*Our_United_States*

Source: http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1962/1962_155

Constitutional Connection: Sixth Amendment, "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 where in 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."

Explanation of Connection: The case of Gideon v. Wainwright is an example of the sixth amendment. In this trial, Gideon was accused of breaking and entering, and had to go to court. Because of lack of money to appoint an attorney he asked the court to appoint counsel for him. The court denounced his plea, saying that they only appoint attorneys for poor people and people with higher crimes. Gideon defended himself in court and was sentenced to 5 years in state prison. The question the Supreme Court faced was, did the state court's failure to appoint counsel for Gideon violate his right to a fair trial and due process of law as protected by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments? And the justices of the Supreme Court decided in favor of Gideon 9-0. This decision overruled the decison in Betts v. Brady.
     I believe that this trial was a major checkpoint in the United States history of the judicial system. Similar to the outcome of Miranda v. Arizona, this trial changed the way the system works. Because Gideon stood up and proclaimed that this was a disadvantage, now everyone has the right to an attorney. People that were probably innocent before this trial that faced the same situation an went to jail, could have been proven innocent if they would have had their appointed counsel. I agree with Justice Black who said this right was an "obvious truth". This trial was basically common sense, because everyone should have the right to have a professional represent them no matter what class they are.
    

Source:  http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoon/display.cfm/39159/
Constitutional Connection: Artcle 2, Section 1, The Powers of the Executive Branch
Analysis of Connection: This political cartoon entitled Contaigious Behavior diplays the actions of the executive branch when George W. Bush & Dick Cheney were in office. George Bush being greedy, and over using the executive duties. He is drinking a bottle labeled Hubris, which is arrogance, basically saying that he has become arrogant, greedy and percieved as overreaching his duties as president. I like this artist abd majority of his artwork. He seems to tell the truth and possibly could be a democrat. Because he mostly speaks from a democrat's point of view.

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37122637
Constitution Connection: Article 3, Section 2: "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."
Analysis of Connection: In this case a 32 year old lawyer was killed in 2006. There are 3 susepects being charged with conspiracy, obstruction of justice and tampering with evidence in the murder of Stephen Wone. Prosecutors say the suspects know who killed Wone and did not call police but instead cleaned up and disposed the evidence. The 3 suspects say they want the judge to come to a conclusion instead of the jury. They waived their right to trial by jury. I think that the suspects probably wanted to have the judge to decide instead of the jury because they probably think the judge would be more lenient on their crime. Although, this is a good right to citizens, to be able to waive trial by jury, I think this right should be used in only certain predicaments. Because members of a jury can influence eah other, but a judge has his one thought and sticks to his opinion.

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37145286
Connection to Constitution: Article 1, Section 8: "Congress shall have Power … To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof"
Explanation of Constitution: In this article, Congress is trying to pass a bill that will limit direct wine shipments. This bill would decline the wineries' income and could harm their businesses. The wine businesses usually ship wine to the consumer's houses and profit off of the trip and the products bought. But Congress claims that this process could be allowing minors to drink, encouraging alcohol assumption and will ensure states sales. The wineries also sale their alcoholic to wholesale distributors, who give it to grocery and liquor stores. I think this bill could be a disadvantage to the income of the wineries and they could lose profit and possibly go bankrupt. But this can also be an advantage, because people are drinking alcohol is always a bad thing. When people drink there is never a good outcome. And having alcohol shipped to a customer's house is encouraging alcoholism. I think Congress should pass the bill, but only restrict the sales of alcohol directly to the customer's house and only allow the winery to distribute it to the wholesalers.

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36916471/ns/us_news/
Constitutional Connection:  Article III, Judicial power is the power ''of a court to decide and pronounce a judgment and carry it into effect between persons and parties who bring a case before it for decision.''
Explanation of Connection: In this article, a district judge of Michigan said that nine Militia members could be released since their charges did not mean they would overthrow the government. These people talked of killing local police officers and even judges. The judge dismissed this case and let the Militia go home and wait for their trial while on electronic monitoring devices. In March, they were charged with conspiracy to commit sedition and attempted use of weapons of mass destruction. The judge claims that the Michigan Militia named Hutaree will not impose any threat upon the public. I think that this order of the court could possibly have a bad outcome. These people obviously wanted to endanger people and were ready to do so. I watched this on MSNBC in March when this first surfaced. The broadcast explained how the Militia claimed this was for God and they had to carry this out. They also showed video of them training in the woods as if they were going to the war in Iraq. I believe that if a group is that dedicated to destroy, then they should be kept in jail or prison until they prove themselves innocent.

Source:  http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/cartoon/poll_stayskal/
Constitutional Connection: Second Amendment, "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."

Explanation of Connection: This cartoon shows how people have the right to have a gun. I find that this right should have some restrictions on it. Not everyone should have have the right to possess a weapon. People that do not know how to use a weapon properly should not have the right to obatin a gun. Also, I think that guns should be kept at home in a very safe place. Because of all of the murders and victims of violence due to gun possesion, there should be a ban on all kinds of guns in public.

Source:  http://www.tankerbob.com/newsmeeting-dhimmis-explain-why-no-cartoon.jpg

Constitutional Connection: First Amendment "...or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;"

Explanation of Connection: In this political cartoon it shows how this newspaper has the right to produce a cartoon about Mohammed and Islam but instead chose not to, because it would be disrespectful. And the man on the right says that the Muslims could kill them. I think that this is a good thing, because as long as the information being portrayed is accurate and came from a reliable source, why not tell everyone else the truth? But I agree with the editor, because this cartoon that they wanted to release could possibly trigger violence.