# data[].attributes.body
It is evident that this article is discussing how the state of New York is trying to restrict access citizens have to firearms. This state wants the Supreme Court to have more restrictions on gun in the country as a whole and are passing laws that will do just that within their state. This clearly connects the the second amendment (specifically the right to bear arms). HERE YOU WOULD PUT YOUR OPINION!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
August 11
As the nation renews debate over gun control, the Supreme Court must decide whether to press ahead with a Second Amendment case it has accepted for the coming term, its first in a decade.

Gun-control groups operate under a no-news-is-good-news approach to the Supreme Court, leery of giving what they view as a strengthened conservative majority the chance to expand gun rights and weaken restrictive laws.

In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York, which the court accepted in January, the city and state of New York appear to agree. They have essentially surrendered, changing the restrictions at issue even though the city successfully defended them before a district judge and a federal appeals court.
[Supreme Court will review gun restrictions for first time in years]
New York says it has given those who hold licenses to have guns on their premises exactly what they asked for - a greater ability to transport their weapons through and outside the city - and there no longer is a controversy for the Supreme Court to settle.

"New legislation or regulations giving plaintiffs all they seek moots the case," wrote Zachary W. Carter, corporation counsel for New York City. He cited Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.'s dissenting opinion on a mootness question in an unrelated case in 2016, in which he said the court may not rule on a plaintiff's entitlement to relief simply because he "won't take 'yes' for an answer.' "

Those who brought the challenge said the city should not be allowed to get rid of the case and the constitutional questions it raises by making a last-minute change after years of resistance.

The court has told both sides to continue filing briefs and that it will consider New York's request to dismiss the case on Oct. 1, a week before the new term begins.
[Supreme Court makes headway on its next term]
Any Supreme Court decision on guns will be magnified in a presidential election year and with the backdrop of the mass shootings that have plagued the country. Whether the recent attacks in El Paso and Dayton, Ohio, will affect the justices' decision is anyone's guess, experts say.

"They're human beings and this can't help but color a little bit how they see this case," said Adam Winkler, a UCLA law professor who has written extensively about Second Amendment litigation.

On how to decide when a case is moot, he said, "I think the Supreme Court has enough wiggle room to go in either direction."

The New York restrictions were unique - no other jurisdiction has such strict rules on transporting a weapon. But the case is significant because it marked the first accepted challenge since the Supreme Court recognized an individual right to gun ownership in 2008's District of Columbia v. Heller and ruled two years later that the Second Amendment governed state and local gun laws as well as those adopted by the federal government.

Since then, the court has declined to hear challenges to all manner of gun-control measures, such as bans on certain military-style weapons and state restrictions that make it extremely difficult to obtain a permit to carry a gun outside the home.

In some cases, it has upheld gun restrictions, prompting complaints chiefly from Justice Clarence Thomas about the way his colleagues consider the Second Amendment. "We treat no other constitutional right so cavalierly," he wrote in 2016.

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch has joined Thomas in saying the court should take more Second Amendment cases. But the momentum really has increased since Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh replaced Justice Anthony M. Kennedy last year.

Kennedy was part of the five-member Heller majority, but his vote was a shaky one, according to the late justice John Paul Stevens's memoir. Stevens said he believed Kennedy insisted on language in the opinion that has been cited by lower courts in upholding state and municipal restrictions.

Kavanaugh, by contrast, was strongly endorsed by the National Rifle Association. In 2011, as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, he dissented from a decision upholding the District's ban on some semiautomatic rifles and a gun registration requirement.

He reasoned that while the Heller decision agreed that government may prohibit "dangerous and unusual" weapons not in common use, the guns at issue did not meet that definition.

"It follows from Heller's protection of semi-automatic handguns that semi-automatic rifles are also constitutionally protected and that D.C.'s ban on them is unconstitutional," Kavanaugh wrote.
[They're not 'wonder twins': Gorsuch, Kavanaugh shift the Supreme Court, but their differences are striking]
New York's approach to get rid of the case is similar to what some gun-control advocates had hoped the city of Washington would have done with its restrictive handgun policy that led to the Heller decision. The District's mayor at the time, Adrian Fenty, decided to press ahead after the D.C. Circuit ruled against the city, resulting with the Supreme Court finding an individual right to gun ownership for protection in one's home.

The gun violence reform movement thought D.C. should amend the law rather than take it to the Supreme Court, Winkler said. "The result was disastrous for them," he said.

If the court proceeds with the New York case, it could decide it very narrowly, or it could resolve long-standing questions about the right to a gun outside the home.

The New York gun association, represented by Paul D. Clement, who was solicitor general during the George W. Bush administration, said the city's "undisguised effort to avoid a precedent-setting loss and to frustrate this court's discretionary review falls short by every measure."

The city battled for years and relented only when the Supreme Court took the case, the association argues.

New York officials said the gun owners should simply acknowledge that they won.

"A primary purpose of litigation like this [is] to pressure the governmental actors to agree to a demand," the city wrote. "All that matters is whether the plaintiffs' purported injuries have been redressed. If so, there is no longer a case or controversy."

If the court decides there is no longer a reason to hear the New York case, there are others in the wings.

Some more clearly present the issue of the right to carry a weapon outside the home. There are still legal challenges to President Trump's decision to ban bump stocks. There is a case challenging California's Unsafe Handgun Act.

Recently, Remington Arms asked the court to review a Connecticut Supreme Court ruling that a lawsuit brought against the company by a survivor and relatives of victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting could go forward. The company says it is protected under federal law from such suits.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
new york state rifle & pistol association v. city of new york

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
brett kavanaugh nra national rifle association

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
New York eased gun law hopeful Supreme Court would drop Second Amendment case - but that hasn't happened yet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
August 11 As the nation renews debate over gun control, the Supreme Court must decide whether to press ahead with a Second Amendment case it has accepted for the coming term, its first in a decade.

# data[].attributes.body
This article covers the events where a man was incarcerated for six years and was not given a trial because he demanded a speedy trial. This violates his sixth amendment right to a speedy and public trial. He was only given a trial after being in prison for six years. I believe that this violates his rights and he could’ve been wrongly incarcerated and he may have been innocent. Everyone has the right to a trial and should never be incarcerated without solid proof of commuting the crime.
https://reason.com/2018/01/25/government-is-gutting-the-right-to-trial/

# data[].attributes.body
this article talks about President Trump revisiting the American libel law, part of the law of defamation which governs when people can sue those who have made false statements about them.

# data[].attributes.body
In this article the politician, Beto O’Rourke has said that he will try and take guns away from law abiding American citizens. This violates our 2nd amendment right with this attempted gun grab. For a presidential candidate this is an interesting way to campaign. But none the less taking legal guns away from citizens is still violating our constitutional right of the second amendment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Democrats' push for stricter gun control measures are an effort to "chip away" gradually at the Second Amendment, Fox Nation host Tomi Lahren argued Friday on "Fox & Friends."

Lahren was asked specifically about Democratic presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke declaring at Thursday night's presidential debate, "Hell yes, we are going to take your AR-15, AK-47."

The line from the former congressman from Texas received loud applause from the audience at the third-round debate in Houston, as he proposed a mandatory buyback of assault weapons.
2020 DEMOCRATS RAMP UP CALLS FOR MANDATORY ASSAULT WEAPONS BUYBACK
"Finally they're being transparent. We have been saying for years that they want to take our guns and it was always just, 'Oh you stupid hillbillies, we don't want to take your guns.' And now they're coming out and saying it proudly," said Lahren, also pointing to statements from Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., who vowed that gun control would have to be gradual and be accomplished through many pieces of legislation.

"What that really means is let's gradually chip away at it, so people don't realize their Second Amendment rights are being corroded and then it'll lead to what we actually want, which is confiscation," Lahren added.
KAMALA HARRIS COMPARES TRUMP TO 'WIZARD OF OZ' ON TRADE: 'A REALLY SMALL DUDE
In the wake of multiple deadly mass shootings last month, including two in Texas, many of the candidates stepped up their calls for the federal government to start buying back assault-style weapons from owners - with some of the White House hopefuls urging mandatory buybacks.

O'Rourke was among the candidates to recently declare, "Americans who own AR-15s and AK-47s will have to sell their assault weapons."
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
O'Rourke was complimented by his rivals on the debate stage for his outspoken efforts on the issue of gun violence. He suspended his campaign last month and returned to his home town of El Paso after a mass shooting there that left 22 people dead and many more injured.

O'Rourke has made stemming gun violence an integral part of his campaign.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tomi Lahren on Beto O'Rourke's vow to take away guns: 'Finally they're being transparent'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Democrats' push for stricter gun control measures are an effort to "chip away" gradually at the Second Amendment, Fox Nation host Tomi Lahren argued Friday on "Fox & Friends." Lahren was asked specifically about Democratic presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke declaring at Thursday night's presidential debate, "Hell yes, we are going to take your AR-15, AK-47."

# data[].attributes.body
145 CEOs from various corporate branches have demanded stricter gun laws to combat gun violence. They urged for increased funding in areas regarding mental health. This includes enhanced detections and treatments. CEOs were also adamant about the necessity of stricter background checks. This may infringe on citizens' second amendment rights for the second amendment states that "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." If and when the senate decides to take action, the stricter gun laws and background checks may restrict the buyer's ability to freely purchase guns. I believe that Congress should enact on stricter gun laws to ensure that the buyer is capable of operating firearms appropriately and safely. Hence, this will in return decrease crime and death rates.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This story is part of a group of stories called

The chief executives of major US companies sent Senate leaders a letter on Thursday, urging Congress to expand background checks on all gun sales and issue stronger "red flag" laws. The letter, first shared by the New York Times, is backed by 145 CEOs of well-known retailers, technology companies, and financial institutions, including Dick's Sporting Goods, Levi Strauss, Reddit, Twitter, and Uber.

The move demonstrates how top corporate leaders are taking a united stance toward gun violence in the wake of recent mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio. Gun violence is "a public health crisis that demands urgent action," the executives wrote in the letter, adding that they have a responsibility and obligation to stand up for the safety of their employees, customers, and people across the country.

"Gun violence in America is not inevitable; it's preventable," they continued. "There are steps Congress can, and must, take to prevent and reduce gun violence."

Recent polls show that Americans across party lines support initiatives that could curb gun violence: A new NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll shows bipartisan support - even among a majority of gun owners - for increased funding for mental health screenings and treatment, universal background checks, red flag laws, and requiring gun licenses. A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll also showed similar results, with 86 percent of Americans supporting extreme risk "red flag" laws that allow guns to be taken from people deemed a danger to themselves or others.

Lee Miringoff, director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion, told NPR that "the congressional crowd is very much out of step with where public opinion is on [gun control]." In the Thursday letter sent to Congress, executives maintained that their requests are in line with public opinion: "These proposals are common-sense, bipartisan and widely supported by the American public."

However, companies are aware of the potential for backlash, Levi Strauss CEO Chip Bergh told the New York Times. "This has been spun by the N.R.A. as we're trying to repeal the Second Amendment," Bergh said. "Nothing is further from the truth."

When Dick's Sporting Goods decided to stop selling assault-style weapons and raise the gun-purchasing age to 21 last year, the retailer was threatened by customer boycotts online and reported slow sales. But it's recently seen strong earnings - which suggests that brief spat of outrage had no long-lasting impact on the company, according to the Washington Post.

While Congress is deadlocked between the Republican-controlled Senate and the Democrat-held House of Representatives (which has passed a universal background checks bill and introduced legislation on an assault weapons ban), corporate actions appear to be more effective - or at the very least proactive - in reducing the possibility of gun violence. In today's highly politicized environment, brands have become markedly more explicit about their views.

Last week, Walmart announced it will reduce gun sales in stores nationwide: The retailer will stop selling short-barrel rifle ammunition, handgun ammunition, and handguns in Alaska (the last state where Walmart has them available). It will also ask customers to stop openly carrying guns in its stores as well as at Sam's Club, even in states where open carry is legal. Retailers like Walgreens, CVS, and Kroger also joined Walmart, asking shoppers to not openly carry firearms in stores.

Gun violence has emerged as one of the nation's most pressing political issues, according to public opinion. And while lawmakers can't seem to come to a consensus, it seems as if some corporate leaders have: It is time for the Senate to take action.
Sign up for The Goods' newsletter. Twice a week, we'll send you the best Goods stories exploring what we buy, why we buy it, and why it matters.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
145 CEOs sent Congress a letter demanding action on gun control

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This story is part of a group of stories called The chief executives of major US companies sent Senate leaders a letter on Thursday, urging Congress to expand background checks on all gun sales and issue stronger "red flag" laws.

# data[].attributes.body
This article focuses on different studies that investigate the racial disparities in the criminal justice system, especially when it comes sentencing.  In most of the studies, black Americans were found to receive higher bail amounts and higher sentences when compared to white Americans who commit the same crime. This violates the 8th Amendment which states that, " Excessive bale shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted". The black Americans are being sentenced worse than white Americans while The Constitution states that Americans should be punished equally and fair. I believe this racial bias should not exist in the criminal justice system. As Americans, we should all be treated the same no matter our race, gender, or religion.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Last September, I put up a post listing more than 120 studies demonstrating racial bias in the criminal-justice system. The studies covered nearly every nook and cranny of our carceral system - from police to prosecutors to prisons; from misdemeanor offenses to the death penalty; from sentencing to parole; and from youth offenses to plea bargaining to clemency. The post also included nine studies I could find that suggested racial bias was not a factor in some part of the criminal-justice system,

I also asked readers to send me any studies I missed, and I promised that I'd keep the list up to date as new studies came along. So here is our first update. I'll both list the new studies here, and add them to the master list. As before, if you know of something I've missed or are aware of a forthcoming study, please let me know via email.

In March of 2019, researchers compiled and analyzed data from more than 100 million traffic stops in the United States. What they found: Police were more likely to pull over black drivers. The researchers were able to confirm racial bias by measuring daytime stops against nighttime stops, when darkness would make it more difficult to ascertain a driver's race. As with previous studies, they also found that black and Latino drivers are more likely to be searched for contraband - even though white drivers are consistently more likely to be found with contraband. They also found that legalization of marijuana in Colorado and Washington has caused fewer drivers to be searched during a stop, but that it did not alter the increased frequency with which black and Latino drivers are searched.

A 2015 county-level study of police shootings from 2011 to 2014 found "a significant bias in the killing of unarmed black Americans relative to unarmed white Americans, in that the probability of being black, unarmed, and shot by police is about 3.49 times the probability of being white, unarmed, and shot by police on average." The study also found "no relationship between county-level racial bias in police shootings and crime rates (even race-specific crime rates), meaning that the racial bias observed in police shootings in this data set is not explainable as a response to local-level crime rates."

A 2014 telephone study of urban men found that "participants who reported more police contact also reported more trauma and anxiety symptoms, associations tied to how many stops they reported, the intrusiveness of the encounters, and their perceptions of police fairness," and that "overall, the burden of police contact in each of these cities falls predominantly on young Black and Latino males."

A 2018 study of SWAT deployments in Maryland found that such deployments were more heavily concentrated in minority neighborhoods, even after adjusting for crime rates. The study also found that more heavily militarized policing in those areas had little effect on public safety, but did erode public trust in police among residents.

A 2018 study of bail practices in New Orleans found that black people are more likely to be required to pay bail, are more likely to have higher bail, are less likely to be able to afford bail and, therefore, are more likely to remain incarcerated before trial.

A 2018 study of traffic stops in Vermont found that black drivers are up to four times more likely than white drivers to be searched during a traffic stop, even though white drivers are 30 to 50 percent more likely to be found with contraband.

A 2018 survey of bail practices in Miami and Philadelphia found that "bail judges are racially biased against black defendants, with substantially more racial bias among both inexperienced and part-time judges. We find suggestive evidence that this racial bias is driven by bail judges relying on inaccurate stereotypes that exaggerate the relative danger of releasing black defendants."

A 2018 survey found that 63 percent of blacks have had a family member incarcerated, versus 42 percent of whites.

While black youths make up 14 percent of the youth population, a 2018 study found that they make up 53 percent of minors transferred to adult court for offenses against persons, despite the fact that white and black youth make up nearly an equal percentage of youth charged with such offenses.

A review of homicide cases in Missouri between 1997 and 2001 found that both geography and race are important factors in whether a defendant receives the death penalty. Black defendants in the large urban areas of St. Louis and Kansas City were less likely to get the death penalty, likely because of the higher rate of black jurors in jury pools. This also meant that white defendants accused of killing white people were more likely to be sentenced to death as black defendants accused of killing black people.

A 2016 review of traffic stops in Bloomfield, N.J., found that though the city is 60 percent white and non-Hispanic, 78 percent of ticketed motorists were black or Hispanic. The study also found that police disproportionately stopped drivers around the city's southern border, which it shares with towns and cities with larger minority populations.

According to a 2018 study by Pew, 1 in 23 black adults in the United States is on parole or probation, versus 1 in 81 white adults. And while blacks make up 13 percent of the U.S. population, they make up 30 percent of those on probation or parole.

According to a 2016 study by the Sentencing Project, mass incarceration combined with felon disenfranchisement laws have led to severe underrepresentation of black Americans in the voting electorate. From the study: "One in 13 African Americans of voting age is disenfranchised, a rate more than four times greater than that of non-African Americans. Over 7.4 percent of the adult African American population is disenfranchised compared to 1.8 percent of the non-African American population . . . In four states - Florida (21 percent), Kentucky (26 percent), Tennessee (21 percent), and Virginia (22 percent) - more than one in five African Americans is disenfranchised." This means that black candidates may get less support than they otherwise would, candidates of all races may pay less attention to issues values by black voters, and black interests in general may be underrepresented in electoral politics.

Though blacks make up just under 12 percent of the population in Texas, according to a database kept by the Texas Justice Initiative, they comprise 29 percent of deaths in police custody since 2005, and 27 percent of civilians shot by police officers. Hispanics were underrepresented in both categories.

A 2008 study of parole board decisions found that "black offenders spent a longer time in prison awaiting parole compared with white offenders," and that "the racial and ethnic differences are remained as an influence on parole decision-making after controlling for legal, various individual demographic and community characteristics."

A study of 237,000 traffic stops in Rhode Island in 2016 found that blacks comprised 11 percent of those stopped, significantly higher than their 6.5 percent share of the population at large. The study also found that blacks were more likely to be pulled over during the day, when the race of a driver is more easily ascertained.

A study of traffic stops in Connecticut in 2013 and 2014 found that blacks made up 13.5 percent of police stops - again, significantly higher than the black population at large (9.9 percent). This study, too, found that minority drivers were more likely to be pulled over during daylight hours.

A 2016 study of traffic violations in several Bay Area counties in California found that black and Latino drivers were significantly more likely to be jailed for an inability to pay petty fines for moving violations. White drivers on average were half as likely to be booked for failure to pay, while black drivers were up to 16 times more likely to be jailed over traffic fines. Another study found that black people make up just 6 percent of the population of San Francisco, but more than 70 percent of those seeking legal aid due to driver's license suspensions over unpaid traffic fines.

A study of about 260,000 traffic stops in San Diego between 2014 and 2015 found that police more likely to search black and Latino drivers than white drivers, even though they were more likely to find contraband on white drivers.

Studies of traffic stops in Iowa have found that blacks are disproportionately stopped, disproportionately ticketed, searched, and arrested. They were less likely to be let off with a warning.

Read more:
Radley Balko: There's overwhelming evidence that the criminal-justice system is racist. Here's the proof.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | 21 more studies showing racial disparities in the criminal justice system

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Last September, I put up a post listing more than 120 studies demonstrating racial bias in the criminal-justice system. The studies covered nearly every nook and cranny of our carceral system - from police to prosecutors to prisons; from misdemeanor offenses to the death penalty; from sentencing to parole; and from youth offenses to plea bargaining to clemency.

# data[].attributes.body
This article talks about Russel Bucklew, a criminal in Missouri who is currently awaiting the death penalty. Missouri still allows the death penalty for people who have commuted murder, which Bucklew did. However, Bucklew has appealed execution via lethal injection as he has a tumor in his neck which would burst by the injection, causing him extreme pain. Unfortunately for him, the supreme court dismissed the case. It is clear that this relates most to the 8th amendment, which states "...nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted". The reason that this article relayes to that is because although Bucklew legally can get the death penalty, lethal injection would cause him extreme pain. This makes it a cruel punishment in my opinion. I believe that it is extra cruel as they could opt to execute him with gas, which would not cause his tumor to explode. However, they have disregarded his condition, causing him to experience a very painful death, which is cruel and goes against the 8th amendment.
https://themissouritimes.com/62677/a-look-at-missouris-death-penalty-laws-history/

# data[].attributes.body
It is shown in this article that it is important for Australians to get a bill of rights that’s secure and safe and protected and for them. They need North America and France to help them put it together so they can have a balanced document in 2019 of democratic and republican views. If they do not start to put together a bill of rights together then Australia will have more government and people issues that will be soon to include north americas government in the issues. This is why it is important to protect other states/countries.  civil liberties and not ignore them.  https://apple.news/AGVqu1shiQbOPM5ahC4VTIg

# data[].attributes.body
This CNN Politics article is about Beto O’Rourke, Democratic presidential candidate, stating in “Hell Yes, we’re going to take your AR-15 and your AK-47”, during the democratic presidential debate on Thursday, September the 12th. This may be seen by many as a potential government leader trying to strip them of their second amendment right to bear arms which is supposed to “not be infringed” upon. Thank you:)

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/09/12/politics/beto-orourke-hell-yes-take-ar-15-ak-47/index.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Read: 2020 Democrats are going all in on abortion rights
The abortion conversation began with former Representative Beto O'Rourke of Texas, who approached the subject unprompted by the moderators. In answering a question about his health-care plan, O'Rourke said that "health care also has to mean that every woman can make her own decisions about her own body, and has access to the care that makes that possible." Washington Governor Jay Inslee later picked up that theme, eager to make his pro-abortion-rights record clear. "I am the only candidate here who has passed a law protecting a woman's right of reproductive rights in health insurance," he said, referring to legislation he signed in 2018. "I respect everyone's goals and plans here, but we have one candidate who advanced the ball. We have to have access for everyone."

This claim did not sit well with Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota. "I want to say there are three women up here who fought pretty hard for a woman's right to choose," she said. The comment elicited loud applause, and was an inadvertent reminder of how male the first-night debate stage was: Klobuchar, along with Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, stood out in the long line of male presidential candidates in their dark suits. But Klobuchar's line was also a throwaway: Beyond implying her abortion-rights bona fides, she didn't offer any details about her position.

The most illuminating answer came a few minutes later, from Warren. The moderator asked her directly, "Would you put limits on abortion?" The senator gave what has become a standard answer on the 2020 campaign trail: She wants to ensure access to birth control and abortion for all women, and she wants to create federal protections for the abortion rights laid out by the Supreme Court. She specifically nodded to public opinion in her answer. "We now have an America where most people support Roe v. Wade," she said. "We need to make that the federal law." Conveniently, she did not answer the question about placing limits on abortion.

