Constitution Assignment: Part B

What does the "Full faith and credit" provision, from article 4, mean for Gay Marriage?

The fourth article of the constitution, in section one, starts with the idea that full faith and credit will be given to every state by one another. This was put in, I would assume, in order to formerly say that decisions and laws passed on a state level should not be questioned, and cannot be legally challenged by another state. Therefor, the national issue of Gay Marriage, is not a national issue to be decided on a national level, but a state decision, to be made on a state level. In terms of what it means for the argument the answer is; not much. Most states that have had proposed laws in favor have not been successful, because even state to state, gay marriage is highly unpopular. One thing that it does mean, is that more liberal states, who have the support to pass such a proposal, will be able to ensure the right for gay couples to be married. What this means, is same- sex marriage on a state level is recognized as a union between two people regardless of sexual orientation, but on a federal level it is not. The "Defense of Marriage Act" is a federal law, which was passed in 1996, concerning where and under what conditions these unions are recognized. Legally, no one state is obligated to recognize a union between a same sex couple if they so choose, but can if that state passes law recognizing it. The Federal government, according to the act, will not recognize any union other than between a man and a woman.


What is the Supreme Law of the Land? What is the significance, of the “No religious test” clause.

According to article 6 of the constitution, the supreme law of the land is the constitution, and any amendments, treaties, and state laws, which follow the legality of the constitution. This group of laws are what all judges in every state are by oath, obligated to recognize in courts of law. The no religious test clause, in article six, says that religion should have no bearing on a persons qualification to be elected to office. This is significant, because it is evidence that America is a land of religious freedom, and it would be unconstitutional for any individual to declare a religious allegiance or affiliation in order to assume any public office. The wording of the clause, in my opinion means that you must be loyal to America and its constitution, and religious loyalty cannot be placed above American loyalty. Religion has no place in the oath which binds elected officials to follow American law, because affiliation is a decision you are free to make, not be identified by. This seems to me, a clause which the founders used to promote the idea of American identity above all else, and unity under one nation and one flag.


Does the 2nd Amendment seem to allow “well-organized militias” to have guns, or to allow all people to have guns?

The second amendment concerns the right to bear arms in America. As the text reads, it would be interpreted as the unconditional right as American citizens to bear and posses arms. What many arguments over this amendment are about, is over what you are allowed to do, where and with what arms are legally allowed. That is not what this is about, what dictates who, what, when, where and why of arms, is left up to state and federal laws, but not constitutional amendments. What the second amendment is more about, is the right for an individual to own a gun, and nothing more. I think that the exact wording of this amendment is what you need to look at when deciding what it means. The way I see it, the writing of the second amendment is structured in this basic sentence; to ensure certain freedoms set in place for the people, a regulated militia, of the people, is necessary. To ensure that their can be a functioning, regulated militia, the right for the people to bear arms is vital. As a member of a militia is not defined as anything beyond a civilian who participates in military activities (which are also vaguely defined), virtually anyone can claim to be part of a militia and because of that I believe that the second amendment allows all people to bear arms.


Does “lethal injection” and/or the “electric chair” contradict the 8th amendment?

The 8th amendment is what makes cruel and unusual punishment unconstitutional. Capital punishment is a legal sentencing to death through methods such as, lethal injection, electrocution, and lethal gas. The eighth amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, which essentially would be any punishment that caused excessive pain and suffering (mental or physical), or is conducted in an nontraditional manner. The method of lethal injection is an injection of a dose of a lethal substance, that has no physically painful effects. Death by gas is also a painless procedure where a lethal gas is released in a chamber and causes the persons system to fail, with no physical pain being experienced. Electrocution is where the person is strapped into an "electric chair" and receives a high lethal flow of electricity directly into the body, causing an immense amount of pain. If we look at these forms of capital punishment, lethal injection and gas would not be considered physically cruel and unusual, but mentally can cause an excessive amount of mental suffering. The electric chair without question is, because it causes a very high amount of physical pain, and carries the same mental pain as the other methods. Obviously all forms of death sentences and its methods, cause massive amounts of mental suffering, which makes capital punishment at its core, cruel and unusual.