11th Amendment The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or p...


11th Amendment

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State. (X)

What does this mean?

Well, let's take it into parts.

The Judicial power of the United States 

The Courts of the United States...

[S]hall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State[.]

First let's take a look into history books:

Before the 11th Amendment, the Supreme Court went by Section 2 of Article III which allowed Federal Courts to hear the disputes between a State & Citizens of another State or Citizens or Subjects go a foreign State.

SPEEDY TRANSLATION: Basically if an American had a problem with the State next door, or if a Country had an issue with one of the States, all they had to do was bring the problem to the Supreme Court to reach a solution.

Now, the main reason this Amendment even became apart of the Constitution was because of the Chisholm VS. Georgia case.

At that time, citizens of one state could sue another state via the Supreme Court.

Why did Chisholm want to sue the State of Georgia?

Because they borrowed money from him during the Revolutionary War and basically he wanted his money back.

When the Supreme Court called the State of Georgia, they were basically like uh no I'm a State, this entire case is beneath me, this is not happening.

Well, it happened.

A South Carolina man sued the State of Georgia.

Then, many others began filling lawsuits against States - including a British man who sued Massachusetts for taking his property that he owned in America.


At the close of the American Revolution, each state was greatly indebted to foreign creditors for financial and other assistance received during the war. Congressional representatives feared that Chisholm would permit these foreign creditors to ask federal courts to force the fiscally troubled state treasuries to bear the burden of these debts.

SPEEDY TRANSLATION: There was a possibility that people from other countries would start banging on the White House door asking for money from the respective States that owed them money.

HENCE THIS AMENDMENT WAS BORN

It basically undid what was written in Article III Section 2.

So, this line, to add to the first part, means that the Federal Courts do not have the power to hear cases where a state is being sued by a person from another State. The States are legally protected from this - it is called Sovereign Immunity.

What is Sovereign Immunity & how did it come about?

It came from English Law that the Sovereign was immune from a suit without its consent (X).


The State is immune from being sued without consent by the Federal & State Courts.

[O]r by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

This means that the Supreme Court does not have the power to hear a case between a person from Another Country vs A State.


To Summarize:
‣ The Federal Court cannot hear a case between an Individual in one State VS. Another State.
‣ The Federal Court cannot hear a case between a Individual from one Country VS. A State.
‣ The State is immune from being sued unless they consent.
‣ State can only be sued in State Courts.

_____

In what ways has President Trump & his Administration done something that pertains to this Amendment:

Nothing at this time.





-If needed this will be updated from time to time.-




_____

Is there an Amendment you would like to know more of?
to be taken to a list & choose which one you would like to learn more about.

This is a series that is ongoing - Each Wednesday [ #WednesdayAmendment ] there will be an Amendment Explanation paired with what Trump & his administration have done that pertains to the Amendment discussed.







Last month, before running a 5K I found myself wondering if I was running right. I was previously out of running for 2+ months due to inj...


Last month, before running a 5K I found myself wondering if I was running right. I was previously out of running for 2+ months due to injuries from overtraining and I wasn't sure if there was something more to it.

So, the day before I ran the 5K, I began searching to see if there was something missing or if there was something I was doing wrong. Up until this point in running, I always put on sneakers, stretched, and off I went running into the distance.

It turns out I have been running wrong for the past 8+ years.

‣ Apparently, there is a way that your foot is supposed to hit the ground & the way that most new runners/ oblivious runners (i.e. me) run leads to injuries on the foot.

If I had learned about this before, I wouldn't have been off two months of running due to the injury on my foot. So, rather than placing all the blame on the RunKeeper App, partial of the blame was on me for not to thinking to research the correct way to run. [I'd advise watching the video linked above - it is extremely helpful in visually seeing how your foot should be hitting the ground to prevent injuries!] I can't say I've mastered running correctly- it takes a lot of focus to unlearn something you've been doing your whole life, but I think I'm getting there! Well, I hope I am.