The exchange, and Warren's dodge, were reminders of how differently Clinton answered a similar question during the third presidential debate in 2016. Clinton attempted to humanize abortion late in a pregnancy. "I have met with women who, toward the end of their pregnancy, get the worst news one could get: that their health is in jeopardy if they continue to carry to term or that something terrible has happened or just been discovered about the pregnancy," she said. In the past year, Democratic legislators in states such as New York have focused on these kinds of cases, lifting restrictions on abortion in the second and third trimesters of a pregnancy. But these kinds of measures are also highly controversial: Gallup polling over the past four decades has shown significant divisions in public opinion over abortions that take place late in a pregnancy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
senator elizabeth warren of massachusetts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
long line of male presidential candidates

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Democrats Avoided the Toughest Debate Questions on Abortion

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Read: 2020 Democrats are going all in on abortion rights The abortion conversation began with former Representative Beto O'Rourke of Texas, who approached the subject unprompted by the moderators. In answering a question about his health-care plan, O'Rourke said that "health care also has to mean that every woman can make her own decisions about her own body, and has access to the care that makes that possible."

# data[].attributes.body
This article is talking about America’s first amendment rights. It talks about how it does not say you can tweet whatever you want to. It’s not a public square, that includes YouTube, Reddit, & other platforms. Trump tweeted out that he could “continue to monitor the censorship of American citizens” on social media. Even though we have freedom of speech, he’s still monitoring & watching closely. This is basically saying we’re not free from “his speech”. The first amendment right is written in the bill of rights

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/05/06/opinion/twitter-facebook-first-amendment.amp.html

# data[].attributes.body
This article shares the story of a former Duluth Public School Principal who filed a lawsuit against her school system. She claims their business practices are not in the best interest of the students despite her best efforts. She accuses the school system and its superintendent of opportunity gaps, hiring practices, and educational equality. The school system suspended her without pay and soon fired her. Reason being “inappropriate conduct”. To which she claims they are attempting to silence her with threats. Tonya Sconiers says her right to free speech is being violated.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Tonya Sconiers and her attorney filed a lawsuit against Duluth Public Schools, Superintendent Bill Gronseth and Assistant Superintendent Jeff Horton claiming a violation of First Amendment rights and discrimination based on race and sex. Sconiers is seeking monetary relief, an amount to be determined by a jury.

Duluth Public School said in a statement through its attorney, Amy Mace, of Rupp, Anderson, Squires & Waldsurger, P.A., that it has not yet had an opportunity to review the complaint in detail and therefore cannot comment on any specific allegations.

"Based on the representations Ms. Sconiers and her counsel have made to the media, the district vehemently denies the allegations that any of its administrators engaged in discrimination or violated Ms. Sconiers' free speech rights," the statement said. "The district's disciplinary decisions related to Ms. Sconiers, including her discharge, were based solely on Ms. Sconiers' inappropriate conduct."

Sconiers, along with her attorneys, held a news conference Monday morning.

"As principal, I have been entrusted by the parents and our community to ensure that decision-making, financing and hiring, which impact our students, are always made in their best interest," Sconiers read from a prepared statement. "Difficult challenges mean difficult decisions and courageous leadership. Consequently, courageous leaders must stand up to the injustices of the status quo in policies and practices."

One of Sconiers' attorneys, Ben Kwan, said they filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court in Duluth on Monday alleging the district and key leaders retaliated against Sconiers for speaking out as a citizen on matters of "deep public concern."

"Issues like educational equity, the opportunity gap, the achievement gap and most recently district hiring practices," Kwan said at the news conference. "The complaint alleges that the district repeatedly retaliated against principal Sconiers for her speech, reprimanding her in December 2018, then suspending her without pay in March and May of this year."

Kwan said six weeks after notifying the district in April that his law firm was investigating the basis of those unpaid suspensions, the district placed Sconiers on a paid administrative leave citing new allegations.

"Finally on July 29 the district informed principal Sconiers it intended to fire her," Kwan said. "The complaint alleges that the district's reasons for Principal Sconiers' discipline and discharge were ginned up to paper her file and provide the district with a cover for its real motivation, which we allege is retaliation and discrimination."

Sconiers was given the opportunity to fight the termination through arbitration but has decided to withdraw her request for arbitration on Monday.

The complaint also alleges that the district discriminated against Sconiers based on sex and race.

"The district treated Principal Sconiers differently as a black woman going so far as to criticize things like the volume and the tone of her voice," Kwan said.

Sconiers said she was saddened to be at odds with the district leadership and school district.

"It saddens me that the district attempted to silence me by threatening me, then suspending me and now firing me," Sconiers said. "I will not be silenced. I refuse to let another year, another month or another day go by without holding our education system accountable for fair, just and equitable actions that benefit all students in Duluth Public Schools."

Sconiers was first hired in Duluth in March 2000 to work as an assistant principal at Denfeld. She was appointed to principal in July 2012.

The lawsuit claims trouble for Sconiers started as far back as 2017 when she aligned herself with the Community-Based School Equity Initiative, a group of parents and community members who call for equity among the district. The group's biggest push was for the Duluth School District to allocate compensatory education funds to the schools that generate them, a feat that was accomplished in 2018 after a resolution was passed by the School Board.

The lawsuit claims Sconiers was retaliated against for aligning herself with this group; for asking that "zero hour" no longer be offered and funds allocated elsewhere; for questioning hiring practices; and for reporting the district to the Minnesota Department of Education for misuse of funds.

The lawsuit also claims Sconiers was retaliated against for doing an on-camera interview with a documentary crew in October 2017, talking about opportunity gaps among students without permission from the district.

According to the complaint, Sconiers received a letter of reprimand on Dec. 21, 2018, was informed she was under investigation on Jan. 4 and underwent an interview with an outside attorney for the district on Jan. 11.

In March, Sconiers received an 11-page "Notice of Suspension, Notice of Deficiencies and Letter of Directives" in conjunction with the investigation and was suspended without pay for five school days, the complaint said.

Sconiers informed Duluth Public Schools on April 29 that she had engaged lawyers to investigate her five days of unpaid suspension served in March.

Sconiers received another letter of suspension on April 30 and was given a one-day unpaid suspension and was warned that she may face "immediate discharge," the complaint claims. The complaint alleges that Sconiers was told the suspension was due to students' private data being exposed, but she believes it was retaliatory.

On June 18, Sconiers was informed she was being put on administrative leave following allegations against her, allegations the complaint claims Sconiers still isn't aware of.

On July 29, the School Board voted to terminate Sconiers. After receiving the letter of termination, Sconiers exercised her right to put a hold on discharge pending a hearing pursuant to Minnesota's Teacher Tenure Act. On Monday, Sconiers withdrew her request for arbitration.

Former Duluth East High School Principal Laurie Knapp has taken over the role at Denfeld on a substitute basis. Knapp had retired in 2016.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Former Duluth principal alleges violation of First Amendment rights, discrimination | Bemidji Pioneer

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Tonya Sconiers and her attorney filed a lawsuit against Duluth Public Schools, Superintendent Bill Gronseth and Assistant Superintendent Jeff Horton claiming a violation of First Amendment rights and discrimination based on race and sex. Sconiers is seeking monetary relief, an amount to be determined by a jury.

# data[].attributes.body
Former Olympic bobsledder, Ian Danney, created a fitness training business that is currently in a lawsuit. The lawsuit involves unapproved injections and 🤬 that might have been imported illegally. During his testimony on July 25th he admits importing anti-inflammatory 🤬 and injected it into one of his clients. During this testimony he exercises the use of the 5th amendment. Ian Danney uses the notorious "pleading the fifth" allowing him to not answer questions that could incriminate him. This article connects to the 5th amendment, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment of a grand jury." This amendment is crucial and important to court procedures and possible false incriminations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
CLOSE

In December 2002, a former Olympic bobsledder named Ian Danney formed a fitness training business in Arizona that soon became all the rage with many big-name clients in pro football and baseball.

Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow is an avid customer of his. Other patrons over the years include Justin Upton in baseball and James Harrison and Demaryius Thomas in the NFL.

But Danney also has had several clients who have tested positive for banned performance-enhancing drugs. And now he's coming under fire in a lawsuit that raised questions about off-the-books treatments, unapproved injections and drugs that might have been imported illegally.

Corey Liuget has appeared in 108 games for the Chargers since being drafted in the first round in 2011. (Photo: Gregory Bull, AP)

In pretrial deposition testimony July 25, Danney admitted he imported an anti-inflammatory drug from Australia called pentosan and injected it in at least one client despite not having a medical license.

He also invoked his Fifth Amendment rights and refused to answer questions 46 times during that testimony, including whether he ever gave injections to Tebow and former NFL first-round draft pick LaRon Landry, according to court records obtained by USA TODAY Sports.

The testimony stems from a federal civil lawsuit filed last year by current Oakland Raiders defensive lineman Corey Liuget, who accuses Danney of injecting him with a banned substance without his consent in 2017 - ipamorelin, a growth-hormone peptide. Liuget ended up being suspended four games last year because of that positive drug test, leading him to sue Danney for damages and use the lawsuit to elicit a series of potentially damning admissions.

NFL POWER RANKINGS: Colts, Chargers take hits leading into Week 1

In court records, Danney, 49, has denied injecting Liuget with a banned substance and is fighting the lawsuit. His attorney, Jeffrey Springer, said in an e-mail to USA TODAY Sports that evidence will show that Danney was not the source of the banned substance ipamorelin.

"However, there is no doubt that Mr. Liuget's performance was clearly subpar at the time of his test and it was highly questionable as to whether the high salary he was being paid was justified by his lack of production on defense," Springer said. "That he would seek help from a trainer of the skill and caliber of Mr. Danney is not surprising. Blaming Mr. Danney is surprising, given Mr. Liuget's good character."

Pleading the Fifth

Besides Liuget, Danney testified that Landry and current Buffalo Bills defensive lineman Trent Murphy were clients who tested positive for banned NFL substances. Landry was suspended by the NFL three times for violating its policy for performance-enhancing drugs and is no longer in the league.

Ian Danney trains many athletes through his business, Performance Enhancement Professionals. (Photo: Rob Schumacher, USA TODAY Sports)

"Did you ever inject Mr. Landry with anything?" asked Liuget's attorney, Peter Ginsberg.

"Mr. Danney is going to decline to answer the question under the Fifth Amendment," Springer responded, according to the deposition transcript.

Tebow, a client of Danney's, also became a subject of questioning by Liuget's attorney.

"Let me ask you about Tim Tebow," Ginsberg said. "Have you ever injected him?"

Springer then asked his client if they needed to confer before answering. Danney said he did, and the two left the room, according to the deposition transcript. After returning, Springer said, "Mr. Danney is going to invoke his rights under the Fifth Amendment and decline to answer the question."

"Have you ever given Mr. Tebow any anabolic steroids?" Ginsberg then asked Danney.

"No," Danney replied.

"Have you ever provided to him any illegal substance?" Liuget's attorney asked.

"No," Danney replied.

"Have you ever provided to him anything that required a prescription?" Liuget's attorney asked.

Springer then asked Danney if he needed to confer. Danney said yes and the two left the room again.

After returning, Springer said Danney would not answer according to his Fifth Amendment rights.

A message left with Tebow's representatives was not immediately returned. Springer told USA TODAY Sports that he instructed Danney not to answer certain questions because those questions "not only intruded on his rights, but also those of other individuals who were not present to respond to the scandalous allegations made by Mr. Liuget about his fellow athletes."

The dispute stems from events in November 2017. That's when Danney injected Liuget's feet with an anti-inflammatory to help him with the demands of playing in the NFL. He told Liuget it was an over-the-counter medication, according to court filings. But soon after the injections, Liuget provided a routine urine sample to the NFL as part of its performance-enhancing drugs policy.

Liuget then got a letter from the NFL saying he tested positive for the banned substance. He was suspended four games, which led to him losing millions, according to his lawsuit.

Liuget's attorneys are trying to get the judge to rule in his favor with a motion for partial summary judgment based on Danney's admissions and lack of answers. They stated in court filings that Danney didn't have the license to administer prescription medicine or make injections, among other facts they say establish Danney's liability. Ginsberg declined further comment.

The drug from Australia

Besides the ipamorelin found in Liuget's system, Liuget's attorneys have stressed Danney's possession and injections of pentosan.

"Defendant admitted that he was in possession of large quantities of Pentosan Polysulfate, enough to administer 40 to 50 injections, and that he does not have a license to possess or administer prescription medications," Liuget's attorneys stated.

Danney testified he imported 100 milliliters of pentosan polysulfate from Australia in 2011 and used it on Liuget but didn't import it specifically for him, according to the deposition transcript. He testified in July he had some of the drug left over but refused to answer whether he provided it to anyone other than Liuget.

In the U.S., pentosan is approved for prescriptions in capsule form to treat bladder pain or discomfort associated with interstitial cystitis. Injections of it are not approved by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration, according to FDA spokeswoman Sandy Walsh.

Walsh said she could not comment on specific cases. But speaking generally, in most circumstances, she said it is illegal for individuals to import drugs or devices into the U.S. for personal use "because these products purchased from other countries often have not been approved by the FDA for use and sale in the U.S."

Springer didn't immediately respond to a follow-up inquiry about the importation and injections of pentosan.

Danney testified he didn't have documentation of pentosan purchase.

"Is that because you know it's illegal to have it in the United States that you don't have any records of it?" Ginsberg asked.

"No," Danney replied.

"Why don't you have any records of it?" Ginsberg asked

"Didn't feel a need to keep a record," the trainer said.

Danney also testified he didn't document the pentosan injections.

"Why do you have documentation of supplements on two occasions and not the other items you administered to Mr. Liuget?" Ginsberg asked.

"We don't keep medical - sorry, we don't keep records of those types of things for the protection of our clients," Danney testified.

Liuget was selected in the first round of the NFL draft in 2011 by then-San Diego Chargers and says in his lawsuit that the positive drug test cost him about a quarter of his salary in 2018. He also said the Chargers used Liuget's suspension as leverage to renegotiate his contract, resulting in a decrease in compensation of approximately $15 million. The relocated Los Angeles Chargers this year declined an option on his contract, leading him to recently sign with the Raiders.

Danney's business, Performance Enhancement Professionals in Scottsdale was incorporated in 2002, according to Arizona state business records, though its website says it was founded in 1995. In 2008, Danney also started a dietary supplements business in Arizona called Optimum EFX.

Danney's client, Murphy, now with the Bills, was suspended for four games by the NFL in 2017 for violating the league's performance-enhancing drug policy. Landry, a former defensive back, was suspended four games in 2014 and 10 games in 2015, both times for violations of the league's policy for performance-enhancing drugs. He hasn't played in the NFL since then after being suspended indefinitely.

Danney's business facility in Scottsdale bears his name - the Danney Center.

"He's known as the secret weapon amongst a select group of NFL stars, providing the very best in bespoke training and nutrition packages from his five-star facility in Scottsdale, Arizona," his business website says.

A trial is scheduled for Feb. 4 in Santa Ana, Calif.
Follow reporter Schrotenboer @Schrotenboer. E-mail: bschrotenb@usatoday.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trainer to NFL stars pleaded Fifth Amendment 46 times in drug lawsuit

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
CLOSE In December 2002, a former Olympic bobsledder named Ian Danney formed a fitness training business in Arizona that soon became all the rage with many big-name clients in pro football and baseball. Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow is an avid customer of his.

# data[].attributes.body
The New York Times covers an article about the Labor Department moving to expand the religion exemption for hiring and firing. This would allow more federal contractors to employ people based on religion. This would violate the first amendment by discriminating against the religious beliefs. Everyone under the bill of rights has the freedom of religion. Employers should not be able to employ based solely on religion. By passing this policy the labor department allows for the discrimination of others. Even though the proposal allegedly seeks to provide protection of religious rights, there will still be discrimination. The proposal would violate the freedom of religion listed in the first amendment.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/15/business/economy/religion-exemption-hiring-firing.html

# data[].attributes.body
In this article it talked about how all of the democratic candidates believe that they should abolish the abortion ban. This violates the 5th amendment because life starts at conception, and during an abortion the baby is murdered. Since the 5th amendment protects the right of life, then all abortion violates the 5th amendment https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/06/2020-democrats-abortion-debate/592696/

# data[].attributes.body
This article is about how Google has been recently accused of censorship of any conservative materials by blacklisting them and limiting access to how people can find them. This current accusation comes at the heels of a video that has Google executives claim that they will try their best to prevent Trump from being elected again. This supposed video is also supported by files being leaked by a Google whistleblower that show any conservative search terms on Google are pushed back by its built in algorithm. This connects with the first amendment which claims the government cannot " abridge the freedom of speech". Here is clearly a violation of this due to Google's bias against Trump and the conservative party. In my opinion, I am extremely troubled how Google would do this and how they would gladly censor materials due to their own bias. it shows a disturbing problem of political censorship tha could possibly grow.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
ANGELICA ALVAREZ, SINCLAIR BROADCAST GROUP

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Google, censorship and accusations of political bias

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WASHINGTON (SBG) - Once again, Google is on Capitol Hill answering questions about censorship in search engines and political bias. Courtesy: Sinclair Broadcast Group. The company is among other top social media companies being accused of conservative bias and the focus of lawmakers who are trying to figure out how these companies could or should be regulated.

# data[].attributes.body
The video below show an illegal search & seizure from the police. This is a violation of the persons 4th Amendment right which is that with a warrant, property/cars  can not be searched or seizured unnecessarily

https://youtu.be/_PPA4WGl2ic

# data[].attributes.body
This article demonstrates, informs, and reminds readers of our basic constitutional rights by describing the 2012 case of Abu Omar. This case focuses on the abduction of radical Egyptian cleric Omar, who was believed to be linked to terrorism in some way shape or form based on his unconventional views. Those who acted upon these events were former CIA members, along with the SISMI (Italian Secret Service). While abducted, Omar was sent to an area where he was secluded, interrogated, and brutally tortured with electric shocks by said CIA/SISMI. It has been stated that he was kept in confinement for four years, despite not being charged for any crimes. This was an extreme violation of the Bill of Rights (8th Amendment) in regards to America being involved with rendition/poorly justified means to abduct and torture. Following the lines of the VIII amendment, “...no cruel or unusual punishments...”. Abu Omar being pursued for his views (and most likely other aspects, ex. Race, social affiliations) makes this case all the more questionable to whether our own civil rights will be violated in the same fashion one day.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Italy's highest court on Wednesday upheld the convictions of 23 Americans - nearly all current or former CIA officers - for playing roles in the kidnapping of an Egyptian terrorism suspect in 2003. The Americans face prison sentences ranging from seven to nine years, but they were tried in absentia and are highly unlikely to be extradited.

The marathon Italian prosecution has strained relations between the United States and Italy, exposed tradecraft errors behind a CIA operation and raised questions about which U.S. officials abroad are eligible for diplomatic immunity.

The legal case is also significant because a Western ally convicted U.S. government officials for the practice of "rendition," in which a terrorism suspect is flown against his will to another country for interrogation.

Among the convicted Americans are two Washingtonians: Sabrina De Sousa, a former CIA operative, and Col. Joseph L. Romano III, a retired Air Force commander who works at the Pentagon.

The landmark case dates to Feb. 17, 2003, when Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr, a radical Egyptian cleric known as Abu Omar, walked out of his Milan apartment in broad daylight and vanished. Italian authorities used cellphone records made at the time and location of the abduction to determine that CIA officers snatched Abu Omar, drove him to nearby Aviano Air Base and flew him to Egypt. According to Italian court documents, Abu Omar was beaten and subjected to electric shock in a Cairo prison. He was later freed.

Armando Spataro, the Italian public prosecutor who brought the case, said he pursued the Americans because he believes that renditions violate international law. In court papers, Italian investigators say De Sousa was a "CIA agent" who helped plan the kidnapping. De Sousa, who denies having been in the CIA and says she was a State Department consular official, said she played no role in the abduction and was chaperoning her son's ski trip on the day Abu Omar was taken. Romano, accused of helping secrete the kidnappers and Abu Omar at Aviano Air Base in northeastern Italy, has declined to comment on his role.

De Sousa, Romano and the other convicted Americans never received diplomatic or military immunity. U.S. officials asserted immunity for Romano under NATO's Status of Forces Agreement, but the Italians disregarded it. De Sousa sued the CIA and the State and Justice departments in federal court, seeking to force the government to give her immunity, but she lost her case. She is appealing.

The CIA declined to comment. Pentagon spokesman George Little also declined to comment.

De Sousa said that the evidence against her was highly circumstantial and that senior U.S. government officials who planned the rendition deserve to be held accountable. Romano said the Italian Supreme Court's ruling surprised him because prosecutors had asked the judges to drop the charges against him, saying he deserved NATO immunity.

"I am not angry, I am just disappointed. I am saddened," Romano said Wednesday. "The government of Italy violated [my immunity.] I believe their courts have lost their legitimacy."

In an interview Wednesday, Spataro applauded the court ruling and said NATO immunity does not protect those who participate in kidnappings.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Italy's high court upholds convictions of 23 Americans in Abu Omar rendition

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Italy's highest court on Wednesday upheld the convictions of 23 Americans - nearly all current or former CIA officers - for playing roles in the kidnapping of an Egyptian terrorism suspect in 2003. The Americans face prison sentences ranging from seven to nine years, but they were tried in absentia and are highly unlikely to be extradited.

# data[].attributes.body
This article is referring to the protests occurring in Hong Kong, the police have violated their freedom of speech. There have been many protests over the past couple months and some have gotten out of hand. The people had planned a rally but it became banned when the police heard of it. They said it could have gotten violent at the protest and banned it. The people are fighting to get back their protest but the police aren't budging on the issue. While they may see it as stopping potential violence many see it as an infringement of their freedom of speech.

# data[].attributes.headline
The legal implications of digital privacy 

# data[].attributes.subject
The legal implications of digital privacy 

# data[].attributes.body
This article talked about how there was this crime involving someones phone. And the government would search through the phone without a warrant. The 4th amendment talks about the right of the people to secure their persons, houses, and other stuff, and that government should not violate this and the other people should not violate either. I think that people should secure everything that belongs to them, and the government has no right to search all that if they have no reason to search unless they have a warrant. They should have a warrant if They want to search, otherwise they cant just got searching in people's property.

