Scenario #8

"It's the state's decision."

Bill of Rights, Amendment X "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively…"

Legalization of marijuana

The New York Times published an article that presents an issue with letting states decide on marijuana or not. States have the choice to decide if they want to legalize marijuana or not. It is known that 35 states permit marijuana for medical use, 18 states have decriminalized marijuana, 2 states legalized marijuana and some still have it illegal or haven’t decided yet. The legalization of marijuana being each state’s decision is controversial and some could think it should be in the hands of congress.

The article relates to the tenth amendment in the Bill of Rights because it discusses the reserved powers of the states. The states have the power to choose if they want to legalize marijuana or not. This gives state’s another way to be independent and make choices on what they think their state needs. Reserved powers are what states have that are not listed specifically in the constitution.

The political cartoon  shows how the state Texas doesn’t agree with gay marriage. There is a lot of discrimination to gays in Texas and there even was a case in 2003, Lawrence v. Texas, that happened due to homosexual intercourse. The charges against two men were dismissed since their 14th amendment granted them to have private intimacy. Although this case was in favor of the LGBT community, it represents what is portrayed in this political cartoon. The state of Texas feels that same sex marriage should be illegal.

Scenario #7

"You need a search warrant."

Bill of Rights, Amendment IV
 "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...."

FBI w/ illegal search warrants

The Washington times published an article titled, “FBI digital search warrant plan a ‘monumental’ constitutional threat says Google.” The article discussed how google believes that the FBI is trying to remotely access computer files and allow judges to approve warrants outside their jurisdictions so they can severely spy on millions of Americans. The justice department said that the company google read into what they were doing wrongly and that any search technique they could use was already permitted under law the FBI is still pushing for the Supreme Court and congress to review a decision on Rule 41.

The article discussed misleading information from Google but if the FBI really was trying to illegally uses remote search warrants, it would have interfered with the 4th amendment. The 4th amendment gives people the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. If what Google said was true, then the FBI would be violating millions of Americans’ rights to privacy and security.

The political cartoon shows two police officers trying to enter and search someone’s home. The police officers have a paper that probably represents a search warrant but it says, “But it’s okay if you don’t. -Supreme Court.” In the cartoon the officers say that they’re suppose to knock and announce before entering but the Supreme Court is saying that it’s okay if they don’t. The door they are trying to enter, is still closed because the person who lives there, believes they still have privacy rights from the 4th Amendment.

Scenario #6

"He's only a teen!"

Bill of Rights, Amendment VIII "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Cruel punishment to juvenile

CNN published an article that looked into cruel and unusual punishment for teens. The ruling of the Supreme Court against two juveniles led to a lot of questioning due to the harsh punishment. The Supreme Court ordered for the juveniles to be sent to prison for life without parole, due to them committed armed robbery. This sparked many arguments pertaining to if this was unconstitutional or not. Due to the juveniles being 16 and 17, most people think that this punishment is unfair since their age makes them not accountable for their actions. The Supreme Court didn’t even put thought to getting their sentences reduced or even giving them sympathy since they are still teenagers. A lot of people think that this was cruel and unusual since they only committed robbery and not murder.

The article about Sullivan who was tried as an adult at a young  age and sentenced to life in prison for a homicide relates to the eighth amendment. This is the second person to go through this and a lot of people think this is cruel and unusual punishment. The 8th amendment says that unusual, harsh punishments shouldn’t be inflicted onto people and this is a prime example of one. The teenager, Sullivan, was able to get his sentenced reduced but for the non harmful crime he did, he shouldn’t had such an unfair punishment. The ruling that the Supreme Court came up with for this case was unconstitutional and violated the 8th amendment.

Scenario #5

"He can't say that!"

Bill of Rights, Amendment I "Congress shall make no law... abridging...the right of the people peaceably to assemble…"

Shooting in Dallas Suburb

The Texas Tribune published an article that described a shooting in a Dallas suburb and the probable cause of it. After investigating, it was believed that due to an event that held a contest which was mocking the Prophet Muhammad. Despite it being harsh words or things used against Prophet Muhammad, that still didn’t justify two men shooting up the venue. The two men tried to shoot people who participated in the event but ended up hitting a security guard which caused a police officer to kill the men.

