Thomas Jefferson and Interesting facts

April 18th, 2013

I have decided to look at some Presidents and list some facts about them that most of us may not have known. The first United States President that I will look at will be Thomas Jefferson.

Thomas Jefferson was born on April 13, 1743, in Virginia and Died on July 4trh, 1826 on the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

Thomas Jefferson is best known for his role in writing of the declaration of independence, for his two terms as President and for his face on the nickel.

Here are some fact about Thomas Jefferson that you may not have known

#9 Jefferson the Musician. Thomas Jefferson took violin lessons as a child. He even, courted his future wife, Martha Skelton.

#8 Jefferson the Astronomer. Thomas Jefferson loved the stars as he did reading. He even made sure astronomy was taught at the University of Virginia, and he designated what may have been the first observatory in the United States.

#7 Jefferson the Architect. He designed the rotunda for the University of Virginia and for his own home in Monticello and for the Virginia State Capitol in Richmond.

#6 Jefferson and Wine Thomas Jefferson brought his love of fine wine back to America. He had two vineyards at Monticello, which he apparently used to experiment with. Acknowledged as a great wine expert of early America, he sought to promote wine as an alternative to whiskey and cider.

#5 Thomas Jefferson as a writer. Jefferson was a prolific writer during his lifetime, with authorships of the Declaration of Independence and the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. The Thomas Jefferson Papers at the Library of Congress includes about 27,000 documents, including his extensive correspondence with key historical figures.

#4 Jefferson was the only President who never vetoed a bill. Thomas Jefferson was the first two term president who never veto any bills.

#3 Jefferson was very religious. Jefferson was a religious man but his beliefs caused much controversy. He was raised as an Anglican, but grew up to be an opponent of all organized religion.
#2 Jefferson and economist. He believed in the free market polices and opposed bank notes as currency.

#1 Jefferson and his love of books. After he left office as president, he sold his library of 6,500 volumes to the Library of Congress after it was ransacked by the British. He needed the cash to pay off debts, but started to buy more books.

I will be posting more information on more United States President.

Supreme Court rules that Drug dog sniff is unconstitutional search

APRIL 8TH, 2013

The United States Supreme Court ruled that police cannot bring drug-sniffing police dogs onto a suspect’s property to look for evidence without first getting a warrant for a search, a decision which may limit how investigators use dog’s sensitive noses to search out drugs, explosives and other items hidden from human sight, sound and smell.

The high court was spilt 5-4 on the decision to uphold Florida Supreme Court’s ruling throwing out evidence seized in the search of Joelis Jardines’ Miami-area home. That search was based on an alert by Franky the drug dog from outside the closed front door.

Justice Antonin Scalia said a person has the Fourth Amendment right to be free from the government’s gaze inside their home and in the area surrounding it, which is called the cartilage.

“The police cannot, without a warrant based on probable cause, hang around on the lawn or in the side garden, trawling for evidence and perhaps peering into the windows of the home.” Justice Antonin Scalia said for the majority. “And the officers here had all four of their feet and all four of their companion’s planted firmly on that cartilage-the front porch is the classic example of an area intimately associated with the life of the home.”

He was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

The four justices who dissented were Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Stephen Breyer, Justice Antony Kennedy and Justice Samuel Alito.

Case: On the morning of December 5, 2006, Miami-Dade police detectives and U.S. DEA agents set up surveillance outside a house south of the city after getting an anonymous tip that it might contain a majriunana growing operation. Detective Douglas Barteit arrived with Franky and the two went up to the house, where Franky quickly detected the odor of pot at the base of the front door and sat down as he was trained to do.

That sniff was used to get a search warrant from a judge. The house was searched and its long occupant, Jardines, was arrested trying to escape out the back door. Officer pulled 179 live marijuana plants from the house, with an estimated street value of more than &700,000.

Jardines was charged with marijuana tracking and grand theft for stealing electricity needed to run the highly sophisticated operation. He pleaded not guilty and his attorney challenged the search, claiming Franky’s sniff outside the front door was an unconstitutional law enforcement intrusion into the home.

The trial judge agreed and threw out the evidence seized in the search, but that was reversed by an intermediate appeals court. In April a divided Florida Supreme Court sided with the original judge.

That ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court’s decision.

This is the second decision this year on the use of drug-sniffing dogs by police. The court unanimously ruled earlier in another Florida case that police don’t have to extensively document the work of drug-sniffing dogs in the field to be able to use the results of their work in court.

Justices to Review Affirmative Action

Frank Osekowsky

February 23, 20212

A challenge from a white student who was denied admission to the University of Texas flagship campus will be the high court’s first look at affirmative action in higher education since its 2003 decision endorsing the use of race as a factor.

A federal appeals court upheld the Texas program at issue, saying it was allowed under the high court in Grother v. Bollinger in 2003.  That upheld racial consideration in university admission at the university of Michigan Law school.

Abigial Fisher filed a lawsuit along with another women when they were denied admission at the university Austin campus.  They contended the school race-conscious policy violated their civil and constitutional rights.

Justice Elena Kagan, is not taking part in this case.

NEW YORK POLICE DEPARTMENT TO PLACE MOBILE SCANNERS ON THE STREETS OF NEW YORK CITY

2-1-2012

4^TH Amendment to the United States Constitution states: :The right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particular describing the place to be searched, and the  person or things to be seized.

Commissioner Ray Kelly of the NYPD is in talks with the Pentagon to secure body scanners that will be used throughout the Big Apple.

According to Commission Kelly this new technology would be only used in “Reasonably suspicious circumstances”.  But what constitutes “suspicious” in the eyes of the NYPD?.

The technology that Commissioner Kelly is looking to acquire is called Terahertz Imagining Detection scanners, this high tech radiation detector will measure energy that is emitted from a person’s body. 

These scanners will allow the NYPD to conduct illegal searches by means of scanning anyone that is walking down the streets of New York .  Any object that is on your person could be privy to the eyes of the detector, and any suspicious screens can prompt the police to search someone on suspicion of having a gun, or anything else under their clothes.

So basically anyone that is walking down the street can be a subject of a search without knowing it.

Last May, the NYPD revealed that of the over 180,000 stop and frisk encounters reported %88 of them ended in neither an arrest nor a summons leading many to assume that New York Cops are already going above and beyond the law by searching seemingly anyone that they chose.

The question is then does this searches fall under the 4^th Amendment rights in regards to search and seizure.