Analysis: In the tale, a 12 year old boy named Christopher Pittman slaughtered his grandparents and commited arson as well. He was practicing his constitutional rights by demanding that the consequence he was given was excessive (30 years in prison, that was how his right was being threatened). In addition, he was taking Zoloft, an antidepressant, which was described as a side-effect. Notwithstanding, the creator of Zoloft argued that it does not manipulate killings. For my part, I believe that what Pittman did was constitutional. I agree, because you are considered as an adult at the age of 18, not 12. Instead, as an alternative, if Christopher needs to be punished, why not community sevice or a detention center? Lastly, if Zoloft really did influence murders, maybe the creator should change the ingredients to prevent this from ocurring.
Attorneys have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case of a teen sentenced to 30 years in prison for killing his grandparents when he was 12, arguing that the sentence is cruel.
Analysis: What the narrative was trying to elucidate was that 3 siblings from Omaha, Nebraska, were honoring a friend, Julius Robinson, who passed away. Dan, Nick, and Cassie Kuhr were practicing thier amendment rights, by creating t-shirts, wristbands, and key chains. This was so that they could honor Julius and give the opportunity to give money to his family. Nevertheless, their rights were being threatened, since that Millard South High School (school that the Kuhrs went to) told them they were prohibited from wearing the shirts (because of gang alliances, response: refused, suspended for 2 days, lead up to a protest of 30 students). However, the district court judge, Laurie Smith Camp, denied to dismiss the case. Plus, she said that even though the school may have overreacted, it still cannot hesitate as far as the safety of the students is concerned. In the process, Brian Jorde, Kuhr's lawyer, asked questions, such as comparing being suspended or practicing your 1st amendment rights interrupting education more. In my opinion, I would have to coincide with the article. I believe this, because all the Kuhrs were striving to do was to honor someone who was killed in a gun incident. They were never trying to harm the school in any way. My final thought: Although the school was attempting to protect its students from gang confederacies, it may have ended up getting carried away. Because of standing up to the school and the court for what the Kuhrs believed was right, I credit their actions as constitutional.
Nebraska siblings who honored a slain friend can have their day in court, as federal judge won't dismiss their case against school that barred the clothing.
Analysis: In summary, Ann Coulter was striving to enlighten that the 26th amendment needs to be repealed. As an American citizen, Coulter has the right to say if she wants new laws or take the laws away; in this case, she wants this amendment to be abolished for good. She says this, because she thinks that Obama did not do a good job as the 44th president, by ruining the health care method badly. Furthermore, Ann also claims that the government may eventually let very young people (ex.10 year olds) vote, and give the voters rewards for voting for that specific candidate. Plus, the human mind is not even fully developed until the age of 25, and the frontal lobes are slightly flawed (maintains decision making, judgement, rational thinking, planning ahead-related skills and tools). Finally, Coulter demands that the Republicans should battle for their own electorate, which should mean voters with 100% functioning minds. She adds that in order to be eligible to vote, you need to be capable of purchasing your own health insurance. However, after looking over the editorial, I would most likely disagree with Coulter, except for one reason. For one matter, her mood about this amendment was the exact opposite of what Miranda Rosenberg clarified in her side of the story. An example of this was when she was overreacting about the government allowing 10 year-olds to vote, since I believe the government would not make that move ( would not understand the concept of voting completely enough). Plus, I am shocked to learn that the human mind is not fully functional until age 25, because I believe that even though we all make mistakes, my mind is almost perfectly functional. However, I would minimally agree with her for one motive: the fact that Obama is obtaining alot of electoral votes because everyone was voting for him for the popularity (should be based on how YOU feel). Overall, I will consider the majority of Ann's actions as unnecessary and unconstitutional.
Analysis: In the article, a law student named Aaron Tribble is sueing the university that he goes to, for the allowance of keeping your guns in his on-campus apartment. The issue was that it was required to store firearms in the campus's lockers, that was guarded by the police. But however, Aaron Tribble is practicing his 2nd amendment rights, because he wants to keep his wife and children safe, in case someone was to break in his house, or any other emergency. As a result, more students took his side, as they explained why they did so. In my opinion, I agree with Aaron, because you may need your gun for self-defense, but I am also aware that you need to use it safely, as Ted Nugent stated. Plus, I think that the right was threatened, because it would be a delay if Tribble was to go to the Campus every night, just to go get his gun, especially if it was something important. Overall, this article is evidence that this act is Constitutional.
MOSCOW, Idaho -- The right to bear arms has become the fodder for a lawsuit on the University of Idaho campus, where a law student is suing the university for the right to store firearms in his on-campus apartment.
