# data[].attributes.headline
Tom Steyer launches campaign to Impeach Trump  (Executive Branch) Caleb, Nick, Shriya

# data[].attributes.subject
Tom Steyer launches campaign to Impeach Trump  (Executive Branch) Caleb, Nick, Shriya

# data[].attributes.body
Who: Tom Steyer, Donald Trump
What: Multibillionaire Tom Steyer launched a campaign ad last week to impeach our current president. The ads are being played all across America and apparently Steyer is paying for them out of his own pocket at an estimated cot of $10 Million. Steer argues that the democratic party has impeached a president for far less in the past. He says that Trump's continued stretching of the law through obstruction of Justice in the unemployment of James Comey as the FBI director, and says that Trump is mentally unstable and not fit to run our country. He argues that Trump has broken the law too many times for our government to still be legitimate now that he is still in office.
Opinion: Personally, I don't think Steyer's arguments hold much merit. It is true that Trump has made mistakes, an any human being would do. It's also true that he has stretched the truth and even the law in some cases. However, I don't believe that Steyer's argument is very legitimate, and I feel he stretches the truth in most cases of his arguments.
Cite: Bradner, Eric. “Steyer's $10 Million Impeach Trump Campaign.” CNN, Cable News Network, 22 Oct. 2017, www.cnn.com/2017/10/20/politics/tom-steyer-ad-impeach-trump/index.html.

# data[].attributes.headline
Congress finally has a bill to regulate Facebook. Here’s what it says. (Legislative Branch) By Shriya, Caleb, Nick

# data[].attributes.subject
Congress finally has a bill to regulate Facebook. Here’s what it says. (Legislative Branch) By Shriya, Caleb, Nick

# data[].attributes.body
Who: Congress

What: Congress is trying to pass a bill that would regulate political ads on social media sites and other online sites. Three Senators have proposed a bill - the “Honest Ads Act” l that would make these companies follow the same standards as broadcasting companies. Companies with over 50 million monthly users would have to make public information about political ads on their websites. This information includes how many times the ad was viewed, the target audience of the advertisement, the political party it was supporting, disclose contact information for the ad’s purchaser and how much was paid to put up the ad, as well as making sure the ad was not purchased by a foreign national.

When: October 19th, 2017

Why: This bill was introduced due to Russia’s interference with the 2016 election. A Russian “troll farm” had purchased thousands of political ads to its site for the price tag of $100,000. These ads reached as many as 25 million Facebook users. Russian linked ads were also to be found on sites like Twitter and Pinterest. This bill would make it harder for the 2016 election interference to occur again.

My opinion: I think that this bill is a good idea because it encourages transparency in the political process. It’s essential that other countries don’t interfere with the elections as it is unfair and gives some people an advantage without effort. Around 25 million people on Facebook and other social media sites saw the ads - this number could have swung the results of the election.
Citation:
Timmons, Heather. “Congress finally has a bill to regulate Facebook. Here’s what it says.” qz.com. Quartz, 18 Oct 2017. Web.

21 Oct 2017 Accessed.

https://qz.com/1105987/congress-may-try-to-regulate-political-ads-in-the-internet-like-those-on-broadcast-t3elevision/

# data[].attributes.headline
Supreme Court to hear case on accessing data stored abroad. (Judicial Branch) by Shriya, Caleb, and Nick

# data[].attributes.subject
Supreme Court to hear case on accessing data stored abroad. (Judicial Branch) by Shriya, Caleb, and Nick

# data[].attributes.body
Who: Judicial Branch, U.S. Technology firms
What: Law enforcement in the U.S has had problems investigating certain cases due to the fact that data/evidence is stored in a different country. They claim that the searches would be justified because the U.S. Law enforcement would be searching U.S. Technology firms not the foreign country. Last year, the court of appeals concluded that "Microsoft was not obligated to provide data stored in Ireland to comply with an American warrant" (Gerstein "Supreme Court to hear case on accessing data stored abroad"). However, courts in states such as New York, Vermont and Connecticut have made opposite decisions. The decision will not be based on the Constitution rather the Stored Communications Act. This is a topic of debate because many people believe that is will infringe upon the rights to the borders of other nations. The USA could have the domestic legality to collect data from other nations without that certain nations consent. Hearings for this case will be heard next year.
My Opinion: I do believe that the U.S. Law Enforcement should have the right to obtain data from U.S. Technology firms from abroad. I believe this because we are searching the U.S. Technology firms, not ones of any other country. It would be easy for a U.S. Technology firm to hide away important evidence in other countries.
Citation
Gerstein, Josh. "Supreme Court to hear case on accessing data stored abroad."
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/16/supreme-court-microsoft-us-data-243809. Politico, 16 Oct 2017. 23 Oct 2017 Accessed.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/16/supreme-court-microsoft-us-data-243809

# data[].attributes.headline
Supreme Court rejects appeal of bin Laden propagandist (Judicial Branch) By: Julian, Bennet, Aaron

# data[].attributes.subject
Supreme Court rejects appeal of bin Laden propagandist (Judicial Branch) By: Julian, Bennet, Aaron

# data[].attributes.body
Who: Ali Hamza al-Bahlul
What: The Supreme Court has rejected the appeal of Usama bin Laden's one-time assistant and propagandist, leaving intact his conspiracy conviction before a military tribunal.
Where: Supreme Court
When: October 10th, 2017
Why: the defendant was charged with providing material support to terrorism and conspiracy for the Al Qaeda terror network, offenses that were not included as crimes before the Military Commissions Act went into effect several years later.
I think that he should be in jail for along time for providing help to a terrorist group.

# data[].attributes.headline
Trump travel ban: Timeline of a legal journey

# data[].attributes.subject
Trump travel ban: Timeline of a legal journey

# data[].attributes.headline
Trump to Announce Harder Line on Iran (Executive) By: Benet, Aaron, Julian

# data[].attributes.subject
Trump to Announce Harder Line on Iran (Executive) By: Benet, Aaron, Julian

# data[].attributes.body
Who: President Trump
What: Trump has to decide whether to certify if Iran is in compliance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was reached in 2015, and it ensures that Iran's nuclear testing program will be exclusively peaceful. If Trump refuses to certify it, Congress will begin a 60 day period to decide if the US should essentially tear up the contract. Trump claims that Iran is not in compliance, pointing to their continued missile tests and support for terrorist groups. Reports say Trump is sometimes furious that we have to confirm to Congress every 90 days Iran's compliance with the deal--which was specified in the JCPOA. Denying Iran's compliance may affect America's closest alliances.
When: Trump made this statement on October 6th.
Why: Trump believes this deal is terrible, but he doesn't want the deal to fully collapse. Iran doesn't look like it wants to give up it's nuclear weapons. Trump believes the decision will be a win-win for everyone. If the decision is made to rip up the contract, the US may be able to deal with the nuclear weapons in Iran, but Iran also may be able to use them. Trump also believes this possible revision is in the America's national security interests.
My opinion: I think we should focus more on North Korea than Iran. Iran isn't currently as much of a threat as North Korea, who is for sure testing nuclear weapons and claiming war might break out soon.

Shinkman, Paul D. Trump to Announce Harder Line on Iran.

# data[].attributes.headline
Fla. Gov. Announces Proposed 3-Day Limit on Opioid Prescriptions (Legislative) By: Bennett Lushin, Aaron Banks, Julian 

# data[].attributes.subject
Fla. Gov. Announces Proposed 3-Day Limit on Opioid Prescriptions (Legislative) By: Bennett Lushin, Aaron Banks, Julian 

# data[].attributes.body
Who: Florida Governor and the State of Florida
What: Florida Governor Rick Scott is proposing a 3 day time limit on Opioid Prescriptions. He is hoping that this law will help combat Florida's every growing opioid crisis. Florida Gov. Rick Scott is also hoping to set examples for other states to help them confront their opioid crisis as well. With this proposition on the table law makers are hoping to reduce opioid abuse and the amount of ODs occurring.
When: September 26, 2017 is when Florida Gov. Rick Scott announced the proposition.
Why: The state of Florida is planning to spend $50 million dollars next year on combating opioid abuse and OD. This proposition will make it harder for people to get opioid related drugs such as Oxycodone and morphine and possibly abuse them or become addicted to them. This is also helpful because it can help reduce the resources that drug dealers uses to make heroin. This proposition will hopefully inspire other states to follow suit and help us as a nation overcome the opioid crisis.
My opinion: This is a great idea because the harder it is to get strong opioid drugs even with a prescription because it will help reduce addiction and abuse. And it will also help make getting stronger drugs that druggies like to use harder. Reducing the amount of overdoses and reducing the waste of tax payers dollars on hospital stays and narcan use.

