Part B:

Article 4: Paraphrase the Full Faith and Credit . What does this 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."

The Full faith and credit is saying that any state in the United States of America has to respect the laws and beliefs that any other state establishes. So when it comes to gay marriage a couple can get married in a state where the marriage is legal, and move to a state where gay marriage is illegal. The state that they currently live in can't revoke their marriage license just because they are a married gay couple, they have to respect the laws of the state that the couple got married in. I feel that this provision will help move the legalization of gay marriage further along. I look at it as if some one really wants to get married to someone of the same sex, they could just go to a state where its legal (if they are living in a state where its illegal.), and then move back to their original state. It would make more sense if more states just made gay marriage legal, because the residents of that state could always got to another state where their marriage would be legal, and move back to their original state.
However after doing some more research, I learned that many states have passed "their own mini DOMA's" which restrict states from honoring same sex marriages that have taken place in another state. This definitely goes against the Full Faith and Credit clause. I think this is stupid because it kind of gives the gay community that lives in a state where it is illegal, a hard time. From my understanding they are saying you can get legally married in a state that will except it, but if you move back to your home town it won't be acknowledged or excepted. I think that's wrong.



Article 6: 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 saying that all federal laws, the Constitution etc. is higher than any state law, and that the judges have to abide by this. Basically who is higher than who, and who has more power than who.It is also saying that there is no specific religion needed to qualify for any office or public trust in the U.S. The significance of the "no religious test" is to state that no one will be discriminated against because of there religion. I think that they are also saying that everyone is equal, no matter of their religion. This is important because it's "supposed" to show that our society isn't fully based on religion, and that we are a close knit society. This article is here to make it seem like people can practice whatever religion they want, and it not effect them getting a position in a government office. I don't think that this clause is always true, however I think that it's in the constitution to make people feel like the government is a fair and trust worthy system.




Do "lethal injection" and/or the "electric chair" contradict the 8th amendment? Why or why not?
The 8th amendment states that punishment or bail for a crime shall not be extreme, or unreasonably severe. I believe that both lethal injection and the electric chair agree with the 8th amendment. The death penalty is given to many criminals who have committed "hanus" crimes. Someone who has committed capital murder or was a serial killer deserves one of these punishments. I don't think that someone who has killed multiple people should get a "light" sentence. I think that they should recieve the possibly horrible consequences for their crime. If death is the most severe punishment, then thats what they deserve.
Even though I don't think that lethal injection and the electric chair contradict the 8th amendment, i do think that it depends on a persons definition of cruel, severe, punishment, crime, and overall innocence. Someone may think that the electric chair is overall a cruel and severe punishment, while I think that the electric chair is somewhat justified. The 8th amendment doesn't seem like an amendment that can fully be enforced because it can ultimately depend on ones opinion. If the 8th amendment was changed to state "cruel and unusual punishment is not permitted unless it fits the crime commited", I think it would it would fit with the death penalty. Right now it seems to broad of a rule to follow, which may be why it is often not folllowed.


Is the 4th amendment contradicted by MTA, library, and/or airport searches?
I'm not so sure about this amendment. The 4th amendment says that people and their private property shall not be searched without a warrant, which is supposed to give a balance between society and the police. When taking a trip to the library, the airport, or even some schools, it is normal for our bags to be searched and to go through metal detectors. Even though i know that alot of this searching is for our safety, it is now to the point where I feel somewhat violated when searched. Since 9/11, there are a lot of restrictions with what can be brought on a airplane. i remember having my lotion, perfume, and shampoos taken away from me because they looked "suspicous". I think that this is out of control, but I also know it is ultimately for my own saftey and the saftey for this country. Tchnically being searched at airports and the library is contridicting the 4th amendment, but i don't think that's always a bad thing. In 2008, we have way more threats to our personal security and the sercurity of this ocuntry. I think that these searches (even though annoying) are potentially good for the saftey of our nation.