# data[].attributes.body
In this article, the topics mentioned are gun violence, hate crime, and terrorism. The Hispanic community was terrorized after the El Paso shooting that resulted in the many deaths. It mentions that many of these attacks and shootings come from hateful speech and crime. Civilians have the “right to bear arms,” according to the second amendment in the Bill of Rights. Although not many politicians nor the Government is taking action to stop these crimes and regulate gun control. Unfortunately, hateful speech is protected by the First Amendment, freedom of speech, and makes it difficult to track attacks before they happen. Although the US may have benefits. This is certainly not one. Many live in fear that their life is at risk. Shootings and terrorism needs to be talked about more rather than banning e cigarettes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Image

Texas state troopers guarding the entrance to the mall where 22 people were killed in El Paso. The F.B.I. has been pressing for better coordination with local and state law enforcement agencies to combat domestic terrorism. Credit Credit Adriana Zehbrauskas for The New York Times

WASHINGTON - Law enforcement officials have sounded the alarm for months: Homegrown terrorism, including by white supremacists, is now as big a threat as terrorism from abroad. But the mass shooting in El Paso last weekend, the largest domestic terrorist attack against Hispanics in modern history, has made it glaringly clear how poorly prepared the country is to fight it.

The United States spent nearly 20 years intensely focused on threats from Islamic extremists. The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, rerouted the machinery of government to fight against threats of violence from the Middle East, Pakistan and Afghanistan. But those attacks have waned in recent years, replaced by violence from white supremacists - an increasingly internet-driven phenomenon of lone wolves, not groups, that will prove immensely difficult to combat.

On Monday, President Trump pledged to give federal law enforcement authorities "whatever they need" to combat domestic terrorism. The motive for the second attack of the weekend, in Dayton, Ohio, remains unknown. But even before the shootings, which left at least 31 people dead, officials said that preventing attacks from white supremacists and nationalists would require adopting the same type of broad and aggressive approach used to battle international extremism.
[President Trump faced new criticism for the echoes of his own rhetoric in the El Paso shooter's manifesto. Read our analysis.]

"We need to catch them and incarcerate them before they act on their plans," Rod Rosenstein, the former deputy attorney general, said in an email interview. "We need to be proactive by identifying and disrupting potential terrorists before they strike, and we can accomplish that by monitoring terrorist propaganda and communications."

Under current federal law, that is difficult. Federal officials have broad powers to disrupt foreign terrorist plots, given to them as part of the Patriot Act passed after the 2001 attacks. They can take preventive action, for example, by wiretapping or using an undercover online persona to talk to people anonymously in chat rooms to search for jihadis.

But domestically, federal officials have far fewer options. A federal statute defines domestic terrorism but carries no penalties. The First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech, makes stopping terrorist acts committed by Americans before they happen more challenging. No government agency is responsible for designating domestic terrorism organizations. And individuals who are considered domestic terrorists are charged under laws governing hate crimes, guns and conspiracy, not terrorism.

"It's a big blank spot," said Mary McCord, a former top national security prosecutor who has drafted a proposed statute to criminalize domestic terrorism not covered by existing laws. This would include criminalizing the stockpiling of weapons intended to be used in a domestic terrorist attack.

The issue is urgent. Right-wing extremists killed more people in 2018 than in any year since 1995, the year of Timothy McVeigh's bomb attack on the Oklahoma City federal building, according to the Anti-Defamation League. And the attack in El Paso and an April shooting in a synagogue in Poway, Calif., alone have claimed as many lives as all extremist homicides "of any stripe" in 2018, according to the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino.
[Read our live briefing for the latest updates on the Dayton and El Paso shootings]
The F.B.I. field office in Phoenix recently issued a report that said conspiracy theories - often with racial overtones and fueled by dissemination online - had become a growing national security threat. The existence of the F.B.I. document was first reported by Yahoo News.

Mr. Rosenstein said that law enforcement needs to model its domestic terrorism response after the international counterterrorism efforts undertaken in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

"In the same way that honorable members of mosques report people who express violent designs, so, too, should people report violent white nationalists to the police," he said.

The First Amendment's protection of citizens' rights to engage in hateful speech makes it difficult to track down attacks before they happen.

"From the perspective of the courts, white supremacy is a hateful but protected form of speech," said Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law expert at George Washington University. "What courts resist are efforts to classify whole movements as violent as a result of the actions of some of its members."

The problem touches every aspect of American life - politics, civil liberties and business - and involves complicated new questions around the issue of technology. How much will technology and communications companies, including the big social media platforms, be willing to share information about domestic customers with law enforcement agencies? On the internet, white nationalists can align with other radicals, become inspired and find the resources they need to act alone - a process that has also helped foreign extremists become terrorists.

Image

The F.B.I. director, Christopher A. Wray, told Congress last month that the bureau had made about 90 domestic terrorism arrests in the first three quarters of the year. Credit Erin Schaff/The New York Times

Perhaps most important, a new focus on white-supremacist violence would test whether Americans are as accepting of aggressive law enforcement tactics when the targets aren't Muslims, but white Americans.

"If they did the same thing that they did with the Muslims, they'd say every white guy is a potential terrorist," said Martin R. Stolar, a New York civil rights lawyer. "You can't do that with white people. The blowback would be outrageous."

The rise in the white supremacist threat has paralleled an increasing racialization and divisiveness in the nation's immigration debate. Mr. Trump has used ethnonationalist language that his opponents argue is arousing political extremists. Even in past years, some political leaders have been slow to recognize the existence of domestic terrorism: After the Oklahoma City bombing, Newt Gingrich, at the time the speaker of the House, refused to hold hearings on white nationalist terrorism.

In the years since, the nature of white supremacism has changed. It used to be that white supremacists, for the most part, operated in groups, often living in the same area, said Brian H. Levin, director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism. The chapters had some control over the timing and choice of targets. He cited as examples Aryan Nations, the Ku Klux Klan and local Nazi skinhead groups.

"The top-down hierarchies of the past have been increasingly supplanted by a more democratized and a geographically dispersed set of erratic do-it-yourselfers," he said. "Now, so-called lone wolves are turbocharged by a fragmented and hate-filled dark web which has become a modern-day, virtual neo-Nazi boot camp available 24-7 anywhere in the world with an internet connection."

Examples of these kinds of actors are the attackers in the Poway synagogue shooting, the mass shooting at a synagogue in Pittsburgh last fall and now, according to the authorities, El Paso.

While these men often act alone, the F.B.I. says that technology has allowed American terrorists to plug into a global community of terrorists who espouse similarly hateful ideologies. Domestic terrorists are increasingly citing terrorists overseas in their killings. In his manifesto, the suspected El Paso gunman said that he agreed with the gunman who attacked two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand. The suspect in New Zealand said in the manifesto he is believed to have written that he had been inspired by Dylann Roof, who murdered nine people at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, S.C.

Ali Soufan, a former F.B.I. special agent and the author of "Anatomy of Terror," said he had been struck by how much white supremacists resemble the jihadis he spent so many years fighting.

F.B.I. agents at the scene of the shooting in El Paso. According to the bureau, domestic terrorism is increasingly motivated by white supremacist ideology. Credit Ivan Pierre Aguirre for The New York Times

"There is a striking resemblance between jihadists and white supremacists, and it goes way beyond just utilizing social media in order to spread ideology," he said.
[Terrorism from white nationalists shows "stunning" parallels to the rise of the Islamic State.]
Both use violence to reshape society in their own image. Both use recruitment videos that emphasize a lifestyle of "purity," militancy and physical fitness. Jihadis share beheading videos, while right-wing extremists share the live stream of the attack i n New Zealand. He said Ukraine was now a global gathering place for white supremacists, much as Afghanistan was for jihadis in the 1980s.

"This is becoming a global network in so many different ways, just like we've seen with the jihadis before them," he said.

Federal investigators have also found white supremacist elements flourishing in prisons. In March, federal prosecutors in Alaska announced that an investigation had resulted in charges against 18 members and associates of a white supremacist gang known as the 1488s. In May, a federal grand jury indicted members of an Aryan Knights prison gang that had operated in Idaho.

The indictment in the Alaska case described the 1488s as a gang with dozens of members operating in Alaska and elsewhere.

David Neiwert, who has long reported on extremism in the Northwest and has worked with the Southern Poverty Law Center, said he sees the threat of the Northwest's racist groups returning to levels of the 1980s, when neo-Nazi elements around the country had moved into the Northwest in a bid to create a white ethnostate. In the 1990s and 2000s, those groups lost much of their power and subsided.

Mr. Neiwert said people with extremist sympathies were now organizing online and attaching themselves to groups that aren't as explicit about white supremacist notions.

"Local agencies in particular should be better equipped," Mr. Neiwert said. "On the other hand, the F.B.I. and the Justice Department could probably do a better job of equipping local law enforcement."

As the international terrorism threat evolved to include more lone actors, radicalized online rather than in terrorist cells abroad, the F.B.I. sought to enlist technology companies in its efforts to combat the threat. But companies have been slow to respond - and have been shielded, in part, by the First Amendment.

"It's been a very long few years of getting platform companies to understand the role that digital media plays in spreading hate speech, harassment and incitement to violence," said Joan Donovan, director of the Technology and Social Change project at the Harvard Kennedy School's Shorenstein Center. "Generally, a piece of content is only reviewed if someone else has flagged it first."

Under intense criticism for their delayed reaction to disinformation and hateful content after the 2016 presidential election, technology companies have started to take a more proactive approach to disinformation and hate speech. In most cases, spokeswomen for Google and Facebook said the companies report white supremacist content only when it poses an imminent threat to life, or when they are complying with valid legal requests.

In May, Facebook evicted seven of its most controversial users, including Alex Jones, the conspiracy theorist and founder of Infowars, and Laura Loomer, a far-right activist.

But critics say that is not enough. "White supremacy, at least at Facebook, was seen as a political ideology that one could hold," said Jessie Daniels, a sociology professor at the City University of New York and the author of a forthcoming book on white supremacy. "It's only recently that they've said they recognize white supremacy as an ideology of violence."

Ms. Daniels said there was an important lesson in what happened to Milo Yiannopoulos, the right-wing provocateur, after he was banned from using Twitter and Facebook.

"Milo has ceded from view since that happened. I really think that's an argument in favor of this strategy," she said. "He lost a book deal. He's bankrupt. It showed 'deplatforming' is a useful tool and we need to find more ways to adopt it in the U.S."

Ms. Daniels and others say the companies' own algorithms for deciding what constitutes far-right extremist content are insufficient in tackling the threat. Often they rely on users, and in many cases names and content that percolate in the media, to decide what content and accounts should be taken down.

"We've reached this position where these companies have scaled beyond their capacity for safety. We don't know what the next steps should be," Ms. Daniels said. "We're in a pretty significant bind now that we have a very large tech industry we all depend on, and we don't feel we can trust them to keep us safe."

Correction:

An earlier version of this article misstated who carried out the shootings in Christchurch, New Zealand. There was just one gunman, not multiple gunmen.

Reporting was contributed by Serge F. Kovaleski, Audra D.S. Burch, William K. Rashbaum and Mike Baker.

A version of this article appears in print on , Section A, Page 1 of the New York edition with the headline: Fight Turns to Domestic Terror Without a Clear Path to Follow. Order Reprints | Today's Paper | Subscribe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Shootings Renew Debate Over How to Combat Domestic Terrorism

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WASHINGTON - Law enforcement officials have sounded the alarm for months: Homegrown terrorism, including by white supremacists, is now as big a threat as terrorism from abroad. But the mass shooting in El Paso last weekend, the largest domestic terrorist attack against Hispanics in modern history, has made it glaringly clear how poorly prepared the country is to fight it.

# data[].attributes.body
This article is about how Trump violated CNN first amendment rights.In Tump's tweet saying " I believe that if people stooped using or subscribing to @ATT, they would be forced to make big changes at @CNN, which is dying in the ratings anyway. It is so unfair with such bad, fake news! Why wouldn't they act. When the world watches @CNN , it gets a false picture of USA. Sad! " In this tweet he is basically saying that CNN shouldn't air what they want, if it makes Trump look bad. The first amendment protects ideas through freedom of speech and press, to assemble or gather in a peacefully protest. It also protects the right to religious beliefs and practices. There is a lawsuit against PEN America v. Donald J. Trump, due to the fact that he has been engaged in unconstitutional campaign to silence dissent by using his powers to punish the media he doesn't like. Trump is violating the first amendment by telling CNN news to not say what they want, even though they have every right to say anything they want because the first amendment is in place.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Post reports: "President Trump raised a familiar complaint - 'unfair' coverage by CNN - in a pair of Monday-morning tweets. But this time he took the unusual step of calling on supporters to boycott the cable news network's corporate parent, AT&T, to drive his point home." He argued:

This is not the first time, of course, Trump has used the power of his office to punish those seeking to exercise their First Amendment rights. It's not even the first time he has violated CNN's First Amendment rights. The Post recounts, "Trump was vocal in his opposition to AT&T's $85 billion acquisition of Time Warner . . . . The Justice Department sued to try to block the deal on the grounds it violated antitrust laws, but a federal appeals court upheld the merger in late February, giving the entertainment giant WarnerMedia extensive power over a wide array of television, film and video game properties." News reports suggested that Trump "had asked the director of the National Economic Council to persuade the Justice Department to block the combination. Gary Cohn, who held the job at the time, reportedly refused." (Here too the White House has refused to provide documents demanded for congressional oversight. Perhaps it is time to call Cohn as a witness.)

A lawsuit, PEN America v. Donald J. Trump, alleges that the president has been engaged in an unconstitutional campaign to silence dissent by using the regulatory powers of the federal government to punish media he doesn't like. A large part of this campaign has included the president's attacks on AT&T, including bringing an antitrust action against it, in retaliation for coverage he doesn't like on CNN. His revocation of reporter Jim Acosta's press pass, his threats to "pull the license" of NBC and his threats to increase shipping costs for Amazon, whose founder and chief executive is Jeff Bezos, owner of The Washington Post, are but a few of the actions Trump has taken.

Ian Bassin, executive director for Protect Democracy, which is counsel for PEN America, tells me, "The president's attacks on our free press are straight out of the authoritarian playbook. This is how Vladimir Putin operates and how Viktor Orban forced critical media in Hungary to yield to his consolidation of power."

He adds, "It's fundamentally un-American and is surely making our Founders roll over in their graves."

You don't have to be a lawyer to see that Trump's threats of economic retaliation, encouraged from the White House by use of Trump's bully pulpit, make the PEN America case that much stronger. The new tweeting underscores that Trump will use what levers of power and whatever venue he is afforded to muffle dissent and thereby chill the speech of other critics.

This conduct - brazen disregard and violation of the First Amendment - is the kind of conduct that, while not illegal per se, does violate Trump's constitutionally mandated role. The Constitution obligates Trump to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." He took an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." In an ideal world in which Republicans took their constitutional obligations seriously and did not put fealty to Trump above loyalty to the country, they would join in condemning such conduct and include this in the long list of offenses that more than justify his impeachment. Unfortunately, Republicans these days care no more about the First Amendment right of critics than they do about obstruction of justice.
Read more: The Post's View: Did Trump intervene in the AT&T merger to destroy his enemies? Harry Litman: Trump's impeachable antitrust power grab The Post's View: Trump is accused of gross abuse of his office. We're not talking about the Mueller report. Max Boot: Trump isn't just violating norms - he's also breaking the law Dana Milbank: Americans must accept that none of these things ever happened Joe Scarborough: Disregard Trump's ground noise. Focus on the signal.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | Trump abuses his power and violates the First Amendment, again

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Post reports: "President Trump raised a familiar complaint - 'unfair' coverage by CNN - in a pair of Monday-morning tweets. But this time he took the unusual step of calling on supporters to boycott the cable news network's corporate parent, AT&T, to drive his point home."

# data[].attributes.body
This article talks about Tyson Timbs,  that for selling a few grams of heroin for about $400, he was forced to give up a Land Rover that cost him 100 times the amount of his crime.
The disparity was the focus of a discussion that the prohibition of the eight amendment  of “excessive fines” applied by state and  local government .

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Supreme Court on Wednesday took up a case from Indiana to settle a question that might seem obvious to some: Does the ban on "excessive fines" in the Bill of Rights apply to states?

The 8th Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits "cruel and unusual punishments," also says "excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed."

But last year, the Indiana Supreme Court upheld the state's seizure of a $42,000 Land Rover from a man who made two small drug sales valued at under $400. It rejected his claim that this was "excessive" and ruled the 8th Amendment did not protect him.

That decision ran into sharp skepticism Wednesday from the justices and will almost surely be reversed.

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch cut off the state's attorney before he could launch into his defense and upbraided him for ignoring decades of court history and centuries of English law.

"Can we get one thing off the table. We all agree the 'excessive fines' clause is incorporated against the states," he said, meaning states and cities must abide by it just as federal officials do. The court struggled over the reach of the Bill of Rights in the 1940s and beyond, he said, but that fight is long settled.

"Here we are in 2018 still litigating incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Really?" Gorsuch said to Indiana state solicitor Thomas Fisher.

The state's lawyer refused to back down and insisted a state's seizure of private property was its business, not a question of federal law. At one point, he said the state would be free to seize luxury cars that were going a few miles over the speed limit.

But Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh intervened to agree with Gorsuch. "Isn't it just too late in the day to argue that any of the Bill of Rights is not incorporated?" he said.

By the end of an hour, it was clear that the justices would rule for Tyson Timbs, the Indiana man who lost his Land Rover, and will hold that the U.S. Constitution protected him from an excessive fine.

But it is not certain he will ultimately win his case. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the court would probably send the case back to the Indiana courts to decide whether this forfeiture was indeed excessive and unjust.

Wednesday's argument revived a question that has a long history before the high court and divided the justices during the middle decades of the 20th century.

The first 10 amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, were ratified in 1791 and begin with the words: "Congress shall make no law ..." The many familiar rights listed include the freedom of speech and the press, the free exercise of religion, the right to bear arms, the right to a jury trial and the freedom from "unreasonable searches and seizures."

But these protections for individuals did not go far. In the early 19th century, the court said these rights applied only to actions of the then-tiny federal government, not to states or local authorities, including police.

After the Civil War, the Reconstruction Congress adopted the 14th Amendment to protect individuals from their states. It said, "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law."

The first clause on "privileges or immunities" has meant surprisingly little, thanks to a peculiar 1873 ruling holding it did not provide "any additional protection" for individuals.

But the second clause became the most important in the Constitution. In a step-by-step process from the 1930s through the 1960s, the Supreme Court decided that nearly all the fundamental rights cited in the Bill of Rights were included or "incorporated" in the protection for "liberty" and "due process of law" in the 14th Amendment. But it has never specifically ruled on the "excessive fee" clause.

In the past, the justices also refused to extend or "incorporate" the rights to a grand jury indictment in the 5th Amendment and the right to a jury trial in civil cases found in the 7th Amendment.

These days, however, most Americans would assume their constitutional rights are the same, whether they encounter a federal agent, a state official or a local police officer.

But when Timbs was told his $42,000 Land Rover could be seized by Indiana, he learned that part of the Bill of Rights did not protect him. He had been arrested for two drug sales to police informants that were valued at $385. He contested the state's seizure of his car on the grounds it was an "excessive fine" and "grossly disproportionate" to his crime.

He lost last year in the Indiana Supreme Court. "We conclude the excessive fines clause does not bar the state from forfeiting defendant's vehicle because the United States Supreme Court has not held the clause applies to the states through the 14th Amendment," wrote Justice Geoffrey Slaughter. His opinion noted the high court had suggested the excessive fines were probably unconstitutional, but had not said so directly.

The appeal in Timbs vs. Indiana has united groups across the ideological spectrum from the American Civil Liberties Union to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, all of them urging the court to clearly rule that all parts of the 8th Amendment apply across the country.
The latest from Washington " More stories from David G. Savage " david.savage@latimes.com Twitter: DavidGSavage UPDATES:
12:40 p.m.: This article was updated with additional details from the argument.
This article was originally published at 9:30 a.m.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
He lost his $42,000 Land Rover for a $385 crime. The Supreme Court considers whether the constitutional ban on 'excessive fines' applies to states

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Supreme Court on Wednesday took up a case from Indiana to settle a question that might seem obvious to some: Does the ban on "excessive fines" in the Bill of Rights apply to states? The 8th Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits "cruel and unusual punishments," also says "excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed."

# data[].attributes.body
In this article a former Supreme Court Associate justice John Paul Stevens disagreed with the call to repeal the 2nd amendment that guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The startling new proposal by 97-year-old former Supreme Court Associate Justice John Paul Stevens calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment to our Constitution's Bill of Rights is unwise, dangerous and totally unrealistic. For 227 years, the amendment has guaranteed that "the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." We should not abandon it.

The first 10 amendments to the Constitution make up the Bill of Rights. These amendments are the foundation of our liberty and the lasting legacy of the Founding Fathers who so wisely created a Constitution designed to protect the freedom of generations far into the future. These rights are a major factor in what makes America an exceptional nation and a beacon for freedom that attracts people from the world over.

Once we begin whittling away at one of our rights in the Bill of Rights, what's to stop the erosion of the others? Freedom of speech? Freedom of religion? Changes like this wouldn't be minor tinkering - they would amount to major disfigurement of America's foundational document, equivalent to amputating a person's arm or leg.

Stevens made his radical call in an op-ed in the Tuesday edition of The New York Times, reacting to massive demonstrations in Washington and around the country held Saturday to oppose gun violence and demand stricter gun control laws.

The hidden argument in Stevens' pitch is this: An individual's sacred right to self-defense, to the defense of innocents and against government, boldly embodied in the Second Amendment, is transferable to government.

"These demonstrations demand our respect," Stevens wrote. "They reveal the broad public support for legislation to minimize the risk of mass killings of schoolchildren and others in our society."

Stevens wrote that he was impressed by "the civic engagement" of "schoolchildren and their supporters" against violence, leading him to suggest we "repeal the Second Amendment."

The retired justice said he believes that "simple but dramatic action would move Saturday's marchers closer to their objective than any other possible reform."

Yes, that's true - but only if the objective of these young people is to end every citizen's right to self-defense and defense of others, and to fundamentally empower the federal government to abuse the American people. Many of the young people speaking at Saturday's rallies said they wanted more restrictions on guns, but didn't call for going so far as to repeal the Second Amendment.

America's Founders, who fought to win our freedom from Britain and to secure ratification for our Constitution and Bill of Rights, would be dumbstruck at Stevens' blithe default to trust in an all-powerful government, rather than in the good sense and responsibility of "We, The People."

How simple life would be without the Bill of Rights. Getting rid of our First Amendment would free government of nettlesome critics, end the bother of respecting religious worship, shut up the press, and clamp down on protests like the ones held by young people and their supporters last weekend.

Ending the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments would allow the federal government to go after any person the government suspected, doubted or disliked; search and seize life and effects at will; force confessions of crimes; and do away with fair trials, confrontation and protections against imprisonment.

How nice life would be - for the government - if we did away with the nag and drag of rights contained in the Bill of Rights, a sacred distillate of natural law and 800 years of Western defense for these individual liberties.

Stevens' bizarre proposal is outright advocacy of prostrating citizens before a federal government armed to the teeth. Recall the timeless words of British politician Lord Acton in 1887: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

No wonder the man of peace, Mahatma Gandhi, defended every individual's right to bear arms. Recalling how Indians were disarmed by the Arms Act of 1879, Gandhi wrote: "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."

