Which state has power?

Tenth Amendment – Powers of States and people.
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.

Connection:

Every state has the power to control their laws and not all states have the same driving license age. Pennsylvania's miniumum age is 16, while New Jersey miniumum age is 17. Each state has power and when voting for the president but in Electoral votes sum states how more power to control the presisdency than others. For instance Californa's electoral votes are much higher than Rhode Island. California has 55 electoral votes compared to Rhode Island's 4 electoral votes. This ties in with the tenth amendment in the constitution because each state has it's own power and has it's benifits to society and no state is exactly any other state.

Works Cited

"Minimum Driving Age USA".http://www.golocalnet.com/drivingage/

"The U.S. Constitution".http://www.wikipedia.com/

That's Mine!

Straight from the Constitution

Fifth Amendment – due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.
No person shall be held to answer for any 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.

Connection:

The title of this article is "Johnson vs. Eisentrager".Supreme Court of the United States in a 1950 case called Johnson vs. Eisentrager, the Supreme Court ruled that captured enemy soldiers, who were not citizens of the United States, could not challenge their arrest in American courts. In this article it states "Some German World War II prisoners had tried to challenge their detention in civilian American courts after they had been tried and convicted by a military court. The case is particularly interesting because of the current day issue regarding whether or not enemy combatants captured in America's "War on Terrorism" can be allowed to appeal their detention in US civil courts. The Rasul vs. Bush case deals with this in more detail below.The Court ruled that foreign enemies have no more rights than Americans do. They reasoned that American citizens conscripted into the military service are thereby stripped of their Fifth Amendment rights and as members of the military establishment are subject to its discipline, including military trials for offenses against aliens or Americans. So, the Court was saying that the military has a well established system of trying its own members and foreign enemy prisoners who are in its custody have no greater rights than the military personnel themselves. Federal judges sometime rule on whether or not a military tribunal has jurisdiction in a particular case." This ties in with the fifth amendment because they tried to take their background away from them so they can go to jail. They wanted to put them in cutody but they were protected by the fifth amendment.

Works Cited

"Johnson v. Eisentrager". http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/fifth-amendment-court-cases-grand-jury-exception-clause.html.

www.wikipedia.com

You can no longer seek just hide

Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
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.

Constitution:

This article is called "Erowid Freedom Vaults". This article is about the police searching a room in a house and finding weapons, etc while they were not supposed to be in there. This article staes that "A decision to require probable cause for searches, continuing the strong 4th Amendment standard which requires more than just suspicion to allow a search. In this case, the police had lawfully entered an apartment and saw an expensive stereo, which an officer assumed to be stolen because of the neighborhood and other contributing factors (a shotgun and black mask in the room). The police proceeded to move and search the stereo for serial numbers, which they discovered were stolen. The Court ruled that the police officer's acts with the stereo constituted a search and the police would need to meet the "probable cause" standard in order to lawfully conduct a search of the private equipment with a 6-3 vote." This ties in 4th amendment because the police search a house they had no because going into.

Works Cited

www.wikipedia.com

www.erowid.org

Guns are our friend's right?

Second Amendment – Militia (United States), Sovereign state, Right to keep and 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.

Connection:

This article is called U.S. v. Miller. This is the only case in which the Supreme Court has had the opportunity to apply the Second Amendment to a federal firearms statute. This article states that "The Court, however, carefully avoided making an unconditional decision regarding the statute's constitutionality; it instead devised a test by which to measure the constitutionality of statutes relating to firearms and remanded the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing. The Court remanded to the case because it had concluded that: In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." It is not within the judicial branch to notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. So, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the weapon should be a military fire weapon. The case also made clear that the militiary consisted of all males capable of the common defense and that when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and the kind in common use at the time. This article also states "In setting forth this definition of the militia, the Court implicitly rejected the view that the Second Amendment guarantees a right only to those individuals who are members of the militia. Had the Court viewed the Second Amendment as guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms only to all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense, it would certainly have discussed whether, on remand, there should also be evidence that the defendants met the qualifications for inclusion in the militia, much as it did with regard to the militia use of a short-barrelled shotgun." This ties in to the second amendment because it focuses on what type of arms a person can bear for their common defense.

Works Cited

"U.S. v. Miller". http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/fedcases.2nd.html.

www.wikipedia.com

The Jesus Club?

Straight from the Constitution

First Amendment – Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause; freedom of speech, of the press, of religion and of assembly; right to petitionCongress 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.

Connection:

Bridget Mergens, a student at Westside High School, requested permission to start a Christian club. Her request was denied, and she sued the school. This is article states "Ms. Mergens argued that the Equal Access Act required the school to grant her request to form a Christian club. The Act requires that secondary schools allowing "noncurriculum related clubs" to meet must also allow religious and political clubs, as long as they are student-initiated and student-led. The Act also forbids teachers from participating in student religious clubs (except as monitors) and prohibits outside adults from directing, controlling or regularly attending the meetings of a student religious club. School officials argued that the Equal Access Act did not apply to Westside High and that, even if it did, the Act was unconstitutional. Whether the Equal Access Act requirement that schools permitting noncurriculum related clubs must also permit student religious clubs is a violation of the Establishment Clause. In an 8-1 decision, the Court ruled that the Equal Access Act does not violate the Establishment Clause." The purpose of the Act is to avoid discrimination against student religious and political speech. Allowing student religious clubs on the same basis as other student clubs is equal treatment, not school "looks" of religion. They have the right to assemble any kind of group including religious ones.This ties in with the first amendment because they are not giving them the right to assemble or form a religious group because it may offensive or anger other religious students.

Works Cited

"Board of Education of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens". Religious Library. http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/freedoms/case.aspx?id=497. September 15, 2010.

www.wikipedia.com

Let's say what we want

First Amendment – Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause; freedom of speech, of the press, of religion and of assembly; right to petition
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.

Connection:

Students produced a school newspaper as part of their journalism class. One issue was to include student-written articles about teen pregnancy and the impact of divorce on kids. The principal objected to the stories, believing they were inappropriate for the younger students and unfair to the pregnant students who might be identified from the text of the article. He also believed that the parents of the students quoted in the divorce article should have been given an opportunity to respond. He deleted the articles from the school newspaper. Three students sued, claiming a violation of their First Amendment rights. In this article it staes "Whether school officials can censor school-sponsored student publications when they believe material is inappropriate for younger students, or for reasons other than the prospect of material and substantial disruption of the educational process. By a 5-3 vote, the Court held that school officials can censor school-sponsored student publications when they have purposes reasonably related to legitimate educational concerns. They are letting them keep the freedom of speech as long it's not out of hand or inappropriate so it's fair"(Hazelwood)." This ties in with the first amendment because the students are fighting for their freedom of speech.

Works Cited

"Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier". http://www.anarchytv.com/speech/hazel.htm

http://www.wikipedia.com/