http://www.examiner.com/macon-county-conservative-in-springfield/obama-s-war-on-health-care-tramples-the-10th-amendment
Robert Moon discusses how Obama's plan for healthcare is actually going against the people. He feels as if the government is slowly trying to control us by making it appear to be helping us when in actuality it really isn't. Although he may be slightly biased his point still comes across, which is that we the people of the united states have the right to go on health care or not and the government shouldn't be allowed to force us.
This act of kindness from Obama isn't obeying our constitutional right. The tenth amendment states that we do not have to do as government says necessarily. By Obama trying to make everyone get health care he is going way beyond what he was elected to do. Obama's health care plan is a nice plan to help the people, but forcing us to get it is crossing the line and very unconstitutional.
If Obama really just intended to help the people he would've made it where health care is open to those who want it. Unfortunately he didn't which makes me think that he has some type of secret master plan that will be taken into affect once we all get health care. Obama and his party should allow people to get healthcare, but never should he force us to because that is just wrong.
Moon, Robert. "Obama's War on Health Care Tramples the 10th Amendment - Springfield Macon County Conservative | Examiner.com." Norfolk News, Norfolk Information, Norfolk Events - Examiner.com | Examiner.com. 26 July 2009. Web. 29 Aug. 2010. <http://www.examiner.com/macon-county-conservative-in-springfield/obama-s-war-on-health-care-tramples-the-10th-amendment>.
Obama Administration seeks to restrict 5th Amendment protections
http://trueslant.com/rickungar/2010/05/09/obama-administration-seeks-to-restrict-5th-amendment-protections/
This article is about how Ungar disagrees with the Obama party because they are going against our rights. An example given was that if they capture a terrorist Obama's party is saying that police should be able to question them to find out as much information on the spot as possible to use in court. Problem with that is that the suspect wasn't given his Miranda Rights which makes it where all of the information that they collected is invalid and useless, therefore the suspect can get away with no charges due to the lack of information against him.
This relates to the fifth amendment because without the Miranda Rights suspects could accidentally put themselves in an incriminating situation and then be sentenced in jail. Although the government has good reasons for what they want it still isn't constitutional. Without the reading of our rights they would've wasted a case. The only time they should ask questions on the spot is if the suspect is putting other people in danger.
I believe that the police should not be able to use information that they asked on the spot in court. Mainly because of the fact that it does go against our constitution. If the government really wants to protect people they will wait to take the suspect into proper questioning, o that they can make a strong case that can in the end protect the people of the United States in a constitutional way.
Ungar, By Rick. "Obama Administration Seeks to Restrict 5th Amendment Protections - Rick Ungar - The Policy Page - True/Slant." True/Slant. Web. 29 Aug. 2010. <http://trueslant.com/rickungar/2010/05/09/obama-administration-seeks-to-restrict-5th-amendment-protections/>.
This article is about how Ungar disagrees with the Obama party because they are going against our rights. An example given was that if they capture a terrorist Obama's party is saying that police should be able to question them to find out as much information on the spot as possible to use in court. Problem with that is that the suspect wasn't given his Miranda Rights which makes it where all of the information that they collected is invalid and useless, therefore the suspect can get away with no charges due to the lack of information against him.
This relates to the fifth amendment because without the Miranda Rights suspects could accidentally put themselves in an incriminating situation and then be sentenced in jail. Although the government has good reasons for what they want it still isn't constitutional. Without the reading of our rights they would've wasted a case. The only time they should ask questions on the spot is if the suspect is putting other people in danger.
I believe that the police should not be able to use information that they asked on the spot in court. Mainly because of the fact that it does go against our constitution. If the government really wants to protect people they will wait to take the suspect into proper questioning, o that they can make a strong case that can in the end protect the people of the United States in a constitutional way.
Ungar, By Rick. "Obama Administration Seeks to Restrict 5th Amendment Protections - Rick Ungar - The Policy Page - True/Slant." True/Slant. Web. 29 Aug. 2010. <http://trueslant.com/rickungar/2010/05/09/obama-administration-seeks-to-restrict-5th-amendment-protections/>.