Site:

Fla. Gov. Announces Proposed 3-Day Limit on Opioid Prescriptions

By Alexa Lardieri, Staff Writer |Sept. 26, 2017, at 1:27 p.m.

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2017-09-26/fl-gov-announces-3-day-limit-on-opioid-prescriptions

# data[].attributes.headline
Courts Thwart Administrations Effort to Rescind Obama-Era Environmental Regulations (Judicial) By: Josie Pierce, Lauren King, and Kate Mattingly

# data[].attributes.subject
Courts Thwart Administrations Effort to Rescind Obama-Era Environmental Regulations (Judicial) By: Josie Pierce, Lauren King, and Kate Mattingly

# data[].attributes.body
Who: Federal Magistrate Judge in North Carolina, Trump, The Supreme Court, and Environmental Protection Agency
What: Once again courts rule that Trump and his team are violating federal law. The judge vacated a move by the Department of Interior to increase flaring, a technique used by oil and gas companies to burn of leaking methane. This technique has contributed to much of climate change and lost tax revenue. Trump continues to attempt to rescind the regulations and protections established during the Obama legacy.
Where: North Carolina, Washington DC
When: October 6th, 2017
Why: Trump wishes to decrease the spending on environmental issues because it is a "waste" when he rather spend it on things like the military. The court continues to rule this as breaking the federal law because we must conserve and take care of the earth, not continue to trash it. The arguments go back and forth due to trumps aggressiveness but the court stands firm. Environmentalists see it as proof that Trump and his team care little about honoring federal law. “It shows serial lawbreaking and sloppiness by a Trump administration bent on rollbacks,” said, John Walke,the director of the clean air project at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “It is sad they have to have their comeuppance in courts rather than doing what was right.” We owe it to our earth and to the health of all humans to not settle for a cheaper option.
In my Opinion: In my opinion I think that it is important that the courts continue to resist Trump and his efforts to pursue loosening the environmental protection laws. We already produce waste and pollution at a mind boggling rate, this will only make things worse. I would like to think that someday my kids will be able to sufficiently thrive in a clean world, not one covered in trash and polluted air. Once Trump unties one environmental law all the next will unravel. In my opinion I hope the court strongly resists his persistent, unlogical methods.
Citation:
Lipton, Eric. “Courts Thwart Administration’s Effort to Rescind Obama-Era Environmental Regulations.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 6 Oct. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/10/06/climate/trump-administration-environmental-regulations.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FCourts%2Band%2Bthe%2BJudiciary&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection.

# data[].attributes.headline
Ryan: Gun Silencer Bill is 'Not Scheduled'  for a Vote in Wake of Las Vegas Shooting (Legislative Branch) By: Lauren King, Josie Pierce, and Kate Mattingly)

# data[].attributes.subject
Ryan: Gun Silencer Bill is 'Not Scheduled'  for a Vote in Wake of Las Vegas Shooting (Legislative Branch) By: Lauren King, Josie Pierce, and Kate Mattingly)

# data[].attributes.body
Who: House Speaker Paul Ryan
What: Paul Ryan confirms that a bill that would make gun silencers easier to acquire has been put on hold due to the recent event of the Las Vegas shooting.
Where: House Republican Conference at the Capitol
When: October 4, 2017
Why: Many people have been wanting to pass a law that makes gun silencers more available to the public. This would eliminate the restrictions on the silencers and therefore treat guns as ordinary firearms. This bill was very close to being passed by the House, but due to the attack prior to the finalization of the bill, the bill was put on pause. Many controversies have been stirring up on the topic of gun control and constitutional rights to bear arms.The actions that have taken place include a more difficult process to purchase a gun, many background checks, and making it an even more difficult process to buy a gun that was shoot many fires within seconds. Ryan states that, "one of the things we've learned from these shootings is often underneath this is a diagnosis of mental illness." He believes that mental illness plays a huge role into these types of incidents happening. Many people are upset in Ryan's decision to post-pone the bill as they feel it takes away their rights and they fear this will lead to the limitation of their 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.
In my Opinion: In my opinion I think that it wasn't right of Paul Ryan to pause the passing of the law. Yes, it is a very serious issue and situation that occurred but that doesn't mean there should be anything done to prevent or limit the rights we have stated int he Constitution. I feel whenever there is a mass killing due to guns, many people start to think that to stop these things from happening, it would be right to not let people carry guns. Guns are meant to protect ourselves and we are given that right. There is nothing wrong with doing a background check but it is our right and it will always be our right to bear arms. It is very unfortunate however that some people feel the need to abuse this right and use it for evil rather than protection.
Levy, Gabrielle. “Ryan: Gun Silencer Bill Is 'Not Scheduled' for a Vote in Wake of Las Vegas Shooting .” U.S. News, 3 Oct. 2017, www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2017-10-03/ryan-gun-silencer-bill-is-not-scheduled-for-a-vote-in-wake-of-las-vegas-shooting.

# data[].attributes.headline
Trump suggests challenging NBC's broadcast license (Executive Branch) By: Josie Pierce, Kate  Mattingly, and Lauren King

# data[].attributes.subject
Trump suggests challenging NBC's broadcast license (Executive Branch) By: Josie Pierce, Kate  Mattingly, and Lauren King

# data[].attributes.body
Who:Donald Trump
What: Donald Trump threatens to pull NBC's broadcast license for releasing false information about increasing the U.S arsenal.
Where: Washington, (News broadcasted nationwide)
When: October 11, 2017
Why:The NBC network reported on Trump's security meetings. This report claimed he surprised his national security by suggesting a ten fold increase in the U.S nuclear arsenal. The meeting was led by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson who called Trump a moron, which was reported last week on NBC. Trump lashed out at NBC for reporting a false statement and how it isn't even possible. Trump tweeted Wednesday morning, "Fake @NBCNews made up a story that I wanted a ‘tenfold’ increase in our U.S. nuclear arsenal. Pure fiction, made up to demean. NBC = CNN!"
He compared NBC and CNN to be equal since he has had issues with CNN in the past. Again Trump tweeted,
“With all of the Fake News coming out of NBC and the Networks, at what point is it appropriate to challenge their License? Bad for country!” Trump thinks these false statements from NBC should be stopped immediately. NBC has yet to make a comment.
Trump threatened to "open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money."  Trump has verbally gone after NBC multiple times.  The quote from Tillerson of calling Trump a "moron" was also denied.

My opinion: I think trump has no right to take NBC's broadcasting license. We have the right to freedom of speech and press. As long as NBC is not intentionally reporting false information, it is legal. Him taking NBC's rights would be unconstitutional and not fair.
LOUIS NELSON and MARGARET HARDING MCGILL, et al. “Trump Suggests Challenging NBC's Broadcast License.” POLITICO, 11 Oct. 2017, www.politico.com/story/2017/10/11/trump-nbc-broadcast-license-243667.

# data[].attributes.headline
Supreme Court to Decide on Power of Public Sector Unions (Judicial) Eileen Witt, Grace Vlasak, and Shelby Shuler

# data[].attributes.subject
Supreme Court to Decide on Power of Public Sector Unions (Judicial) Eileen Witt, Grace Vlasak, and Shelby Shuler

# data[].attributes.body
Who: state government workers and Mark Janus
What: The justices have to decide whether the state government workers who chose not to join a union will have to pay a share of union dues to cover the cost of negotiating contracts.
Where: Washington
When: September 28, 2017
Why: For a long time, the employees who chose to not join a union are still required to pay a portion of the union dues. They are required to pay these dues to cover the cost of collective bargaining. It also prevents free riders who get the benefits of a union contract but never pay for it. The court believes making the members who are not in a union to pay the full amount for something they are not apart of is violating their right of free expression. Violating their right of free expression will force the nonunion members to support a political activity whether they agree with it or not.
My opinion: I believe the state government workers should not be required to pay the dues of a union they are not a part of. I think this because it goes against their right of free expression, and if they are not a part of it, why would they have to pay for it?