If you thought that was the only thing I was doing wrong (or perhaps even yourself?) feel free to get comfortable - let's talk about the second thing.

‣ Breathing.

Usually, as I ran, I found myself coming short of breath. Not in the way that I was gasping for dear life, but more like there was oxygen coming in but not the amount that I needed for running.

I came across this video on breathing, and I can say that after following this I'm more in control of my breathing and I can go for longer distances without feeling like I'm dying by mile 1.

The main thing for breathing: IN though your nose -> OUT through your mouth.

This takes a lot of focus to do, well for me it does. Previously, I breathed in & out only through my mouth which lead to me not running as fast due to attempting to catch my breath.

And finally the third thing.

‣ Running Form.

In the video on breathing, the person discussed posture. Now, I actually hadn't realized this before, but whenever I ran I always slumped my shoulders. Why is this bad? In the video, the person did an exercise where he asked the viewer to slump their shoulders forward and to breathe in and out. Then he asked the viewer to put their back straight and breathe in and out.

After doing those two things - you'll see why you need to run with your back straight. When your back is straight, more oxygen comes in which means you can run for longer distances without feeling any discomfort.
_____
The three things I mentioned all take a lot of focus- ensuring your foot is hitting the ground correctly by mile 2, that you're still breathing in through your nose & out through your mouth by mile 3 and that your back is still straight by the last .5 mile.

And yes, yes I know you spent a lot of time getting your playlist upbeat for the run but

Breathing Properly = More Time & Distance to run

Yes, that beat of the music is A-MAZING but the only way you're getting through those miles is by breathing properly. And the only way you're making it through those miles without any pain on your foot is by making sure your foot is hitting the ground the way it's supposed to.

Trust me, before I even acknowledged there was a way to breathe while running, my runs essentially went like this:

Ed Sheeran's new song blasting, slumped shoulders & my body is telling me to stop to catch my breath because I was only breathing in & out through my mouth and not enough oxygen was getting into my body. Then my mind would tell me to power through the chorus and essentially this meant that I was taking an intermission to recollect come 02.

_____
Missed a previous fitness type post?
Here's the one prior to this -> Your Own Pace





Amendment 10 The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved t...


Amendment 10

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or the people. (X)

What does this mean?

Well, let's take it into parts.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States[.]

This means power not given to the Federal Government via the Constitution or banned by the Constitution..

_____
_____

[A]re reserved to the States respectively, or the people.

This means that the State & citizens in that State have the power to dictate those powers [i.e. it is a state law to have Road Signs not something the Federal Government has power over in the Constitution.]

Now, to put this broken-down sentence together:

Power not given to the Federal Government via the Constitution, or banned by the Constitution, is given to the State & citizens of the State.

What is this power?

A Ven Diagram over HERE showcases what power is given to the State & Federal Government.

For a detailed history of this Amendment, I'd recommend going over HERE.
If you'd like a quick read of the history you can go either HERE or HERE.

To Summarize:
‣ Power not listed in the Constitution = Power is to State & Citizens of State.

_____
In what ways has President Trump & his administration done something that pertains to this Amendment:
UPDATE 25 APRIL 2017
1.

This order was meant to cut Federal Funding to States that would not assist/cooperate with immigration authorities. In California, a judge blocked this Executive Order.

As stated in this Amendment, if the power is not given to the Federal Government via the Constitution, the power is in the State Government's hands.

How does this Executive Order violate this Amendment?

The Federal Government is essentially telling/directing the State Government how to govern/do their job.


[T]he Tenth Amendment requires that conditions on federal funds be unambiguous and timely made; that they bear some relation to the funds at issue; that the total financial incentive not be coercive.

Speedy Translation [Part 1]: Federal Government can't go waltzing its way through the states saying if you don't do xyz then say goodbye to all funding that doesn't even relate to xyz. 

Speedy Translation [Part 2]: The Federal Government can't wave some money in front of States like HEY YOU SEE ALL THIS FEDERAL FUNDING, if you do what I say then you can get all of this funding- if not say goodbye to this greenery.

