Government-Law
Follow
Find
22 views | +0 today
Rescooped by Abby Bisgard from Constitutional Amendments
onto Government-Law
Scoop.it!

Supreme Court asked to hear Zoloft case - USATODAY.com

 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.


Via Casey Tumblety
Abby Bisgard's insight:

This article talks about a 12 year old boy who killed his grandparents. He was sentenced to 30 years in prison. It also states that he was taking Zoloft, an antidepressant. His attorney's stated that it is against his 8th Amendment rights since he was so young. He also blamed Zoloft for his actions.

more...
MsHaeussinger's comment, February 18, 2013 5:26 PM
I'd like to know more about this child's medical history. For a 12 year old to be on Zoloft seems quite unusual? Could there be other underlying factors?
Lauren Heim's curator insight, April 9, 1:00 PM

This topic relates to the Constitution (topic of this week)  by the fact that the Supreme Court wants to hear this case so they can make the final judgement call on the little murderer. The Supreme Court is part of the Constitution by being part of the Judicial Branch. It's also questioning the rights of the kid because he was 12 when the crime was committed. I personally think the Supreme Court should take on this case and rule the boy as an adult and throw him in jail. 

Abigail Beinborn's comment, April 13, 8:32 AM
This relates to the constitution. It talks about the 5th amendment which is spending your time in jail. There is also the 8th amendment that talks about an excessive bail or time spent in jail. Also against the 8th amendment because of his age. He is only 12 and he is being convicted as an 18 year old.
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Rescooped by Abby Bisgard from Occupied Palestine
Scoop.it!

President Obama plans listening mission in Israel, West Bank

President Obama plans listening mission in Israel, West Bank | Government-Law | Scoop.it
WASHINGTON — President Obama heads to Israel this week with quiet hopes, but little real expectation, that by smoothing rough relations he can help restart the Middle East peace effort that went nowhere in his first term.

Via occupiedpalestine
Abby Bisgard's insight:

This article talks about Obama's plan with Israel. He plans on trying to make peace in the middle east

more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Abby Bisgard from United States Politics
Scoop.it!

President Obama Explains Legal Argument for Same-Sex Marriage

President Obama Explains Legal Argument for Same-Sex Marriage | Government-Law | Scoop.it
Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP Photo President Obama today strongly suggested that his interpretation of the Constitution does support a fundamental right to same-sex marriage, even if he didn’t put that argument in writing before the Supreme Court in...

Via Politician Search
Abby Bisgard's insight:

President Obama discusses his suggestion on the argument for same-sex marriage. Obama, and along with many other democrats, support same-sex marriage.

more...
Nick Iversen's comment, March 17, 2013 12:20 PM
I agree with president Obama. It is interesting to hear his views on such a widely discussed and argued topic
Scooped by Abby Bisgard
Scoop.it!

Obama considers weighing in on gay marriage case

Obama considers weighing in on gay marriage case | Government-Law | Scoop.it
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration is quietly considering urging the Supreme Court to overturn California's ban on gay marriage, a step that would mark a political victory for advocates of same-sex unions and a deepening commitment by...
Abby Bisgard's insight:

This article talks about Obama's plan on legalizing gay marriage! They have until Februaury 28th to make the case "Friend of the Court" brief. I am very excited about this!

more...
Zachary Brekke's comment, February 25, 2013 8:04 AM
I can see another huge backlash and dividing of American politics.
dsnow37's comment, March 2, 2013 12:17 PM
I agree with you Abby, I think they should legalize gay marriage because everyone deserves to be happy.
Scooped by Abby Bisgard
Scoop.it!

MILLER: Obama’s real gun-control aim

MILLER: Obama’s real gun-control aim | Government-Law | Scoop.it
Chicago is a dangerous town, but gun control hasn’t made it better. The city forbids the law-abiding from having guns, leaving the bad guys to rule the streets. The result is one of the highest murder rates in the country.
Abby Bisgard's insight:

Since we had our assault weapons ban discussion, I felt I should scoop about it. This article is basically an opinion of a writer from Chicago. She states how she disagrees with the gun control. 

more...
Zachary Brekke's comment, February 25, 2013 9:03 AM
very nice, i almost completly agree with this writer
Rescooped by Abby Bisgard from Constitutional Amendments
Scoop.it!

Ex-LAPD officer gets 102 years in police raid case - USATODAY.com

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.