Williams, Pete. “Supreme Court Will Hear a Case on the Power of Public Sector Unions.” NBCNews.com, NBCUniversal News Group, 28 Sept. 2017,
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/supreme-court-decide-power-public-sector-unions-n805461

# data[].attributes.headline
Trump hails ‘incredible’ response in ‘lovely’ trip to storm-torn Puerto Rico (Executive Branch) By: Grace Vlasak, Shelby Shuler, and Eileen Witt

# data[].attributes.subject
Trump hails ‘incredible’ response in ‘lovely’ trip to storm-torn Puerto Rico (Executive Branch) By: Grace Vlasak, Shelby Shuler, and Eileen Witt

# data[].attributes.body
Who: Donald Trump
What: Donald Trump is being criticized for his slow response to Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico. During his visit, he stirred even more controversy, saying that the storm wasn't bad compared to Hurricane Katrina and that the disaster had thrown the nations budget "a little out of whack."
When: The visit to Puerto Rico was yesterday but the Hurricane actually hit on September 20th, about two weeks ago.
Where: Puerto Rico
Why: The Hurricane is a huge disaster for the people in the small U.S. Territory of Puerto Rico. It knocks out power to the whole island and most of the island's population couldn't access clean water without their power. Local officials say that 80-90% of their structures are destroyed. Trump issues a state of emergency for Puerto Rico, and calls local officials, pledging to help. He then goes to his golf club in New Jersey for the weekend. People call for the president and the defense secretary to send the U.S. Navy to Puerto Rico to help, Puerto Ricans, are in fact, U.S. citizens. Trump says five days after the storm has hit in a tweet; "“Texas & Florida are doing great but Puerto Rico, which was already suffering from broken infrastructure & massive debt, is in deep trouble. It’s [sic] old electrical grid, which was in terrible shape, was devastated. Much of the Island was destroyed, with billions of dollars owed to Wall Street and the banks which, sadly, must be dealt with. Food, water and medical are top priorities—and doing well.” At this point, 1.53 million people on the island didn't ave access to drinking water. Seventy percent of hospitals in Puerto Rico were not functioning. More than 10,000 shipping containers full of food and supplies lay stranded in the Port of San Juan. They can’t be shipped to the island’s interior due to a lack of fuel, labor, and working roads.When people criticize Trump's slow response for Puerto Rico, including the mayor, he tweets “Such poor leadership ability by the Mayor of San Juan, and others in Puerto Rico, who are not able to get their workers to help. They want everything to be done for them when it should be a community effort. 10,000 Federal workers now on Island doing a fantastic job.” His visit to Puerto Rico lead to even more controversy on October third.
My opinion: I think Trump should have immediately responded to the hurricane and devastation and not have taken so long. I think it's highly offensive that he would compare tragedies, and start talking about fake news and money when actual citizens of the U.S. are dying and not receiving help.
Johnson, Jenna, and Ashley Parker. “Trump Hails 'Incredible' Response in 'Lovely' Trip to Storm-Torn Puerto Rico.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 3 Oct. 2017, www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-praises-himself-for-administrations-great-job-in-puerto-rico/2017/10/03/fdb5eeb4-a83a-11e7-8ed2-c7114e6ac460_story.html?utm_term=.38f0314db567.

# data[].attributes.headline
A Familiar, Partisan Response In Congress To Las Vegas Massacre (Legislative) By: Grace Vlasak, Shelby Shuler, and Eileen Witt

# data[].attributes.subject
A Familiar, Partisan Response In Congress To Las Vegas Massacre (Legislative) By: Grace Vlasak, Shelby Shuler, and Eileen Witt

# data[].attributes.body
Who: Democratic legislators
What: They want to tighten gun laws in response to the Las Vegas shooting. The House Minority Leader sent a letter to the House speaker, urging him to create a committee to study and offer recommendations for gun laws. She also wanted them to revisit a law to expand background checks. This law failed to pass in 2013 when it was introduced in response
to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Another representative, a senator from Connecticut, tweeted a call to action aimed at his Republican colleagues. One of the first things Trump did in office was to overturn a regulation limiting gun access to mentally ill individuals.     Trump is sill trying to pass a law that makes it easier to buy silencers and another that nationalizes a conceal-carry law for permit holders.
When: After the Las Vegas shooting
Where: Washington DC
Why: Mass shooting always bring gun legislation back to the spotlight and the most deadly mass shooting in US history has encouraged many democrats to demand action in order to never allow a tragedy like this to happen again.

Davis, Susan. “A Familiar, Partisan Response In Congress To Las Vegas Massacre.” NPR, NPR, 2 Oct. 2017,
http://www.npr.org/2017/10/02/555099794/a-familiar-partisan-response-in-congress-to-las-vegas-massacre

# data[].attributes.headline
Give Cancer Patients a Break on Student Loans (Anna, Sophia, and Abby; Legislative Branch)

# data[].attributes.subject
Give Cancer Patients a Break on Student Loans (Anna, Sophia, and Abby; Legislative Branch)

# data[].attributes.body
Who: Congress
What: Congress is trying to pass the Deferment for Active Cancer Treatment Act.
Where: Capitol Hill
When: September 22, 2017
Why: leana Ros-Lehtinen, Republican of Florida, and Ed Perlmutter, Democrat of Colorado, introduced this act involving cancer patients . Many cancer patients have to pay a lot for just their treatment, and then more on top of that if they are a student as well. With all of these expenses all coming in at the same time, taking out loans helps, but there it does not give people enough time to pay everything off. This act also has been extended to those who are deployed in the military. It allows people, especially cancer patients, to get an extension on paying their loans. They would be given six more months once their treatment is complete to pay off loans.
Opinion: I believe that this is a good act to have in place. Around 70,000 Americans ranging from ages 15 to 39 get diagnosed with cancer each year, and this number is only increasing, unfortunately. Those people not only have to struggle with paying for their treatments, but also paying for their loans and schooling. Even though this may seem as though it may not benefit many people, I think that it will benefit many and especially those who need it the most.

Ritzel, Rebecca J. “Give Cancer Patients a Break on Student Loans.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 22 Sept. 2017,
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/22/opinion/cancer-patients-student-loans-deferment.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FU.S.%20Congress&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=13&pgtype=collection

# data[].attributes.headline
Anthony Weiner scandals: From politics to sexting cases (Sophia, Abby, and Anna; Judicial Branch)

# data[].attributes.subject
Anthony Weiner scandals: From politics to sexting cases (Sophia, Abby, and Anna; Judicial Branch)

# data[].attributes.body
Who: Manhattan Federal Court and Anthony Weiner
What: Anthony Weiner is a  former New York Democratic congressman. He was sentenced to 21 months in prison after sending sexually explicit messages to an under-age girl (15 yrs-old).
Where: New York City, New York
When: September 25, 2017
Why: Since 2011, there were hints of a huge scandal brewing. In 2011, Anthony Weiner (married), who was a known Congressman got caught in his first sex scandal which he later confessed to doing, and resigned from Congress for treatment. From there, when he was running for mayor of New York in 2013 he got caught in a sexting scandal. His reputation became further damaged and he lost the mayoral election. In 2016, another sexting situation was revealed and an investigation was opened. It lead to the FBI finding out he had been sexting a minor and he was brought to court. In court of May 2017 he was sentenced to 21-27 months in prison.  But recently, in September the case was brought up again when his lawyers and now ex-wife asked that he be spared from federal prison through letters, although they know he needs to face the consequences. They even began to blame the minor involved, saying she was aiming to disrupt last year's election as Weiner's former wife had worked for Hilary Clinton.
My Opinion: I believe that Anthony Weiner deserves to be sentenced to federal prison. He is a responsible adult and knows that sexting a minor in any situation is wrong. Even if he didn't seek the teenager out, he still went through with sexting her knowing her age. There is no excuse for what he did especially because at the time, he had a wife and young son. He betrayed their trust with his multiple sex scandals and the peoples' trust as one scandal occurred while he was running for mayor. He truly does need help and counseling to ensure this doesn't happen again.

Lam, Katherine. “Anthony Weiner Scandals: From Politics to Sexting Cases.” Fox News, 25 Sept. 2017, www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/09/25/anthony-weiner-scandals-from-politics-to-sexting-cases.html.