Controversy Over Huguely Search Warrants
http://www.nbc29.com/Global/story.asp?S=12744228
This news report is covering the murder case that apparently is trying to use information that has not been okayed with a warrant. The suspect's lawyer recalls that they have phone and internet information that they had no permission going into. The judge feels as if it is okay because there was good reasons for doing so, but because of this the trial has become a bit controversial. Seeing as to how the investigators had warrants to search other items for the case it seems strange that they just didn't get search warrants for the phone and computer as well which the suspect's lawyer is arguing.
The fifth amendment is suppose to protect the people from police just barging in our homes demanding to search our homes without a proper warrant. If the investigators were able to do that it breaks the law that is in our constitution and makes it where people may not feel as safe anymore. The judge said that it was for a good cause, but if it was for a good cause why didn't they just get a warrant?
I feel as if the court system is trying to strip us from our rights. If the constitution says you need a warrant then if they come in without a warrant all the information they collected should be invalid to use in a court case. The fact that they search the computer without permission makes things suspicious because it makes me think that they were up to something and maybe they even planted some false evidence in the device just to win the case.
"Controversy Over Huguely Search Warrants - NBC29." NBC29 - Home. 4 July 2010. Web. 29 Aug. 2010. <http://www.nbc29.com/Global/story.asp?S=12744228>.
This news report is covering the murder case that apparently is trying to use information that has not been okayed with a warrant. The suspect's lawyer recalls that they have phone and internet information that they had no permission going into. The judge feels as if it is okay because there was good reasons for doing so, but because of this the trial has become a bit controversial. Seeing as to how the investigators had warrants to search other items for the case it seems strange that they just didn't get search warrants for the phone and computer as well which the suspect's lawyer is arguing.
The fifth amendment is suppose to protect the people from police just barging in our homes demanding to search our homes without a proper warrant. If the investigators were able to do that it breaks the law that is in our constitution and makes it where people may not feel as safe anymore. The judge said that it was for a good cause, but if it was for a good cause why didn't they just get a warrant?
I feel as if the court system is trying to strip us from our rights. If the constitution says you need a warrant then if they come in without a warrant all the information they collected should be invalid to use in a court case. The fact that they search the computer without permission makes things suspicious because it makes me think that they were up to something and maybe they even planted some false evidence in the device just to win the case.
"Controversy Over Huguely Search Warrants - NBC29." NBC29 - Home. 4 July 2010. Web. 29 Aug. 2010. <http://www.nbc29.com/Global/story.asp?S=12744228>.
U.S. military chiefs enraged by cartoon:
http://www.algeria.com/forums/geopolitics-international-affairs/12030.htm
This article is about how a cartoon was made about the military life. The cartoon showed a soldier without any limbs and the doctor told him that he was going to have to be stretched thin implying the the military is stretched too thin. Once the military found out they became outraged and ordered it to be taken down.
This relates to the constitution because in the first amendment it granted freedom of press, but when the military dislikes it they took it down. Many are concerned with the ways of government and how they are allowing our rights as Americans to be ignored.
In my opinion the cartoon should have been kept up. Many wouldn't be able to understand the purpose of the cartoon since it didn't give much information on what it was referring to. The fact that the government would take away our rights of freedom of press then it shows that they really don't value our rights as they should. Our government is supposed to protect our rights not take them away just because the military doesn't like it.
I feel as if the military is taking advantage of their power. Many people in the world are criticized and humiliated publicly by political cartoons and you rarely hear about them putting up a big fuss about it. If someone feels that the military it stretched too thin than that is their opinion and it should not be strip from the papers because they feel like it is making a mockery of them.
"Press Freedom under Attack as Cartoon Controversy Erupts." Algeria Hotel and Travel Guide | By Algeria Channel. Feb. 2006. Web. 26 Aug. 2010. <http://www.algeria.com/forums/geopolitics-international-affairs/12030.htm>
This article is about how a cartoon was made about the military life. The cartoon showed a soldier without any limbs and the doctor told him that he was going to have to be stretched thin implying the the military is stretched too thin. Once the military found out they became outraged and ordered it to be taken down.
