Part B

Read and paraphrase the “Full Faith & Credit” provision in Article 4. What does that mean for gay marriage? Explain.

In the 4th article it mentions that each state must give credit to acts that take place in all states. it also allows the congress to make rules and laws that show that these acts are followed.Now you may think that the government would be against gay marriage but this article is in the advantage of gay marriage because it mentions that as long as you have a certificate of marriage you are legally married in all states as long as you have it on you. For example if a gay couple were to marry in California , and then move to Texas, it is legal for them to be married in that state as long as you have your certificate aka your "credit". My opinions on this topic, is that i believe that it is right for the congress to create a rule making all couples to have a certificate of evidence because it allows so many opportunities for people to be married around the united states of America.

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?

i believe that it was necessary for the ratification of the Constitution because everyone should have a word in the rules that will control their country . if everything was up to one person , without any approval, their would be rules/laws flying left and right being made. this is why the government is split up into 3 different branches, so that at least a good amount of people have a say in a certain topic. Now I'm not that sure why they choose 9 states to ratify the constitution but i believe that number is unfair because if you are going to give the population a word in this situation you might as well give ALL states a chance. i think that it is unfair they they choose those 9 states. i wonder if the votes would be different if they included all states of the united states of America.

Is the 4Th Amendment contradicted by MTA, library, and/or airport searches?

i agree to a point that we should have the best protection possible , esp. now when there it is so easy to have a terrorist attack anywhere in the city . But some times it gets to a point in the MTA systems that doesn't make sense to me. my friend once told me that after a certain amount of people that walk into the subways , the police table will search you without warrant. but what i don't get is that, what are the chances youll catch the terrorist? i think that the MTA questions this search as well as we all do . i do not believe that the airport contradicts this 4Th amendment because as far as i see it they are doing a great job with protecting us after the 9/11 incident, but before that they probably had a problem with the random searches because they obviously weren't doing their job, they needed a wake up call.

Do “lethal injection” and/or the “electric chair” contradict the 8Th amendment? Why/why not?

The action of lethal injection and the electric chair are going 100% against the 8Th amendment because the 8Th amendment mentions " Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." meaning that those actions should not be required when someone is put in jail , but then they go against these rules and kill people within an instant. i don't get what the point of having these amendments if people and institutions will not follow them. in some ways i do agree with the 8Th amendment and in other i disagree with it , i think that if you are in jail for a life sentence you might as well go in the electric chair , but i don't believe in the fact that the jail makes the decision for you , i think it should be up to the prisoner.