2) If the police had informed Ernesto Miranda of these rights, do you think he might have done anything differently?
Yes, he would have been smart enough to be silent and asked for an attorney.
3) Individual rights must be balanced against the values of society at large. For instance, the right to free speech must be balanced against our desire for an orderly society. This is why demonstrations, while protected by the First Amendment, can have certain restrictions placed on them. In Miranda, what values or goals of society must be balanced against the right against self-incrimination and the right to counsel?

    He can’t be not guilty there are evidence that he violated the constitution. Some people get out of jail being not guilty, that happens when the opponent doesn’t have enough evidence to prove the person guilty. However, in this case the police have enough evidence to back them up. He didn’t know the language, that doesn’t mean he should get away with raping and kidnapping.

4) You are probably learning about the rights of the accused in a government or history class. Some would argue that it is the individual’s responsibility to know what his or her rights are under the Constitution, and the government can assume that accused persons know their rights without informing them after they are arrested. Do you think the government should have to inform each individual who is arrested of his or her rights? Why or why not?
    I do not think the government should inform each individual who is arrested of his or her rights. If they are informed then the person who is guilty would get away with its violation unless the police or the opponent has enough evidence to back it up, which rarely happens. 

         
Well I’m not an American. However, I’m proud to live here. If I was an American, it would mean, being a citizen of an united country. I would feel proud and with pride I would say UNITED WE STAND. Also, I would be very joyful that I’m living in a country that has many right for the people, such as freedom of speech and free of religion. For example, countries such as China and other communist countries has a problem with freedom of religion and speech. Being an American would mean a lot to me,
Being an American means, being a huge fan of freedom. It represents equality and maturity. America, if you think about has a lot of foreign problems, but inside of it is very peaceful and fun. There isn’t much of a poverty going on. Even though the government has money problem we still have enough money to live and work the right way.

The civil responsibilities of being an American are doing things that are not violating the constitution. Do things that will help America, not harm it. It would be helpful if Americans stop with the killings and shooting happening across the country. If we also stop the kidnapping and child molester and things listed above, we might have a peaceful country.

In the case Texas vs. Johnson, Johnson was violated for burning America’s flag, which extremely offended some people and vandalizing respected objects. The whole of point of this case is that even though we have freedom of speech, we can’t always say and do what we want to do. If it is unconstitutional, then you will be charged. If i was the judiciary of this case, i would clarify that the thing that Johnson did is a symbolic speech which is not violating the constitution.

The two questions

Are there any general standards that seem to apply to symbolic speech?

Yes, symbolic speech generally means that you have the right to show off a symbolic speech, but the speech should not be violating the constitution.

Based on what you have learned about symbolic speech, how do you think the court will rule in Texas v. Johnson?

I think Johnson would be claimed not guilty, beacuse they didn’t have that much of a evidence to claim him guilty.

I totally agree with Spitzer of making driver  license as secure as passport. However, i don’t understand why undocumented people are not allowed to drive, but can get or do other benefits. In this passage it is stated that, the government is making the driver’s license as secure as possible, because some people were caught driving without a license or with a fake ID. Which concludes why there are lots of accidents. I’m not trying to say that all accidents are caused by undocumented, I’m saying thats maybe some are caused by this reason.

The court did not interpret the fourth amendment correctly. In the 4th fourth amendment it is stated”‘The 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.” The teacher had no right to search the student’s bag. The teacher didnt have a warrant to do that. This case is a perfect case to have a debate on, even though we know that the court has already made its decision. however we can still overrule against it and express or feeling towards it.

The Five questions-

1- Read the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Using the words of the Amendment, try to make an argument that the search of T.L.O.’s purse was a violation of her Fourth Amendment rights.

As stated in the passage-” The juvenile court rejected her Fourth Amendment arguments, although it conceded that the Fourth Amendment applies to searches by school officials.” Before we even say that she is guilty and should be arrested, we have to

realize that the teacher violated the fourth amendment she should as well be charged for the violation if the court

overruled the case.

2- Try to make an argument that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to students in public schools at all.

This amendment does not apply to students at all. For example, baning cell phones in school. If one kid was found guilty of not passing in their cell phone in school, the teachers or the principle would check every students book bags to make sure everything was passed in.If you think about, if the amendment applied to the students, the staffs would have no right to search their book bags without a warrant.

3- Under the circumstances outlined above, does the search of T.L.O.’s purse seem “reasonable” to you? Why or why not?

Well i do think it is reasonable, because, of course teachers would suspect a student , when they are saying that they didn’t smoke, when you can actually smell it.

4- What procedures are in place in your school governing searches of students? Could a search like the one in this case happen in your school?

Teachers can search children’s book bags if they are finding something thats related to a public matter.Well, absolutely it can happen but i can’t guarantee you. Also, i can’t say that it will never happen.

5-How should the Supreme Court of the United States rule in this case?
I think that the students should be charged, but not charged for finding drugs in her purse, because i think the teacher had no right to  search the students purse, since the teacher didn’t have a warrant.

Heath Ledger was found dead Tuesday at a downtown Manhattan residence in a possible drug-related death, police said. He was 28. Media makes a big deal about a young actor’s death, which might be related to drugs. Why can’t the media make a big deal about a regular person, that is not popular as the Hollywood stars. I know its shocking for an actor to die, but it should be shocking that a lot of people die with different types of disease that are very harmful, but that female or male is not recognized by everyone. Even though both of the issues are quite similar to each other, but ones death is more known then the other. Is it fair?

This case is basically telling you how students should have freedom of speech. As stated in the text”the school’s policies did not reflect an intent to expand the students’ rights by converting a curricular newspaper into a public forum.” The school policy is just not right.  I agree with the arguement. This freedom of the press extends in some schools.Some school do not have it, because the school  policy does not agree with it and schools such as public schools most likely gives the freedom of press especially in my school. However, we should have this arguement with my school’s uniform policy.Us students should have the right to express their personality, which would be similar to the tinker case. Schools that does not have a freedom of press in their school policy, are making fools of their selves.  You can only understand what a child or a student is telling you when u give them freedom of press. If their isn’t, you would never get an answer to the question.

Schools started banning cell-phones and now they’re ipods. Why would they do this? Well, some students were downloading formulas and other material onto the players to help them cheat on tests. Can banning ipods go all the way across America? A teacher confiscated a students ipod during a class and found the answers to a test, crib notes and a definition list hidden among the teen’s music selections. What digital media players can do these days? It can even help a student pass on an exam or a test. Will this example of the confiscated i pod, make every school realize that Ipod should be banned? If you look back to our constitution , the 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. The teacher of the student had no right to check the students Ipod if the student want him to. So will the example of the “ipod” be counted as a reason to bann Ipod, even though it is against the constitution.

Bloomberg “has quietly been polling and conducting a highly sophisticated voter analysis in all 50 states as he decides whether to launch an independent presidential bid, associates said Wednesday.” We can easily say that he wants to run for president. More and more people are against the fact that Mayor Bloomberg should not run for president. If the supreme court says yes to Bloomberg, then we have to to know, who is going to be in the party? Can the party succeed? Can it defeat the other two parties? Will Bloomberg still be known as a republican? We need the answers for this question before we even think the third party. By watching the debates we can see that there is a competition between Obama and Hillary in the democratic debates and John McCain and John Romney in the republican debates. If there is going to be a third party, will they or it overcome these candidates, even though many people are supporting the democrats.