The idea that we should correct an absence of responsibility by the few through empowering government to strip rights from the many is more medieval than modern - a license to lawlessness, not a defense of legal and moral rights.

The hidden argument in Stevens' pitch is this: An individual's sacred right to self-defense, to the defense of innocents and against government, boldly embodied in the Second Amendment, is transferable to government.

Alas, life of a free citizen is hard. It is not about repealing rights, but about learning to use our God-given, constitutionally protected freedoms responsibly. That is why the retired Supreme Court justice is wrong. The fault is not in the Bill of Rights, but in ourselves.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
If the Second Amendment falls, our entire Bill of Rights falls

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The startling new proposal by 97-year-old former Supreme Court Associate Justice John Paul Stevens calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment to our Constitution's Bill of Rights is unwise, dangerous and totally unrealistic. For 227 years, the amendment has guaranteed that "the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

# data[].attributes.headline
second amendment (right to bear arms) lorena rainone 

# data[].attributes.subject
second amendment (right to bear arms) lorena rainone 

# data[].attributes.body
To sum it up, Donald Trump has created what are called "red flag laws", which temporarily prohibit people from having possession of their  arms if they prove they are being a danger to themselves or others. However, as for Colorado state, this has caused backlash with people main argument being that this is a violation of the constitution (the second amendment). Colorado's law states that a judge can a make an order for said person's firearms to be temporarily confiscated without the firearm owner appearing in court beforehand. Once the order is permitted, a hearing will take place within a 14 day time period and both parties show up in court to argue for their defense. More than half of all counties in Colorado oppose red flag laws and have created "second amendment sanctuaries." Some members of law enforcement, such as Weld County Sheriff Steve Reams, have said they would rather go to jail than enforce the law. People not in favor of the red flag laws are saying that it's already problematic, so you can only imagine what it would be like as a law at the national level. In my opinion, the idea of the red flag laws are a start for much more effective gun laws/regulations in the future by causing conversation between both democrats and republicans (and everything in between) on such a sensitive topic like gun control. What I don't understand is how the court would be able to tell if one was telling the truth or simply bringing slander upon someone's name, which brings me to my final statement. It's unconstitutional (duh lol) to simply take away one's guns for the heck of it. But when America has had more shootings than days of the year, (as of Sep. 14th, the 257th day of the year, there have been a total of 283 mass shootings *information courtesy of The Gun Violence Archive (GVA)*), I believe push comes to shove.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
colorado red flag law has sparked a gun control policy backlash - cnnpolitics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trump has called for red flag laws. In Colorado, the gun control policy sparked a backlash.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the wake of recent mass shootings, President Donald Trump has called for "red flag" laws, which would temporarily prevent individuals in crisis from accessing firearms through a court order.

# data[].attributes.body
Judge Anthony J. Trenga of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled on September 4th, 2019, that the federal database that gathers a list of people that are known or suspected terrorists (the watchlist) is unconstitutional. Many people on this watchlist were detained and harassed when trying to enter the country. As of 2017, about 4,600 American citizens were placed on the watchlist. Some claimed they weren’t even told why they were placed on the list. This is a violation of their 4th amendment right. They are being searched and questioned without their consent and without the agency providing probable cause or a warrant. I think the qualifications for a person to be on the watchlist should be more strict and the people on the watchlist should be informed as to why they are being detained. It’s important to find the balance between national security and the individual rights of American citizens.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Image

Being on the watchlist can keep people off planes, block them from entering the country, subject them to greater scrutiny by the police and deny them government benefits and contracts. Credit Credit Stephen Chernin/Getty Images

WASHINGTON - A federal judge ruled on Wednesday that a federal government database that compiles people deemed to be "known or suspected terrorists" violates the rights of American citizens who are on the watchlist, calling into question the constitutionality of a major tool the F.B.I. and the Department of Homeland Security use for screening potential terrorism suspects.

Being on the watchlist can restrict people from traveling or entering the country, subject them to greater scrutiny at airports and by the police, and deny them government benefits and contracts. In a 32-page opinion, Judge Anthony J. Trenga of United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia said the standard for inclusion in the database was too vague.

"The court concludes that the risk of erroneous deprivation of plaintiffs' travel-related and reputational liberty interests is high, and the currently existing procedural safeguards are not sufficient to address that risk," Judge Trenga wrote.
[Read the ruling.]
As of 2017, about 1.2 million people were on the watchlist, which is maintained by the F.B.I.'s Terrorist Screening Center. Although a vast majority of them were foreigners abroad, about 4,600 were American citizens who are protected by the Constitution.

Among them, a group of 19 Americans, represented by the Council on American-Islamic Relations, filed a lawsuit charging that their inclusion violated their due process rights. Recounting tales of being detained and harassed when trying to enter the country, they argued that they did not receive notice of why they were being put on the list or an opportunity to contest derogatory claims.

The judge agreed that the current procedures were inadequate to protect their rights, granting the plaintiffs summary judgment. But he stopped short of saying what should happen next, asking the Justice Department and the lawyers for the plaintiffs to submit briefings on the difficult question of "what kind of remedy can be fashioned to adequately protect a citizen's constitutional rights while not unduly compromising public safety or national security."

The Council on American-Islamic Relations hailed the ruling as a "complete victory." In a statement, Nihad Awad, its executive director, said the group's "legal team has finally brought an end to the secretive watchlist, which is effectively a Muslim registry created in the wake of the widespread Islamophobia of the early 2000s."

Joshua Stueve, a spokesman for the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, declined to comment. But in court, government lawyers had argued that the case should instead be dismissed. Among other things, Justice Department lawyers asserted that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the case, and they urged Judge Trenga to defer to the executive branch's decisions because combating terrorism was a national security matter.

The government's use of terrorism watchlists has grown enormously since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and over time, the practice - and the opaque standards and rationales by which people's names are added to such databases - has come under harsh scrutiny by civil libertarians.

The present case involves a broad watchlist, called the Terrorist Screening Database. It is maintained by the F.B.I., but other agencies can nominate people for inclusion on the list based on intelligence that may never be shared with them.

A subset of the people on the watchlist are also put on the more restrictive No Fly List, which bars them from boarding planes in the United States or flying through American airspace. In 2014, a federal judge in Oregon ruled that the government's use of the No Fly List to bar Americans from boarding planes was unconstitutional, requiring the Department of Homeland Security to overhaul its Traveler Redress Inquiry Program procedures.

Later that same year, Judge Trenga struck down a use of the No Fly List to keep a particular American, Gulet Mohamed, from boarding a flight home, effectively exiling him. The judge's ruling about the broader watchlist on Wednesday built on his earlier opinion, which he quoted from extensively.

Judge Trenga noted that most of the plaintiffs in the current case did not claim to be on the more restrictive No Fly List, but said their inclusion on the broader Terrorist Screening Database - which he referred to by the initials TSDB - raised similar issues because of the burden of going through the delays and humiliations of enhanced screenings that led some plaintiffs to avoid traveling.

"While inclusion in the TSDB does not constitute a total ban on international travel in the same way that inclusion on the No Fly List does," he wrote, "the wide-ranging consequences of an individual's watchlist status render it more closely analogous to the No Fly List than to the types of regulations that courts have found to be reasonable regulations that still facilitated access and use of means of travel."

He also noted that the terrorism watchlist was used for screening government contractors and was shared with state and local law enforcement agencies, which increases their risk of "being surrounded by police, handcuffed in front of their families and detained for many hours."

Files released by the F.B.I. in 2011 under the Freedom of Information Act showed that the F.B.I. was permitted to include people on the watchlist even if they had been acquitted of terrorism-related offenses or the charges are dropped.

Judge Trenga was appointed in 2008 by President George W. Bush.

A version of this article appears in print on , Section A, Page 20 of the New York edition with the headline: Ruling Finds Watchlist Violates U.S. Rights. Order Reprints | Today's Paper | Subscribe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Judge Rules Terrorism Watchlist Violates Constitutional Rights

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WASHINGTON - A federal judge ruled on Wednesday that a federal government database that compiles people deemed to be "known or suspected terrorists" violates the rights of American citizens who are on the watchlist, calling into question the constitutionality of a major tool the F.B.I.

# data[].attributes.body
This article recently focuses on 145 CEO’s who composed a letter asking for a universal background check and a red flag law. Multiple retail companies such as Walmart ask customers to not openly carry firearms in their stores after a deadly shooting at an El Paso Walmart. These corporate companies urges the legislative body to take action on gun safety. This puts a restriction on the second amendment which guarantees an individual the right to bear arms.  I believe that the problem isn’t the gun but the person behind the gun. I think before you can legally obtain or operate one, you need to be trained, evaluate for medical capability, and tested for safety purposes. Giving people full control with their guns can cause them to abuse that right, but banning or putting restrictions on guns can cause people to illegally smuggle them in.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Chief executives of 145 companies urge Senate to pass gun control laws

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Leaders of 145 companies wrote a letter to the Senate on Thursday, urging the legislative body to take action on gun safety.

# data[].attributes.body
This article address an Alabama High School that has recently decided to replace the traditional, pre-football prayer with a moment of silence. The prayers would usually be recited over the loudspeaker and while some people argued that the prayer would make people of the non-Christian belief feel uncomfortable, others argue that it would never force beliefs down on people as it was a prayer that merely said, “ ‘Hey God please keep our players safe from injury, help the fans and the players to have good sportsmanship, everyone have a good night.' “ This event not only address the obvious amendment of the freedom of religion, but also of the freedom of speech, as the school was told to terminate those prayers. I, personally, don’t advocate having public prayers unless it’s with a group of people with the same religious beliefs and understanding because you need to be considerate of the fact that some people may not have the same beliefs as you. I also don’t understand why it was necessary to have a prayer broadcasted on a loudspeaker because, although some may not view it as such, it is, in a way, forcing the prayer down your throat. I think a moment of silence allows everyone to say their own personal prayers according to their beliefs, or if they don’t believe in God, just remain silent.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
An Alabama high school will no longer allow student-led public prayer before its football games.

News outlets report Opelika City Schools Superintendent Mark Neighbors announced Monday that the district's high school will hold a moment of silence instead.

WTVM-TV reports a social media movement is encouraging fans to recite the Lord's Prayer during this Friday's moment of silence.

Christopher Line from the Freedom From Religion Foundation says a parent complained about a pregame prayer delivered over a loudspeaker before a game on Aug. 22.

Line says the foundation receives complaints from across the country each year. The foundation then sends letters to the schools explaining the complaint and informing districts that federal law prohibits school-sponsored prayer in public schools.

Neighbors says students are allowed to pray but coaches can't participate.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opelika High School replacing pre-football prayer with moment of silence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An Alabama high school will no longer allow student-led public prayer before its football games. News outlets report Opelika City Schools Superintendent Mark Neighbors announced Monday that the district's high school will hold a moment of silence instead. WTVM-TV reports a social media movement is encouraging fans to recite the Lord's Prayer during this Friday's moment of silence.

# data[].attributes.body
this article talks about a student winning his senior class election and makes a speech that relates to donald trumps the administrators took him off and gave him detention
although many don’t agree with donald trump it violates the first amendment to his freedom of speech the student even said “i am for freedom,equality and liberty”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Honors student J.P. Krause won the election for senior class president at Vero Beach High School in Vero Beach, Fla. And then, all of a sudden, his victory was stripped from him.

Summarily, the high school's administrators stripped him of his new position, and, to add insult to injury, gave him detention. Why? Because Krause delivered a satirical campaign speech that channeled Donald Trump's presidential campaign rhetoric and, in jest, claimed his opponent was a Communist. It was "harassment," the principal concluded.

After Krause's classmates chanted "speech, speech," he gave an impromptu speech that kept his fellow classmates laughing for well over a minute. " I am for freedom, equality, and liberty," he said. His opponent? Well,she wants to "advance Communist ideals," he smirked. "She will raise taxes to 80 percent!"

Krause also suggested in jest that his opponent supports their rivals at the nearby high school, whereas he would "build a wall" between the two schools - and make their rival pay for it.

No one thought Krause was serious. The room, full of honors students in U.S. History, seemed to be well aware of the parallels Krause was making between his campaign speech and Donald Trump's presidential campaign speeches. The teacher allowed the off-the-cuff speech to continue, and there wasn't any reaction by students inside the classroom but laughter.

Nevertheless, the speech not only disqualified Krause from taking up the reins as class president, it also added "harassment" to his school record. "The administration took my speech out of context and said I was harassing a student," Krause tells National Review.

"It was a joke the whole way through."

Pacific Legal Foundation, a conservative public-interest law firm, is representing Krause in an attempt to remove the harassment claims from his school record. It also seeks to reinstate Krause as class president. "It was pure political speech and obviously humorous," explains Mark Miller, Krause's attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation, to National Review. "It's clearly protected in First Amendment speech."

In a letter sent to Mark Rendell, the superintendent of the school district, Miller argued that "if a student gives a speech that is lewd, vulgar, or profane, then the school can sanction him."

"But that is not remotely the case here," Miller retorted. Satirically claiming that an opponent in a class election wants to raise taxes, advance Communism, and implement a dress code is certainly not "lewd, vulgar, or profane" - it's a joke.

Because the high school applied the same speech code that it would use to punish students who say "lewd, vulgar, or profane" comments to that of a satirical speech, Miller contests that it is violating the First Amendment. "J.P.'s speech in no way singled out his fellow student candidate for her appearance, abilities, gender, race, creed, religious beliefs, or sexual orientation," Miller wrote. "Nor was it 'deeply offensive.'"

Schools such as Vero Beach High School are sending the message to students that only some political statements are tolerable. "That's exactly the wrong message to tell a young man like J.P," Miller says.

Austin Yack - Austin Yack is a William F. Buckley Fellow in Political Journalism at the National Review Institute and a University of California, Santa Barbara alumnus. @AustinYack

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Violating the First Amendment, High School Punishes Student for Satirical Campaign Speech | National Review

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Honors student J.P. Krause won the election for senior class president at Vero Beach High School in Vero Beach, Fla. And then, all of a sudden, his victory was stripped from him. Summarily, the high school's administrators stripped him of his new position, and, to add insult to injury, gave him detention.

# data[].attributes.body
This articule informs us about the abusive conditions women and children are living in the US. Detained immigrants including infants, young children & women are being kept in freezing holding cells without any supplies, such as hand soap which increases spread of illnesses. They were restricted from showering, change of clothes, even any extra clothing that could be used for warmth.These individuals were only given a foil blanket as protection, stated: “They spent up to three nights in cells with uncomfortably low temperatures, sleeping on the floor or concrete benches with only a foil blanket to protect them.” Not only does this violate the 8th amendment, which states “...excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” but this practice also effect these individuals mentally. Time in the holding cells was “the most difficult and traumatic” period of detention for women and children apprehended by  US Immigration authorities, a team of psychologist found in a 2015 study. ALL!!! immigration detainees including children, women and seniors have the right to be treated with dignity and humanity.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
US Customs and Border Protection via American Immigration Council

(Washington, DC) - United States border agents routinely hold families, including infants, in freezing cells when it takes them into custody at or near the border, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today.

The 44-page report, " In the Freezer: Abusive Conditions for Women and Children in US Immigration Holding Cells," is based on interviews with 110 women and children. Human Rights Watch found that US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents routinely separate adult men and teenage boys from other family members. The practice runs counter to agency policy that families should be kept together whenever possible while in holding cells. After the initial period of detention in the freezing holding cells, sometimes for days, men usually remain separated from the rest of their family upon transfer to longer-term detention facilities.

"The persistent practices in immigration holding cells are degrading and punitive," said Michael Garcia Bochenek, senior children's rights counsel at Human Rights Watch. "Immigration authorities should keep families together and shouldn't detain children overnight in holding cells."

Detention and family separation have serious adverse consequences for mental well-being, especially for those who have already suffered trauma. Most of the women and children Human Rights Watch interviewed said they had fled their home countries after they were targeted for violence or other persecution.

Time in the holding cells was "the most difficult and traumatic" period of detention for women and children apprehended by US immigration authorities, a team of psychologists found in a 2015 study.

All immigration detainees have the right to be treated with dignity and humanity, and children are entitled to specific safeguards. Human Rights Watch found that conditions in immigration holding cells are in breach of international standards and CBP policies, and likely violate the terms of federal court orders.

Women and children told Human Rights Watch they spent up to three nights in cells with uncomfortably low temperatures, sleeping on the floor or concrete benches with only a foil blanket to protect them. In many cases, border agents required them to remove and discard sweaters or other layers of clothing, purportedly for security reasons, before they entered the cells.

Holding cells often do not provide hand soap to women and children, meaning they cannot hygienically clean their hands before and after eating, feeding infants, using the toilet, or changing diapers. Most of the women and children held in these cells said they were not allowed to shower during their time in holding cells.

One woman interviewed said she and her-five-year-old son were soaked after wading across the river. "We were sitting on the cement floor, completely freezing," she said. "In the end, I had to sleep seated upright, with my son in my lap, because I couldn't let him lay down on the cement floor." CBP officials have consistently denied that holding cells are cold, even as the women and children held there have regularly reported that the temperatures in these facilities are much colder than in other immigration detention centers. In October 2017, for example, the Women's Refugee Commission reported that nearly all of about 150 women interviewed in 2016 and 2017 said they had been held "for days in freezing cold CBP facilities."

CBP officials did not answer Human Rights Watch's specific questions about conditions in holding cells, citing ongoing litigation. They instead pointed to agency policies and stated that CBP follows all applicable laws and policies, including court orders.

In court filings, the agency has attempted to justify its failure to provide sleeping mats to women and their children by saying that the cells are not designed for holding people overnight. Yet nearly all the women and children Human Rights Watch interviewed spent at least one night in a holding cell. Other studies, including one by the US Government Accountability Office (GAO), have consistently found that two-thirds of migrants in holding cells remain there for at least one night, and tens of thousands of migrants spend 72 hours or more in holding cells each year.

A preliminary court order, limited to holding cells in Arizona and upheld on appeal, says that all migrants held for more than 12 hours must be given sleeping mats and the opportunity to wash. In another court case that covers holding cells in Texas' Rio Grande Valley, a federal judge ordered CBP to remedy abusive conditions for children placed in holding cells.

CBP should ensure that all immigration holding cells provide hygienic conditions, including access to soap, showers, toothbrushes, and toothpaste, for all detained migrants, Human Rights Watch said. The agency should set temperatures in cells that are comfortable for detained people.

Holding cells should be used only for very short periods. People should not be held there overnight unless it is unavoidable, and children should never be held there overnight. People held overnight should be provided with sleeping mats and blankets.

US immigration authorities should also avoid splitting up families when they are apprehended. Instead, the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) should identify and provide alternatives that keep families together.

"Conditions in immigration holding cells are not only needlessly cruel but also demonstrably harmful, particularly for people who have suffered persecution," Bochenek said. "The United States should not persist in practices that traumatize children and their families."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
US: Freezing Cells for Detained Migrants

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
(Washington, DC) - United States border agents routinely hold families, including infants, in freezing cells when it takes them into custody at or near the border, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. The 44-page report, " In the Freezer: Abusive Conditions for Women and Children in US Immigration Holding Cells," is based on interviews with 110 women and children.

# data[].attributes.body
The fourth amendment states that people have rights to the privacy of their property. In the case of california v.carney the DEA agents were in question of searching the dealer’s home for possession of 🤬. In the case the opposing counsel, supreme court of california said that DEA agents had searched the home illegally. In this case it questioned if the dealers rights were violated, despite the rule of probable cause. The DEA agents , however, won the case based on the evidence, selling and distribution. This case demonstrates that even by claiming these rights, they can become arguable in court.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Opinion

BURGER, C.J., Opinion of the Court

CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER delivered the opinion of the Court.

We granted certiorari to decide whether law enforcement agents violated the Fourth Amendment when they conducted a warrantless search, based on probable cause, of a fully mobile "motor home" located in a public place.

I

On May 31, 1979, Drug Enforcement Agency Agent Robert Williams watched respondent, Charles Carney, approach [p388] a youth in downtown San Diego. The youth accompanied Carney to a Dodge Mini Motor Home parked in a nearby lot. Carney and the youth closed the window shades in the motor home, including one across the front window. Agent Williams had previously received uncorroborated information that the same motor home was used by another person who was exchanging marihuana for sex. Williams, with assistance from other agents, kept the motor home under surveillance for the entire one and one-quarter hours that Carney and the youth remained inside. When the youth left the motor home, the agents followed and stopped him. The youth told the agents that he had received marihuana in return for allowing Carney sexual contacts.

At the agents' request, the youth returned to the motor home and knocked on its door; Carney stepped out. The agents identified themselves as law enforcement officers. Without a warrant or consent, one agent entered the motor home and observed marihuana, plastic bags, and a scale of the kind used in weighing drugs on a table. Agent Williams took Carney into custody and took possession of the motor home. A subsequent search of the motor home at the police station revealed additional marihuana in the cupboards and refrigerator.

Respondent was charged with possession of marihuana for sale. At a preliminary hearing, he moved to suppress the evidence discovered in the motor home. The Magistrate denied the motion, upholding the initial search as a justifiable search for other persons, and the subsequent search as a routine inventory search.

Respondent renewed his suppression motion in the Superior Court. The Superior Court also rejected the claim, holding that there was probable cause to arrest respondent, that the search of the motor home was authorized under the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement, and that the motor home itself could be seized without a warrant as an instrumentality of the crime. Respondent [p389] then pleaded nolo contendere to the charges against him, and was placed on probation for three years.

Respondent appealed from the order placing him on probation. The California Court of Appeal affirmed, reasoning that the vehicle exception applied to respondent's motor home. 117 Cal.App.3d 36, 172 Cal.Rptr. 430 (1981).

The California Supreme Court reversed the conviction. 34 Cal.3d 597, 668 P.2d 807 (1983). The Supreme Court did not disagree with the conclusion of the trial court that the agents had probable cause to arrest respondent and to believe that the vehicle contained evidence of a crime; however, the court held that the search was unreasonable because no warrant was obtained, rejecting the State's argument that the vehicle exception to the warrant requirement should apply. That court reached its decision by concluding that the mobility of a vehicle "is no longer the prime justification for the automobile exception; rather, 'the answer lies in the diminished expectation of privacy which surrounds the automobile.'" Id. at 605, 668 P.2d at 811. The California Supreme Court held that the expectations of privacy in a motor home are more like those in a dwelling than in an automobile because the primary function of motor homes is not to provide transportation but to "provide the occupant with living quarters." Id. at 606, 668 P.2d at 812.