# data[].attributes.headline
Breaking: The US is not at war with North Korea (Abby, Sophia, and Anna: Executive Branch)

# data[].attributes.subject
Breaking: The US is not at war with North Korea (Abby, Sophia, and Anna: Executive Branch)

# data[].attributes.body
Who: President Trump

What: North Korea says that the US has declared war upon them.

Where: via twitter

When: Monday September 25

Why: Trump tweets out, “won’t be around much longer” in regards to North Korea’s government.  Which causes North Korea foreign minister Ri to say, “Since the United States declared war on our country, we will have every right to make all self-defensive counter measures, including the right to shoot down the United States strategic bombers at any time even when they are not yet inside the aerospace border of our country."

Opinion:  My opinion on this is I am glad that the US made a professional statement saying that we won’t be going to war with North Korea.  As a citizen, it can be confusing as to what to believe because there are tons of gossip and personal opinions mixed whenever it comes to politics.  I think that we will probably end up going to war with North Korea but I am glad to hear that the war did not start over a twitter post. I think that Korea’s response to Trump's tweet was harsh and taking one phrase way too far.

Wolf, Z. Byron. “Breaking: The US Is Not at War with North Korea.” CNN, Cable News Network, 25 Sept. 2017, www.cnn.com/2017/09/25/politics/are-we-at-war-with-north-korea/index.html.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/25/politics/are-we-at-war-with-north-korea/index.html

# data[].attributes.headline
Planned Parenthood asks Supreme Court to intervene in effort to expand abortion access in Missouri (Luke, Gabe, Anthony) -Anthony Vaiana, Judicial Branch

# data[].attributes.subject
Planned Parenthood asks Supreme Court to intervene in effort to expand abortion access in Missouri (Luke, Gabe, Anthony) -Anthony Vaiana, Judicial Branch

# data[].attributes.body
Who: Planned Parenthood and The U.S. Supreme Court
What: Planned Parenthood is asking the Supreme Court to nullify a lower court's decision that stopped the organization's growth in Missouri.
Where: Missouri
When: September 22, 2017
Why: Planned Parenthood believes it has the right to expand to other cities in Missouri because they think that women shouldn't be burdened with getting an abortion at a far away clinic.
My Opinion: As someone who is pro-life, I am of course against any expansion on Planned Parenthood, and i feel that if getting an abortion is a tedious process that would include a longer trip to a clinic, women would be less inclined to get an abortion.
Standard-Examiner. “Planned Parenthood Asks Supreme Court to Intervene in Effort to Expand Abortion Access in Missouri.” Standard-Examiner, 24 Sept. 2017, www.standard.net/Government/2017/09/24/Planned-Parenthood-asks-Supreme-Court-to-intervene-in-effort-to-expand-abortion-access-in-Missouri-1.

# data[].attributes.headline
Senate to pass $700 Billion Defense Policy Bill (Luke, Gabe, Anthony)

# data[].attributes.subject
Senate to pass $700 Billion Defense Policy Bill (Luke, Gabe, Anthony)

# data[].attributes.body
Who: The Senate
What: The Senate  passed a $700 billion defense policy bill known as the National Defense Authorization Act by an 89-9 vote.
Where: Capitol Hill
When: September 18,  2017
Why: This National Defense Authorization Act was passed mainly in response to rising threats from North Korea along with the need for more funding to update equipment and allow the military more resources to protect the country
My opinion: In my opinion I believe that this is a good act to pass because national security is one of the most important things a country needs and currently our country needed more funding to be able to respond to threats from North Korea and protect our people.
Stolberg, Sheryl Gay. “Senate Passes $700 Billion Pentagon Bill, More Money Than Trump Sought.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 18 Sept. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/09/18/us/politics/senate-pentagon-spending-bill.html?mcubz=0.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/18/us/politics/senate-pentagon-spending-bill.html?mcubz=0

# data[].attributes.headline
Stephen Curry Responds To Trump's Tweet: "It's not what leaders do." (Luke, Gabe, Anthony)

# data[].attributes.subject
Stephen Curry Responds To Trump's Tweet: "It's not what leaders do." (Luke, Gabe, Anthony)

# data[].attributes.body
Who: Donald Trump Stephen Curry
What: Stephen Curry has hesitated the invitation to the White House for winning the NBA championship so Donald Trump rejected the invitation.
Where: United Stated of America
When: September 23, 2017
Why: The reason that Donald Trump withdrew the invitation for the Golden State Warriors to Come to the White house is because Steph Curry hesitated on accepting the invitation. Steph Curry responded that what Trump is "not what leaders should do"
My Opinion: I feel that the withdrawn invitation is good because there is no reason that the winners of the NBA finals should be going if they do not respect the President and leader of our country.
Neuharth-Keusch, AJ. “Stephen Curry Responds to Trump's Tweet: 'It's Not What Leaders Do'.” USA Today, Gannett Satellite Information Network, 23 Sept. 2017, www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/2017/09/23/stephen-curry-responds-trumps-tweet-its-not-what-leaders-do/696950001/.

# data[].attributes.headline
Trump Travel Ban Expires Sunday; new Restrictions expected (Luke, Gabe, Anthony)

# data[].attributes.subject
Trump Travel Ban Expires Sunday; new Restrictions expected (Luke, Gabe, Anthony)

# data[].attributes.body
Who: Donald Trump and Dept. of Homeland Security
What: Donald Trump's travel ban expires today after 90 days of being in effect and on Sunday September 24, 2017, Trump is expected to announce new restrictions. The current travel ban bars are from Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. Officials have said that they have been working for a while on new rules and restrictions for Trump's travel ban.
Where: United States of America
When: September 24, 2017
Why: Donald Trump's Travel ban has expired after it's 90 days of being in affect so Trump is expected to make an announcement on the new regulations and rules for his updated travel ban. One reason that Trump will have stricter rules for his new travel ban is because last week, there was a partially exploded bomb at a London subway and Trump has called for a tougher travel ban.
My Opinion: I feel that Trump's tougher rules and regulations on his travel ban is a great idea. Because of this Travel ban, it keeps the people in our country much safer from outside threats from other countries.
“Trump Travel Ban Expires Sunday; New Restrictions Expected.” Fox News, FOX News Network, www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/09/24/trump-travel-ban-expires-sunday-new-restrictions-expected.html.

# data[].attributes.headline
Trump’s Support for Law to Protect ‘Dreamers’ Lifts Its Chances (Nick, Julian, Jacob) (Legislative Branch)

# data[].attributes.subject
Trump’s Support for Law to Protect ‘Dreamers’ Lifts Its Chances (Nick, Julian, Jacob) (Legislative Branch)

# data[].attributes.body
Who: Donald Trump and  Democratic leaders
What: They are making a deal with congress to make a safer and more effective border system for immigrant children. Trump uses the term "dreamers" to explain how they can be very influential in our society. Also Republican leaders are supportive of this idea and it seems all americans both in congress and citizens are for this idea.
When: September 14th, 2017
Why: This would be a good idea because children are not at fault for the decisions of their parents. They should have a better chance at life and also better rights so that they may have an equal chance to all other growing children living in the United States.
My opinion: I think it is a great idea, because it allows children to have an equal chance to others so that they can grow in a better and more acceptable environment so that they may learn everything they need to grow into a man or woman.

Sullivan, Eileen. “Trump Confirms Support for Law to Protect ‘Dreamers’.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 14 Sept. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/09/14/us/politics/trump-daca-dreamers.html. Accessed 14 Sept. 2017.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/14/us/politics/trump-daca-dreamers.html

# data[].attributes.headline
Supreme Court Lets Trump Bar Refugees in Boost for Travel ban: Judicial Branch (Nick, Julian, Jacob)

# data[].attributes.subject
Supreme Court Lets Trump Bar Refugees in Boost for Travel ban: Judicial Branch (Nick, Julian, Jacob)

# data[].attributes.body
Who: The supreme court
What: The U.S Supreme Court reinforced President Donald Trumps travel ban saying he can bar thousands of refugees from entering the country while the justices prepare to hear a broader challenge to the policy. There is a scheduled hearing on Trump's travel order which imposed a 90 day ban on people entering the United States from six mostly Muslim counties and a 120 day ban on refugees.
Where: United States (Hawaii)
When: September 12, 2017
Why:  Its because of President Donald Trump's ban, saying he can ban thousands of refugees from entering the country.
My opinion is while painful to some, history has proven the security and welfare of millions of United States citizens are at stake. A ban will likely prevent that next group of terrorists or threats to harm the country and its people.

