The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.
The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.
The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.[1]
The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
Amendment 12 was basically designed to make a better procedure of electing the president and vice president. The problem with the old way was that there would always be a tie between parties and nothing would ever get solved. It was also would have who ever got second place as the vice president, this would then cause issues because different parties had to try to work together to run the nation. The new way was is an much easier process and fixed the problems in the old way.
There are starting to be problems with the current electoral college. Some presidents have been elected into office without getting the majority vote (2000). The people are suppose to decide who they want to run the country and it is stupid for someone who didn't get popular vote to take office. This is the way we have been electing offices for 200 years now, a lot has changed since then. Some inventions people might not now about are the car, and the television (with color and sound), the airplane, and many more like computers with internet. I know it all sounds so scary but I believe it's time to use these inventions to make a better electing procedure.
Talking about how 2000 election was messed up.
http://www.uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_procon.php
This site has a good list of pros and cons about the electoral college and the way it operates in the US.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
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.
Amendment 10 limits the powers that the federal government has on the states. States are allowed to have different laws within their boarders that other states might be against. but overall the government has some ways to get around this. an example is when the drinking age use to be 18. Some states had the drinking age at 21 and others at 18. Louisiana didn't want to change the drinking age. So to help them change their mind, the federal government said if they don't make the new drinking age 21 like the rest of the country the feds will stop supplying Louisiana with money for their highways and other roads. So of course the drinking age was immediately changed.
Another big issue is the legalization of medical marijuana. 13 states so far have legalized it. The question is should it be just medical or can people of age buy it for recreational use too? Some people are in favor because it has been proven to help ease the pain of deadly diseases, but other are against it because it is a common drug used in a lot of street fights, and is also known as the gateway drug.
He has a squeaky voice and a pierced ear, but he makes a lot of good points about legalizing marijuana.
Equally as cool as the previous speaker, this man imforms his audience of the dangers of marijuana and clearly believes that it should not be legalized.
Amendment 10 limits the powers that the federal government has on the states. States are allowed to have different laws within their boarders that other states might be against. but overall the government has some ways to get around this. an example is when the drinking age use to be 18. Some states had the drinking age at 21 and others at 18. Louisiana didn't want to change the drinking age. So to help them change their mind, the federal government said if they don't make the new drinking age 21 like the rest of the country the feds will stop supplying Louisiana with money for their highways and other roads. So of course the drinking age was immediately changed.
Another big issue is the legalization of medical marijuana. 13 states so far have legalized it. The question is should it be just medical or can people of age buy it for recreational use too? Some people are in favor because it has been proven to help ease the pain of deadly diseases, but other are against it because it is a common drug used in a lot of street fights, and is also known as the gateway drug.
He has a squeaky voice and a pierced ear, but he makes a lot of good points about legalizing marijuana.
Equally as cool as the previous speaker, this man imforms his audience of the dangers of marijuana and clearly believes that it should not be legalized.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Amendment 9
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
I believe that this amendment is saying that all of the rights in the US Constitution apply to everyone, not just certain people. Also this amendment is saying that the Constitution guarantees all fundamental rights. Just because a certain right wasn't listed in the Constitution doesn't mean that the people don't get it.
This old man talks about how the right to privacy is not brought up in either the Bill of Rights or any of the other amendments. He explains how privacy comes from all the different amendments combined, but it is overall an implied right that people just agree that we have.
One of many rights not listed in the Constitution.
I believe that this amendment is saying that all of the rights in the US Constitution apply to everyone, not just certain people. Also this amendment is saying that the Constitution guarantees all fundamental rights. Just because a certain right wasn't listed in the Constitution doesn't mean that the people don't get it.
This old man talks about how the right to privacy is not brought up in either the Bill of Rights or any of the other amendments. He explains how privacy comes from all the different amendments combined, but it is overall an implied right that people just agree that we have.
One of many rights not listed in the Constitution.
Amendment 8
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
There is no need to put a rediculous amount of bail or fines on someone, or make them go by "eye for an eye" rule. To me I personally feel like there should be a large bail on people who do high crimes. I believe this because if that person could come up with the money then they could get out of jail and flee the country.
This guy talks about the 8th amendment and some history behind it. He mainly talks about how the death penalty is similar to "eye for an eye" treatment.
A picture of what a lot of people think violate this amendments part about cruel and unusual punishment.