We granted certiorari, 465 U.S. 1098 (1984). We reverse. [p390]

II

The Fourth Amendment protects the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." This fundamental right is preserved by a requirement that searches be conducted pursuant to a warrant issued by an independent judicial officer. There are, of course, exceptions to the general rule that a warrant must be secured before a search is undertaken; one is the so-called "automobile exception" at issue in this case. This exception to the warrant requirement was first set forth by the Court 60 years ago in Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925). There, the Court recognized that the privacy interests in an automobile are constitutionally protected; however, it held that the ready mobility of the automobile justifies a lesser degree of protection of those interests. The Court rested this exception on a long-recognized distinction between stationary structures and vehicles:

[T]he guaranty of freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures by the Fourth Amendment has been construed, practically since the beginning of Government, as recognizing a necessary difference between a search of a store, dwelling house or other structure in respect of which a proper official warrant readily may be obtained, and a search of a ship, motor boat, wagon or automobile, for contraband goods, where it is not practicable to secure a warrant because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought.

Id. at 153 (emphasis added).

The capacity to be "quickly moved" was clearly the basis of the holding in Carroll, and our cases have consistently recognized ready mobility as one of the principal bases of the automobile exception. See, e.g., Cooper v. California, 386 U.S. 58, 59 (1967); Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 52 (1970); Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 442 (1973); [p391]Cardwell v. Lewis, 417 U.S. 583, 588 (1974); South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 367 (1976). In Chambers, for example, commenting on the rationale for the vehicle exception, we noted that "the opportunity to search is fleeting since a car is readily movable." 399 U.S. at 51. More recently, in United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 806 (1982), we once again emphasized that "an immediate intrusion is necessary" because of "the nature of an automobile in transit. . . ." The mobility of automobiles, we have observed, "creates circumstances of such exigency that, as a practical necessity, rigorous enforcement of the warrant requirement is impossible." South Dakota v. Opperman, supra, at 367.

However, although ready mobility alone was perhaps the original justification for the vehicle exception, our later cases have made clear that ready mobility is not the only basis for the exception. The reasons for the vehicle exception, we have said, are twofold. 428 U.S. at 367.

Besides the element of mobility, less rigorous warrant requirements govern because the expectation of privacy with respect to one's automobile is significantly less than that relating to one's home or office.

Even in cases where an automobile was not immediately mobile, the lesser expectation of privacy resulting from its use as a readily mobile vehicle justified application of the vehicular exception. See, e.g., Cady v. Dombrowski, supra. In some cases, the configuration of the vehicle contributed to the lower expectations of privacy; for example, we held in Cardwell v. Lewis, supra, at 9417 U.S. 590590, that, because the passenger compartment of a standard automobile is relatively open to plain view, there are lesser expectations of privacy. But even when enclosed "repository" areas have been involved, we have concluded that the lesser expectations of privacy warrant application of the exception. We have applied the exception in the context of a locked car trunk, Cady v. Dombrowski, supra, a sealed package in a car trunk, Ross, supra, a closed compartment under the dashboard, Chambers [ 471 U.S. 392] v. Maroney, supra, the interior of a vehicle's upholstery, Carroll, supra, or sealed packages inside a covered pickup truck, United States v. Johns, 469 U.S. 478 (1985).

These reduced expectations of privacy derive not from the fact that the area to be searched is in plain view, but from the pervasive regulation of vehicles capable of traveling on the public highways. Cady v. Dombrowsk, supra, at 440-441. As we explained in South Dakota v. Opperman, an inventory search case:

Automobiles, unlike homes, are subjected to pervasive and continuing governmental regulation and controls, including periodic inspection and licensing requirements. As an everyday occurrence, police stop and examine vehicles when license plates or inspection stickers have expired, or if other violations, such as exhaust fumes or excessive noise, are noted, or if headlights or other safety equipment are not in proper working order.

428 U.S. at 368.

The public is fully aware that it is accorded less privacy in its automobiles because of this compelling governmental need for regulation. Historically,

individuals always [have] been on notice that movable vessels may be stopped and searched on facts giving rise to probable cause that the vehicle contains contraband, without the protection afforded by a magistrate's prior evaluation of those facts.

Ross, supra, at 806, n. 8. In short, the pervasive schemes of regulation, which necessarily lead to reduced expectations of privacy, and the exigencies attendant to ready mobility justify searches without prior recourse to the authority of a magistrate so long as the overriding standard of probable cause is met.

When a vehicle is being used on the highways, or if it is readily capable of such use and is found stationary in a place not regularly used for residential purposes -- temporary or otherwise -- the two justifications for the vehicle exception [p393] come into play. First, the vehicle is obviously readily mobile by the turn of an ignition key, if not actually moving. Second, there is a reduced expectation of privacy stemming from its use as a licensed motor vehicle subject to a range of police regulation inapplicable to a fixed dwelling. At least in these circumstances, the overriding societal interests in effective law enforcement justify an immediate search before the vehicle and its occupants become unavailable.

While it is true that respondent's vehicle possessed some, if not many of the attributes of a home, it is equally clear that the vehicle falls clearly within the scope of the exception laid down in Carroll and applied in succeeding cases. Like the automobile in Carroll, respondent's motor home was readily mobile. Absent the prompt search and seizure, it could readily have been moved beyond the reach of the police. Furthermore, the vehicle was licensed to "operate on public streets; [was] serviced in public places; . . . and [was] subject to extensive regulation and inspection." Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 154, n. 2 (1978) (POWELL, J., concurring). And the vehicle was so situated that an objective observer would conclude that it was being used not as a residence, but as a vehicle.

Respondent urges us to distinguish his vehicle from other vehicles within the exception because it was capable of functioning as a home. In our increasingly mobile society, many vehicles used for transportation can be and are being used not only for transportation but for shelter, i.e., as a "home" or "residence." To distinguish between respondent's motor home and an ordinary sedan for purposes of the vehicle exception would require that we apply the exception depending upon the size of the vehicle and the quality of its appointments. Moreover, to fail to apply the exception to vehicles [p394] such as a motor home ignores the fact that a motor home lends itself easily to use as an instrument of illicit drug traffic and other illegal activity. In United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. at 822, we declined to distinguish between "worthy" and "unworthy" containers, noting that "the central purpose of the Fourth Amendment forecloses such a distinction." We decline today to distinguish between "worthy" and "unworthy" vehicles which are either on the public roads and highways, or situated such that it is reasonable to conclude that the vehicle is not being used as a residence.

III

The question remains whether, apart from the lack of a warrant, this search was unreasonable. Under the vehicle exception to the warrant requirement, "[o]nly the prior approval of the magistrate is waived; the search otherwise [must be such] as the magistrate could authorize." Ross, supra, at 823. [p395]

This search was not unreasonable; it was plainly one that the magistrate could authorize if presented with these facts. The DEA agents had fresh, direct, uncontradicted evidence that the respondent was distributing a controlled substance from the vehicle, apart from evidence of other possible offenses. The agents thus had abundant probable cause to enter and search the vehicle for evidence of a crime notwithstanding its possible use as a dwelling place.

The judgment of the California Supreme Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Respondent contends that the state court decision rests on an adequate and independent state ground, because the opinion refers to the State as well as the Federal Constitution. Respondent's argument is clearly foreclosed by our opinion in Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1040-1041 (1983), in which we held,

when . . . a state court decision fairly appears to rest primarily on federal law, or to be interwoven with the federal law, and when the adequacy and independence of any possible state law ground is not clear from the face of the opinion, we will accept as the most reasonable explanation that the state court decided the case the way it did because it believed that federal law required it to do so.

We read the opinion as resting on federal law.

With few exceptions, the courts have not hesitated to apply the vehicle exception to vehicles other than automobiles. See, e.g., United States v. Rollins, 699 F.2d 530 (CA11) (airplane), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 933 (1983).

We need not pass on the application of the vehicle exception to a motor home that is situated in a way or place that objectively indicates that it is being used as a residence. Among the factors that might be relevant in determining whether a warrant would be required in such a circumstance is its location, whether the vehicle is readily mobile or instead, for instance, elevated on blocks, whether the vehicle is licensed, whether it is connected to utilities, and whether it has convenient access to a public road.

Dissent

STEVENS, J., Dissenting Opinion

JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE BRENNAN and JUSTICE MARSHALL join, dissenting.

The character of "the place to be searched" plays an important role in Fourth Amendment analysis. In this case, police officers searched a Dodge/Midas Mini Motor Home. The California Supreme Court correctly characterized this vehicle as a "hybrid" which combines "the mobility attribute of an automobile . . . with most of the privacy characteristics of a house."

The hybrid character of the motor home places it at the crossroads between the privacy interests that generally forbid warrantless invasions of the home, Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 585-590 (1980), and the law enforcement interests that support the exception for warrantless searches of automobiles based on probable cause, United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 806, 820 (1982). By choosing to follow the latter route, the Court errs in three respects: it has entered new [p396] territory prematurely, it has accorded priority to an exception, rather than to the general rule, and it has abandoned the limits on the exception imposed by prior cases.

I

In recent Terms, the Court has displayed little confidence in state and lower federal court decisions that purport to enforce the Fourth Amendment. Unless an order suppressing evidence is clearly correct, a petition for certiorari is likely to garner the four votes required for a grant of plenary review -- as the one in this case did. Much of the Court's "burdensome" workload is a product of its own aggressiveness in this area. By promoting the Supreme Court of the United States as the High Magistrate for every warrantless search and seizure, this practice has burdened the argument docket with cases presenting fact-bound errors of minimal significance. It has also encouraged state legal officers to file petitions for certiorari in even the most frivolous search and seizure cases.

The Court's lack of trust in lower judicial authority has resulted in another improvident exercise of discretionary [p397] jurisdiction. In what is at most only a modest extension of our Fourth Amendment precedents, the California Supreme Court held that police officers may not conduct a nonexigent search of a motor home without a warrant supported by probable cause. The State of California filed a petition for certiorari contending that the decision below conflicted with the authority of other jurisdictions. Even a cursory examination of the cases alleged to be in conflict revealed that they did not consider the question presented here. [p398]

This is not a case "in which an American citizen has been deprived of a right secured by the United States Constitution or a federal statute. Rather, . . . a state court has upheld a citizen's assertion of a right, finding the citizen to be protected under both federal and state law." Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1067-1068 (1983) (STEVENS, J., dissenting). As an unusually perceptive study of this Court's docket stated with reference to California v. Ramos, 463 U.S. 992 (1983), "this . . . situation . . . rarely presents a compelling reason for Court review in the absence of a fully percolated conflict." The Court's decision to forge ahead [p399] has established a rule for searching motor homes that is to be followed by the entire Nation. If the Court had merely allowed the decision below to stand, it would have only governed searches of those vehicles in a single State. The breadth of this Court's mandate counsels greater patience before we offer our binding judgment on the meaning of the Constitution.

Of course, we may not abdicate our responsibility to clarify the law in this field. Some caution, however, is justified when every decision requires us to resolve a vexing "conflict . . . between the individual's constitutionally protected interest in privacy and the public interest in effective law enforcement." United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. at 804. "The certainty that is supposed to come from speedy resolution [p400] may prove illusory if a premature decision raises more questions than it answers." The only true rules governing search and seizure have been formulated and refined in the painstaking scrutiny of case-by-case adjudication. Consideration of this matter by the lower courts in a series of litigated cases would surely have facilitated a reasoned accommodation of the conflicting interests. To identify rules that will endure, we must rely on the state and lower federal courts to debate and evaluate the different approaches to difficult and unresolved questions of constitutional law. Deliberation on the question over time winnows out the unnecessary [p401] and discordant elements of doctrine and preserves "whatever is pure and sound and fine."

II

The Fourth Amendment guarantees the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures." We have interpreted this language to provide law enforcement officers with a bright-line standard:

searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment -- subject only to a few specifically established and well delineated exceptions.

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967) (footnotes omitted); Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753, 758 (1979).

In United States v. Ross, the Court reaffirmed the primary importance of the general rule condemning warrantless searches, and emphasized that the exception permitting the search of automobiles without a warrant is a narrow one. 456 U.S. at 824-825. We expressly endorsed "the general rule," stated in Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 156 (1925), that, "'[i]n cases where the securing of a warrant is reasonably practicable, it must be used.'" 456 U.S. at 807. Given this warning and the presumption of regularity that attaches to a warrant, it is hardly unrealistic to expect experienced law enforcement officers to obtain a search warrant when one can easily be secured.

The ascendancy of the warrant requirement in our system of justice must not be bullied aside by extravagant claims of necessity:

"The warrant requirement . . . is not an inconvenience to be somehow 'weighed' against the claims of police efficiency. It is, or should be, an important working part [p402] of our machinery of government, operating as a matter of course to check the 'well-intentioned but mistakenly overzealous executive officers' who are a part of any system of law enforcement." [ Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 481 (1971).]

. . . By requiring that conclusions concerning probable cause and the scope of a search

be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime

Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 14 (1948), we minimize the risk of unreasonable assertions of executive authority.

Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. at 758-759. If the motor home were parked in the exact middle of the intersection between the general rule and the exception for automobiles, priority should be given to the rule, rather than the exception.

III

The motor home, however, was not parked in the middle of that intersection. Our prior cases teach us that inherent mobility is not a sufficient justification for the fashioning of an exception to the warrant requirement, especially in the face of heightened expectations of privacy in the location searched. Motor homes, by their common use and construction, afford their owners a substantial and legitimate expectation of privacy when they dwell within. When a motor home is parked in a location that is removed from the public highway, I believe that society is prepared to recognize that the expectations of privacy within it are not unlike the expectations one has in a fixed dwelling. As a general rule, such places may only be searched with a warrant based upon probable cause. Warrantless searches of motor homes are only reasonable when the motor home is traveling on the public streets or highways, or when exigent circumstances otherwise require an immediate search without the expenditure of time necessary to obtain a warrant. [p403]

As we explained in Ross, the automobile exception is the product of a long history:

[S]ince its earliest days, Congress had recognized the impracticability of securing a warrant in cases involving the transportation of contraband goods. It is this impracticability, viewed in historical perspective, that provided the basis for the Carroll decision. Given the nature of an automobile in transit, the Court recognized that an immediate intrusion is necessary if police officers are to secure the illicit substance. In this class of cases, the Court held that a warrantless search of an automobile is not unreasonable.

456 U.S. at 806-807 (footnotes omitted). The automobile exception has been developed to ameliorate the practical problems associated with the search of vehicles that have been stopped on the streets or public highways because there was probable cause to believe they were transporting contraband. Until today, however, the Court has never decided whether the practical justifications that apply to a vehicle that is stopped in transit on a public way apply with the same force to a vehicle parked in a lot near a courthouse where it could easily be detained while a warrant is issued. [p404]

In this case, the motor home was parked in an off-the-street lot only a few blocks from the courthouse in downtown San Diego where dozens of magistrates were available to entertain a warrant application. The officers clearly had the element of surprise with them, and with curtains covering the windshield, the motor home offered no indication of any imminent departure. The officers plainly had probable cause to arrest the respondent and search the motor home, and, on this record, it is inexplicable why they eschewed the safe harbor of a warrant.

In the absence of any evidence of exigency in the circumstances of this case, the Court relies on the inherent mobility of the motor home to create a conclusive presumption of exigency. This Court, however, has squarely held that mobility of the place to be searched is not a sufficient justification for abandoning the warrant requirement. In United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 (1977), the Court held that a warrantless search of a footlocker violated the Fourth Amendment even [p405] though there was ample probable cause to believe it contained contraband. The Government had argued that the rationale of the automobile exception applied to movable containers in general, and that the warrant requirement should be limited to searches of homes and other "core" areas of privacy. See id. at 7. We categorically rejected the Government's argument, observing that there are greater privacy interests associated with containers than with automobiles, and that there are less practical problems associated with the temporary detention of a container than with the detention of an automobile. See id. at 13, and n. 7.

We again endorsed that analysis in Ross:

The Court in Chadwick specifically rejected the argument that the warrantless search was "reasonable" because a footlocker has some of the mobile characteristics that support warrantless searches of automobiles. The Court recognized that "a person's expectations of privacy in personal luggage are substantially greater than in an automobile," [433 U.S. at 13], and noted that the practical problems associated with the temporary detention of a piece of luggage during the period of time necessary to obtain a warrant are significantly less than those associated with the detention of an automobile. Id. at 13, n.7.

456 U.S. at 811. It is perfectly obvious that the citizen has a much greater expectation of privacy concerning the interior of a mobile home than of a piece of luggage such as a footlocker. If "inherent mobility" does not justify warrantless searches [p406] of containers, it cannot rationally provide a sufficient justification for the search of a person's dwelling place.

The State contends that officers in the field will have an impossible task determining whether or not other vehicles contain mobile living quarters. It is not necessary for the Court to resolve every unanswered question in this area in a single case, but common English usage suggests that we already distinguish between a "motor home" which is "equipped as a self-contained traveling home," a "camper" which is only equipped for "casual travel and camping," and an automobile which is "designed for passenger transportation." Surely the exteriors of these vehicles contain clues about their different functions which could alert officers in the field to the necessity of a warrant. [p407]

The same definitions might not necessarily apply in the context of the Fourth Amendment, but they do indicate that descriptive distinctions are humanly possible. They also reflect the California Legislature's judgment that "house cars" entertain different kinds of activities than the ordinary passenger vehicle.

In my opinion, searches of places that regularly accommodate a wide range of private human activity are fundamentally different from searches of automobiles which primarily serve a public transportation function. Although it may not be a castle, a motor home is usually the functional equivalent of a hotel room, a vacation and retirement home, or a hunting and fishing cabin. These places may be as spartan [p408] as a humble cottage when compared to the most majestic mansion, 456 U.S. at 822; ante at 393, but the highest and most legitimate expectations of privacy associated with these temporary abodes should command the respect of this Court. Stoner v. California, 376 U.S. 483, 490 (1964); Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. at 585; United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705, 714-715 (1984). In my opinion, a warrantless search of living quarters in a motor home is "presumptively unreasonable absent exigent circumstances." Ibid.

I respectfully dissent.

The Fourth Amendment provides:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, 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 particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

34 Cal.3d 597, 606, 668 P.2d 807, 812 (1983).

E.g., United States v. Johns, 469 U.S. 478 (1985); United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675 (1985); Oklahoma v. Castleberry, ante p. 146. Cf. Florida v. Rodriguez, 469 U.S. 1, 12-13 (1984) (STEVENS, J., dissenting, joined by BRENNAN, J.).

See, e.g., State v. Caponi, 12 Ohio St.3d 302, 466 N.E.2d 551 (1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1209 (1985). The Court's inventiveness in the search and seizure area has also emboldened state legal officers to file petitions for certiorari from state court suppression orders that are explicitly based on independent state grounds. See, e.g., Jamison v. State, 455 So.2d 1112 (Fla.App.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1127 (1985); Ex parte Gannaway, 448 So.2d 413 (Ala.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1207 (1985); State v. Burkholder, 12 Ohio St.3d 205, 466 N.E.2d 176, cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1062 (1984); People v. Corr, 682 P.2d 20 (Colo.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 855 (1984); State v. Von Bulow, 475 A.2d 995 (R.I.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 875 (1984).

Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1065 (1983) (STEVENS, J., dissenting); California v. Ramos, 463 U.S. 992, 1029 (1983) (STEVENS, J., dissenting); Watt v. Western Nuclear, Inc., 462 U.S. 36, 72-73 (1983) (STEVENS, J., dissenting); Watt v. Alaska, 451 U.S. 259, 273 (1981) (STEVENS, J., concurring). See also Stevens, Some Thoughts on Judicial Restraint, 66 Judicature 177, 182 (1982).

Pet. for Cert. 15-17, 21, 24-25. The petition acknowledged that the decision below was consistent with dictum in two recent Ninth Circuit decisions. See United States v. Wiga, 662 F.2d 1325, 1329 (1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 918 (1982); United States v. Williams, 630 F.2d 1322, 1326, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 865 (1980).

Only one case contained any reference to heightened expectations of privacy in mobile living quarters. United States v. Cadena, 588 F.2d 100, 101-102 (CA5 1979) (per curiam). Analogizing to automobile cases, the court upheld the warrantless search of an oceangoing ship while in transit. The court observed that the mobility "exception" required probable cause and exigency, and that

the increased measure of privacy that may be expected by those aboard a vessel mandates careful scrutiny both of probable cause for the search and the exigency of the circumstances excusing the failure to secure a warrant.

In all of the other cases, defendants challenged warrantless searches for vehicles claiming either no probable cause or the absence of exigency under Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971). United States v. Montgomery, 620 F.2d 753, 760 (CA10) ("camper"), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 882 (1980); United States v. Clark, 559 F.2d 420, 423-425 (CA5) ("camper pick-up truck"), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 969 (1977); United States v. Lovenguth, 514 F.2d 96, 97 (CA9 1975) ("pick up with . . . camper top"); United States v. Cusanelli, 472 F.2d 1204, 1206 (CA6) (per curiam) (two camper trucks), cert. denied, 412 U.S. 953 (1973); United States v. Miller, 460 F.2d 582, 585-586 (CA10 1972) ("motor home"); United States v. Rodgers, 442 F.2d 902, 904 (CA5 1971) ("camper truck"); State v. Million, 120 Ariz. 10, 15-16, 583 P.2d 897, 902-903 (1978) ("motor home"); State v. Sardo, 112 Ariz. 509, 513-514, 543 P.2d 1138, 1142 (1975) ("motor home"). Only Sardo involved a vehicle that was not in transit, but the motor home in that case was about to depart the premises.

Two State Supreme Courts have upheld the warrantless search of mobile homes in transit, notwithstanding a claim of heightened privacy interests. See State v. Mower, 407 A.2d 729, 732 (Me.1979); State v. Lepley, 343 N.W.2d 41, 42-43 (Minn.1984). Those cases -- which were not cited in the petition for certiorari -- are factually distinguishable from the search of the parked motor home here. In any case, some conflict among state courts on novel questions of the kind involved here is desirable as a means of exploring and refining alternative approaches to the problem.

Estreicher & Sexton, New York University Supreme Court Project, A Managerial Theory of the Supreme Court's Responsibilities (1984) (to be published in 59 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 677, 761 (1984)). The study elaborated:

[T]he Court should not hear cases in which a state court has invalidated state action on a federal ground in the absence of a conflict or a decision to treat the case as a vehicle for a major pronouncement of federal law. Without further percolation, there is ordinarily little reason to believe that the issue is one of recurring national significance. In general, correction of error, even regarding a matter of constitutional law, is not a sufficient basis for Supreme Court intervention. This last category differs from a federal court's invalidation of state action in that a structural justification for intervention is generally missing, given the absence of vertical federalism difficulties and the built-in assurance that state courts functioning under significant political constraints are not likely to invalidate state action lightly, even on federal grounds. . . . [The Court] should not grant . . . merely to correct perceived error.

Id. at 738-739 (footnote omitted). Chief Justice Samuel Roberts, Retired, of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, has expressed similar concerns. Roberts, The Adequate and Independent State Ground: Some Practical Considerations, 17 IJA Rep. No. 2, pp. 1-2 (1985).

See generally 45 Trailer Life, No. 1 (1985); id. No. 2; 22 Motor Home, No. 1 (1985); id. No. 2; 1 RV Lifestyle Magazine, No. 3 (1985).

