Thursday, April 29, 2010

Jury Duty!

Jury dismisses the case. April 27, 2010.
http://cornellsun.com/section/news/content/2010/04/28/jury-exonerates-ilr%E2%80%88school-age-sex-discrimination-case

Article III, The Judicial Branch, Section II, Clause III
"The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed."

A district court jury cleared the University of Cornell the charges filed by an ex School of Industrial and Labor Relations senior extension associate. She claimed that because of her age and sex, Cornell decided not to renew her contract. The University of Cornell located in New York, held the trial at a New York City Federal Court.

The Article is an example of Article III, Section II, Clause III of the United States Constitution. The Judicial brach has the power to decide the severity of a case, depending on what the crime is, the trial shall be held by jury. The Article shows that a crime committed in a certain state shall be tried in that same sate, and shall be decided by jury.

The Judicial Branch having the power to try people with the assistance of a jury is a very useful tool to have. In the early stages of the United States people would be tried and sentenced based off the opinion of the judge or the highest members in the social ranks. In present day United States they let the jury decide the case. The jury normally consists of people who have no relations with the criminal or person being tried, allowing there to be a fair trial. I am glad that we have the power to let the people decide the outcome of a case. I feel the jury does a great job of using the evidence given to decide whether a case should be dismissed or whether someone is guilty as they did in the Cornell case.

The people vs. The State

Corporate Spending Blocked January 21, 2010:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html

Article III, The Judicial Branch, Section I, Clause I
"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office."




The Supreme court decided 5-to-4 that the government has no business regulating political speech. They feel as though allowing too much money being spent on the political market place would cause alot of corruption in the democracy we have in our government.In the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission the Supreme Court Ruled that the government cannot ban political spending by corporations in can.

This Article demonstrates III, Section II, Clause I of the United States Contitution. The Judicial System has the power to appoint cases to the Supreme Court based of the type of case it is and who the case involves. Based off the individuals who are involved in the case determines whether the Supreme Court gets involved or not. The Power of the Judicial Branch stems from the Supreme Court because they have the highest amount of power in this branch. The Article shows how the Supreme Court has the power to step in a case and decide whether it should be dimissed. They also have the power to decide on laws that may be passed in the government.


If the Judicial Branch had no power and was unablee to decide on laws and big cases life would be harder because there would be a harder process for passing a law. Without the Judicial System life would be very different and our court systems would be very corrupt because it would be the up scale people controlling the government instead of representives who serve the people. The article showed how significant the Judicial system is today

Perfect Candidate

Things a President need:http://www.biography.com/articles/Barack-Obama-12782369

Article 2, The Executive Branch, Section 1, clause 5
"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States."

The United States Congress is dealing with the current President Barack Obama being the first African American President. Many people disagree with his views as well as him being African American. He has done nothing but try to balance things out from what the last President left behind. He has followed the Constitution of what a citizenmust have to become President.

This Biography demonstrates Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution. In order to become President a person has to be a natural born Citizen. He or she also has to be at least thirty-five years of age. This gives plenty of people chances to become President to support the many views of the people. The biography tells about Barack's life as a citizen of the United States making him eligible to become the President. This Biography ties into the Constitution because it shows the things that a citizen of the United States must have in order for them to become President.

If anyone of any country and any age was allowed to run for the President of the United States things would be extremely different. The Government would be very chaotic because it would conflict with many people's opinions. I cant imagine how it would be if anybody was able to become president because we already have trouble now, just imagine someone fresh out of high school as President. Things would be much harder for people withstand certain living conditions. I am glad you have to be a certain age as well as a citizen because it keeps things in an organized fashion.

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Executive Power

Executive Power:http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/02/obama_iraq_troops.html

Article 2, The Executive Branch, Section 1, clause 1
"The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term."

The power of the Executive branch is in the hands of the President. Our current President Barack Obama has full responsibility of running the nation. He has the Power to veto bills passed to him. He has the final say in whether we go to war or not.

This article clearly demonstrates Article 2, Section 1, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution. The President is in control of the whole nation and he has to decide what is best for the people and our country. Most of the governments power comes from The Executive Branch. Barack shows his power by saying that he will bring the troops home by august of 2010. This is a demonstration of articke 2 section 1 because there is no one else that has the power to pull the troops from war except for the President.

Not having a President would make things so much harder for the people of the United States. If we didnt have a President I think things would be chaotic. Everybody would be looking out for themselves and the Constitution itself would be irrelevant. I feel there would be no need for the Constitution if there was no President because the people would not abide by the ammendmants. If there was no President there would not be that one level of the government to make sure everything is fair for the people. I feel as if there was no President then the United States would probably end up in war with ourselves.

Article 1, The Legislative, Section 10, Clause 3


Congress and the President have the decision to start a war. In 2003 President Bush and Congress decided to invade Iraq. Its still debated to this day whether it was for oil or the threat of terrorism.

This cartoon demonstrates Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution. Congress has the power to declare war on any other country along with the President's consent. No State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace. The cartoon shows the President has the power to declare war along with Congress. I think giving Congress the ability to declare war and not the states is a good idea. This is a great idea because if states had that option there would be war all the time everywhere.

If states had the power to declare war there would be chaos everywhere. I would not be able to imagine being attacked everyday. Things would be very dangerous for everyone. The government has control over determining whether we should go to war because they feel the people of the States would end up declaring war for simple reasons. They also wouldnt want the United States on other countries radar all the time.

Article 1, The Legislation, Section 8, Clause 1



Article 1, The Legislation, Section 8, Clause 1
"The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes."

In Present day United States congress has to impose taxes on mostly everything. The country is facing a massive recession causing higher taxes each day. Recently President Barack Obama decided to make tax cuts for the rich to shorten the gap beween the rich and poor.

This political cartoon shows Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution. Congress impose taxes on Americans everyday. They have the power to create taxes for all products being bought in the United States. The state and federal government has a huge power in being able to force taxes.

The Economy depends heavily on taxes. The United States has been using taxes to have control over the economy since it was known as the Union. Congress without taxes would seem out of the ordinary and I highly doubt that will ever happen. Obama and Congress had to make taxes in order to keep the economy somewhat even between the rich and the poor. I feel making tax cuts for the rich would better us as a nation because I feel it wouldn't hurt the rich to help out the less fortunate. It really wouldnt change much they would still be rich, but they would be helping others out at the same time