The Federal Government cannot take away federal funding that has no relation to immigration enforcement just because the jurisdiction [States] chooses an immigration enforcement that the President isn't chill with. (X)

Lastly:

The order has cause and will cause [counties] constitutional injuries by violating the separation of powers doctrine and depriving them of their Tenth...Amendment rights.

END OF 25 APRIL 2017 UPDATE
_____
As seen in the first above point - this Executive Order is a violation of the 10th Amendment - The Federal Government is attempting to tell the State Governments how to govern & if the States refuse to comply - they do not receive any Federal Funding aka that is above the 20% threshold the LATIMES article below mentioned.

Note: it was thought that President Trump withholding Federal Funding from Sanctuary Cities was Unconstitutional due to the 10th Amendment which gives local jurisdictions the right not to enforce federal mandates.

[the reason he wanted to withhold funding was due to States protecting undocumented citizens from deportation thus not following his Executive Order "Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States"]

However - according to LATIMES actually withholding funding isn't unconstitutional per se - but withholding more that 20% is.


-If needed this will be updated from time to time.-




_____

Is there an Amendment you would like to know more of?
to be taken to a list & choose which one you would like to learn more about.

This is a series that is ongoing - Each Wednesday [ #WednesdayAmendment ] there will be an Amendment Explanation paired with what Trump & his administration have done that pertains to the Amendment discussed.








As I'm sure most of you have seen, a man was dragged out of a plane forcibly on United last week . This had me thinking what actual r...


As I'm sure most of you have seen, a man was dragged out of a plane forcibly on United last week. This had me thinking what actual rights do people have on Airplanes.

According to U.S. Department of Transportation:

"[Department of Transportation] requires each airline to give all passengers who are bumped involuntarily a written statement describing their rights and explaining how the carrier decides who gets on an oversold flight and who doesn't."

When the gentleman who filmed the passenger being dragged out of the plane spoke to CNN, he did not mention that United gave the passenger said paper describing his rights. As of today, United did not include in their statements that they gave the passenger their rights in writing.

If a passenger is asked to give up their seat due to overbooking, they are also entitled to money.

Now, what is this money I am talking about?

Didn't United offer the person/people who volunteered (well, more like inni mini minney mo it's you) would get $800?

Well, it's actually supposed to be a lot more than that.

So, why is that $800 United was offering an actual slap in the face to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) guidelines?

If the airline gets you on a plane that gets you to your destination within an hour of the original time you would have landed at your location - there is no actual concrete compensation guaranteed.

If the airline ends up getting you a flight that gets you to your destination 1-2 hours later than the time you would have arrived at your location - they have to pay you an amount equal to 200% of your one way ticket price (if you're sitting there wondering when anything ever went over 100% we're on the same boat). The maximum amount they give for 1-2 hour delay is $675.

If the airline ends up getting you a flight that gets you to your destination more than 2 hours later (4 hours later for international flights) than the time you would have arrived at your location - the compensation doubles to 400% of your one way ticket price. The maximum amount given is $1350.

As you can see, this is a lot more than the $800 United was offering.

The doctor would have went on a flight at 2:30PM the next day, so that would mean he is due to get a price nearing $1350 because he would have been at his location more than 2 hours later than his original time.

Now, why do airlines play this game of I'm going to pay you less than the guidelines say?
They basically hope & pray no one knows their rights and will take whatever small amount is offered.

An additional point - if you want to find your own way to said location rather than allowing the airline to reschedule you onto a flight after being kicked from the flight - you are entitled to a full refund of your ticket.

If you'd like to have the actual fine print and fold it into your phone case in case this ever happens to you it can be viewed here: Fly Rights | Department of Transportation

Know your rights so that they cannot be infringed upon due to lack of knowledge about said rights.

Also to note - Delta will actually compensate passengers up to $10,000 to give up your seat on overbooked flights.






When two people reach a disagreement, the conclusion both individuals come to is to raise their voices. Or if the agreement is one sided,...