Hellman, The Proposed Intercircuit Tribunal: Do We Need It? Will It Work?, 11 Hastings Const.L.Q. 375, 405 (1984).

Although one of the Court's roles is to ensure the uniformity of federal law, we do not think that the Court must act to eradicate disuniformity as soon as it appears. . . . Disagreement in the lower courts facilitates percolation -- the independent evaluation of a legal issue by different courts. The process of percolation allows a period of exploratory consideration and experimentation by lower courts before the Supreme Court ends the process with a nationally binding rule. The Supreme Court, when it decides a fully percolated issue, has the benefit of the experience of those lower courts. Irrespective of docket capacity, the Court should not be compelled to intervene to eradicate disuniformity when further percolation or experimentation is desirable.

* * * *

Our system is already committed in substantial measure to the principle of percolation. This is one justification for the absence of intercircuit stare decisis. Similarly, state and federal courts daily engage in a process of "dialectical federalism" wherein state courts are not bound by the holdings of lower federal courts in the same geographical area. But more than past practice and the structure of the judicial system supports a policy of awaiting percolation before Supreme Court intervention. A managerial conception of the Court's role embraces lower court percolation as an affirmative value. The views of the lower courts on a particular legal issue provide the Supreme Court with a means of identifying significant rulings as well as an experimental base and a set of doctrinal materials with which to fashion sound binding law. The occurrence of a conflict acts as a signaling device to help the Court identify important issues. Moreover, the principle of percolation encourages the lower courts to act as responsible agents in the process of development of national law.

Estreicher & Sexton, supra, n. 8, at 716, 719 (footnotes omitted).

B. Cardozo, The Nature of the Judicial Process 179 (1921).

United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897"] 468 U.S. 897, 913-914 (1984); 468 U.S. 897, 913-914 (1984); Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 236-237 (1983).

As we have stated, the decision in Carroll was based on the Court's appraisal of practical considerations viewed in the perspective of history.

456 U.S. at 820.

In Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971), a plurality refused to apply the automobile exception to an automobile that was seized while parked in the driveway of the suspect's house, towed to a secure police compound, and later searched:

The word "automobile" is not a talisman in whose presence the Fourth Amendment fades away and disappears. And surely there is nothing in this case to invoke the meaning and purpose of the rule of Carroll v. United State -- no alerted criminal bent on flight, no fleeting opportunity on an open highway after a hazardous chase, no contraband or stolen goods or weapons, no confederates waiting to move the evidence, not even the inconvenience of a special police detail to guard the immobilized automobile. In short, by no possible stretch of the legal imagination can this be made into a case where "it is not practicable to secure a warrant." [267 U.S. at 153,] and the "automobile exception," despite its label, is simply irrelevant.

Id. at 461-462 (opinion of Stewart, J., joined by Douglas, BRENNAN, and MARSHALL, JJ.). In Cardwell v. Lewis, 417 U.S. 583 (1974), a different plurality approved the seizure of an automobile from a public parking lot, and a later examination of its exterior. Id. at 592-594 (opinion of BLACKMUN, J.). Here, of course, we are concerned with the reasonableness of the search, not the seizure. Even if the diminished expectations of privacy associated with an automobile justify the warrantless search of a parked automobile notwithstanding the diminished exigency, the heightened expectations of privacy in the interior of a motor home require a different result.

See Suppression Hearing Tr. 7; Tr. of Oral Arg. 27. In addition, a telephonic warrant was only 20 cents and the nearest phone booth away. See Cal.Penal Code Ann. §§ 1526(b), 1528(b) (West 1982); People v. Morroniello, 145 Cal.App.3d 1, 9, 193 Cal.Rptr. 105, 109 (1983).

This willingness to search first and later seek justification has properly been characterized as "a decision roughly comparable in prudence to determining whether an electrical wire is charged by grasping it." United States v. Mitchell, 538 F.2d 1230, 1233 (CA5 1976) (en banc), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 945 (1977).

The factors which diminish the privacy aspects of an automobile do not apply to respondent's footlocker. Luggage contents are not open to public view, except as a condition to a border entry or common carrier travel; nor is luggage subject to regular inspections and official scrutiny on a continuing basis. Unlike an automobile, whose primary function is transportation, luggage is intended as a repository of personal effects. In sum, a person's expectations of privacy in personal luggage are substantially greater than in an automobile.

433 U.S. at 13.

Record, Ex. Nos. 102, 103.

Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 118, 199, 775 (1983).

In refusing to extend the California Supreme Court's decision in Carney beyond its context, the California Courts of Appeal have had no difficulty in distinguishing the motor home involved there from a Ford van, People v. Chestnut, 151 Cal.App.3d 721, 726-727, 198 Cal.Rptr. 8, 11 (1983), and a cab-high camper shell on the back of a pickup truck, People v. Gordon, 156 Cal.App.3d 74, 82, 202 Cal.Rptr. 566, 570 (1984). There is no reason to believe that trained officers could not make similar distinctions between different vehicles, especially when state vehicle laws already require them to do so.

Cal.Veh.Code Ann. §§ 243, 362, 415, 465, 585 (West 1971 and Supp.1985).

§ 362 (West 1971).

§§ 23221, 23223, 23225, 23226, 23229 (West Supp.1985).

Cf. Cardwell v. Lewis, 417 U.S. at 590 (opinion of BLACKMUN, J.):

One has a lesser expectation of privacy in a motor vehicle because its function is transportation, and it seldom serves as one's residence or as the repository of personal effects. A car has little capacity for escaping public scrutiny. It travels public thoroughfares where both its occupants and its contents are in plain view.

At the risk of belaboring the obvious, private residences are places in which the individual normally expects privacy free of governmental intrusion not authorized by a warrant, and that expectation is plainly one that society is prepared to recognize as justifiable. Our cases have not deviated from this basic Fourth Amendment principle. Searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable absent exigent circumstances.

United State v. Karo, 468 U.S. at 714-715.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Opinion BURGER, C.J., Opinion of the Court CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER delivered the opinion of the Court. We granted certiorari to decide whether law enforcement agents violated the Fourth Amendment when they conducted a warrantless search, based on probable cause, of a fully mobile "motor home" located in a public place.

# data[].attributes.body
In the case of US v.s. Tigano, federal authorities arrested Mr. Tigano for running a 🤬 growing operation. At that time, Tigano pleaded not guilty but demanded a speedy trial. Instead of granting him a speedy trial, they put him in jail for nearly seven years and violated his 6th amendment rights. Clearly in this case, prosecutors overstepped their authorities by not allowing him proper justice.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The presidential contender conspicuously fails to explain the legal basis for her plan to impose new restrictions by executive fiat.

# data[].attributes.body
This article talks about how the anti-protesters were arrested during sit-in at Microsoft. They were expressing their irritation for allowing ICE to use Microsoft technology. This violates their first amendment because it isn’t allowing the protesters to practice their freedom of speech or allowing them to peacefully assemble. I think that this is unfair and cruel because they were not being violent, so legally there isn’t any issue with what they’re doing. They have the right to express their anger against the government in a peaceful way, and here the government is taking away their rights. Not everyone has to be happy with what the government is going and they deserve the right to express their feelings.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
76 anti-ice protesters arrested during new york sit-in  - cnn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
76 anti-ICE protesters arrested during New York sit-in

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Protesters staged a sit-in at Microsoft to demand the company stop allowing ICE to use their technology.

# data[].attributes.body
The second amendment states that people have the right to own guns for the purpose of self defense. This article discusses the connection between the second amendment and the gun control debate. The author points out that adding stricter laws including background checks would not take away our 2nd amendment right but make the nation a safer place. He also gives examples of events that have occurred as a result of gun violence such as sandy hook. I believe that there should be stricter background checks and mental health screenings to ensure the safety of our nation. Being a high school student is becoming increasingly scary with these school shootings on the rise and not knowing whether it would be your school next. Instead of building schools to help combat gun violence there should be more restriction on the weapons themselves.

http://www.nea.org/home/55527.htm

# data[].attributes.body
Shiloh Shearer.    The fifth amendment states that punishment must be fair, and cant be cruel. The supreme court rules that Missouri essentially torturing a prisoner to death does not violate that right. The lethal injection used on prisoners causes tumors to grow in the prisoners throat causing him to choke and suffocate for several minutes.Neil Gorsuch stated that the eighth amendment does not guarantee a painless death.

# data[].attributes.body
DUI checkpoint are locations where police randomly flag vehicles and administer a field sobriety test. Police claim that the drunk driving is the main reason that the checkpoints exist. Thought this is not true, the checkpoints are used to generate revenue from the traffic offenses that are cited while at the checkpoint. Citations for missing lights, insurance issues, seat belts, and licenses are all given at DUI checkpoints. Rarely do the checkpoints actually catch people committing a DUI. The 4th amendment states that the people are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures without probable cause. The supreme court has not declared the 4th amendment unconstitutional but have said that the checkpoint cannot be used for revenue. I personally think that DUI checkpoints violate the 4th because they are used to cited people for minor offenses in order to gain revenue. People should be able to travel without being randomly stopped and questioned.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/05/16/the-supreme-courts-fourth-amendment-irrelevance/

# data[].attributes.body
In this article  a student in Cary-Grove high scho said that his freedom of speech was violated by his teachers when they said that he wasn’t allowed to comment on anything while speaking with Mayor Mark Kownick. The student’s name is Matthew Ahmann  who while talking to the school’s dean, James Kelly threatened Ahmann  by saying “don’t say or do anything during his visit or negative consequences would follow.” This caused Ahmann to record his session with his cellphone and posted it on Facebook making the school suspend him for a one-day in school suspension. This would have never happened if the school hadn’t violated Ahmann’s rights. Causing him to take severe actions.The school shouldn’t take his freedom of speech and know Ahmann has a bad record in the system that could make it hard to be accepted by schools .

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A Cary-Grove High School senior said his First Amendment rights were violated when Cary's mayor came to his school for a question-and-answer session and the student was told not to interrupt, according to a lawsuit filed in federal court.

Matthew Ahmann, a self-described political journalist, has been outspoken against Mayor Mark Kownick in recent years through his politically driven Facebook account.

In his lawsuit filed against the school board of Crystal Lake-based District 155, Ahmann said that on Sept. 26 he did as he was told by the school's dean, James Kelly, after receiving a "threatening ultimatum" and kept quiet during the mayor's visit to his advanced placement politics class.

Ahmann, who also is seeking $50,000 in compensatory damages, said in the lawsuit that Kelly approached him after having a conversation with Kownick. Kelly told him not to "say or do anything" during Kownick's visit "or negative consequences would follow."

According to the lawsuit, "Mayor Kownick and Dean Kelly, working in concert and prior to the mayor's speech, conspired to stifle Matt's continued political journalism by having Dean Kelly threaten and intimidate Matt."

Ahmann did however record the session on his cellphone and weeks later posted it on his politically charged Facebook page. He said the district in retaliation punished him by placing him on a one-day in-school suspension. Ahmann said in the lawsuit he wants this expunged from his record because having this "permanent academic record of suspension" hurts his future chances of being accepted into colleges and earning scholarships.

In its response to the lawsuit the school board denies any wrongdoing.

The board claims the suspension was because Ahmann violated the school's rules on using cellphones during class.

"The board admits that it subsequently became aware that (Ahmann) used his cell phone to surreptitiously record the entirety of his AP Government class ... in violation of Board Policies and the Student Handbook and had posted a portion of the recording online," the board said in its response.

The response also states that there was no plan or direction between Kelly and Kownick to "muzzle" Ahmann and that he was not threatened in any way.

This week, Kownick, in his second term as mayor, adamantly denied that there was any such conversation with Kelly in any regards to stifling Ahmann.

He insisted he "never had a conversation with Dean Kelly prior to our visit ... It absolutely did not happen, without a doubt."

He said he came to the school that day, as he has often done over the years, as part of a question-and-answer session with two classes. He had no prepared speech or topic to present and no clue what the students would be asking about.

Kownick, whose three children are graduates of the school, said he "has a huge affinity" for the school and enjoys meeting with the students, who asked "excellent questions" that day about the economic development of their village and his role as mayor. Kownick said he knew of Ahmann but had never met him until that day in class.

He said Ahmann, who does not live in the village and has no voting rights there, had emailed him in the past. But more disturbingly, he had "taken a picture of my family (from Facebook) and degraded it."

Though he did not see it for himself, Kownick said "many people told me about it and (said that Ahmann) referred to us as 'the scum of Cary.'"

"It was unsettling," Kownick said. "I'm open for anything. I chose to do this, but leave my family out of it."

Still, Kownick said Ahmann was suspended because he "violated the school policy" by using a cellphone during class and nothing else.

Kelly and the school district's attorney said they could not comment on the pending litigation. Ahmann's attorney said he has advised his client not to comment. The case is set for status in U.S. District Court in Rockford on Feb. 22. The next school board meeting is Feb. 20.

Amanda Marrazzo is a freelance reporter.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Student says 1st Amendment rights violated when school 'threatened' him to be quiet during Cary mayor's visit

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A Cary-Grove High School senior said his First Amendment rights were violated when Cary's mayor came to his school for a question-and-answer session and the student was told not to interrupt, according to a lawsuit filed in federal court. Matthew Ahmann, a self-described political journalist, has been outspoken against Mayor Mark Kownick in recent years through his politically driven Facebook account.

# data[].attributes.body
TarTara Marie Cournoyer was sentenced to five years of supervised probation on a controlled substance conviction. One of the conditions of her probation is that she is required to submit random spot-check chemical testing whenever requested by a licensed police officer, probation agent, or correctional officer. She argued that this violated her Fourth Amendment rights in two ways.  These conditions allowed  random chemical testing  by law enforcement and unwarranted searches of her person, property and residence. The 4th amendment states  “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, 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 particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.”  The Minnesota Court of Appeals decided this violated the 4th amendment and ruled in favor of  Tara Marie Cournoyer .a Marie Cournoyer was sentenced to five years of supervised probation on a controlled substance conviction. One of the conditions of her probation is that she is required to submit random spot-check chemical testing whenever requested by a licensed police officer, probation agent, or correctional officer. She argued that this violated her Fourth Amendment rights in two ways.  These conditions allowed  random chemical testing  by law enforcement and unwarranted searches of her person, property and residence. The 4th amendment states  “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, 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 particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.”  The Minnesota Court of Appeals decided this violated the 4th amendment and ruled in favor of  Tara Marie Cournoyer .

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled Jan. 7 in favor of a 27-year-old Pennington woman regarding a probation condition requiring her to submit random spot check chemical testing by police.

The Court of Appeals agreed, reversing in part and remanding the Crow Wing County District Court's decision regarding Tara Marie Cournoyer on her sentencing on a controlled substance conviction. Cournoyer was sentenced to five years of supervised probation and conditions of her probation includes she is required to submit random spot-check testing at the request of any licensed peace officer, probation agent of correctional officer.

The decision was considered and decided by Presiding Judge Jill Flaskamp Halbrooks and Judges Lucinda E. Jesson and Diane B. Bratvold.

According to the unpublished appeals court opinion, Cournoyer argued her Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the district court on two issues: conditions allowing random chemical testing initiated by law enforcement and suspicionless searches of her person, property and residence.

"Because the district court erred by imposing a condition that allowed police officers to initiate warrantless chemical testing, we reverse the portion of the district court's order imposing that condition. And because reasonable suspicion is required to conduct other warrantless searches of a probationer's person, property, workplace, or home, we remand to the district court to clarify its order relating to those searches," Judge Jesson stated in the appeals court document.

More on the appeals court decision

Cournoyer argued the district court's probation condition of warrantless drug testing by law enforcement without the supervision of probation agents violated her Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The parties agreed in this context, Cournoyer's condition of random testing refers to testing for illegal substances, which is most often urine testing. A urine test is a search subject to the Fourth Amendment, the document stated.

The state, on the other hand, argued based on Cournoyer's past history of drug use, it was reasonable for police officers, as well as probation agents, to monitor her probation.

The appeals court concluded the condition of random testing at the request of police, rather than probation officers, did not meet Fourth Amendment requirements for a reasonable search. The court stated the supreme court recognized there is a "special relationship" between probation officers and probationers and based on this relationship, the probation officer is required to work toward the probationer's rehabilitation, as well as protecting the public's interest.

The district court also imposed probation conditions allowing random searches of Cournoyer's home, person, vehicle, workplace or property, and require her to cooperate with these searches as directed by probation. The parties agreed these conditions apply to searches that do not involve chemical testing.

Cournoyer argued the district court erred by imposing these probation conditions without articulating that reasonable suspicion is required to conduct such searches, the document stated. The state made its argument by citing two cases where reasonable suspicion is required for such searches. The appeals court agreed with the state, but stated the district court made no findings on the reasonableness of the condition allowing random searches of her home, person and property; and require the conditions imposed by the district court to be clarified.

The appeals court document summarized by stating: "Because the district court abused its discretion by imposing a probation condition that required Cournoyer to submit to random spot check chemical testing by police that was not initiated by probation, we reverse that portion of the district court's order. We remand the portions of the district court's order dealing with random searches of Cournoyer's home, person, vehicles, workplace, and property, and the general condition requiring her to submit to such searches, to clarify that the district court correctly applied the reasonable-suspicion standard in ordering those conditions."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Woman argues her Fourth Amendment rights were violated: State Court of Appeals rules in case | Brainerd Dispatch

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled Jan. 7 in favor of a 27-year-old Pennington woman regarding a probation condition requiring her to submit random spot check chemical testing by police. The Court of Appeals agreed, reversing in part and remanding the Crow Wing County District Court's decision regarding Tara Marie Cournoyer on her sentencing on a controlled substance conviction.

# data[].attributes.body
I found an article on Fox News that reported on a California Gov., Gavin Newsom, reducing the sentences of 21 inmates. The inmates were charged for murder and attempted murder with seven serving life sentences without parole. Newsom believed that the inmates’ sentencing was cruel and unjust—referring to the 8th amendment—since the inmates were given an additional 25 years for using firearms. Whether the sentences were just or not are up to debate, but the governor’s efforts allowed parole hearing for the inmates.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/freshman-democratic-governor-commutes-sentences-for-21-inmates-in-california

# data[].attributes.body
As outlined in the Tenth amendment of the Bill of Rights, the powers not given to the federal government in the constitution are reserved for state governments. One example of a power held by the state is the legality of 🤬. Currently, the recreational use of 🤬 is legal in eleven states and Washington, D. C., while medical 🤬 is legal in 33 states. While the federal sale of 🤬 was outlawed in 1937, these states that have legalized 🤬 can legally possess and sell within their respective state, as long as the follow the laws set by said state. In my opinion, it is good that the federal government grants certain powers like these to the states because it limits the power that the federal government possesses. While I do believe that 🤬 should be legalized nationwide, it is important to allow this decision to be made at a state level to prevent the national government from becoming too powerful.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Illinois became the first state to pass a bill legalizing marijuana sales through the legislature.

Governor JB Pritzker, who made legalizing marijuana a core component of his campaign for governor's office, signed the bill into law on Tuesday.

Marijuana sales are set to go live in Illinois on January 1, 2020.

Sign up here for our cannabis newsletter, Cultivated.

Illinois lawmakers passed a bill that legalizes the possession and commercial sale of marijuana in the state earlier this month.

Governor JB Pritzker, who made marijuana legalization a core component of his campaign for the governor's office, signed the bill into law on Tuesday.

The bill contains a sweeping criminal justice component, expunging the records of potentially hundreds of thousands Illinois residents who have previously been convicted for possessing marijuana under previous laws. Up to 770,000 Illinois residents may qualify for expungement, according to ABC News.

The bill will also proactively create opportunities for minority business owners to capitalize on the new industry.

Legal marijuana sales in the state are expected to start on January 1, 2020, as the states' 55 medical marijuana dispensaries will be permitted to flip to recreational sales, reports The Chicago Tribune.

Read more: Top venture investors say these 11 tech startups in the red-hot cannabis sector are set to blow up this year

"The state of Illinois just made history, legalizing adult-use cannabis with the most equity-centric approach in the nation," Pritzker wrote on his official Facebook page. "This will have a transformational impact on our state, creating opportunity in the communities that need it most and giving so many a second chance."

For its part, Illinois will be the first state to legalize marijuana sales through the state legislature - rather than a ballot initiative - once Pritzker signs the bill into law.

The past year has been a banner year for marijuana legalization.

In last year's midterm elections, Michigan became the 10th state to legalize recreational marijuana, and Utah and Missouri voted to legalize medical marijuana. Deep-red Oklahoma also voted to legalize medical marijuana last year, joining numerous other states that have such laws on the books.

Vermont became the first state to legalize marijuana posessions - not sale - through its legislature last year as well, rather than a ballot initiative when the governor signed the bill into law.

And, President Donald Trump also signed the bipartisan Farm Bill into law last December, which legalized hemp - a plant that's roughly identical to marijuana but doesn't contain THC, a psychoactive compound in marijuana - nationwide.

Hemp is also a source of CBD, or cannabidiol, a popular, if scientifically untested ingredient in many cannabis-infused products.

Read more: Top investors say these 11 buzzy, under-the-radar consumer cannabis startups are set to raise fresh rounds and blow up this year

Eleven states and Washington, DC, have now legalized marijuana for recreational use for adults over 21. And 33 states have legalized medical marijuana.

And last October, Canada legalized marijuana federally, becoming the first G7 country to do.

Mexico's Supreme Court also ruled that marijuana prohibition is unconstitutional, paving the way for the country's new leader, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, to follow Canada's lead.

Marijuana prohibition began 80 years ago when the federal government banned the sale, cultivation, and use of the cannabis plant. It remains illegal at the federal level.

Overturning prohibition is one of the few hot-button topics with widespread support.

A recent poll by the Pew Research Center found that 62% of Americans, including 74% of millennials, said they supported legalizing marijuana.

Melia Robinson contributed to an earlier version of this post.

Adults 21 and over can light up in Alaska. In early 2015, the northernmost US state made it legal for residents to use, possess, and transport up to an ounce of marijuana- roughly a sandwich bag full - for recreational use. The first pot shop opened for business in late 2016.

Alaska has pounced on the opportunity to make its recreational pot shops a destination for tourists. More than two million people visit Alaska annually and spend $2 billion.

California
California was the first state to legalize medical marijuana back in 1996. California became even more pot-friendly in 2016 when it made it legal to use and carry up to an ounce of marijuana.

The law also permits adults 21 and over to buy up to eight grams of marijuana concentrates, which are found in edibles, and grow no more than six marijuana plants per household.

Getting Californians to buy legal weed - rather than from the black market - has been challenging since the law took effect, The New York Times reports.

In Colorado, there are more marijuana dispensaries than Starbucks and McDonalds locations combined. The state joined Washington in becoming the first two states to fully legalize the drug in 2012.