This relates to the constitution because in the first amendment it granted freedom of press, but when the military dislikes it they took it down. Many are concerned with the ways of government and how they are allowing our rights as Americans to be ignored.
In my opinion the cartoon should have been kept up. Many wouldn't be able to understand the purpose of the cartoon since it didn't give much information on what it was referring to. The fact that the government would take away our rights of freedom of press then it shows that they really don't value our rights as they should. Our government is supposed to protect our rights not take them away just because the military doesn't like it.
I feel as if the military is taking advantage of their power. Many people in the world are criticized and humiliated publicly by political cartoons and you rarely hear about them putting up a big fuss about it. If someone feels that the military it stretched too thin than that is their opinion and it should not be strip from the papers because they feel like it is making a mockery of them.
"Press Freedom under Attack as Cartoon Controversy Erupts." Algeria Hotel and Travel Guide | By Algeria Channel. Feb. 2006. Web. 26 Aug. 2010. <http://www.algeria.com/forums/geopolitics-international-affairs/12030.htm>
Freedom to bare arms
This image shows a man about to enter a building where people are trying to become certified citizens of America. Main thing that may seem alarming to most is that the man is carrying a gun in both hangs and around his chest. The cartoon may be showing an example of how the constitution gives us the right to bare arms. The man in the image may just be walking in the building to just show off his weapons or to go and kill people.
The second amendment allows Americans the right to bare arms. Although you do need a liscense for legal ownership people still get weapons at young ages illegally making government members to put restrictions on who can have a gun and where they can have it. By putting restrictions on who can have a gun based on age is understandable, but by location may seem a little outrageous. If everyone isn't allowed to own a gun that would then become unconstitutional.
I feel as if guns are not needed in life and should be banned all throughout America, but that would be unconstitutional as well. Since the right was already given then it should not be restricted in any ay what so ever. The only reasonable exception would be not allowing the gun in certain work or learning areas to prevent accidents from happing to innocent bystanders. Gun license she be enforced more to avoid guns being in the hands of a wrong person which can cause a huge problem in society. Owning a gun should be legal since it is a right that we as Americans were born with
"Second Amendment." Jobsanger. Web. 26 Aug. 2010. <http://jobsanger.blogspot.com/>.
Free Speech for Broadcasters, Too
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/opinion/18sun1.html?_r=1&ref=first_amendment
In this article the author complains on how the government puts restrictions on what the broadcasted shows can say. They allow expletives to be use only if it serves an educational purpose instead of just everyday talk. Many people complain about how they won't allow them to express themselves as they'd like. The government claims that they are trying to protect the innocence of the children, but many feel as if that is ridiculous seeing as to how modern day technology allows parents to block inappropriate television shows.
The first amendment says that every American is granted the freedom of speech, but by restricting what they can say on television seems to bump heads with it. The government makes small restrictions on about ten words at the most, but is that following our constitution? At certain hours of the night and day television shows are granted complete freedom of speech for the most part until the day time when younger children might be up and watching it.
The thought of government not allowing people to express themselves on television is outrageous. If we are granted the right of freedom of speech the television shows should not be bleeped at just because of the fact that vulgar language is being use. Not only that, but who is it to say that vulgar things can't be said or even decide what words are too vulgar and block them on television. This small restriction on a few words can change a whole television show depending on if they use profanity or not. If we are granted freedom of speech it should be for everything and not just for most things.
"The New York Times Log In."The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. 17 July 2010. Web. 23 Aug. 2010. <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/opinion/18sun1.html?_r=1&ref=first_amendment>.
In this article the author complains on how the government puts restrictions on what the broadcasted shows can say. They allow expletives to be use only if it serves an educational purpose instead of just everyday talk. Many people complain about how they won't allow them to express themselves as they'd like. The government claims that they are trying to protect the innocence of the children, but many feel as if that is ridiculous seeing as to how modern day technology allows parents to block inappropriate television shows.
