I wrote a paper for my constituitional law class and i used the scene where the general is torturing the man whom they have tied naked to a chair....i said that it was in violation of the 8th amendment (and the 5th and 14th) he answered back that just because a bad actor/single individual tortures the man it doesnt apply to the 8th unless theres state law. he did say that it could fall under another amendment...anyways he asked me to clean up the part of the 8th amendment in order to get a higher grade.....my questions are #1 does anyone understand or could explain to me how to "clean" it up? or #2 is there any other amendments being violated and if so which? thanks for your time :)
202014
Since all teachers have different ways of torturing their students, I suggest you take your query and the answers you receive directly to the source.  Make your teacher EXPLAIN exactly what it is that they are expecting you to do.  To me "cleanup" would mean to rewrite it to benefit your original statement, but even that seems too bizarre for a solution to your problem.  Maybe it is the use of real & ficticious characters your teacher was making reference to.  Good luck, I'm probably NO help. Thanks for the brain teaser!
133657
Clean Flicks purchases movies on tape, and then edits out all the sex, violence, and "bad" language before renting them out to customers. The rental chain is seeking a court declaration that its practices are perfectly legal - and not a violation of federal copyright law, as the directors reportedly believe.\n\nThe chain has emphasized its First Amendment rights. But the government is not a party to the case, as is generally required under the First Amendment; it is the directors, not the state, who the chain anticipates will try to stop its editing practices. Accordingly, the chain's best defense probably does not come directly from the First Amendment. Rather, it derives from the First-Amendment-inspired "fair use" exception to the copyright law, and similar exceptions to related laws under which the directors can sue.\n\nUnsurprisingly, The Directors' Guild of America believes that what Clean Flicks is doing is far from "fair use." Indeed, it has decried the suit as an effort "to legitimize the unauthorized editing and alteration of movies."\n\nWhich side is correct? Does Clean Flicks have the right to edit properly purchased movies as it sees fit, before renting them out? Or does a director have the right to ensure that a movie remains edited in the ways he or she has approved?\n\nPut another way, what Clean Flicks is doing may be anathema from an artistic point of view (I certainly believe that to be the case), but is it also illegal? I will argue that the legal question is much more difficult than it may seem at first, because Clean Flicks's practices resemble many long-accepted examples of "fair use" in important ways.\n\nThe Directors, Studios, and Actors Have Strong Legal Claims\n\nSince the DGA has not yet filed a countersuit, it is not clear exactly which claims it will bring against Clean Flicks. But it has already raised a number of possible bases for a suit, several of which appear to be strong.\n\nFirst, the DGA can argue that Clean Flicks' business amounts to an ongoing violation of copyright laws. By editing out content from certain movies before renting them out, Clean Flicks arguably exceeds its license to use the copyrighted movies it had purchased.\n\nSecond, the DGA can argue that Clean Flicks, in marketing its edited films, violates trademarks. Phrases such as the studio's name, or a certain tag line used to promote the movie on the video box, are trademarked, and Clean Flicks is arguably using them deceptively if it connects them with a movie edited to be substantially different from the one the studio made.
546916
the first ten ammendments of the constitution...basically mean this:\n\n1. freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly\n\n2. right to own firearms\n\n3. a soldier must have permission from a houses owner to stay there\n\n4. rights against illegal search and siezure\n\n5. basically you can't be tried twice for the same crime and due process of prosecution \n\n6. more rights on due process...speedy trial and right to counsel\n\n7. right of trial by jury...interesting note...it says anything over $20.00...\n\n8. no excessive bail or cruel or unusual punishment\n\n9. basically you can't use the constitution against people..\n\n10. this ammendment seems to give power to individual states to govern themselves of things not in the constitution to wit..\n\nHeres the whole Bill Of Rights:\n\nTHE BILL OF RIGHTS\nAmendments 1-10 of the Constitution\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nThe Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution; \n\nResolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States; all or any of which articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the said Constitution, namely: \n\n\nAmendment I\nCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. \n\n\nAmendment II\nA 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. \n\n\nAmendment III\nNo soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. \n\n\nAmendment IV\nThe right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. \n\n\nAmendment V\nNo person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. \n\n\nAmendment VI\nIn 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. \n\n\nAmendment VII\nIn suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury s
451713
(1) Such a law would (from the description you provided) violate the First Amendment.  From my recollection, the only time the government can gag the press is when it may substantially affect the determination of a criminal trial ... and even then, the ability of a court to do so is limited.  And for good reasons.\n\n(2) With respect to this particular family, it is unconstitutional to enact an ex post facto law criminalizing past behavior.  And for good reasons.