Stohr, Greg. "Supreme Court Lets Trump Bar Refugees in Boost for Travel Ban." Bloomberg.com. Bloomberg, 12 Sept. 2017. Web. 13 Sept. 2017.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Photographer: Spencer Platt/Getty Images

The U.S. Supreme Court reinforced President Donald Trump's travel ban, saying he can bar thousands of refugees from entering the country while the justices prepare to hear a broader challenge to the policy.

The high court put on hold a federal appeals court ruling that had said Trump couldn't apply his travel ban to refugees once a resettlement agency had promised it would provide basic services for them. About 24,000 refugees are covered by those agreements.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments Oct. 10 on Trump's travel order, which imposed a 90-day ban on people entering the U.S. from six mostly Muslim countries and a 120-day ban on refugees. The policy is designed to give officials time to assess vetting procedures. Lower courts have said Trump overstepped his authority and unconstitutionally targeted Muslims.

The high court on June 26 cleared part of the ban to take effect in the interim. At the same time, the court said the U.S. had to admit people with a "bona fide relationship with a person or entity."

A series of court decisions since then -- including a Supreme Court order in July -- have said that people with grandparents and cousins in U.S. are among those who must be admitted. The administration said Monday it wouldn't ask the court to revisit that issue.

In the same filing, the administration asked the Supreme Court to reinstate a broad version of the refugee ban. The government contended that so-called assurance agreements don't meet the "bona fide" test because those accords are between the resettlement agency and the government.

"An assurance agreement does not create any relationship whatsoever with the refugee," acting U.S. Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall argued in court papers.

Hawaii, which is challenging the Trump policy, urged the justices to leave the appeals court ruling in force, saying assurance agreements require resettlement agencies to make extensive investments in preparation for refugees' arrival. The state also said refugees don't pose any true security threat.

"Refugees with formal assurances are the category of foreign nationals least likely to implicate the national security rationales the government has pointed to in the past," Hawaii argued. "By the government's own admission, these refugees have already been approved by the Department of Homeland Security."

The case is Trump v. Hawaii, 16-1540.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Supreme Court Lets Trump Bar Refugees in Boost for Travel Ban

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The U.S. Supreme Court reinforced President Donald Trump's travel ban, saying he can bar thousands of refugees from entering the country while the justices prepare to hear a broader challenge to the policy.

# data[].attributes.headline
Trump blocks Chinese purchase of U.S. company for national security reasons (Nick, Julian, Jacob)

# data[].attributes.subject
Trump blocks Chinese purchase of U.S. company for national security reasons (Nick, Julian, Jacob)

# data[].attributes.body
Who: Donald Trump, Chinese venture capital fund and U.S. semiconductor company.
What: Donald Trump is prohibiting the acquisition of Lattice Semiconductor Corporation by  China Venture Capital Fund Corporation Limited
Where: The White House and China Venture Capital Fund.
When: September 13, 2017.
Why: Trump ordered the issue after the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States recommended it. White House officials were concerned  about the potential transfer of intellectual property to CVCF, Beijing’s role in supporting the transaction and the importance of the semiconductor supply chain and Lattice products in particular by the U.S. government. The U.S. is afraid of Chinese military aid using the computer chips produced by the company. This is not only time that foreign trade with China has been tense.
My opinion is that this is smart decision because the U.S. can utilize such parts, sell the parts to promote economics if needed, and to strengthen our own military.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/13/trump-china-national-security-242676

# data[].attributes.headline
Hundreds Take Advantage of Executive Branch Parental Leave  (Julia McNamee)

# data[].attributes.subject
Hundreds Take Advantage of Executive Branch Parental Leave  (Julia McNamee)

# data[].attributes.body
Who:  The Missouri state government
What:  Governor Eric Greitens signed an order that gives members of the executive branch the benefit of parental leave to give parents of newborns and newly adopted children time to bond .
Where:  The state of Missouri
When:  August 28, 2017
Why:  The Governor felt that the state employees needed to be able to spend time with their new children.
Opinion: The executive order is a great idea, and it won't be costing the government any more money because there will not be any temporary employees hired to replace the ones on leave.
-Julia, Brooke, Eden

“Hundreds Take Advantage of Executive Branch Parental Leave.” US News, 28 Aug. 2017, www.usnews.com/news/best-states/missouri/articles/2017-08-28/hundreds-take-advantage-of-paid-parental-leave-in-missouri.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/missouri/articles/2017-08-28/hundreds-take-advantage-of-paid-parental-leave-in-missouri

# data[].attributes.headline
House set to approve $8 billion in aid for hurricane Harvey recovery.  (Brooke Boggs, Julia, eden)

# data[].attributes.subject
House set to approve $8 billion in aid for hurricane Harvey recovery.  (Brooke Boggs, Julia, eden)

# data[].attributes.body
Who: The house of representatives
What: A vote was held on Wednesday to decide we will provide $8 billion dollars in disaster  aid in response to Hurricane Harvey.
Where: The capitol building in Washington D.C. The money will go to People in Texas.
Why: Hurricane Harvey caused a lot of damage to many parts of Texas. Many citizens lost houses, property, schools, and work buildings. Many people in Texas did not have flood insurance for their homes because they did not expect to get hit by such a drastic storm. The Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, has voiced support for a speedy vote to approve the disaster aid so it can get fixed faster. Many people in the house are wanting to approve this because they want people to get help quickly. Some of the representatives are worried about were the money will go and what it will be used for. Some think it is a bad idea because we are already in debt. The voting will be held Wednesday. I think that we should give the money to Texas. Many have lost everything from property to loved ones. It is not fair to those in need to just be blown off because we are in debt. If I were in it I would vote for it because as a nation it says we should protect our people.

Kaplan, Thomas. “Deal Is Set to Tie Debt Limit to Harvey Relief, Trump Says.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 6 Sept. 2017.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WASHINGTON - President Trump struck a deal with Democratic congressional leaders on Wednesday to increase the debt limit and finance the government until mid-December, blindsiding his own Republican allies as he reached across the aisle to resolve a major dispute for the first time since taking office.

The agreement would avert a fiscal showdown later this month without the bloody, partisan battle that many had anticipated by combining a debt ceiling increase and stopgap spending measure with relief aid to Texas and other areas devastated by Hurricane Harvey. But without addressing the fundamental underlying issues, it set up the prospect for an even bigger clash at the end of the year.

In embracing the three-month deal, Mr. Trump accepted a Democratic proposal that had been rejected earlier in the day by Speaker Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin. Mr. Trump's snap decision at a White House meeting caught Republican leaders off guard and reflected friction between the president and his party. After weeks of criticizing Republican leaders for failing to pass legislation, Mr. Trump signaled that he was willing to cross party lines to score some much-desired legislative victories.

The deal to keep the government open and paying its debts until Dec. 15 represented an extraordinary public turn for the president, who has for much of his term set himself up on the right flank of the Republican Party. But it remained unclear whether Mr. Trump's collaboration with Democrats foreshadowed a more sustained shift in strategy by a president who has presented himself as a master dealmaker or amounted to just a one-time instinctual reaction of a mercurial leader momentarily eager to poke his estranged allies.

Mr. Trump not only accepted the spending-and-debt plan advanced by Senator Chuck Schumer of New York and Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leaders, but also aligned himself with them on immigration. A day after rescinding President Barack Obama's program protecting younger illegal immigrants on the grounds that it went beyond a president's authority, Mr. Trump said he wanted to work with Democrats to legalize the program.

"We had a very good meeting with Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer," Mr. Trump told reporters after the Oval Office session without mentioning that Mr. Ryan and other Republican leaders had also attended. Regarding the immigration program, Mr. Trump said, "Chuck and Nancy would like to see something happen, and so do I."

Republican leaders looked grim but resigned afterward and attributed Mr. Trump's fiscal deal to a need for unity after Harvey struck Texas and as Hurricane Irma barreled toward Florida. "Look, the president can speak for himself, but his feeling was that we needed to come together to not create a picture of divisiveness at a time of genuine national crisis, and that was the rationale," said Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader.

