Part B

Deeper In The Constitution

The “Full Faith & Credit” provision in Article 4. What does that mean for gay marriage?- This part of article 4 means that congress is responsible for allowing each state to have their own legal actions. Which means that each state can have a set of laws that can be different or similar from the other states, Congress gives the states that freedom. For gay marriage this means that a couple can get married even if they are living in a state that does not allow it but they will have to get married in another state that does allow it. They are able to go to that other state and be legally wed in that state because this article of the constitution allows it to happen.

What is the Supreme Law of the Land? What is the significance, in your opinion, of the “No religious test” clause.-The supreme law of the land is that all decisions are made under the authority of the United States. There is no religious test to qualify for any office or public trust under the U.S. (being apart of the authority of the U.S) This is important because it shows that this country is not religiously based (or appears to be)and does not let religion get in the way of a citizen's success. This article allows the people of the United States to follow any religion they want and does not hold their decision against them when looking for qualification in any office or public trust under the U.S.

Is the 4th Amendment contradicted by MTA, library, and/or airport searches?- The 4th ammendment being that the government is not able to search a persons items or house, and they are not allowed to take a persons items without a good reason. It also states that the goverment cannot search items or arrest a person without a warrent. As we notice when we make our exciting trips to the library (sometimes we take the subway to get there) or go fly to an exhotic place (or not so exhotic, whatever your preference), first we must go through the (sometimes)long and tedious searches where they look inside any bags you carry and sometimes they take items that seem suspicious (they are more strict at the airport), for example, my cousin had her baby lotion taken away from her and she was not too happy about that, perhaps it had some sort of sentimental value or maybe she just had really bad skin, I dont know, but she I know she did feel violated. But the reason that the goverment takes such actions is because they are suspicious and paranhoid about terrorist attacks and do not want to relive 9/11, to make sure this does not happen they feel that they have to search every person that goes on a flight. The ammendment does say that the goverment must have a good reason to search or take items. Whether their reasoning is a good one or not is debatable. The answer to that and to whether this contridicts the 4th ammendment is a subjective one, depending on who you are talking to, you will get a different answer. But I cannot see any other alternative to ensure safty when at an airport, library, or subway. It has its advantages and disadvantages.

What do the 6th & 7th Amendments show about US fears of a bad government which would use its powers to unfairly arrest and convict innocent people?-The 6th ammaedment says that a person who is accused of crime can call a speedy and public trial within the district, the accused must be told its consequences if found guilty and be present when witnesses testify against them. They also give the accused the right to a lawyer to represent them. The 7th ammendment says that Lawsuits based on common law, the people involved have a right to trial by jury, the jury who have no biased view of the case must decide who is guilty and who is innocent. These two ammendments reveal the fear the government have of unfairly arresting or convicting innocent people. Specifically, they allow each side of the case to have an attourney, giving them equal rights and making sure that the one who is guilty is being punished. They also make sure that the jurers do not favor one side over the other before the trial which would give them a slanted view of the case and making it unfair. These two rights make sure the one who is guilty pays the consequences and the one who is innocent remains.