Residents and tourists over the age of 21 can buy up to one ounce of marijuana or eight grams of concentrates. Some Colorado counties and cities have passed more restrictive laws.

A ballot initiative in 2016 gave Mainers the right to possess up to 2.5 ounces of marijuana, more than double the limit in most other states.

Maine's legislature is still ironing out the details of how, and when, recreational pot shops will open in the state.

Massachusetts
In 2016, Massachusetts gave residents the green light to carry and use an ounce of marijuana and grow up to 12 plants in their homes.

The first pot shops opened in the state last year, with more to come in 2019, reports The Boston Globe.

Voters in Michigan passed Proposition 1 last year, making it the first state in the Midwest to legalize the possession and sale of marijuana for adults over the age of 21. The bill allows adults to possess up to 2.5 ounces of marijuana and allows residents to grow up to 12 plants at home.

The law is more permissive than other states with legal marijuana: Most allow residents to only possess up to an ounce at a time.

Residents and tourists who are 21 and over can buy an ounce of marijuana or one-eighth of an ounce of edibles or concentrates in Nevada - while supplies last. Less than two weeks after sales of recreational weed began on July 1, 2017, many stores ran out of marijuana to sell.

The state has earned nearly $20 million in marijuana tax revenue since the market launched.

There's bad news if you want to grow your own bud, though. Nevada residents must live 25 miles outside the nearest dispensary in order to be eligible for a grower's license.

Oregonians have enjoyed the right to carry an ounce of weed and grow up to four plants at home since 2015.

Sales in Oregon pot shops have exploded since legalization: they're expected to top $1 billion by 2020, reports The Portland Business Journal.

Vermont became the first state to legalize marijuana through the legislature, rather than a ballot initiative, when Republic Governor Phil Scott signed a bill into law in January of last year.

Adults in the Green Mountain State will be able to carry up to an ounce of marijuana and grow no more than two plants for recreational use. The new law goes into effect in July. But the bill is limited in scope. It doesn't establish a legal market for production and sale of the drug.

Washington
Dispensaries in Washington have raked in over $1 billion in non-medical marijuana sales since the drug was legalized for recreational use in 2012.

The state allows people to carry up to an ounce of marijuana, but they must require the drug for medicinal purposes in order to be eligible for a grower's license.

Washington D.C.
Residents in the nation's capital voted overwhelmingly to legalize marijuana for adult use in November 2014.

The bill took effect in 2015, allowing people to possess two ounces or less of marijuana and "gift" up to an ounce, if neither money nor goods or services are exchanged.

Illinois lawmakers on Friday passed a bill that legalizes the possession and commercial sale of marijuana in the state.

Governor JB Pritzker, who made marijuana legalization a core component of his campaign for the governor's office, signed the bill into law on Tuesday.

Legal marijuana sales in the state are expected to start on January 1, as the states 55 medical marijuana dispensaries will be permitted to flip to recreational sales, reports The Chicago Tribune.

For its part, Illinois will be the first state to legalize marijuana sales through the state legislature - rather than a ballot initiative - once Pritzker signs the bill into law.

New York and New Jersey may be next.
Since Massachusetts opened its first pot shops in November, states around the Northeast are hopping aboard the green train.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo made legalizing marijuana a top priority for the first hundred days of his third term as governor, though that hasn't panned out. New York's legislative session ends on June 19, and it's unlikely a marijuana bill will be passed before then.

And while New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy hasn't yet given up on legalization, it's not likely to happen this year after lawmakers couldn't reach an agreement on a marijuana legalization bill.

While the federal government under President Trump is no friend to marijuana reform laws, it's likely that we'll see action from Congress - with a Democrat-controlled House - easing tax burdens and banking restrictions on marijuana businesses, and expanding access to medical marijuana.

NOW WATCH: Popular Videos from Insider Inc.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Illinois just became the first state to legalize marijuana sales through the legislature - here are all the states where marijuana is legal

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Illinois became the first state to pass a bill legalizing marijuana sales through the legislature. Governor JB Pritzker, who made legalizing marijuana a core component of his campaign for governor's office, signed the bill into law on Tuesday. Marijuana sales are set to go live in Illinois on January 1, 2020.

# data[].attributes.body
In this article it discusses about a family in Carpentersville suing police officers after the police stormed their home with their 16 year old son still inside the house, raiding the house without a search warrant.  The reason for the raid was to find a missing girl that had a relationship with the boy. Altercations happened between the boy and the police officer resulting to the boy to be grabbed, thrown, and arrested.  This violates the fourth amendment, meaning the police cannot search a person and their property without a search warrant of a probable cause.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
CARPENTERSVILLE, Ill. (WLS) -- A family in north suburban Carpentersville is suing police officers, claiming they raided their home without a search warrant while their teenage son was home alone.

In video of the raid, the 16-year-old boy, who wishes to remain anonymous, was knocked off his feet by the officer, who charges through the doorway. The teen ends up on a couch.

"I did get scared because I never expected something like this to happen to me," he said.

The encounter happened in June, the result of a search for a missing girl who is friends with the boy.

As the officer's partner searches upstairs, there's more grabbing and pushing. Twice the officer grabs the boy's neck, and then he throws him on the couch again. The missing girl is not at the home, but the officers handcuff and arrest the boy, whose mother is at work.

"It was an illegal search of this home," said Keenan Saulter, attorney for the family. "It was an illegal seizure of that minor, and ultimately it was a false arrest."

Video shows the officer had opened the unlocked door himself. The family is now suing, alleging police had no warrant and no probable case.

The officer is heard claiming the door has been open.

"Hello, your door's open," the officer says on a Snapchat video.

"Yeah, sir, I don't feel comfortable opening this door without my parents here, sir," the teen answers.

The family said police had already searched their home a day earlier. The boy's mother, who was at work, said she talked to an officer on the phone.

"I told him to wait for me," Violeta Hernandez said. "You're not to supposed to be in my house. They are minors. I'm not there."

The family said the missing girl was a runaway who did come to the house only to be put in an Uber by the teen. He said she showed police a record of the ride, but that didn't stop them from returning the next day.

"They said that she was still in here, that people were saying she was still in here," he said.

The family said the missing girl ended up back at her home that very afternoon

Carpentersville officials released a statement, saying:

"The Village of Carpentersville and its Police Department have just learned of the lawsuit, and, as such, we are not prepared to make a statement as to the specific allegations at this point. However, the Village takes all matters involving police interactions with the public seriously. What is known is that the police were responding to a report of a missing female minor during the alleged incident. A third party investigation was initiated to address the appropriateness or inappropriateness of the involved officers' actions. At this point, the investigation is ongoing.

The Village will need further time to review the lawsuit as well as the outcome of the third party investigation before making any additional comment."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Carpentersville family sues after video shows police raiding home, grabbing teen by neck

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
CARPENTERSVILLE, Ill. (WLS) -- A family in north suburban Carpentersville is suing police officers, claiming they raided their home without a search warrant while their teenage son was home alone. In video of the raid, the 16-year-old boy, who wishes to remain anonymous, was knocked off his feet by the officer, who charges through the doorway.

# data[].attributes.body
LGBTQ+ content is being censored online which  violates the first amendment. The first amendment is defined as having the freedom of speech, religion, assembly, and petition. By censoring LGBTQ+ content, these creators are having their freedom off speech being limited and taken away. Along with being silenced, the industry is capitalizing off of the LGBTQ+ community by “rainbow washing “which is when companies turn their logos to rainbow colored themes during pride month instead of proving support year round. Essentially, the LGBTQ+ community is being profited off of only when acceptable and have no  say it in it. In a world where many different communities are emerging, we should be allowing them to speak up for themselves and establish a foundation in society rather than speaking over them only when it’s beneficial.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
One cybersecurity firm reports nearly three quarters of LGBTQ news content gets flagged by online ad services as unsafe. That includes much of the content published by The Advocate.

A survey conducted by CHEQ found 73 percent of articles from LGBTQ news sites was getting blacklisted for advertisers, according to the New York Daily News.

CHEQ founder and CEO Guy Tytunovich said the use of over-simplified flagging procedures caused the problem, not any actual reluctance on the part of advertisers to associate their own brands with LGBTQ content.

"The use of blunt keyword blocking, and media blacklists is outdated and discredited," Tytunovich told the Daily News. "At best, this practice kills reach for campaigns and hurts the revenues of all online publishers."

The findings come as eight LGBTQ YouTube Creators sue Google and YouTube over "discriminatory and unlawful content-based regulation, restraint, monetization, false advertising, and anti-competitive distribution of LGBTQ+ speech and video content."

As well as other outlets focused on LGBTQ content shuttering, including Gay Star News most recently. Founders Tris Reid-Smith and Scott Nunn in a message to readers said ad revenue drove the decision. The British site was impacted by external forces like Brexit, but said a reluctance for companies to associate with LGBTI content also played a significant role.

"Rather than working with us to engage and serve LGBTI people year round, many have chosen to 'rainbow wash,'" Reid-Smith and Nunn wrote. "They have turned their logo rainbow colored for Pride week or month and - at best - made a small donation to an LGBTI good cause. Worst still, we have learned that some brands have done this while at the same time funding anti-LGBTI politicians to the tune of millions of dollars. Tokenism has reached a new low."

But others said search engines and advertising services play a greater role.

"I don't think the issue is the brand [for not buying ads on LGBTQ sites],"Bejamin Cohen, editor of PinkNews, told the Daily News. "It's whoever is administrating their blocklist because often the brands are really surprised when you send them the blocklist."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Over 73 Percent of LGBTQ Content Online Flagged as 'Inappropriate'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
One cybersecurity firm reports nearly three quarters of LGBTQ news content gets flagged by online ad services as unsafe. That includes much of the content published by The Advocate. A survey conducted by CHEQ found 73 percent of articles from LGBTQ news sites was getting blacklisted for advertisers, according to the New York Daily News .

# data[].attributes.body
The articles shows how a conservative man filed a federal lawsuit against the Wisconsin govenor. The lawsuit alleges that the govenor violated the first amendment of his staff by denying them access to the press briefing and kept on an advisory list. One of the spokesperson for the company states that they strongly believe in a “a fair and unbiased press corps.” Experts on the first amendment stated that they have a strong case on their hands since it clearly shows the govenor violating those rights for his employees.It was also clear that it was only towards press that went against his personal views and interest.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
MADISON, Wis. (AP) - A conservative think tank has filed a federal lawsuit against Democratic Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers, alleging he violated the First Amendment rights of staff members who were denied access to a press briefing and kept off an advisory list sent to other reporters.

The MacIver Institute for Public Policy filed the lawsuit Tuesday in Madison alleging that Evers violated its staffers' constitutional rights to free speech, freedom of the press and equal access.

Evers' spokeswoman, Melissa Baldauff, said in a statement that Evers believed strongly in a "fair and unbiased press corps" and is committed to openness and transparency in state government.

"Our administration provides many opportunities for both reporters and the public to attend open events with the governor," Baldauff said, while not directly addressing the allegations made in the complaint.

The lawsuit alleges that since Evers became governor in January, he has refused to extend invitations to press events to reporters for the conservative group's MacIver News Service. It also says MacIver does not receive press releases giving notice of news conferences that are sent to other news outlets.

The lawsuit alleges that keeping MacIver off the email advisory lists "constitutes viewpoint discrimination based on the MacIver Institute's editorial stances," which it says is a violation of its free speech rights.

First Amendment experts said MacIver appeared to have a strong case.

"It's practically a slam dunk," said Howard Schweber, a law school and political science professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

The law is clear that there has to be a very compelling reason to deny press access, and singling out a particular outlet because you disagree with their viewpoint is not allowed, Schweber said. He drew a parallel with President Donald Trump attempting to bar a CNN reporter from the White House. Trump ultimately relented.

MacIver is asking the court to issue an injunction ordering Evers to stop barring MacIver from equal access to information on the same basis as other reporters and lists announcing such events.

Robert Dreschel, a journalism professor at UW-Madison and an expert on media law, said it appears Evers wasn't following any standards or guidance when MacIver was denied access.

"That's very troublesome," he said. "They have to be able to give some kind of reasons beyond just saying 'Not you.' Otherwise you do raise legitimate First Amendment questions."

Evers will have to make a convincing argument as to why MacIver was excluded, or grant them the same access as others.

"It just seems like this shouldn't be that big of a deal," Dreschel said. "I'm not sure why it had to reach this point."

Bill Lueders, president of the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council, called the lawsuit's allegations "deeply troubling."

"It certainly is not in keeping with the state's proud tradition of open government," Lueders said. "If Tony Evers has what it takes to lead state government, he ought to be able to withstand the inclusion and presence of reporters from a conservative news outlet."

The lawsuit cites an Evers administration budget briefing in February in which two MacIver reporters were denied access but 26 other reporters, including from The Associated Press, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and Wisconsin State Journal, were allowed in. Evers wasn't present, but members of his administration provided information to reporters on embargo ahead of his budget speech to the Legislature that evening.

Governors from both parties have held similar briefings over the years. They are typically open only to certain invited reporters, not every news outlet that covers state government or the governor.

Daniel Suhr, an attorney for MacIver, said MacIver reporters had attended budget briefings by former Republican Gov. Scott Walker.

MacIver reporters have attended other news conferences held by Evers and members of his administration. For example, a MacIver reporter was at the July budget bill signing held in the governor's conference room and asked Evers a question that the governor answered.

___

Follow Scott Bauer on Twitter: https://twitter.com/sbauerAP

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Conservative think tank sues Wisconsin's Evers over access

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
MADISON, Wis. (AP) - A conservative think tank has filed a federal lawsuit against Democratic Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers, alleging he violated the First Amendment rights of staff members who were denied access to a press briefing and kept off an advisory list sent to other reporters.

# data[].attributes.body
In this article it shows that near the border they want to put cameras, but residents did not like that. These people were concerned because these cameras can tape you doing anything while you did not know that they were there. They complained that it was taking away their 4th amendment right of privacy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Walls work. Just ask Israel. They work. Believe me, they work.

MARC STEINER: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Marc Steiner. Good to have you with us.

Now, as a follow-up to our discussion with Will Parrish about his Intercept article, on the use of an Israeli security company to build and manage surveillance technology on the Tohono O'odham Reservation to monitor the border and the Native people who live there, we're going to speak with Jay Stanley, who is the Senior Policy Analyst with the American Civil Liberties Union's Speech Privacy and Technology Project. He was quoted throughout the article, pointing out the dangers that this surveillance technology portends for our entire nation and our democracy. These systems, known as "persistence surveillance technologies," can monitor the minutest of behaviors and movements, collecting information on us without our even being aware of anything going on.

The Border Patrol, which partners with the Israeli military technology company Elbit Systems to build and maintain these intricate monitoring technologies, has jurisdiction within 100 miles from the edges of our nation. That could potentially surveil two-thirds of the American people.

Welcome, Jay Stanley, to The Real News. Good to have you with us.

JAY STANLEY: Good to be on.

MARC STEINER: In the article, you were quoted as being concerned about the repurposing of the surveillance tower and drones to surveil dissidents because you think it hints at other possible abuses. Your quote here was exactly, "It's a reminder that technologies that are sold for one purpose, such as protecting the border or stopping terrorists or whatever the original jurisdiction might happen to be, so often get repurposed for other reasons, such as targeting protestors." Then there was this email by a Border Patrol agent in charge, Christopher Seiler, who runs the agency's Rio Grande Valley section. And he described the political opposition to Trump's border policies as a threat. And in that same email to more than 30 other supervisory agents, he invited them to a seminar called "Large Scale Protest Response Seminar" that was led by Paul Laney, the former Sheriff of Cass County, North Dakota, who served as the leading architect of the militarized police response to the Standing Rock demonstrations.

In his email, Seiler wrote, "The current political climate uptick in demonstrations and social media campaigns, along with the immigration debate, almost ensure that the Rio Grande Valley will have large scale protests. These protests pose a significant threat to the border, law enforcement, and our communities." So I'm bringing this all up, Jay, because I want you to comment on this and what it means - portends when you start using this technology in other places and what that relationship means.

JAY STANLEY: Yeah. I mean, there are a lot of reasons to oppose pervasive surveillance structures in American life and letting the government build systems that can watch us, and as has been said, create a TiVo in our lives. Giving the government the power if it chooses to, and focuses on you for whatever reason to literally hit rewind on your life, see everywhere that you've been, who you've been with for days or weeks or months or even years, which is what a lot of these wide area persistent surveillance technologies would enable. There are a lot of reasons to oppose that kind of a technology, but one of them is the persistent history, unfortunately, in this country of the authorities abusing their powers. Not to carry out the mission that we the public give them, our public servants, to do, which is protect the border, stop crime, et cetera, but to go after people because of their political views.

Going back to the labor battles of the early 20th century and late 19th century, up through the civil rights and anti-war battles and a lot of what we've seen since the post 9/11 era, we have persistently seen law enforcement and government security agencies confuse their mission, which is to protect the public, protect order, which is an important mission, with protecting the current order, with fighting people who are peacefully advocating for change, who are peacefully challenging the powers that be. And they have no evidence that protestors are planning to commit a crime. And yet, they kick into gear all these tools that we have given them to prevent crime. So we see both law enforcement and agencies taking sides on political issues, but also often abusing their powers to defend their own agencies.

We know that bureaucracies always defend themselves. And so we sometimes see, as in this case, when an agency is criticized or is threatened, and we saw this with J. Edgar Hoover, it kicks in its powers in order to defend itself. And this is one of the big reasons why we need to be very, very careful about giving the government these surveillance powers.

MARC STEINER: One of the exact quotes from this email apparently is that, "The current political climate uptick in demonstrations and social media campaigns, along with the immigration debate, almost ensures that the Rio Grande Valley will have large-scale protests." And going on to say, "These protests pose a significant threat to the border, law enforcement, and our communities." So if you tie this together with their surveilling in San Diego for demonstrations, where only one took place against Trump, to their massive overkill in terms of surveillance in South Dakota, where people were protesting the pipeline construction.

So this technology was supposed to be used at the border, but it is affecting people who live on that Native land being stopped all the time for IDs, as well as being used throughout the country as testing how this might work in other places. And you have this huge agency that's doing this, that has power within 100 miles of every border and the ocean that borders this country. I mean, this really needs to give us pause about what this could mean. I mean, if they actually implement this in any major way, they can be surveilling two-thirds of the entire country without our knowledge, not knowing what they're doing.

JAY STANLEY: Yeah. I guess I'd make three quick points. Number one, these border agencies, CVP and so forth, they are very troubled agencies that have a long history of engaging in abuses and have insufficient oversight, insufficient responses to abuses that are brought to their attention. There's that.

And yes, our border communities are being subject to enormous surveillance and harassment because they live on a boarder. They're American communities like any other. They don't deserve to live under a constant eye of a government agency, any government agency, much less one that has such a record of abuse. They deserve to be able to live their lives without being stopped and harassed constantly. And yet that's what's happening and that's what these towers are part of.

And then the third point is, yes, there is a larger looming nationwide battle that's coming, which is do we want to allow our communities to be subject to wide-area persistent surveillance? We've seen this with a company that flies airplanes over cities for hours and hours, basically all day, and it was deployed in Baltimore.

MARC STEINER: Yeah, exactly.

JAY STANLEY: And this is a technology that's being pushed on police departments. The police departments are thinking about, are tempted by - it hasn't really been deployed except in that test in Baltimore, but these companies are looking for other clients. And so that is a battle that we are going to have. Do we want to go, as a nation, do we want to go down this road of allowing the government to see everything all the time from the air? From towers, from airplanes, from drones, from satellites, whatever it may be. Is that the kind of country that we want to live in and the kind of power that we want to give to these agencies?

MARC STEINER: Well, given the potential of what this could be in terms of the surveillance of the American people, going way beyond what's happening to the Tohono O'odham people in the Arizona border, and the people off the border itself, I mean, so what is our response?

You work with the ACLU. What is our response to this, to stop it, to control it, to not allow it to take on a life of its own? Because these things just don't come on like a sledgehammer and hit you. They seep in, and this is seeping. And as you were quoted in the article, I think you allude to the fact that the only reason we're not paying attention to this is because it's on the border, and people don't really care that much, but this is where it begins. Or, could begin, I should say.

JAY STANLEY: Yeah. We're in a political moment where obviously immigration is a hugely divisive issue. We have political leaders that are pushing fear of immigrants and demonizing immigrants in ways to increase their own political power. And so, there is a lot support among much of the country for doing anything to stop or slow immigration. And also, the government does have legitimately expanded powers on the border that they don't have elsewhere in the country. Although the government's definition of a border coming a hundred miles inland is ridiculous.

MARC STEINER: Yes, right.

JAY STANLEY: But on the border proper, like the line between two countries, the government does have expanded powers of search and detention there. But it's not something that it should expand into the rest of American life. And there's a very serious risk that it will. And often we see new technologies starting out being applied to certain populations- children, the incarcerated, immigrants, and so forth. And they start there because those are the least controversial populations to engage in surveillance with, and then they expand outwards.

And so, I think that there's a lot of people in this country who think of themselves as anti-government and anti-immigrant, but they're shooting themselves in the foot by failing to oppose surveillance technologies because they think that they're limited to the immigration context. But in fact, they are going to come around and affect all of us. What can we do? I mean, we're the ACLU. We filed numerous lawsuits on behalf of people in border communities who are being subject to harassment, and checkpoints, and surveillance, and so forth. So there's the courts as far as that goes, and we're doing the best we can in that arena, my colleagues in those areas.

One thing that local communities can do is pass legislation that we recommend called CCOPS, or Community Control Over Police Surveillance. And we're seeing a number of cities around the country that have passed or are currently considering this kind of legislation. What it does is, it basically bans the police, local police, from using or deploying new surveillance technologies without getting the permission of local elected leaders. Because often what we see is local police departments get - a big pile of money falls in their lap from the Department of Homeland Security, or Justice Department, or sometimes from vendors. And they just go buy new surveillance technology and just deploy it, without telling, let alone asking the communities that they serve.

And so these ordinances prevent the police from doing that and require there to be a conversation with the community about whether the community wants these surveillance technologies to be deployed. Now that doesn't - that's not going to work if we're talking about the feds here.

MARC STEINER: Right.

JAY STANLEY: That's a much harder political problem, but you can take action in your local community. And a lot of the surveillance technology that we're seeing these days is local in nature. For example, the Baltimore wide-area surveillance plane was local. The feds, that's just a national political battle that we have to fight as a country.

MARC STEINER: What's interesting to me is, before we close, is that politically, which is not the area that you talk about a lot, but politically, here you have people who view themselves as libertarian, not opposing this surveillance technology because it's on Native land and with migrants who come from the south. But this could be used for any reason to monitor everybody in this country to ensure political control. I mean, I'm not a conspiracy theorist at all. I often don't believe in all that stuff, but I just think that this is something that can be really dangerous given the powers some of these agencies have, and what we're seeing and what we're not paying attention to, which is why I think that Will Parrish's article is so important, to bring this to our attention.