Democrats were grinning at their surprise victory and happy to rub it in. "It was a really good moment of some bipartisanship," Mr. Schumer said. He added: "The bottom line is the president listened to the arguments. We think we made a very reasonable and strong argument. And to his credit, he went with the better argument."

Until now, Mr. Trump has sought to govern through the strength of Republican majorities in Congress, an approach that has not secured top priorities like repealing Mr. Obama's health care program. After castigating Democrats as obstructionists, Mr. Trump may now seek common cause on areas of mutual interest like infrastructure projects, immigration and taxes.

Soon after meeting with congressional leaders at the White House, the president boarded Air Force One to fly to North Dakota to push for a tax overhaul. Among the onboard guests was Senator Heidi Heitkamp, the first Democratic lawmaker to join Mr. Trump aboard Air Force One since he was inaugurated in January.

The flight gave Mr. Trump an extended opportunity to woo Ms. Heitkamp, who faces a tough re-election battle next year in a state that gave the president an overwhelming 36-point margin during last year's election. As local lawmakers pointed out, Ms. Heitkamp may find it politically advantageous to cozy up to the most popular figure in the state.

Image

"Look, the president can speak for himself, but his feeling was that we needed to come together to not create a picture of divisiveness at a time of genuine national crisis, and that was the rationale," said Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader. Credit Pete Marovich for The New York Times

At the event, at an oil refinery in Ms. Heitkamp's hometown, Mandan, Mr. Trump called her onto the stage with her Republican colleagues.

"Everyone's saying, 'What's she doing up here?'" Mr. Trump said as she joined him in front of an audience filled with Republicans. "But I'll tell you what - good woman. And I think we'll have your support. I hope we'll have your support. And thank you very much, Senator."

While Ms. Heitkamp can hardly afford to alienate Mr. Trump, she has been cagey about the tax issue. "It's encouraging he committed to promoting American workers as key to any tax reform policy," she said in a statement after the president's visit on Wednesday. "But, as North Dakota's former tax commissioner, I know the devil is in the details of any reform plan as tax codes are complex."

Mr. Trump's courtship of Democrats left conservatives miffed at a spending-and-debt deal they considered anathema to their principles. "The question of politics is, a deal to what end?" said Representative Mark Sanford, Republican of South Carolina. "I think all of us as taxpayers need to be very skeptical of deals for the sake of deals."

Representative Mark Walker of North Carolina, the chairman of the Republican Study Committee, expressed surprise at Mr. Trump's action. "I'm still processing this, but my first instinct is I'm not very happy about it," he said.

Conservative groups like FreedomWorks and For America expressed indignation. "This is straight out of the swamp," said Adam Brandon, president of FreedomWorks, "and I call on President Trump to say something publicly about how this is a swamp deal and will not be tolerated."

A trailer park in Beaumont, Tex., that flooded during Hurricane Harvey. The House overwhelmingly approved nearly $8 billion in disaster aid in response to the storm. Credit Andrew Burton for The New York Times

The agreement came as the House overwhelmingly approved nearly $8 billion in disaster aid in response to Harvey, taking quick action to help victims of the devastating flooding in Texas. The aid measure passed 419 to 3. The "no" votes were Republican.

The House vote took place five days after the White House requested about $7.9 billion in emergency aid. The vast majority of that money would go to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and $450 million would go to the Small Business Administration's disaster loan program. And with Irma barreling toward Puerto Rico and Florida, more disaster aid is likely to be needed quickly.

Mr. Schumer and Ms. Pelosi pressed for a three-month deal to keep the government running and raise the debt ceiling along with the hurricane aid to give Democrats leverage later this year when other matters, including a longer-term government funding deal, could be negotiated between the two parties. By ensuring that all the pending issues converge at the end of the year, Democrats hope a longer-term agreement on fiscal matters could include immigration, health care and any number of other issues.

Assuming that he had the support of Mr. Trump, Mr. Ryan responded Wednesday morning by calling the Democrats' proposal "ridiculous and disgraceful," saying "it could put in jeopardy the kind of hurricane response we need to have."

"To play politics with the debt ceiling, like Schumer and Pelosi apparently are doing, I don't think is a good idea," Mr. Ryan said.

Once they arrived at the White House, however, Mr. Trump undercut Mr. Ryan. Congressional aides said privately that Republicans went into the meeting at the White House proposing an 18-month deal on government spending and the debt limit, only to run into resistance from the Democrats. They then proposed a six-month deal as a compromise, but Democrats insisted on a three-month agreement. Mr. Trump then surprised the Republicans by agreeing to the Democratic formulation.

"We essentially came to a deal, and I think the deal will be very good," Mr. Trump said afterward. "We had a very, very cordial and professional meeting."

A version of this article appears in print on , on Page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Trump Bypasses G.O.P. To Strike a Deal on Debt. Order Reprints | Today's Paper | Subscribe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trump Bypasses Republicans to Strike Deal on Debt Limit and Harvey Aid

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WASHINGTON - President Trump struck a deal with Democratic congressional leaders on Wednesday to increase the debt limit and finance the government until mid-December, blindsiding his own Republican allies as he reached across the aisle to resolve a major dispute for the first time since taking office.

# data[].attributes.headline
Animals Have a Voice: The Judicial Branch

# data[].attributes.subject
Animals Have a Voice: The Judicial Branch

# data[].attributes.body
Who: The Connecticut court system
What: a law allowing people to represent abused animals in court.
When: The law was passed in 2016
Where: Connecticut
Why: Many animal abusers get away with their crimes without any prosecution from the court simply because their cases are not taken as seriously as human cases. One reason that Connecticut passed this law is because animal abuse can also lead to domestic abuse.
I believe it is necessary for animal cruelty crimes to be taken seriously. By doing so, animals and humans will be safer. Though it will take time, animal cruelty will soon be treated as a serious crime from the Judiciary Branch as a whole.
-Olivia, Traig, & Kenna

Citation: Rojas, Rick. “Abused Dogs and Cats Now Have a (Human) Voice in Connecticut Courts.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 27 Aug. 2017,

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Connecticut law that includes animals, which took effect almost a year ago, is being watched closely by lawmakers, legal scholars and animal activists, some of them with an eye toward adopting similar measures in other states.

"This is really a groundbreaking law," said David Rosengard, a staff lawyer at the Animal Legal Defense Fund, an organization that supported the legislation. "To get justice, a third voice is needed in that room."

The advocates view their role as reinforcing prosecutors who are overburdened with cases or may consider crimes against animals to be less of a priority. Sometimes, like in Manchester, the advocates argue in court, but much of an advocate's attention is directed at investigative efforts, like reviewing police and medical records and interviewing animal control officers and veterinarians to bolster a case.

Supporters say that many of these crimes go unprosecuted or result in punishments they contend are too lenient, such as rehabilitation programs that can end with charges being expunged. According to state crime data, of the more than 3,500 animal abuse cases reported in the decade ending in 2015, 47 percent were not prosecuted, another 33 percent were dismissed and 18 percent ended in guilty verdicts.

"What I really, really wanted to do was get at those numbers of convictions," said Representative Diana Urban, a Democratic state lawmaker who sponsored the legislation. "They're innocent," she said, referring to the animals. "They don't really have a voice, and they are, quote-unquote, a little weaker than you are."

Ms. Urban and others argue that violence against animals often has close ties to violence against humans, either coming as a precursor to escalating crimes or indicating a home environment where there might be domestic abuse.

But the measure touches on longstanding friction in the law over animals, which have been regarded as property but also as living, feeling creatures protected from abuse. There has been opposition to the law, including from groups such as the American Kennel Club, which opposed the statute because, as the club said in a statement, "individual owners could lose these ownership rights over their animals by having to give up those rights to third parties."

"We have this disconnect between how people handle their animals and how the law is handling their animals," said Kathy Hessler, a clinical professor at Lewis & Clark Law School who teaches animal law. "They're the only sentient beings that fall into the property category."

Animal law experts said that the prosecution of Michael Vick, the professional football player who pleaded guilty in 2007 to dogfighting-related charges, served as a turning point in the acceptance of advocates for animals. In that case, a federal judge appointed a so-called special master for the dogs involved, and animal rights activists have credited the master, a law professor, with helping to spare most of them from being euthanized.

Beyond Connecticut, similar roles have been established in courts at the county level, and Rhode Island enacted a law in 2012 allowing veterinarians to serve as advocates, though the effectiveness of that legislation has been questioned.