The article about the shouting in the Dallas suburb figured that it all happened because words or jokes were made to one’s religion. The governor and everyone else believes that the actions taken aren’t justifiable since it’s in the constitution that people have freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and etc. This situation relates to the 1st amendment in the Bill of Rights because this amendment talks about how congress shouldn’t make any law that would alter the right of the people to peaceably assemble. In other words, the congress can’t make laws that interfere with people’s natural born rights, like freedom of speech, religion, press, etc.

The political cartoon I chose represents freedom of speech that is included in the 1st amendment. The cartoon shows a pedestrian walking past a wall that has an unfinished statement on it. The statement says,”Support the first amend,” which shows that someone was stopped in the middle of writing it. The person was writing support the 1st amendment and the significance of it being unfinished is because someone who doesn’t support it stopped them from their freedom of speech. It also lets us know that someone probably didn’t agree with what that person could and could not write.

Scenario #4

"Life without Gun Control"

Bill of Rights, Amendment II "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."

Give them gun control

The article,”Don’t let this moment pass without acting on gun control,” discussed the thoughts on the new legislation with gun control. John Avlon reported that, “more than 200 Americans have been killed in mass shootings in the last five years.” Due to high increases in violence, there will be stricter gun laws and bans on high-capacity ammunition clips. Avlon questions if the Congress will even acknowledge this proposition but Southern Democratic Senators and the National Rifle Association are trying to really bring attention and a productive resolution to this.

The 2nd Amendment, the right to bear arms, is a right protected by the constitution. To decrease crime, people think the national government should control the sale of guns but others believe that this violates the 2nd Amendment in the bill of rights. This relates to the article because democratic senators at the NRA are trying to create stricter gun laws. Some Republicans, members of the NRA, and citizens don’t agree with this because they believe it violates their rights in the 2nd Amendment. They believe that if they have the right to bear arms, there shouldn’t be specific laws on what they can own exactly, despite the rise in violence.

Scenario #3

"Troubles with the Treaty Clause"

Article II, Section 2 "The President... shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...."

Treaty Clause

An article from the New York Times discusses that the Treaty Clause can’t be ignored because in the constitution it says that two thirds of the senate is required to approve treaties with other countries. It also argues that it is possible for the President to find cracks in the constitution if they were to meet with foreign nations without legally binding or trying to create a treaty so they wouldn’t necessarily need the Senate’s approval.

The article that was about the Treaty Clause not being ignored relates to Article II, Section 2 in the constitution because it talks about the Treaty Clause as well. The Treaty Clause is what requires the President to have two thirds of the senate’s approval in order to make treaties with foreign countries. The article shares why the treaty clause can’t be ignored. The article looked at some past cases when the treaty clause was used. It also discussed how Presidents sometimes try to get around having to get majority of the senate’s approval.

Scenario #2

"Obama to the Rescue"

Article II, Section 2 "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States...."

Troops to Uganda

This article discusses President Obama’s announcement to send U.S. troops to Africa to help hunt the Lord’s Resistance Army and their group leaders such as Joseph Kony. The LRA and Kony has abducted, raped, killed, and terrorized many civilians in Uganda. The LRA is also trying to overthrow the Ugandan government. Obama wants to send troops to help Uganda in hopes of eliminating the threat of the LRA that is imposed on Ugandan civilians.

The article discussing Obama sending troops to Uganda, relates to Article II, Section 2 of the constitution because they both speak on the President being commander in chief of the army and navy of the United States. President Obama states, “I have directed this deployment, which is in the national security and foreign policy interests of the US, pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct US foreign relations and as commander in chief and chief executive.” President Obama states clearly that it’s his constitutional power to be commander in chief of the army and that he is able to send troops to help Uganda.

The political cartoon is labeled “standing up to the general.” It also shows President Obama having to stand on multiple things just to see eye to eye or be on the same level as the general who is sitting down. President Obama is saying that he has had enough of the general’s insubordination and tells them that they’re fired. The cartoon also shows that the general is much larger than President Obama.