302781
I just want to know why it was okay to have scriptures & other signs of faith posted on government property in the past and now it's not okay. Who gave a group so much authority to think and act for the majority? If something is offensive, I turn my head away, but I respect someone else's right to do the offensive thing. I don't like it, but I don't go running to the ACLU & cry all over them because I was offended. I don't urge them to hire a multitude of lawyers to make those people stop their vile display, violating my senses. I don't like a lot of things that are happening in this world. I try to make a difference where I live, and an even smaller difference at the ballot box. But, all this talk about separation of church and state is horse hockey. Our constitution DOES NOT have that wording in it anywhere. I've read through it several times and I don't see it. Must have been written with invisible ink! But, the Russian constitution DOES have that wording. I can see how that would be important...to the Russians. This country was founded on scripture and Godly values, not matter what the history revisionists are trying print in our school books now days. And no matter if you or anyone else likes that fact, it's a fact. If it was good enough for our forefathers, why isn't it good enough for us now? I don't believe that we are so very enlightened now that we've forgotten where we've come from. I think a lot of people just don't want to be reminded of any symbol of faith. It might make them uncomfortable, and we wouldn't want that! We want everyone to be happy, right? But, in their effort to please one group, they're offending another. I guess it's okay. Those crazy Christians have had the past couple hundred of years to plaster their stuff all over this country. So, now they can just back off quietly and shut up. That's the attitude that the ACLU sends every time they force someone to remove another symbol of faith from public view. It reminds me of what happened in Nazi Germany. When Hitler was killing all the handicapped people, no one made a fuss because it didn't affect them. When he started killing another group of people, no one said anything because they weren't affected. Then Hitler came for them, with not a whole lot of people left to put up a cry. It wasn't until Hitler started taking over other countries that people stopped him. This tearing down of the symbols of faith will not stop. Many new churches don't even display a cross anymore, blending in with all the other buildings in the area. I believe that this country has been blessed with so much because of Godly people living and working here. Revelation 3:15-17 says, "I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot: I wish that you were cold or hot, one or the other. So then because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spit you out of my mouth. Because you said, I am rich, and have lots of  stuff, and have need of nothing (even God); don't you know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind and naked?" I believe we are already reaping the consequences of our departure of faith. That's why more & more bad stuff is happening to America than ever before. We will believe in anything, as long as it doesn't make us too uncomfortable. I know I am making this really long, but this is something that's very dear to my heart. I love America and I love the people who live in her. I also know that there will be a few who are offended by my long tirade. Sorry that your feelings have been hurt in any way. But, I stand firm in what I believe. Everyone has the right to live out their faith in any fashion they desire. That includes government property, because it's a part of America too. Stopping the public viewing of these symbols isn't going to stop people from believing in Jesus, worshipping God or limiting their church attendance. But,
337486
The above regarding the Supreme Court is excellent.  But I think that the term refers more specifically to habeas corpus and/or declaratory judgments.  Hope this helps.  The guy above that disrespects lawyers and the military in one fell scoop seems to have the type of attitude I see in criminals.  When they end up in jail and need a lawyer they come crying for help! But I do have a sense of humor and got a small chuckle out of it.