There is no need to put a rediculous amount of bail or fines on someone, or make them go by "eye for an eye" rule. To me I personally feel like there should be a large bail on people who do high crimes. I believe this because if that person could come up with the money then they could get out of jail and flee the country.
This guy talks about the 8th amendment and some history behind it. He mainly talks about how the death penalty is similar to "eye for an eye" treatment.
A picture of what a lot of people think violate this amendments part about cruel and unusual punishment.
Amendment 7
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
In common law cases, the trial will be tried by a jury, no matter what.
The picture shows a jury. This is what you would see if some one brought a law suit upon you.
A little rap I found on youtube about the seven amendment and how "we care".
In common law cases, the trial will be tried by a jury, no matter what.
The picture shows a jury. This is what you would see if some one brought a law suit upon you.
A little rap I found on youtube about the seven amendment and how "we care".
Amendment 6
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
So everyone has the right to a fair trial with a jury of your peers. Everyone also has the right to an attorney. Also the accused gets to know what they are being accused of. The trial is to be held in the state that one is accused in. There has been issues with this part because some criminals commit half of a crime, kidnapping, in one state. Then flee to the neighboring state and commit the other half, murder. In this case I believe that what ever the court wants to trial the accused for is the state the trial is in. If the murder occurred in Florida and the kidnapping in Georgia, then the trial for the murder would be in Florida.
http://insession.blogs.cnn.com/2009/02/17/jury-deliberations-continue-in-arson-murder-trial/
This website is a blog off of a CNN story. It speaks of a women would has waited 10 years in prison to be trialed. The sixth amendment isn't too speedy on this one.
An example of the 6th amendment in place. Man is accused of killing his family a year, and his trial keeps getting put off.
So everyone has the right to a fair trial with a jury of your peers. Everyone also has the right to an attorney. Also the accused gets to know what they are being accused of. The trial is to be held in the state that one is accused in. There has been issues with this part because some criminals commit half of a crime, kidnapping, in one state. Then flee to the neighboring state and commit the other half, murder. In this case I believe that what ever the court wants to trial the accused for is the state the trial is in. If the murder occurred in Florida and the kidnapping in Georgia, then the trial for the murder would be in Florida.
http://insession.blogs.cnn.com/2009/02/17/jury-deliberations-continue-in-arson-murder-trial/
This website is a blog off of a CNN story. It speaks of a women would has waited 10 years in prison to be trialed. The sixth amendment isn't too speedy on this one.
An example of the 6th amendment in place. Man is accused of killing his family a year, and his trial keeps getting put off.
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 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.
No one can be charged for the same crime twice. This topic is very controversial when it comes to OJ's case and how a lot of people believe that he was guilty. Even if he came out in the open and said he did that crime, he still could not be trialed for it. Double jeopardy is needed to keep the government from going and accusing the same people of the same crime and just keeping them in jail none stop. This amendment also says that the accused does not have to be a witness against him/her self.
This guy talks about how double jeopardy is necessary, and also talks about how OJ came out and said he did it.
Pleading the fifth has become a popular saying, meaning that the accused doesn't have to testify against themselves.
No one can be charged for the same crime twice. This topic is very controversial when it comes to OJ's case and how a lot of people believe that he was guilty. Even if he came out in the open and said he did that crime, he still could not be trialed for it. Double jeopardy is needed to keep the government from going and accusing the same people of the same crime and just keeping them in jail none stop. This amendment also says that the accused does not have to be a witness against him/her self.
This guy talks about how double jeopardy is necessary, and also talks about how OJ came out and said he did it.
Pleading the fifth has become a popular saying, meaning that the accused doesn't have to testify against themselves.
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.
Nobody can search any of your stuff without a warrant. The only way that someone could get pass this is if they see something sketchy, probable cause, or they are crooked. After September 11, this amendment seemed to be pushed aside because everyone was afraid of terrorist
Talks about how after 9-11 it seemed as if the president wanted to remove amendment 4 from the Constitution.
Showing that a warrent is required to search a house. Unless of course there is probable cause.
Nobody can search any of your stuff without a warrant. The only way that someone could get pass this is if they see something sketchy, probable cause, or they are crooked. After September 11, this amendment seemed to be pushed aside because everyone was afraid of terrorist
Talks about how after 9-11 it seemed as if the president wanted to remove amendment 4 from the Constitution.
Showing that a warrent is required to search a house. Unless of course there is probable cause.
Amendment 3
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Basically, no soldiers can force themselves into a house. I feel like this was more active in the civil war area, when soldiers would use the law to get into a home, even if they were for the other side. One could see where there might be an arguement at dinner time.