The Connecticut law was named for and motivated by the case of Desmond, a dog that the authorities said was beaten, starved and eventually strangled and dumped by his owner. The case mobilized animal activists, who were incensed after Desmond's owner was placed in an accelerated rehabilitation program in 2013. (The first case with an advocate to be resolved ended with that defendant placed in accelerated rehabilitation.)

Even now, Christine Kiernan, who helped organize what became Desmond's Army, tears up when she recounts details of his case.

"This is not just about animals. It's about stopping the cycle of violence, but it usually starts with animals," Ms. Kiernan said. "They live. They breathe. They feel."

The state's Department of Agriculture maintains a list of lawyers on its website (11 and counting) who want to be advocates. But the state bureaucracy plays almost no part in managing the advocates or connecting them with animals.

That task is left almost entirely to a hodgepodge of volunteers, many of them from Desmond's Army, including a horse farm manager, a retired I.T. worker and a teacher who considers showing up to court hearings her summer job. One week, Ms. Kiernan crisscrossed the state to attend three different court dates, always in the group's signature purple shirt with a photograph of Desmond.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
public defenders and court-appointed lawyers (criminal)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Abused Dogs and Cats Now Have a (Human) Voice in Connecticut Courts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Connecticut law that includes animals, which took effect almost a year ago, is being watched closely by lawmakers, legal scholars and animal activists, some of them with an eye toward adopting similar measures in other states. "This is really a groundbreaking law," said David Rosengard, a staff lawyer at the Animal Legal Defense Fund, an organization that supported the legislation.

# data[].attributes.body
Citation: Fox News’ Bill Mears and The Associated Press. “Supreme Court to Hear Case of Baker's Refusal to Make Wedding Cake for Gay Couple.” Fox News, FOX News Network, 26 June 2017

# data[].attributes.headline
Citation: Fox News’ Bill Mears and The Associated Press. “Supreme Court to Hear Case of Baker's Refusal to Make Wedding Cake for Gay Couple.” Fox News, FOX News Network, 26 June 2017

# data[].attributes.subject
Citation: Fox News’ Bill Mears and The Associated Press. “Supreme Court to Hear Case of Baker's Refusal to Make Wedding Cake for Gay Couple.” Fox News, FOX News Network, 26 June 2017

# data[].attributes.headline
Retiring Boldly: Judge, 70, Leaves Bench to Serve as Paramedic. (Eden James Brooke Boggs Julia McNamee)

# data[].attributes.subject
Retiring Boldly: Judge, 70, Leaves Bench to Serve as Paramedic. (Eden James Brooke Boggs Julia McNamee)

# data[].attributes.body
Who: Don Bush, a retired U.S. magistrate judge from Texas.
What: Don Bush decided that after he retired, he wanted to be an EMT paramedic. He completed a paramedic course at night, while still hearing cases during the day.
Where: Eastern District of Texas
Why: Bush felt that it would be interesting to assist his son in Haiti as a paramedic. He said, “My son does a lot of medical trips to Haiti. About the time I began to think of retiring, I thought it’d be interesting to go down and do that with him.  So I started aiming to become an EMT, and after that I went through the paramedic program.  I was blessed to be able to get the training.” Bush is compassionate and and wants to help the people that need it. I think that what Bush did was really great, because even after he could have just retired and lived a comfortable life on his Judge's salary, he decided to get another job and spend his time helping other people.

Citations: Administrative Office of the U.S. courts. "Retiring Boldly: Judge, 70, Leaves Bench to Serve as Paramedic"

Judiciary News - United States Courts

Published onAugust 24, 2017
http://www.uscourts.gov/news/2017/08/24/retiring-boldly-judge-70-leaves-bench-serve-paramedic

# data[].attributes.headline
Al Qaeda working with Iran; The Executive Branch  

# data[].attributes.subject
Al Qaeda working with Iran; The Executive Branch  

# data[].attributes.body
Who: Al Qaeda affiliate, Somalian government, and Iranians
What: An Al Qaeda affiliate seized control of uranium mines in Africa.
When: August 11, 2017 up until now September 1, 2017
Where: Somalia, Africa
Why: The Al Qaeda affiliates are taking the uranium mines under control, and giving the uranium to the Iranian government so that they can use it for nuclear missiles. The Somalian government is in need of help from the U.S. government to strop the Al Qaeda affiliates. With the new resources going to the Iranians, this imposed a large threat towards the U.S.
-Traig, Kenna, and Olivia

Citation:
“Al Qaeda affiliate mining uranium to send to Iran, Somali official warns US ambassador.” Fox News, FOX News Network, www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08/31/al-qaeda-affiliate-mining-uranium-to-send-to-iran-somali-official-warns-us-ambassador.html. Accessed 31 Aug. 2017.

# data[].attributes.headline
Religious Freedom in the Bakery: The Judicial Branch 

# data[].attributes.subject
Religious Freedom in the Bakery: The Judicial Branch 

# data[].attributes.body
Who:The U.S. Supreme Court recently
What: a Denver baker refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple based on his religious beliefs.
When: Last Monday the first court meeting was held
Where: Colorado
Why: The court ruled against the baker, but now has to decide whether to use Colorado's anti-discrimination law to require him to make the couple a cake, or if that constitutionally violates the baker's religious beliefs.
I believe that the baker should be allowed to exercise his religious rights, but I think it is very petty of him not to bake the cake. He would be getting the same business from the gay couple as a man and woman couple ordering a cake.
-Olivia, Traig, & Kenna

# data[].attributes.body
Citation: Fox News’ Bill Mears and The Associated Press. “Supreme Court to Hear Case of Baker's Refusal to Make Wedding Cake for Gay Couple.” Fox News, FOX News Network, 26 June 2017

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The U.S. Supreme Court announced Monday it will hear the case of a suburban Denver baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple on faith-based grounds, in the latest religious freedom case to be considered before the nation's highest court.

Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, had refused to sell a customized cake for a gay couple's union, claiming a religious exemption to the state's anti-discrimination law.

State courts had ruled against the businessman.

The high court will now decide whether applying Colorado's public accommodations law to compel the baker to create "expression"-- a wedding cake -- violates his constitutionally protected Christian beliefs about marriage.

Phillips told the Supreme Court he has free speech and religious rights under the First Amendment that should protect him. He said he should not be compelled to bake a cake specifically to honor a same-sex marriage.

Colorado's anti-discrimination law, though, protects people on the basis of their sexual orientation. Charlie Craig and David Mullins had filed a complaint against Phillips and his suburban Denver shop after Phillips said he would not create and decorate a cake in honor of their marriage.

Colorado did not permit same-sex couples to marry until 2014. Two years earlier, Craig and Mullin were planning to fly to Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage was legal, and host a reception in Denver upon their return to Colorado. They wanted a cake for the occasion.

The case will be another in a series of "religious liberty" disputes the justices have reviewed in recent years, and could be an important First Amendment test of the extent anti-discrimination laws apply to gay Americans.

Oral arguments will likely be held in court's term beginning in the fall.

The case is Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (16-111).

In a separate decision on Monday, the Supreme Court ruled for same-sex couples who complained an Arkansas birth certificate law discriminated against them.

The justices on Monday issued an unsigned opinion reversing an Arkansas high court ruling that upheld a law stating married lesbian couples had to get a court order to have both spouses listed as parents on their children's birth certificates.

Meanwhile, the court on Monday declined to review a California law restricting permits to carry handguns outside of the home for self-defense.

A San Diego man had filed suit, saying state and county policies requiring "good cause" -- a specific reason or justifiable need to legally carry a concealed weapon -- were too restrictive. A federal appeals court had ruled for the state and now those restrictions will stay in place.
Fox News' Bill Mears and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Supreme Court to hear case of baker's refusal to make wedding cake for gay couple

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The U.S. Supreme Court announced Monday it will hear the case of a suburban Denver baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple on faith-based grounds, in the latest religious freedom case to be considered before the highest court.