376846
Hi Amy, not sure what the previous post was about, but it was clearly uncalled for.\n\nAs a lawyer who has seen the movie (albeit a while back) I am sure there are many issues you could raise.  This is all just sort of stream of consciousness off the top of my head, so I apologize if it's not too organized, but here are a few thoughts.\n\n1)  It seems to me that much of the protagonist's (I've forgotten his name) actions are designed at misleading others.  If he does this for his own material gain he may be comitting fraud (for example, doesn't he mislead the former Marlboro man into accepting a cash settlement of some sort-?--that could be a fraudulent inducement into a contract).\n2)You also might want to look into whether or not there are any applicable lobbying laws he violates.\n3)  Are there laws against "pushing"cigarettes to minors (I'm thinking of the little classroom lecture he gives) or something similar.\n\nThe best way to do legal research for applicable cases or statutes is using lexis nexis or Westlaw.  To the unitiated these databases can be daunting, but if you are at a large university you may be able to get access at the law library.  Failing that, you might want to go to a local law library and ask the librarian for help (call ahead and explain the situation to clear access ahead of time).  Yet another option is to check out www.findlaw.com, which generally provides access to cases and articles free of charge, but is no where near as sophisticated as Lexis or Westlaw.  Finally, you might call your state bar association's relevant sub group or a Washington Lobbying or ethics organization (I do not know but suspect there are several) and see if they have any suggestions.  Research is about getting your hands dirty and hitting dead ends until something clicks into place.  Good luck!
567902
here is another link, its also part of the congressional record, it happened yesterday and they also voted down another amendment which would have refused to fund anything that intentionally ignored the law (FISA, specifically). this is the sad state of the repub congress (and how much "liberal media" coverage has either vote gotten? NADA!\nthe link at the top includes a screenshot of the roll call with the vote results. indisputable!
110030
wth? they dont actually state the language in the constitution my dear...\n\nbut it does seem a bit odd seeing as though the whole document is written in...*ahem*...ENGLISH!\n\nand what kind of question is this? you have absolutely no grounds for this foolishness...it doesnt even makes sense...
630236
I assume you are asking because it relates to some homework you are working on, so I'm only going to give a brief overview. You can look up the details.\n\nThe due process clause of the fourteenth amendment along with equal protection clause serves to incorporate most of the federal notions and application of the bill of rights to the states. These notions are incorporated because they are considered fundamental to the American system of justice. \n\nNot all of the bill of rights are incorporated to the states. For example, the grand jury requirement is not enforced upon the states nor the bail requirement of the eighth amendment. There are others. You can find them by searching the capsule summaries of constitutional law at lexisnexis.com. Or by searching for "incorporation" and the "fourteenth amendment" in your search engine of choice. \n\nThe federal definition of the right, when incorporated to the states, is only the floor level the state must guarantee its citizens. If it chooses the state my extend greater protection then afforded by the federal definition, so long as it doesn't violate any other right.\n\nAs a side note there is a due process clause in the language of the 5th amendment as well. The two due process clauses function is slightly different ways and are a large part of any first year law school course on criminal procedure/bill of rights.\n\nFor specific case examples see the above sources.
474420
“Who Freed the Slaves?,” thought-provoking article written by James M. McPherson, asks who or what was responsible for freeing slaves in the United States. Was it Lincoln as most people presume or the slaves themselves?  McPherson explores many theories in this article, including ____________ , _____ and ________. For each theory he observes, probes and calls into question their stability from all points of view.\n\nI would summarize his theories in the blanks above, the way you had it listed before didn't make any sense.\n\nWhat was the assignment, just to summarize what the article discussed? Was there a conclusion in the article? If so, you should discuss the conclusion.