Via Casey Tumblety
Abby Bisgard's insight:

A former Los Angeles policeman was sentenced to 102 years in jail. He was convicted of at least 40 home invasion robberies from 1999-2001. He also had 4 fire arm convictions. This incident caught eye because some say that it is not right to convict him of over 100 years, why not just convict him for life?

more...
dsnow37's comment, February 17, 2013 8:31 AM
Wow!! What kind of police officer does that?
Nick Iversen's comment, February 17, 2013 1:09 PM
I think the sentencing was completely fair. He is not sentenced for life because having someone sentenced for X amount of years, in this case 102, means that there is a chance of parole, or getting let out for good behavior
Rescooped by Abby Bisgard from A WORLD OF CONPIRACY, LIES, GREED, DECEIT and WAR
Scoop.it!

Obama Violated US Constitution, Libya War is Abuse of Power & Betrayal of People's Trust

Obama violated his oath to the U.S. Constitution and betrayed the trust of the American people because he had no right to involve our military in a war in Li...

Via Troy Mccomas (troy48)
Abby Bisgard's insight:

This video states that President Obama may have gone against his oath on the U.S. Constitution. It is about our military's action in Libya's war.

more...
Erika Mathias's comment, February 6, 2013 7:26 AM
In this video, there is some controversy about Obama violating the Constitution after taking oath of protecting it. People are angry because he had involved our military in Libya's war.
Tim Hogan's comment, February 6, 2013 7:29 AM
Obama seems to be going against his oath recently. A lot of people could be angry about this and he could lose a lot of support.
Scooped by Abby Bisgard
Scoop.it!

TSA Directly Violated US Constitution By Detaining Senator Rand Paul

TSA Directly Violated US Constitution By Detaining Senator Rand Paul | Government-Law | Scoop.it

In preventing Kentucky Senator Rand Paul from flying to Washington this morning, the TSA directly violated the law as written in the US Constitution.

Abby Bisgard's insight:

Senator Rand Paul claims that he was detained, and that is against the U.S. Constitution. TSA officials insist that he was never detained, but simply asked to sit in a cubicle.

more...
Shalyssa Musolf's curator insight, February 6, 2013 8:19 PM

Written in the US Constition, it is against the law to be detained. Rand Paul was claimed but doesn't agree and denies that he never was.

Tim Hogan's comment, February 7, 2013 9:54 AM
This kind of situation will just keep going back an fourth. If he was detained, this would bring up yet another constitutional violation. We might as well just throw it in the trash since no one seems to follow it.
Rescooped by Abby Bisgard from Pakistan Weekly News
Scoop.it!

KP governor starts FATA visits from Mohmand Agency; calls on political parties to educate on reforms

The governor said every political party would be free to participate in electioneering process and therefore it was also in the fitness of the things that the people of FATA should also get them fully up-dated about the reforms introduced in this respect up till now. “To get yourselves fully educated about your rights as well as the responsibilities, there is also dire need to be fully aware about the new developments.”


Via @PakistanWeekly
Abby Bisgard's insight:

This article discusses Pakistan's political parties.

more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Abby Bisgard from The Middle Ground
Scoop.it!

Listen to the Archived Show! -- Are Political Parties Relevant Anymore?

Listen to the Archived Show!  -- Are Political Parties Relevant Anymore? | Government-Law | Scoop.it

THE MIDDLE GROUND

on the

COFFEE PARTY USA INTERNET RADIO NETWORK

 

 

 

We continue our discussion of political parties this week with a CALL-IN show in which we ask YOU this question: Is there any good reason to belong to a political party these days?

 

 

CALL-IN SHOW: ARE POLITICAL PARTIES RELEVANT ANYMORE?

646-929-2495

JOIN MICHAEL CHARNEY AND GUEST CO-HOST J'NENE LOUDEN

 

THE MIDDLE GROUND


Via Michael Charney
Abby Bisgard's insight:

This video talks about weather to vote for a party or person. It discusses if it is better to have a political party or not

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Abby Bisgard
Scoop.it!

GOP Minnesota legislator preparing to co-sponsor gay marriage bill

GOP Minnesota legislator preparing to co-sponsor gay marriage bill | Government-Law | Scoop.it

! Republican state Sen

Abby Bisgard's insight:

A Republican Senator wants to legalize gay marriage! He is also from Minnesota! This article basically talks about the bill that is going to be passed... or not passed. It also talks about the marriage amendment that happened in Minnesota this last year. 

more...
Zachary Brekke's comment, February 25, 2013 8:10 AM
well, this is new and rather surprising!
Rescooped by Abby Bisgard from Constitutional Amendments
Scoop.it!