Welcome to my constitutional amendments page! Here, you will find and learn about fascinating, yet absurd stories about everyday americans. However, these people will do anything to practice their constitutional rights, and avoid obstacles. The four amendments that will be featured for discussion are the 1st, 2nd, 8th, and 26th amendments. Take a look around, as you imagine about the people in these articles, and possibly following in their own footsteps!
Analysis: In this commentary, a former Los Angeles policeman, William Ferguson (35 years old) was sentenced to an incredible 102 years in jail (home invasion robberies, at least 40, 1999-2001, convicted of 4 firearmes charges that lead up to 82 years in prison (this was the eason why the peoples' constitutional rights were in danger)). The people (District Judge Gary Allen Feess and Ferguson's attorney (Philip Deitch) were practicing their 8th amendment constitutional rights, by stating that Will would be 137 years old by the time he gets out, which meant he would be dead. Also, Ferguson's brother, Joseph (33 years old), was charged of owning drugs and breaking the laws of civil rights. As a consequence, he was sentenced for 8 years in prison. Personally, I think what congress did was totally unfair and absurdly irrational. The oldest living person on record was close to 120 years, but not quite. Plus, it would be difficult for Ferguson to survive in prison conditions for a long period of time. Finally, 102 years could definitely be described as an entire life for a human, so why not say sentenced for life? In conclusion, what congress decided to do was beyond unconstitutional, but what Judge Feess and attorey Philip Deitch said would be constitutional.
A former Los Angeles police officer who participated in home invasion robberies staged to look like police raids was sentenced Monday to 102 years in prison.
Analysis: In this article, a high school senior named Emma Sullivan practiced her 1st amendment rights. This was done by tweeting a rather insulting message on her cell phone about govenor Brownback at a youth in government event in Topeka, Kansas (message was relating to how bad he was). Nonetheless, her right was in danger due to the principal of her school in Fairway scolding Emma and forcing her to say that she was sorry to Brownback, but she denied it. This was because she did not like the suggestion of getting rid of the Kansas Arts Commission's whole budget, thus being the only state to do so. As a result, the number of followers spiked, from 65 to 3,000, after her older sister contacted the news media. Additionally, her mother, Julie, was not furious at her daughter, despite the fact about using other words, because she was in favor of her giving an opinion about the govenor. In brief, I am a strong supporter of what Emma did at the youth event, but I would be regretful if I was the one to do this. I approve, since all she was trying to do was to give a viewpoint about govenor Brownback, and everyone is entitled to their opinion. Because of her bravery of facing what she really felt about the budget being wiped out, I say her actions are constitutional.
Sam Brownback's office saw Emma Sullivan's post and contacted the Youth in Government program; principal told high school senior to send governor an apology letter.
Analysis: To sum up, Miranda Rosenberg was practicing her 26th amendment rights, because she believes that 16 year olds are mature enough to vote. However, the right itself was being threatened because of the fact that the government and other people assume 16-/17-year olds are not responsible enough to vote in local elections. In sequence of lowering the voting age, Rosenberg must obtain 489,000 signatures from registered voters in Florida, her home state, although it will take a long while to do so. As a result, many people thought of Miranda's ambition as meaningful and decided to mention more problems, relating to the younger citizens. After reading this article, I would agree with what Miranda had to say. This is because like Miranda, I believe that teenagers become mature once they start their adventures in high school, not for when they go to college. By then, you would not have your parents to support you if you go to a university that is located in another state, only by cell phone or any other means of technology. Another example would be if you wanted to vote for a presidential candidate for president in 2012, but the government would not let you do this. In my perspective, that would be like not only as if the government was treating you like an infant, but it would be violating your 1st amendment rights as well (preventing voter from using freedom of speech based on how he or she feels about who will become president). So, this would be an instance of killing 2 birds with one stone! In the end, I would consider Miranda's righteous act to be constitutional, because of what she did to attempt to lower the voting age not just for Florida, but for everyone else in the nation additionally.
Analysis: What I believe Ted Nugent was trying to persuade was that guns can save many peoples' lives, if they are used responsibly. In addition, Nugent is practicing his 2nd amendment constitutional rights because he is explaining that those people that use their arms properly and legally will defend the nation. Furthermore, Ted's rights are being endangered because he clarifies that there are people who attempt to abolish the weapons and our independence, they are our villians, and that they must be stopped before it is too late. Lastly, I am in agreement with what Nugent was explaining in his article. We need guns for our protection, although if we are not careful, people can get killed instead of continuing to live. Because of this, Ted's actions are considered constitutional.
"Anybody that wants to disarm me can drop dead," Ted Nugent tells CNN's Piers Morgan.