This was the most interesting video I could find. It's a song describing amendment 3.
A picture of a house with the amendment around it.
Basically, no soldiers can force themselves into a house. I feel like this was more active in the civil war area, when soldiers would use the law to get into a home, even if they were for the other side. One could see where there might be an arguement at dinner time.
This was the most interesting video I could find. It's a song describing amendment 3.
A picture of a house with the amendment around it.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Amendment 2
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.
So we have the right to carry and conceal. This means that anyone who wants to protect themselves can do it. Some people think that it should be illegal to carry a weapon, that too many people are getting killed. The people who are shooting other people are the ones who get their guns illegally anyway and are going to keep getting them that way no matter what laws are passed.
Other people think if we just banned the AK-47, and other versions of it, everything will get better. People who say that are ignorant and watch too much TV. The AK-47 and all other assault rifles available in the US are semi automatic only. It is illegal to own any automatic gun. The ones that the gangsters have on the streets are illegal just like every other gun they hold up gas stations and convent stores. The carry and conceal licence lets one get a pistol, not a sawed off shotgun or an automatic M16. We can ban the AK and the M16, the M4 and the G36, but the people who have them or want them will keep getting them. The guns that should be banned are mini Uzi, and other sub machine guns that can be easily modded into an automatic weapon. Or we should raise the prices on the ammo of the guns killing the most people.
Now the Mini Uzi
Which one would be easier for a thug to hide as they walk into a store?
So we have the right to carry and conceal. This means that anyone who wants to protect themselves can do it. Some people think that it should be illegal to carry a weapon, that too many people are getting killed. The people who are shooting other people are the ones who get their guns illegally anyway and are going to keep getting them that way no matter what laws are passed.
Other people think if we just banned the AK-47, and other versions of it, everything will get better. People who say that are ignorant and watch too much TV. The AK-47 and all other assault rifles available in the US are semi automatic only. It is illegal to own any automatic gun. The ones that the gangsters have on the streets are illegal just like every other gun they hold up gas stations and convent stores. The carry and conceal licence lets one get a pistol, not a sawed off shotgun or an automatic M16. We can ban the AK and the M16, the M4 and the G36, but the people who have them or want them will keep getting them. The guns that should be banned are mini Uzi, and other sub machine guns that can be easily modded into an automatic weapon. Or we should raise the prices on the ammo of the guns killing the most people.
Now the Mini Uzi
Which one would be easier for a thug to hide as they walk into a store?
Amendment 1
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.
To me this basically means that that people can do what they want within the boundaries of the law. As long as what we say or do doesn't put any ones life in danger or threaten our own life's we can do it.
This does not apply every where we are though. On public ground this amendment is thrown out the window. For example, at school students loose all of their rights. They can't say whatever they want, or do whatever they want. When at school students are the school's responsibility, no one else. So the school makes their own laws in place of the guardian no being present.
This news clip of a high school where the cheerleaders write a message with religious meaning it for their football team to run through. This shows that the freedom of speech is taken away at the public school.
Flag burning is a big part contraversy in the 1st amendment.
To me this basically means that that people can do what they want within the boundaries of the law. As long as what we say or do doesn't put any ones life in danger or threaten our own life's we can do it.
This does not apply every where we are though. On public ground this amendment is thrown out the window. For example, at school students loose all of their rights. They can't say whatever they want, or do whatever they want. When at school students are the school's responsibility, no one else. So the school makes their own laws in place of the guardian no being present.
This news clip of a high school where the cheerleaders write a message with religious meaning it for their football team to run through. This shows that the freedom of speech is taken away at the public school.
Flag burning is a big part contraversy in the 1st amendment.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Amendment 11
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
So basically a state cannot be taken to federal court by anyone from a different state or a different country. The only example I could come up with for this amendment would be if Mexico had a problem with Texas or something, that would between those two, unless of course they started attacking each other.
Saying that there really isn't much more to the 11th amendment then you just can't sue the federal government for state issues.
Talks about how states can't go into other states and sue people.
So basically a state cannot be taken to federal court by anyone from a different state or a different country. The only example I could come up with for this amendment would be if Mexico had a problem with Texas or something, that would between those two, unless of course they started attacking each other.
Saying that there really isn't much more to the 11th amendment then you just can't sue the federal government for state issues.
Talks about how states can't go into other states and sue people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