Supreme Court asked to hear Zoloft case - USATODAY.com

 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.


Via Casey Tumblety
Abby Bisgard's insight:

This article talks about a 12 year old boy who killed his grandparents. He was sentenced to 30 years in prison. It also states that he was taking Zoloft, an antidepressant. His attorney's stated that it is against his 8th Amendment rights since he was so young. He also blamed Zoloft for his actions.

more...
MsHaeussinger's comment, February 18, 2013 5:26 PM
I'd like to know more about this child's medical history. For a 12 year old to be on Zoloft seems quite unusual? Could there be other underlying factors?
Lauren Heim's curator insight, April 9, 1:00 PM

This topic relates to the Constitution (topic of this week)  by the fact that the Supreme Court wants to hear this case so they can make the final judgement call on the little murderer. The Supreme Court is part of the Constitution by being part of the Judicial Branch. It's also questioning the rights of the kid because he was 12 when the crime was committed. I personally think the Supreme Court should take on this case and rule the boy as an adult and throw him in jail. 

Abigail Beinborn's comment, April 13, 8:32 AM
This relates to the constitution. It talks about the 5th amendment which is spending your time in jail. There is also the 8th amendment that talks about an excessive bail or time spent in jail. Also against the 8th amendment because of his age. He is only 12 and he is being convicted as an 18 year old.
Rescooped by Abby Bisgard from Government & Law
Scoop.it!

Supreme Court to Begin Weighing Gay Marriage Cases

Supreme Court to Begin Weighing Gay Marriage Cases | Government-Law | Scoop.it
Victories for same-sex marriage in elections on Tuesday are evidence of a remarkable shift in public opinion and it is close to certain that the Supreme Court will agree to hear at least one case on the subject, with a decision expected by June.

Via MsHaeussinger
Abby Bisgard's insight:

This article states that they are going to make a decision about same-sex marriage. Instead of just sticking to state decisions, it will be made as a nation. 

more...
Amanda Nandory's curator insight, February 28, 2013 8:33 AM

Personally I approve of same-sex marriage. I think that you shouldnt be told who you can and cannot love.

Joel Denney's comment, February 28, 2013 1:58 PM
Here's some food for thought. Let's say a devout same-sex couple want to get married in a religious ceremony, not a civil union. Do they have the right to get married in a church that doesn't allow gay marriage? Do they have the right to force, say, a Catholic priest to perform a marriage ceremony?
Reanna Ostreng's comment, February 28, 2013 8:09 PM
I think that it will take longer for the federal government to reach a decision on whether gay marriage should be legalized or not. I believe that it should be a state decision. If a gay couple does not like the laws of their state, they can simply move to another state.
Rescooped by Abby Bisgard from Gavagai
Scoop.it!

Guns and the US Constitution after Newtown

Guns and the US Constitution after Newtown | Government-Law | Scoop.it

The horrific Newtown school massacre has again raised the question of why effective gun control is beyond the capacity of American politicians. The question is necessary, natural and appropriate. But it also misreads the constitutional character of American politics which, for both good and ill, remain far more ideological than those of all other liberal democracies.


Via Luca Baptista
Abby Bisgard's insight:

The Newtown school shooting has raised politicians to think about gun control laws. In this article, they compare gun control laws to abortion rights, and how it could go against the constitution.

more...
Noah Duncan's comment, March 3, 2013 1:31 PM
I feel like it's not all a gun control issue. I believe that people should have the right to bear arms but to a certain extent. Automatic weapons aren't necessary in your household no matter what. If you need that much firepower you should reevaluate who you associate yourself with. I believe that there is a lot of family, as well as one-on-one counseling that is needed in many Americans that are either unstable or dangerous to help stop this problem
Coltan Stein-Tronnier's curator insight, March 6, 2013 7:56 PM

i  belive people have the right to defend themselfs against the "people" that are sick and twisted in this world. the government cant change the 2nd amendment.

Margaret Silhasek's curator insight, February 12, 7:25 PM

The Newton shooting has sparked interest in reevaluating gun control laws (part  of the Constitution) in the United States. Although no changes have been made, the idea is still a prominent dispute in the US.