answer any questions given to them.

I say this is a very interesting amendment, because if people do plead the fifth they are basically telling on themselves. This amendment is suppose to protect them from doing that, but it makes them seem kind of guilty to the judge, the jury and possibly everyone else. 

Amendment IV: Right of search and seizure regulated

Police Shoot & Kill 7 Year-Old Girl During Botched Raid

Source #1: http://wn.com/7_Year_Old_Girl_Murdered_By_Police_During_Botched_Raid 

Source #2: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/17/aiyana-jones-7-year-old-s_n_578246.html

Explanation of Constitution: This was a very tragic event that took place May 16, 2010 in Detroit, 7-year-old Aiyana Stanley Jones was "accidentally" shot and killed, while sleeping on the couch in her home. Police were said to be doing a botched raid, looking for a suspect in the murder of a 17-year-old boy. There was a man outside the house, said to be a family friend who told the police there were children in the house, he was trying to warn them to be careful, so no children were harmed. The police ignored his remarks and went forward busting down the door. The police didn't have a search warrant or anything, they just barged into the home, and killed and innocent 7-year-old girl by "accident".

This event can be connected to the fourth amendment, which allows the right of search and seizure regulated because in order to search someones home the police must have a search warrant, if they don't then they, of course can't search the premises.

This, if you ask me, is outrageous. The police didn't have a search warrant, and they were warned that there were children in the house, yet they still went in to search for the criminal, and as a consequence they killed Aiyana. Now they want to be sorry and send support to the family, but if they had the warrant Aiyana's grandmother (who was in the house) could have taken her outside while they searched the premises. Then maybe, just maybe, that innocent beautiful little girl would still be a live today.

Amendment II: The Right to Bear Arm

Should Guns be Allowed?

Source #1: http://www.inkcinct.com.au/web-pages/cartoons/2007/2007-230-right-to-bear-arms.jpg
Source #2: http://www.scottbieser.com/images/Sept11_c540.jpg

                

Explanation of Connection: The first political cartoon is showing how many people in the world are big supporters of the right to bear arm, or possess guns. The second political cartoon is showing how things might have been different during 9/11 it people had the right to possess guns, some believe that the terrorist wouldn't have tried to bomb the twin towers if a lot of people had guns on them. The right to bear arm was made a law in order for people to able to protect themselves, of course, but does that necessarily mean they will use this right accordingly?

Some people do indeed misuse this right by doing random drive-by's killing innocent bystanders, and if you ask me it's just NOT right. I feel that people should have the right to bear arm in order to protect themselves if, for example someone breaks into their home, but if they are going to mistreat this right and shoot up the world why not take it away?

Amendment I: Freedom of Religion

Islamic Center Near Twin Towers Site Debated:

Approve vs. Deny

Source: Ground Zero Mosque. Aug 21, 2010 http://religiousintolerance.suite101.com/article.cfm/ground-zero-mosque-islamic-center-near-twin-towers-site-debated

Quotes from Article: "It has been termed the “Ground Zero Mosque,” but in reality the proposed New York City mosque and community center will be built a couple of blocks from Ground Zero, the location of the Twin Towers that were attacked and destroyed by radical Islamic terrorists on September 11, 2001. The official name of the Islamic building project is Cordoba House."

"People who oppose the Muslim center argue its construction at a location so close to Ground Zero is insensitive to 9-11 victims, while supporters of the project maintain the building of the mosque/community center will help heal divisions within the community, inspire interfaith dialogue, and promote religious tolerance."

Explanation of Connection: There has been a dispute going on as to whether there should be an Islamic Center built near the Twin Towers, which was attacked by an Islamic terrorist a few years ago. The Muslims who want to build this Mosque believe that it will help the Muslims and the Christians get along better, live in peace and in harmony. Also, they are hoping it will open the Christian's eyes, and stop them from blaming ALL Muslims for the terrorist attack carried out by Al-Qaeda on September 11, 2001 also known as 9/11.

This event can be connected to the first amendment, which allows freedom of religion because people have a right to believe in whatever they choose, and they have the right to express themselves and their religion if they choose to.

I say let the Muslims build their Islamic Center, the Christians can't blame every single Muslim for what one terrorist did years ago. Not all Muslims are terrorists, and it's unfair to treat them that way. Like the saying goes, you can't judge a book by its cover, and that's basically what the Christians are doing. They are assuming these Muslims are like Al-Qaeda, but they'll never know that unless they give them a chance.

Amendment I: Freedom of Petition

African-American Civil Rights Movement:

Rosa Parks

Source #1: Standing up for freedom. Jun. 16, 2010

http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/par0bio-1

Source #2: Montgomery Bus Boycott.

http://l3d.cs.colorado.edu/systems/agentsheets/New-Vista/bus-boycott/

Quotes from Article: "Back then," Mrs. Parks recalled in an interview, "we didn't have any civil rights. It was just a matter of survival, of existing from one day to the next. I remember going to sleep as a girl hearing the Klan ride at night and hearing a lynching and being afraid the house would burn down." In the same interview, she cited her lifelong acquaintance with fear as the reason for her relative fearlessness in deciding to appeal her conviction during the bus boycott. "I didn't have any special fear," she said. "It was more of a relief to know that I wasn't alone."

"The bus incident led to the formation of the Montgomery Improvement Association, led by the young pastor of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The association called for a boycott of the city-owned bus company. The boycott lasted 382 days and brought Mrs. Parks, Dr. King, and their cause to the attention of the world. A Supreme Court Decision struck down the Montgomery ordinance under which Mrs. Parks had been fined, and outlawed racial segregation on public transportation."

Explanation of Connection: After a long day at work 40-year old seamstress Rosa Parks tiredly took the bus home, when a 40-year old white man got on the bus demanding she give up her seat, so he could sit down she refused. Mrs. Parks was tired of giving in to them, she felt it was time to take a stab at making a difference. This of course made the man and the bus operator (who was also white) furious, they had her immediately thrown in jail. Soon after word got out about Mrs. Parks being thrown in jail for something unfair, many NAACP officials and other African- Americans agreed to organize a protest the day of Mrs.Parks' trial. This event is what sparked the Montgomery Bus Boycott, and eventually ended bus segregation.

This event can be connected to the first amendment, which allows freedom to petition because if people don't like a specific law or rule, they should have the right to take steps in order to try to change it.

Even though this is a right of ours most people don't put it to use. For example, if someone doesn't like the fact that the government is using our tax money to pay for the military, they more than likely won't say anything about it. They'll complain to family and friends, but won't challenge the government, and I ask you why not? What's wrong with taking a risk with something you truly believe in? If you ask me someone should stand up and try to make a difference, who knows, maybe others feel the same way you do. Look at Rosa Parks, Dr. King, Malcolm X, etc. they all took a chance and stood up for what they believed, and if it weren't for them there still might be segregation in the world today.