When two people reach a disagreement, the conclusion both individuals come to is to raise their voices. Or if the agreement is one sided, the person who is angered comes to the conclusion that the only way something can be done is to raise their voice.

If someone raises their voice, obviously that's going to garner attention. That's a given. And if the person being yelled at isn't all that confrontational, they'll abide to whatever the person is saying purely because of the attention being on them.

Recently, I ended up in a situation where I was yelled at by someone of authority (a professor) regardless of following the rules. The key thing for me was to maintain composure, react calmly, and remain kind.

It takes nothing in a person to be kind, almost as though being kind is a human default, but it takes everything in a person to be rude to someone else.

In terms of kindness, an example can be Saffiyah Khan. She did not meet anger with anger, hate with hate, rather she met anger & hate with a smile.

If you take anything from this blogpost, let it be this: Raising your voice does not prove your point - having facts that support your argument does. Anger does not have to be met with an even louder voice: Choose Kindness.




Amendment 9 The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained ...


Amendment 9

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. (X)

What does this mean?

Well, let's take it into parts.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights [.]

Well, first let's define Enumeration. It means 'mention (a number of things) one by one' - so essentially a list.

So let us now rephrase this line to:

The list in the Constitution, of certain rights[.]

Or for better word placement to understand it:

The list of rights in the Constitution [.]

[S]hall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

This means that although there are a list of rights in the Constitution, that does not mean there aren't other rights that belong to the people.

What are those other rights?

It refers to all other personal rights that were not mentioned in the Constitution.

Well, here's an example from 9th Amendment Meaning that may put this in perspective:

To summarize:
‣ The rights mentioned in the Constitution are not the only rights of American Citizens.

Sources to give more clarification:

_____

In what ways has President Trump & his Administration done something that pertains to this Amendment:

Nothing at this time.





-If needed this will be updated from time to time.-




_____

Is there an Amendment you would like to know more of?
to be taken to a list & choose which one you would like to learn more about.

This is a series that is ongoing - Each Wednesday [ #WednesdayAmendment ] there will be an Amendment Explanation paired with what Trump & his administration have done that pertains to the Amendment discussed.








WHO are they? Apparently, an all male conservative [traditional] republican squad that meets to ' pursue common legislative obj...


WHO are they?

Apparently, an all male conservative [traditional] republican squad that meets to 'pursue common legislative objectives'.

What does that mean?

Basically, they all have a common mindset & that plays a role in what actually becomes a law.

We don't have an official number of who's in the Freedom Caucus, only the people who have made it public they are apart of it.

WHAT is their purpose?

Well, in order for something to be signed into law it must go through The House and The Senate. In the House of Representatives, it needs 218 votes to go to The Senate and in The Senate it needs 51 votes to go to the President's desk. The President can either sign it into law or veto it.

In case those sentences were pure gibberish to you- Let's think of a baseball field [yes I just linked to a baseball field]

How to Pass a Law-101

» BATTER UP: A Bill
» FIRST BASE: 218/435 votes needed to get the Bill from the House to SECOND BASE
» SECOND BASE: 51/100 votes needed to get the Bill from the Senate to THIRD BASE
» THIRD BASE: The President's desk.
» The President either signs the Bill into law (Homerun) or doesn't «

In order to get to Second Base there needs to be 218 votes. Republicans have 247 of the 345 seats in the House. If the Republicans want to pass something but the Freedom Caucus - generally thought to have about 40 members- do not want to pass it, that would leave the remaining Republicans with only 207 votes. Which means only with Democratic help can they get to Second Base.

WHEN was the Freedom Caucus created?

It was created in 2015.

Why was the Freedom Caucus created?

It was created when 9 members of the Republican Study Committee felt that it wasn't conservative enough.
_____

The main reason for this Crash Course is because apparently they aren't playing to President Trump's tune & Trump is not too chill about that.

I hope if anyone else had confusion on who they were etc. that I've helped out in clearing that up.