446751
I realize this is probably a waste of time; but what the heck.\n\nAs explained, the idea of a "people's right" was based entirely on the predicate assumption of State regulation. So actually, the militias then are the 18th century equivalent of the National Guards of today. And what the amendment protects is the states' right to have them. These are the only state defense forces recognized by law. You say that you won't get into the discussions of Supreme Court decisions in the last decades. You may recall my original answer. The Supreme Court has NEVER in the history of the Republic (repeat: NEVER) substantiated your interpretation. So forget about "recent decades," as you say. Your view is not substantiated by American Judicial History -- period.\n\nYou say that it's shooting myself in the foot to say that portions of the constitution are anachronistic? How? The Letters of Marque clause is anachronistic. The 3/5ths compromise is anachronistic.\nThe 3rd Amendment is anachronistic. (There is absolutely no case law under it -- it's dead). All but one sentence of the entire, long, 14th amendment is anachronistic. There are many elements of the document that have no relevance today because they addressed concerns that were limited to a specific time. That's just the way it is -- sorry.\n\nAs stated, your idea of a self regulated private militia being what the founders intended by this amendment is refuted by the extant record of the Constitutional Convention and the minutes of the First Congress. The whole idea of eliminating private militias was why the states wanted this amendment in the first place. They wanted to put private militias out of business.\n\nThe greatest single impetus for convening the Constitutional Convention in 1787 was the private militia movement known as Shays' Rebellion, in which disgruntled former soldiers in Massachusetts formed a private (well regulated) militia force to stop courts from farm foreclosures. The Founding Fathers were horrified by this. And so were the states. And again, to reiterate, THAT's why they wanted to regulate the militias.\n\nI've already addressed the issue of "shall not be infringed." If your interpretation is correct, then why have courts over the centuries (not "recent decades" as you imply) NEVER ruled in your favor.\n\n\n\n==============================================\n\nYes, as a matter of fact I do know what it means.\n\nLike the Article One provision giving Congress the authority to grant "Letters of Marque," the 2nd Amendment is an anachronistic holdover from the late 18th century.\n\nSupporters of the NRA and other like organizations always forget about that all important opening clause (which I'm glad you included). The purpose of the amendment is stipulated right there -- "A well regulated militia being necessary..."\n\nAfter the United States gained independence it was still confronted by many threats: the British to the north, the Spanish to the south, and the Native American tribes all around. After George Washington laid down his arms, the national army ceased to exist, and the burden for security fell on the states. Unfortunately, the states at that time were no more capable of providing the security than the infant central government. This meant that local communities and individuals were responsible for providing their own security. With few roads for transporting armies, and no money for troops, what else were the people supposed to do?\n\nThe militia system developed to enable local populations the ability to provide defense. By law, the militia was defined as every able-bodied male between the ages of 16 and 55 who owned a firearm. They could be mustered by order of the governor of the state or by special order of the President of the United States.\n\nThis was not part of the original constitution. The reason it exists is that during the ratification of the
542225
Good  question\n\nHere's an interesting video.\nIt's quite long..almost 2 hrs.\nThe 1st 30~45 minutes pretty much gets \nthe general point across\n\nhttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198&q=\n\nHere's 16th Amendment at FindLaw.com\nIt includes all of the  Annotations & case law\n\nhttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/\nconstitution/amendment16/\n\n\nFor anymore who needs help with any of the words,\n"Legalese" really is just Plain English.\nAny dictionary is useful.\nDictionary.com is simple to use,for one example.\n\nhttp://dictionary.reference.com/\n\n\nI Wish I could give YOU the 10 pts for asking.\nThere's a little more to being an American than \nwaving toy flags & chosing partisan political sides \nto cheer for.\n\nThings like,,asking questions.\nAnd,,demanding answers.\nQuestions exactly like yours.
484118
so Greenpeace has been jailed? and you claim Bush is a liar! if you are captured on the battlefield, you are an "enemy combatant", not a suspect in custody, there is a vast difference. you have the rights guaranteed (if you're in uniform) by the Geneva Convention, not Miranda, understand? if you are not in uniform, then by the laws of war, you can be summarily executed on the field of battle without trial. this is not some new thing Bush made up, either. Major Andre, the Brit who took the plans for the defense of West Point from Bendict Arnold was summarily executed when he was captured because he was out of uniform. you libs really need to learn the laws before going off half cocked accusing someone of breaking them
225961
Sure, if you would like to amend the United States Constitution... What do you suggest? Whipping? Caning? How about forced amputations for certain offenses? Branding? If you think these are good ideas, I suggest there are certain other places to live in this world where you perhaps might feel more comfortable. Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Indonesia, North Korea... I don't think they have a problem with prison overcrowding, maybe you'd like it in one of those places.
541547
Hi Violet.\n\nWhat area of tort were you reading about? I don't have this particular book as it is too far out of date.\n\nThere must be some context in which importance was attached to what was said, perhaps a reference to some precident or case?
372908
This must be new, haven't heard of this yet.  1st amendment is the reason why.  Shoot, Mr Cheney told a senator to go f*&^ himself in the senate house, balls being met with balls is OK in my book.  I admit it, I like Cheney, alot more politicians should be told to go f#%$# themselves.