Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
This is a blog for students in Meredith Aby's Practical Law class at Jefferson High School in Bloomington, MN. There is an expectation by the instructor & the JHS administration that the same standards for behavior & respect at JHS apply to the blog.
Supreme Court Resources
- How to cite/write your bibliography: http://www.bloomington.k12.mn.us/indschool/tj/mediacenter/cite.html#internet
- Landmark cases: http://www.landmarkcases.org/
- Supreme Court: http://supremecourtus.gov/
- Oyez: http://www.oyez.org/
- Find Law: http://lp.findlaw.com/
12 comments:
Do you think the NDAA is or is not Constitutional? Are you concerned with the NDAA giving these new powers to the president? Why or why not?
I think that the president doesn't need this power. I think that is unconstitutional because they take away rights from the people.
The NDAA is massively unconstitutional. Not only does it blatantly break many constitutional rights it also implies that others will be disregard. I don not believe in any circumstances that the president should be given these powers because of the huge implications that this act represents and the very possible abuse of power which according to history is very likely when freedom of speech is suspended.
Do you think the NDAA is or is not Constitutional? Are you concerned with the NDAA giving these new powers to the president? Why or why not?
I think that the provision in the NDAA that allows the President to hold a citizen labeled "terrorist" indefinitely without a trial is unconstitutional. I believe that the Constitution gives all citizens the right to a trial, and even if a person is labeled a terrorist, they are still a citizen and should get the same rights. I am not really concerned with this power being given to the President right now. However, I feel that this provision should be taken away, or not renewed (if it needs to be renewed). I don't think that this power will be that much of a problem right now because I don't think Obama would risk doing something that severe in an election year, but that if the circumstances arise in the future, a President may take action using this power.
1. I think that most of bill is totally constitutional I think that the only part that may not be is the part of detaining US citizens without cause. Now technically it is the military that is doing the detaining not law officials so i'm not sure if it is unconstitutional or not.
2. I am not concerned with the new NDAA because national security should be the first priority for all and so I am not concerned with the law because I have nothing to hide I feel that if you have something to hide then you should be concerned but if you don't then why worry.
Do you think the NDAA is or is not Constitutional?
It would be hard to think that the NDAA is constitutional due to the fact that they can change and revise things each year. If they don't like something they can just get rid of it. By imprisoning US citizens without a trial is going directly against the constitution.
Are you concerned with the NDAA giving these new powers to the president? Why or why not?
I'm very concerned, I don't believe the checks and balance system will continue to be equal if the president receives these powers. Also the guidelines are vague and can be changed for certain circumstances very easily.
1. No because it is taking away civil liberties that we have by the Bill of Rights. If they keep the NDAA the same then our First Amendment might not mean anything anymore.
2. Yes and no because first he could probably never use this yet at the same time he could use it with anybody and just for trying to express your opinion you could be arrested.
Do you think the NDAA is or is not Constitutional?
-I think that this is unconstitutional. They should not be able to go out and say that any random person is a terrorist. This power could be used in the wrong way if the president wanted to. This goes against the constitution and should be thrown out.
Are you concerned with the NDAA giving these new powers to the president? Why or why not?
-It could be used in a really bad way. If the president wanted to, they could just say someone is a terrorist and have them taken away which is kind of scary. Everyone has the right to a fair trial and this could make the president use it wrongly if he wanted to.
Do you think the NDAA is or is not Constitutional? Are you concerned with the NDAA giving these new powers to the president? Why or why not?
I do not think this is constitutional. It goes against so many rights of people and I don't think the president should have power over this because of possible abuse of the bill.
Do you think the NDAA is or is not Constitutional? Are you concerned with the NDAA giving these new powers to the president? Why or why not?
-I think it is unconstitutional because they shouldn't be allowed to just say that any person is a terrorist and take them in. I think they should have probable cause that proves they are before they take them in. I'm concerned because he will have so much more power and also if he has that power he can do anything with it and it will only be his decision. He wouldn't have to get permission or think it twice if they give him that power.
Do you think the NDAA is or is not Constitutional? Are you concerned with the NDAA giving these new powers to the president? Why or why not?
I think the NDAA is not constitutional because it's not giving someone a chance to defend them self in a court of law against the president's statement. Yes I am concerned with the NDAA giving these new powers to the president because he could say i'm a terrorist when i'm not.
I think it is unconstitutional because if the original right of a citizen is their right to a trial and jury. That is a right given to all citizen by the constitution. To take away this right is to dehumanize those who have different ideals. Yes it is true that the full protection of the United States is a priority over many many things in the nation but what does it come to when provisions of being a citizen begin to deteriorate. Our rights must always remain and never be taken away.
Do you think the NDAA is or is not Constitutional?
I don't think it is constitutional, additionally, I do not think that it is constitutional to treat non US citizens in this manner. I feel that people should have the right to a speedy trial no matter who they are or where they are from. It doesn't necessarily bother me that this bill gives the president the power to decide what the definition of "terrorism" is. I feel that the bill is not quite clear enough, and could be used in a harmful manner.
Are you concerned with the NDAA giving these new powers to the president? Why or why not?
I am not concerned with the NDAA giving our current president these new powers, however, we do not know who our subsequent presidents will be and how they will use or abuse the powers. I feel that President Obama has strong convictions in regards to ethical treatment of human beings, and from what I know he protects United States citizens' right to freedom of speech. I can't say that I know this for a fact, but I do believe it. It worries me that in the future presidents might use this power to get people who oppose them out of their hair. Because the definition of terrorism is not clearly outlined in the bill, I think that our upcoming presidents might use that lack of clarity to benefit themselves. Additionally, I feel that it might threaten our rights to protest, advocate, and speak our minds. We might lose some of our power to have a say in things.
Post a Comment