Constitution Assignment PART B

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 the constitution and the laws in the United States. In the blue print of the textbook that translates section 2 of article six, no one can make any laws that would be in conflict with “the constitution, acts of Congress, diplomatic treaties, or orders issued by the executive branch” shows the “supremacy” and the grand powers of how the federal laws work and have. In the “no religious test” clause, in my opinion, the significance is to not have any doubts between each members of the house. Because of the religious beliefs that each person has, they would have different opinion in different matters, making the whole house judgment to sway a bit and members would start to exclude the others. I believe having the “no religious test”, the members would be more united rather than separated and if they are not united with the same mind, the whole Congress would be unstable, making the people they have to protect start to waver about the members strength/power.

Article 7: What was necessary for the ratification of the Constitution? Why “Conventions” not “State Legislatures”? Why 9? Does this seem like a fair process to you? Why or why not?
What was necessary for the ratification of the Constitution is to have nine out of the thirteen states to approve the Constitution. They chose the conventions and not the state legislatures because the “framers” had doubts for if the state legislature would approve of the new government. I think the “framers” chose only nine of thirteen states to approve the Constitution because they do not think that everybody or all the states would agree to the Constitution and how “it would be extremely difficult to win unanimous approval” (blue ink of article 7). I think this seems like a fair process to me because back then, they did not have 50 states, and they only have thirteen states, so even though it is a small number, that’s all they can do for the ratification of the Constitution. Also there is not an equal amount of states, thirteen can’t be divided by two and having nine as the approval number makes it more equal to approve the Constitution which was a big matter at that time. About not choosing the state legislature but the conventions, I do not really have an idea as to why the “framers” would have doubts but I still think the state legislatures should have a say (if they have not) because the constitution resides with everyone in the United States.

Does the 2nd Amendment seem to you to allow “well-organized militias” to have guns, or to allow all people to have guns? Make an argument.
I do not think we should carried guns and let the “well-organized militias” to carried guns and arms. Many people does not know how to use guns and arms and if by mistake, they could hurt themselves while using an arm they do not know perfectly. Since “well-organized militias” have their training and using many years of their lives to know how to use arms to protect people, they should be the one to have guns. For example, if a crazy person who is not in a militia carried guns and randomly shoot and kill people then it would cause chaos. Guns can also go off by themselves if they did not locked the gun properly so then it is dangerous for unpracticed people to use guns. I believe that carrying a gun could also affect how you would feel on the street because people would get too cautious and thinks that everyone is going to hurt them.

Do “lethal injection” and/or the “electric chair” contradicts the 8th amendment? Why/why not?
I think the “lethal injection” and/or the “electric chair” contradicts with the 8th Amendment because people should not be just punished to death (which I believe the lethal injection and the electrical chair would cause). I believe the “lethal injection” and the “electric chair” is the very extreme punishment. Since the eighth amendment is saying that the bail and punishments have to be fair, I do not think those two punishments are fair to give out. I think the this amendment is to tell the judges to not go overboard with any of the punishments but to be give out fair and reasonable charges/punishments (not like “lethal injection” or the “electric chair”). I agree that “lethal injection” or the “electrical chair” is “cruel and unusual punishments” because there are not many people who get punished with the chair or the injection. Also imagining and thinking about the “lethal injection” or the “electrical chair” gives cruel images of the tortured people. I would feel sorry for them even if they committed a crime.