The first amendment says that every American is granted the freedom of speech, but by restricting what they can say on television seems to bump heads with it. The government makes small restrictions on about ten words at the most, but is that following our constitution? At certain hours of the night and day television shows are granted complete freedom of speech for the most part until the day time when younger children might be up and watching it.
The thought of government not allowing people to express themselves on television is outrageous. If we are granted the right of freedom of speech the television shows should not be bleeped at just because of the fact that vulgar language is being use. Not only that, but who is it to say that vulgar things can't be said or even decide what words are too vulgar and block them on television. This small restriction on a few words can change a whole television show depending on if they use profanity or not. If we are granted freedom of speech it should be for everything and not just for most things.
"The New York Times Log In."The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. 17 July 2010. Web. 23 Aug. 2010. <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/opinion/18sun1.html?_r=1&ref=first_amendment>.
Barack Obama's mosque moment frustrates Dems
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41325.html
This article discusses how Obama immediately decided to allow the mosque to be built not to far from ground zero. Obama consulted a few of his close colleagues about what to do and in less than 24 hours he publicly spoke on it. He believes that it would be unfair to not allow them to build their holy home their just because of what happened in the past with ground zero. Unfortunately other member of the government were highly upset to find out that he had made this decision without going through them and how he made a public speech about it.
What Obama did by allowing them to build a mosque was following the constitution. Although many people felt that it was the wrong thing to do it actually wasn't. If people have the freedom of speech then they are allowed to freely practice their religion as long as it isn't conflicting with other peoples rights. Because of that it also means they are allowed to worship their god anywhere no matter if their race caused a lot of death and ground zero was built for that specific reason and they want to build it two blocks away. Allowing them not to build it where they wanted would seem wrong and unconstitutional to many.
I understand that Obama wanted to make it clear that allowing them not to build where they chose would be unconstitutional, but he could've handled the situation better. Instead of him just making that decision basically on his own, he should have discussed the situation with the other branches of government. I'm pretty sure his discussion would not have changed, but it probably wouldn't be such a problem if he would have allowed time and a small debate to happen with the people he works with, so that they won't feel left out of any of the decision making.
Thrush, Glenn. "Barack Obama's Mosque Moment Frustrates Dems - Glenn Thrush - POLITICO.com." Politics, Political News - POLITICO.com. 21 Aug. 2010. Web. 23 Aug. 2010. <http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41325.html>.
This article discusses how Obama immediately decided to allow the mosque to be built not to far from ground zero. Obama consulted a few of his close colleagues about what to do and in less than 24 hours he publicly spoke on it. He believes that it would be unfair to not allow them to build their holy home their just because of what happened in the past with ground zero. Unfortunately other member of the government were highly upset to find out that he had made this decision without going through them and how he made a public speech about it.
What Obama did by allowing them to build a mosque was following the constitution. Although many people felt that it was the wrong thing to do it actually wasn't. If people have the freedom of speech then they are allowed to freely practice their religion as long as it isn't conflicting with other peoples rights. Because of that it also means they are allowed to worship their god anywhere no matter if their race caused a lot of death and ground zero was built for that specific reason and they want to build it two blocks away. Allowing them not to build it where they wanted would seem wrong and unconstitutional to many.
I understand that Obama wanted to make it clear that allowing them not to build where they chose would be unconstitutional, but he could've handled the situation better. Instead of him just making that decision basically on his own, he should have discussed the situation with the other branches of government. I'm pretty sure his discussion would not have changed, but it probably wouldn't be such a problem if he would have allowed time and a small debate to happen with the people he works with, so that they won't feel left out of any of the decision making.
Thrush, Glenn. "Barack Obama's Mosque Moment Frustrates Dems - Glenn Thrush - POLITICO.com." Politics, Political News - POLITICO.com. 21 Aug. 2010. Web. 23 Aug. 2010. <http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41325.html>.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)