What is the Supreme Law of the Land? What is the significance, in your opinion, of the “No religious test” clause?
The United States constitution is the supreme law of the land. This is the highest law of them all, and no other others laws from government can replace its power. This law is for the people, by the people, and can only be altered by the people. It is basically the written rules for how America is guided. All citizens of the united states are “obligated” to follow these laws(even though they are often broken by different individuals).
The significance of the “no religious test” is to completely disregard discrimination upon anyone just because of their religion, and also to try expanding the fact that we are all equal no matter if people have different religions or not. Often when something such as the “no religious test” is stated, it is used to create togetherness(which than creates a good-well balanced society). It makes everyone feel as if they are not being judged because of their religion, and overall that religion is not going to be a factor in the way things are done in the government. Even though this is what it seems, I believe that this clause is not always followed with every person and every religion. Its just something that takes away the thought of any discrimination and helps people feel for comfortable and trust worthy of the government.
Article 4: Paraphrase the “Full Faith and Credit” provision in Article 4. What does that mean for gay marriage?
“Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof”
Full faith and credit is basically saying that any state within the united states has to respect the laws established by any other state. (Example: If the driving age for a person in one state is 16 years old and that individual receives his/hers driving license, even if they move to another state in which the driving age is 18, the license cannot be revoked.). In the case of gay marriages, if it is legal in one state and a couple gets married there, they will be able to remain a married couple even if they decide to move from that state, to another. This law can be a away for gay marriage to either become widely illegal, or for it to begin becoming legal in various states. If one state believes that gay marriage should be illegal, than this could put a damper on many individuals hope for it to become legal. In other cases, if gay marriage is thought to be completely okay and legal in one state, than it will widen the chance for same sex marriage to become legal in many other states. When you think about it, the chances are more likely to spread the legalization of gay marriage because if it were me who wanted to marry another female, I would just go to the state where it is legal and we will get married there!(and then go back to our home state). To much of my understanding, it seems as if there are more states banning gay marriage, than supporting it... and if this is true than it fully supports the provision. But for the states in which gay marriage is legal, why hasn’t It been a bigger spread in legalizing same sex marriage?
In 2004, 39 states passed laws and constitutional amendments (a.k.a mini DOMAs) stating that gay marriage is illegal. This act restricts the different states from practicing same sex marriage in other territories in which it can be legal. I believe that this is stupid because why prohibit someone to do something that they want to do, if they are not doing in the state in which it is illegal? This seems controlling and it seems like “Oh if you want to be involved in a same sex marriage, you cant do it here because it is illegal...but oh wait..you cannot do it in another state where it is legal either.”
Do “lethal injection” and/or the “electric chair” contradicts the 8th amendment? Why/why not?
I believe that the two contradict the 8th amendment because these are two punishments that will end in death, and to me that seems very cruel. In the amendment it stated that “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” Being that the electric chair and lethal injection results in death, I consider that to be a cruel punishment for someone, and the 8th amendment obviously objects to that type of behavior. Many people might say that some people who committed horrible crimes should face horrible consequences, but who is anyone to say that one crime is worst than another? A person may think that one crime is not that big of a deal, such a stealing a cookie, in which another person may think that it’s a big crime because they have an obsession with cookies(just saying). This all balls down to ones definition of punishment, cruel, unusual and crime.
Although death seems to contradict this amendment, the death penalty has been giving to many criminals. This makes me think whether or not people really car about the amendments these days. I have noticed myself even to contradict this amendment and the arguments that I sometimes give. Such as when there was a sniper, I thought that since the sniper killed so many people than he should face lethal injection. But this contradicts my beliefs that it’s a cruel punishment, I guess I should just stick to saying “the crime should fit the punishment.” I read in a article that punishments that do not commensurate with the crime that was committed, will be overturned on appeal. Two cases in which this happened were when two Georgia statutes decided on the death penalty for rape and kidnaping. This punishment was overturned because it did not fit the crime. So should the 4th amendment be changed to saying “You shall receive the same actions/pain that you put another individual through?”
What do the 6th & 7th Amendment show about US fears if a bad government which would use its power to unfairly arrest and convict innocent people
6 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 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 defense.
7th Amendment: "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."
These two amendments show that the united states do not doubt that a person in government can convict or unfairly treat an individual. They fear that there can be a possibility in which the government can be deceitful people at times, so therefore they have to make sure the person who is being accused, has a fair trail and a fair chance at innocence. It goes to show that trust is not something that the government fully possesses. The us fears of bad government is probably higher than we would expect it to be. Think about it, the government is made up of people just like us, they aren’t robots who are programmed to do the right thing in every situation...therefore the US has to be fully open to any possible situations in which there is unfair treatment. This is probably why the united states allow the defendant to bring along any individual who would co sign for them and to help their case, and provides a lawyer for any defendant who cant provide one for themselves.
Also a person who is being accused of a crime, cannot sit in jail for a very long period of time because it is not yet know whether they are innocent or not...that would be unfair treatment. The person has the right to a public trial, therefore the state cannot badger them about the crime and interrogate them without it being available to the public. The part of the amendment which talks about the trail taking place in the same location in which the crime was said to be committed, to me this basically shows that the US knows their government can be bias and can easily say that an individual is capable of committing a crime just because they look different or they are considered to have the “criminal” look. For example, there has been many situations in this world in which a “big black man” is looked at a bad guy or a harmful guy just because the way he looks. If this man was accused of robbing a person, and the trial was taken place in a rich white neighborhood, automatically people might think he is guilty because of the stereotype of a big black man. This is the reason for the location of the trail being wherever the crime took place, because the US probably wants it to be fair for the defendant, which makes it obvious that they do not 100% trust every decision made by the government. Overall, these two amendments show that the united states aren’t totally naive towards the fact that there can possibly be bad government committing unfair acts towards innocent people.