# data[].attributes.headline
Health Care Vote: Senate Rejects Repeal Without Replace (Kenna Corley)

# data[].attributes.subject
Health Care Vote: Senate Rejects Repeal Without Replace (Kenna Corley)

# data[].attributes.body
Who: Senate, Blue Cross Blue Shield and people all over America who supported Obamacare
What: Some people wanted to stay with Obamacare even though Trump was now our president, while others did not.
When: July 26, 2017
Where: Congregational Budget Office and Legislative House of Representatives.
Why: There need to be either a compromise made or decision letting people know if they are able to stay with Obamacare of they need to choose another legit, legal option.
The vote for starting a law to better support Affordable Care act was rejected by the Senators in the Legislative Branch on July 26, 2017. The New York Times says, "Senate Republican leaders may have no choice but to fall back on a third choice: Push a far more limited measure that repeals parts of the Affordable Care Act, such as its mandate that most people have insurance and a tax on medical devices, but leaves most of President Barack Obama’s signature health law in place." On Tuesday the Senators brought forward a plan to replace the Affordable Care Act. Senator Ted Cruz made it agreement to lower yearly insurance costs for people, as long as a plan is offered that covers essential services. The Senate does not have enough votes at first. On this Wednesday, Donald Trump publicly blames Ms. Murkowski for letting our country down. This was shown as very childish and not how something should be handled, especially in this level of government and power. Senators end up removing Affordable Heath Care, but it is not immediately replaced. One solution taken into consideration is to come to an agreement or compromise for those who need health care. My opinion on this is that people who choose and rely on Obamacare should have an option to stay with it or something similar, and people who do not agree with it should have other options.
-Kenna, Olivia & Traig

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
But a more comprehensive measure that would have repealed major parts of the law with a ready replacement also came up short on Tuesday night.

With neither approach viable, Senate Republican leaders may have no choice but to fall back on a third choice: Push a far more limited measure that repeals parts of the Affordable Care Act, such as its mandate that most people have insurance and a tax on medical devices, but leaves most of President Barack Obama's signature health law in place. Senators would then take their narrow bill into negotiations with the House, which passed a comprehensive measure to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.

Where did everything leave off Tuesday night?

Understandably, confusion is rife over what the heck is happening on the Senate floor: What was that vote Tuesday night? Why did Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, give that impassioned speech saying he would not vote for the Senate health care bill as it stands, then turn around and cast a yes vote on Tuesday night?
An explainer:
When the Senate voted 51-50 to begin debating the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, technically senators were bringing the repeal bill that was passed in the House to the Senate floor. For now, that is the bill that senators are trying to reshape.

On Tuesday night, Senate Republican leaders brought to the floor their most complete version of a plan to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. That measure had been worked out behind closed doors by the majority leader, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, and it would dismantle major parts of the current health care law, including the requirement that most people have health insurance.

But it also included an overture to Senate conservatives, a measure championed by Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, that would allow insurance companies to sell stripped down, low-cost insurance plans as long as they also offer insurance policies that comply with federal standards, including the requirement that plans cover "essential" services like maternity care, mental health treatment and prescription drugs.

For moderates, the legislation includes $100 billion to help pay out-of-pocket medical costs for low-income people.

Because that broad version of the Senate health care measure had not yet been assessed by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, it needed 60 votes to overcome a Democratic objection that it violated Senate rules.

But it got only 43 votes, demonstrating that even after weeks of refining the legislation, Senate leaders still fell far short of enough support for their replacement plan, from both ends of the party's ideological spectrum.

Mr. McCain had previously made clear that he wanted to secure amendments to that broad repeal-and-replace bill. The vote on Tuesday night could be interpreted as a sign of support for that general approach.

The debate goes on.

And what does McCain actually want?

On Wednesday, the Arizona Republican let his leaders know what he wants. Mr. McCain's office said he had filed three amendments meant to address concerns from leaders in his home state of Arizona, including the governor, Doug Ducey, a Republican.

Arizona is one of 31 states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, and the amendments would all address Medicaid. One of them would extend the phase out of the Medicaid expansion to 10 years, considerably longer than the bills under consideration. Another would increase the growth rate for Medicaid payments to states to better reflect health care inflation.

"Any reform to our health care system must reward states like Arizona that are responsibly managing their health care services and controlling costs - not penalize them," Mr. McCain said in a statement, adding that the amendments would "ensure our citizens who are most in need do not have the rug pulled out from under them."

What's happened so far on Wednesday?

Mr. Trump opened the day by attacking Ms. Murkowski.

Senator @lisamurkowski of the Great State of Alaska really let the Republicans, and our country, down yesterday. Too bad!
- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017

But Mr. Trump's public shaming is not an effective strategy for Ms. Murkowski, who has dealt with worse from her party. In 2010, Ms. Murkowski retained her Senate seat in a historic win as a write-in candidate. She had lost Alaska's Republican primary that year to a Tea Party challenger and was largely abandoned by Republican leadership. Since then, she has not felt beholden to her party.

Blue Cross Blue Shield warns the Senate

The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association warned senators on Wednesday that repealing the Affordable Care Act's mandate that nearly everyone have health insurance would be disastrous if Congress fails to replace it with another measure that ensures that people get and maintain insurance coverage.

"If there is no longer a requirement for everyone to purchase coverage, it is critical that any legislation include strong incentives for people to obtain health insurance and keep it year-round. A system that allows people to purchase coverage only when they need it drives up costs for everyone. Immediate funding for the cost-sharing reduction program also is essential to help those individuals most in need with their out-of-pocket costs, so they can access medical services. And dedicated funds must be provided to help pay for the care of those with significant medical conditions.

In order to ensure a stable individual insurance marketplace, any final legislation must include these crucial elements to avoid steep premium increases and diminished choices that would make coverage unaffordable and inaccessible."

The association appeared to be worried about a so-called skinny repeal bill that would do away with the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate and require that most employers offer insurance to their workers, but would include little else. Republican leaders believe that such a narrow bill may be the only measure that can get through the Senate.

Now what happens in the Senate?

Senators are set to consider a different repeal measure on Wednesday.

This measure would repeal major parts of the health law but would not provide a replacement. The legislation resembles a bill that passed the Senate in 2015 but was vetoed by President Barack Obama in early 2016.

Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, supports that approach. But some Republicans worry that repealing the law without providing a replacement would leave many Americans without health care coverage. Such a "repeal only" measure is not expected to garner enough votes for passage.

The vote for this measure had been expected to take place around midday Wednesday, but it has now been delayed until later in the afternoon.

Then what happens?

Republicans are using special budget rules to try to pass a repeal bill, so the debate is limited to 20 hours, and Democrats cannot delay it with a filibuster. Later this week, the Senate will hold what is known as a vote-a-rama, an exhausting marathon of amendment votes.

The nine Republicans who voted against the comprehensive replacement measure on Tuesday night are an indication of the problem that Senate Republican leaders continue to confront: The party caucus still does not agree on what should be in a health care repeal bill that would have enough support to win Senate approval.

One solution might be to pass a pared-down health plan that has support from at least 50 of the 52 Republican senators, and then turn to working out a compromise with the House.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
patient protection and affordable care act (2010)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Health Care Vote: Senate Rejects Repeal Without Replace

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
But a more comprehensive measure that would have repealed major parts of the law with a ready replacement also came up short on Tuesday night.

# data[].attributes.headline
Instructions                  3 pts – Title of Article or News Story, which government branch is involved and the names of all of the newscasters on your team. Each newscaster should make their own individual post on padlet.                                           7 pts- The facts (summarize what happened – who, what, where, when, why)                               1 pt- provide your opinion or positon or comment on the news                                             1 pt - The news source (proper citation and link)          1 pt You can refer to an index card (nothing else); you can not bring up an article.  You cannot show a video.  You may show a photograph or picture if you have a hard copy of it.                                              4 pts cohesive, proper delivery, professional, eye contact, tone of voice (be loud    enough)                                       3 pt- 6 to 7 minutes

# data[].attributes.subject
Instructions                  3 pts – Title of Article or News Story, which government branch is involved and the names of all of the newscasters on your team. Each newscaster should make their own individual post on padlet.                                           7 pts- The facts (summarize what happened – who, what, where, when, why)                               1 pt- provide your opinion or positon or comment on the news                                             1 pt - The news source (proper citation and link)          1 pt You can refer to an index card (nothing else); you can not bring up an article.  You cannot show a video.  You may show a photograph or picture if you have a hard copy of it.                                              4 pts cohesive, proper delivery, professional, eye contact, tone of voice (be loud    enough)                                       3 pt- 6 to 7 minutes