JAY STANLEY: Yeah. I don't think you have to be a conspiracy theorist and see there being a secret meeting of people who want to turn America into a surveillance state, but we do have very large security bureaucracies. And bureaucracies tend to push for things that make their lives easier. They tend to push for more and more surveillance and information. They tend to push for defense of their own powers. And we do have a long history in this country of these agencies, as I said, investigating and targeting people because of their political views, not because they're engaged in crime.

MARC STEINER: Well, Jay Stanley, thank you so much for taking the time with us today. I know you have a lot to do. I appreciate the moment you gave us. And we look forward to talking to you again as we continue to cover this.

JAY STANLEY: Thanks so much. I enjoyed being on.

MARC STEINER: Thank you so much. And I'm Marc Steiner here for The Real News Network. Thank you so much for joining us. Take care.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Israeli Security Tech on US-Mexican Border Threatens Nation's Civil Liberties

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Walls work. Just ask Israel. They work. Believe me, they work. MARC STEINER: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Marc Steiner. Good to have you with us.

# data[].attributes.body
In this article is covers the event of the death of 43 year old Keith lamont Scott, a black man who was shot and killed in Charlotte north Carolina after refusing to drop his hand gun. North Carolina is one of many states that have "open carry" laws, which allow someone to legally carry a firearm in public. The article connects to the 2nd amendment of the Bill of Rights which states a citizen has the right to bear arms. Some may say that Lamont's right was obstructed and he received excessive force because of his race.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WARNING GRAPHIC CONTENT: The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department released the full-length body body-cam video of the fatal police shooting of Keith Lamont Scott. Scott's family asked the police to release the video to the public.

The simmering debate over the 2016 shooting of Keith Lamont Scott rekindled Wednesday with Scott's family claiming in a lawsuit that his death resulted from negligence, excessive force and the failure of Charlotte-Mecklenburg police to avoid a needless confrontation.

The complaint filed by Scott's widow, Rakeyia Scott, comes almost two years after her husband's death on Sept. 20, 2016. It names the City of Charlotte, police and CMPD Officer Brentley Vinson, who fired the fatal shots, as defendants.

Scott's killing set off two days of unprecedented demonstrations and violence across the city, which was broadcast around the world. Then-Gov. Pat McCrory eventually declared a state of emergency.

The Mecklenburg County District Attorney's Office later cleared Vinson and the other responding officers of any wrongdoing, saying Scott was armed and ignored at least 10 police commands to drop his semi-automatic pistol before Vinson opened fire.

Protestors march along Caldwell Street in uptown Charlotte on Nov. 30, 2016 in the aftermath of no indictment being given in the death of Keith Lamont Scott. On Wednesday, Scott's widow sued, saying her husband's death resulted from excessive police force. David T. Foster III dtfoster@charlotteobserver.com

"I'm extremely convinced that Mr. Vinson's use of deadly force was lawful," then-District Attorney Andrew Murray said two months after the shooting.

Rakeyia Scott, however, maintains in the lawsuit that her impaired, 43-year-old husband did not have to die. She is seeking damages for wrongful death, gross negligence, and assault and battery.

Her complaint details what she and her attorney describe as the unnecessary police steps that brought the fatal confrontation to pass, and it singles out Vinson's actions as "willful, wanton and/or reckless."

"(Vinson) aimed his semi-automatic pistol at Keith Lamont Scott and deliberately fired shots into his body despite the complete lack of objective evidence that Scott posed any threat whatsoever to any of the CMPD personnel on the scene, and without even knowing the identity of the man he was about to kill," the suit says.

Chuck Monnett, the family's attorney and a frequent critic of CMPD's use of deadly force, said the officers outside of Keith Scott's apartment "escalated the situation to the point where it did not end peacefully."

"The guy's wife is right there. Why not say, OK ma'am, could you get him to drop the gun and come out of the car with his hands up?' Why not try that?" Monnett said. "There was no need for a man to die over possession of marijuana."

.

Jordan Ashley-Walker, public affairs manager for the City of Charlotte, said Wednesday that the family's lawsuit was expected. "We will respond to the allegations through the judicial process," she said.

Scott, the father of seven, was a former shopping mall security officer and the son of a police detective. He suffered from a traumatic brain injury sustained during a motorcycle crash in South Carolina in November 2015 for which he took medication.

Scott was also a convicted felon who had been sentenced to seven years in prison in Texas for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

On the afternoon of the shooting, police were at The Village at College Downs apartment complex near UNC Charlotte to serve a warrant on an unrelated case when a white SUV driven by Scott pulled in beside an undercover police vehicle, evidence in the case reveals.

Officers say they saw Scott, who lived at the complex, appearing to roll a marijuana cigarette, which they decided to ignore. But they say they then saw Scott exit the SUV holding a gun, according to Murray's report.

According to the lawsuit, police failed to take time to assess the risk Scott actually posed, consider a less confrontational response or confer with Rakeyia Scott, who had walked up to the scene.

Instead, they attempted what the complaint describes as a "risky" vehicle takedown, a maneuver that involved the officers quickly surrounding Scott's SUV with their own vehicles then encircling Scott with their guns drawn, the lawsuit says.

"The decision to perform the vehicle takedown needlessly escalates ... a routine arrest to a situation that is now unpredictable and which significantly increases the risk of injury or death to both the suspect and the officers involved," the lawsuit say.

When Scott initially refused to leave his vehicle, one of the officers used his baton in an attempt to break out a passenger-side window.

Vinson, who has been on the force for two years and never taken part in a vehicle takedown, was ordered to stay in his vehicle, the lawsuit says. But when he heard another officer yell, "gun, passenger seat," he left his car and took cover behind a nearby building, the lawsuit says.

Rakeyia Scott, according to the lawsuit, told officers that Scott was unarmed and has a brain injury, the lawsuit says. "He's not going to do anything to you guys. He just took his medicine."

Then-District Attorney Andrew Murray points at what he says was Keith Scott's ankle holster while announcing that a Charlotte-Mecklenburg police officer acted lawfully in the fatal shooting of Scott. On Wednesday, Scott's widow filed suit, alleging that the shooting amounted to excessive force. Diedra Laird dlaird@charlotteobserver.com

When Scott exited the SUV, investigators say he was indeed holding a gun. But the lawsuit says he never "makes any threatening or aggressive movement toward any of the officers" before slowly backing away from the SUV.

Vinson's bullets hit him in his wrist, abdomen and back, severing his spinal cord. The least experienced officer on the scene was the only one to use his weapon, the lawsuit says.

Police have the legal right to use deadly force if they have a reasonable fear of death or serious injuries to themselves, fellow officers or the general public.

Murray and a group of police experts contacted by the Observer at the time of the release of the district attorney's findings all said Vinson's actions met the legal standard.

The Scott family's lawsuit argues otherwise.

Keith Scott, it maintains, "never engages in any conduct sufficient to cause a reasonable person or law enforcement officer to develop an objectively reasonable belief that he poses a threat of imminent physical harm."

.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Family files lawsuit, says Keith Lamont Scott did not need to die

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WARNING GRAPHIC CONTENT: The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department released the full-length body body-cam video of the fatal police shooting of Keith Lamont Scott. Scott's family asked the police to release the video to the public.

# data[].attributes.body
A man in Florida in 1963 was arrested for breakin into a pool in Panama City he was tried and found guilty but he was never given a lawyer even though he requested council but he’s request was denied by the state of Florida. At the time Florida didn’t require themselves to provide council unless it was a federal crime. Later the man wrote a letter to the Supreme Court claiming his  sixth amendment right have assistance of council for his defense. This violates the sixth amendment because he was denied the right to council.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A Cary-Grove High School senior said his First Amendment rights were violated when Cary's mayor came to his school for a question-and-answer session and the student was told not to interrupt, according to a lawsuit filed in federal court.

Matthew Ahmann, a self-described political journalist, has been outspoken against Mayor Mark Kownick in recent years through his politically driven Facebook account.

In his lawsuit filed against the school board of Crystal Lake-based District 155, Ahmann said that on Sept. 26 he did as he was told by the school's dean, James Kelly, after receiving a "threatening ultimatum" and kept quiet during the mayor's visit to his advanced placement politics class.

Ahmann, who also is seeking $50,000 in compensatory damages, said in the lawsuit that Kelly approached him after having a conversation with Kownick. Kelly told him not to "say or do anything" during Kownick's visit "or negative consequences would follow."

According to the lawsuit, "Mayor Kownick and Dean Kelly, working in concert and prior to the mayor's speech, conspired to stifle Matt's continued political journalism by having Dean Kelly threaten and intimidate Matt."

Ahmann did however record the session on his cellphone and weeks later posted it on his politically charged Facebook page. He said the district in retaliation punished him by placing him on a one-day in-school suspension. Ahmann said in the lawsuit he wants this expunged from his record because having this "permanent academic record of suspension" hurts his future chances of being accepted into colleges and earning scholarships.

In its response to the lawsuit the school board denies any wrongdoing.

The board claims the suspension was because Ahmann violated the school's rules on using cellphones during class.

"The board admits that it subsequently became aware that (Ahmann) used his cell phone to surreptitiously record the entirety of his AP Government class ... in violation of Board Policies and the Student Handbook and had posted a portion of the recording online," the board said in its response.

The response also states that there was no plan or direction between Kelly and Kownick to "muzzle" Ahmann and that he was not threatened in any way.

This week, Kownick, in his second term as mayor, adamantly denied that there was any such conversation with Kelly in any regards to stifling Ahmann.

He insisted he "never had a conversation with Dean Kelly prior to our visit ... It absolutely did not happen, without a doubt."

He said he came to the school that day, as he has often done over the years, as part of a question-and-answer session with two classes. He had no prepared speech or topic to present and no clue what the students would be asking about.

Kownick, whose three children are graduates of the school, said he "has a huge affinity" for the school and enjoys meeting with the students, who asked "excellent questions" that day about the economic development of their village and his role as mayor. Kownick said he knew of Ahmann but had never met him until that day in class.

He said Ahmann, who does not live in the village and has no voting rights there, had emailed him in the past. But more disturbingly, he had "taken a picture of my family (from Facebook) and degraded it."

Though he did not see it for himself, Kownick said "many people told me about it and (said that Ahmann) referred to us as 'the scum of Cary.'"

"It was unsettling," Kownick said. "I'm open for anything. I chose to do this, but leave my family out of it."

Still, Kownick said Ahmann was suspended because he "violated the school policy" by using a cellphone during class and nothing else.

Kelly and the school district's attorney said they could not comment on the pending litigation. Ahmann's attorney said he has advised his client not to comment. The case is set for status in U.S. District Court in Rockford on Feb. 22. The next school board meeting is Feb. 20.

Amanda Marrazzo is a freelance reporter.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Student says 1st Amendment rights violated when school 'threatened' him to be quiet during Cary mayor's visit

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A Cary-Grove High School senior said his First Amendment rights were violated when Cary's mayor came to his school for a question-and-answer session and the student was told not to interrupt, according to a lawsuit filed in federal court. Matthew Ahmann, a self-described political journalist, has been outspoken against Mayor Mark Kownick in recent years through his politically driven Facebook account.

# data[].attributes.body
Tessa Yates
The article is about a political journalist who went to a question and answer session with the mayor and was threatened to keep quiet at the event.  Not only was the journalist told that the opening of his mouth would yield negative consequences, he was also suspended when he decided to take action by recording a cell phone call to prove his point. This takes away his freedom of speech therefore violating his first amendment rights.

# data[].attributes.body
This article talks about how the government has gone through someone’s phone because they suspected the suspect had done something . And according to the 4th amendment no one can go and or violate someone’s rights to secure their own belongings and thing they own . According to the 4th amendment , everyone has the right so keep and secure their own belongings. And if the govt wants to go through someone personal stuff / property, then they need to have a warrant ..

Aanya Rai p6

# data[].attributes.body
In the court case between Furman v. Georgia, Furman was convicted of murder and attempted burglary . In return, William Furman recieved the death penalty and it was excessive because was black. This violated his 8th amendment. I felt that the punishment was excessive.

# data[].attributes.body
My article is about a manwho appealed a decision by the Indiana Supreme Court, which ruled that the state's seizure of the man's $42,000 Land Rover as a punishment for two drug sales that totaled less than $400. The man appealed the decision arguing that the seizure was excessive and the court ruled that it was not and stated that he was not protected by the 8th amendment in this case because it did not apply to government on a local level. The 8th amendment states that cruel and unusual punishment will nit be inflicted, but also that excessive fines will not be imposed. In my opinion the seizure of a vehicle that is valued at more than 100 times the amount of the actual crime is excessive and disproportionate to the crime Despite the argument by the state of Indiana that the 8th amendment does not protect citizens from state and local governments.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Supreme Court on Wednesday took up a case from Indiana to settle a question that might seem obvious to some: Does the ban on "excessive fines" in the Bill of Rights apply to states?

The 8th Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits "cruel and unusual punishments," also says "excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed."

But last year, the Indiana Supreme Court upheld the state's seizure of a $42,000 Land Rover from a man who made two small drug sales valued at under $400. It rejected his claim that this was "excessive" and ruled the 8th Amendment did not protect him.

That decision ran into sharp skepticism Wednesday from the justices and will almost surely be reversed.

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch cut off the state's attorney before he could launch into his defense and upbraided him for ignoring decades of court history and centuries of English law.

"Can we get one thing off the table. We all agree the 'excessive fines' clause is incorporated against the states," he said, meaning states and cities must abide by it just as federal officials do. The court struggled over the reach of the Bill of Rights in the 1940s and beyond, he said, but that fight is long settled.

"Here we are in 2018 still litigating incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Really?" Gorsuch said to Indiana state solicitor Thomas Fisher.

The state's lawyer refused to back down and insisted a state's seizure of private property was its business, not a question of federal law. At one point, he said the state would be free to seize luxury cars that were going a few miles over the speed limit.

But Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh intervened to agree with Gorsuch. "Isn't it just too late in the day to argue that any of the Bill of Rights is not incorporated?" he said.

By the end of an hour, it was clear that the justices would rule for Tyson Timbs, the Indiana man who lost his Land Rover, and will hold that the U.S. Constitution protected him from an excessive fine.

But it is not certain he will ultimately win his case. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the court would probably send the case back to the Indiana courts to decide whether this forfeiture was indeed excessive and unjust.

Wednesday's argument revived a question that has a long history before the high court and divided the justices during the middle decades of the 20th century.

The first 10 amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, were ratified in 1791 and begin with the words: "Congress shall make no law ..." The many familiar rights listed include the freedom of speech and the press, the free exercise of religion, the right to bear arms, the right to a jury trial and the freedom from "unreasonable searches and seizures."

But these protections for individuals did not go far. In the early 19th century, the court said these rights applied only to actions of the then-tiny federal government, not to states or local authorities, including police.

After the Civil War, the Reconstruction Congress adopted the 14th Amendment to protect individuals from their states. It said, "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law."

The first clause on "privileges or immunities" has meant surprisingly little, thanks to a peculiar 1873 ruling holding it did not provide "any additional protection" for individuals.

But the second clause became the most important in the Constitution. In a step-by-step process from the 1930s through the 1960s, the Supreme Court decided that nearly all the fundamental rights cited in the Bill of Rights were included or "incorporated" in the protection for "liberty" and "due process of law" in the 14th Amendment. But it has never specifically ruled on the "excessive fee" clause.

In the past, the justices also refused to extend or "incorporate" the rights to a grand jury indictment in the 5th Amendment and the right to a jury trial in civil cases found in the 7th Amendment.

These days, however, most Americans would assume their constitutional rights are the same, whether they encounter a federal agent, a state official or a local police officer.

But when Timbs was told his $42,000 Land Rover could be seized by Indiana, he learned that part of the Bill of Rights did not protect him. He had been arrested for two drug sales to police informants that were valued at $385. He contested the state's seizure of his car on the grounds it was an "excessive fine" and "grossly disproportionate" to his crime.

He lost last year in the Indiana Supreme Court. "We conclude the excessive fines clause does not bar the state from forfeiting defendant's vehicle because the United States Supreme Court has not held the clause applies to the states through the 14th Amendment," wrote Justice Geoffrey Slaughter. His opinion noted the high court had suggested the excessive fines were probably unconstitutional, but had not said so directly.

The appeal in Timbs vs. Indiana has united groups across the ideological spectrum from the American Civil Liberties Union to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, all of them urging the court to clearly rule that all parts of the 8th Amendment apply across the country.
The latest from Washington " More stories from David G. Savage " david.savage@latimes.com Twitter: DavidGSavage UPDATES:
12:40 p.m.: This article was updated with additional details from the argument.
This article was originally published at 9:30 a.m.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
He lost his $42,000 Land Rover for a $385 crime. The Supreme Court considers whether the constitutional ban on 'excessive fines' applies to states

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Supreme Court on Wednesday took up a case from Indiana to settle a question that might seem obvious to some: Does the ban on "excessive fines" in the Bill of Rights apply to states? The 8th Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits "cruel and unusual punishments," also says "excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed."

# data[].attributes.headline
The second amendment is important just as all  others Val P4

# data[].attributes.subject
The second amendment is important just as all  others Val P4

# data[].attributes.body
There Has been controversy and debate on whether or not Guns de should be held in the hands of citizens. Due to the amount of violence that is being caused due to people miss using guns, in this particular article it talks about the views Senator John Kennedy and how they judge too much and  not notice other amendments and  the harm  that could come to the people. In this article as well as other senators they do not agree that the law should be taken in place and there  are some senators believe that laws  should be taken in such as background checks to make sure that there is no criminal record that could define the person, and cause a risk to the people.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Second Amendment should be respected the same as all the other constitutional rights, according to Sen. John Kennedy.

While rights are not absolute, any piece of legislation limiting Second Amendment rights should have empirical evidence proving its projected worth and effectiveness, the Louisiana Republican claimed Wednesday on "The Story."

"Here is my starting point, Martha: I believe that love is the answer, but I also own a handgun just in case -- in fact I own several. Shotguns too," Kennedy told host Martha MacCallum. "That's my right under our Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is not an a la carte menu. The Second Amendment is just as important as all the other Amendments."
REPS. OCASIO-CORTEZ, CRENSHAW CLASH ON GUN CONTROL: 'THIS IS AMERICA OUTSIDE NYC'
Responding to gun control proponents like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. -- who recently sparred on Twitter with Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas, on the issue -- Kennedy said gun laws must be proven effective.

"Some of my colleagues argue that by further curtailing our Second Amendment rights, they can enhance public safety," he said. "Fine, the burden of proof is on them. I'm willing to have that debate, but I want the bacon without the sizzle -- no speculation, no false comfort, no pulling stuff out of your orifices."

The Senate Judiciary Committee member said "causal, scientific evidence" that the particular gun law proposal will curb or prevent mass shootings is necessary in that regard.
CASTRO VOWS TO 'MAXIMIZE EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY' TO PASS GUN CONTROL IF ELECTED
"Our rights are not absolute," he added. "Our rights can be curtailed in the interest of public safety. All I'm saying is... prove it."

Crenshaw drew Ocasio-Cortez's ire earlier Wednesday after posting criticism of universal background checks.

Linking to a news story about a young woman firing at attempted robbers, Crenshaw said the situation provided the reason for the Second Amendment's existence.

"Side note: With universal background checks, I wouldn't be able to let my friends borrow my handgun when they travel alone like this. We would make felons out of people just for defending themselves," he added.
CLICK TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
In response, Ocasio-Cortez claimed people Crenshaw might lend his guns to in that situation, "have likely abused their spouses."

"Why are you 'lending' guns to people unsupervised who can't pass a basic background check?" she asked. "... Why on earth would you do that?"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sen. John Kennedy: 'Bill of Rights not an a la carte menu,' Second Amendment as important as all others

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Second Amendment should be respected the same as all the other constitutional rights, according to Sen. John Kennedy. While rights are not absolute, any piece of legislation limiting Second Amendment rights should have empirical evidence proving its projected worth and effectiveness, the Louisiana Republican claimed Wednesday on "The Story."

# data[].attributes.body
This article touches on the first amendment rights of students and faculty by talking about censorship. The very basis of the education system in America is to cater to the first amendment by providing open access to a variety of knowledge and resources in order to have an informed and opinionated american people. However, in many states there has been a call for the censoring of students from certain books because of suggestive language, religious or personal beliefs, and other reasons. It could be argued that this censorship is taking away students' ability to form their own opinions and express them, a rights clearly stated in the first amendment. This also could be argued that the teachers rights are being infringed on since being told what they can and cannot teach (within the approved curriculum) is hindering their first amendment right of free speech. So the question is, what are the limits of the first amendment rights when it comes to schools?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The First Amendment protects both students and teachers in schools.
NCAC presents the following collection of materials on the topic of censorship in schools for the use of students, educators, and parents everywhere. This information is not intended as legal advice. If you face a censorship controversy, the resources below can offer guidance. If you need additional assistance, please NOTE: Guide for Student Protesters available here . We will keep your information confidential until given permission to do otherwise. Introduction: Free Speech, Public Education, and Democracy
Table of Contents

The First Amendment and Public Schools
A. The First Amendment
B. The Public Schools
1. School Publications: Student Newspapers and Yearbooks
2. Off-Campus Publications
3. Hair, Dress, and Appearance
4. Gang Symbols and Insignia
5. Off-Campus Speech

Censorship
A. Understanding Censorship
B. Distinguishing Censorship from Selection
C. Consequences of Censorship

How Big a Problem Is Censorship?
A. The Numbers
B. What Kind of Material Is Attacked?
C. What Does "Age Appropriate" Mean?
D. Who Gets Censored?

Roles and Responsibilities
A. School Officials, Boards and State Mandates
B. Principles Governing Selection and Retention of Materials in Schools
C. Complaint Procedures

Censorship Policies
National Education Association (NEA)
The National Council of Teachers of English and the International Reading Association (NCTE/IRA)
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD)
American Library Association (ALA)
National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP)
National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC)

Introduction: Free Speech, Public Education, and Democracy

Purpose of the Resource Guide: The First Amendment safeguards the rights of every American to speak and think freely. Those rights are central to the educational process and are equally important to educators and students.

For teachers and administrators: The First Amendment protects teachers when they exercise their judgment in accordance with professional standards, making it possible for them to create learning environments that effectively help young people acquire the knowledge and skills needed to become productive, self-sufficient, and contributing members of society.

For students: The First Amendment protects students' ability to think critically and learn how to investigate a wide range of ideas. Students have the right to express their beliefs, just like any other citizen. Protecting students' rights to read, inquire and express themselves is critical to educating informed, engaged citizens.

This guide describes in practical terms what the right to freedom of expression means for students, teachers and administrators in public schools.

Free Speech, Public Education, and Democracy: Our founders considered public schools to be one of the vital institutions of American democracy. But they also knew that education involves more than reading, writing, and arithmetic. Education in a democratic society requires developing citizens who can adapt to changing times, decide important social issues, and effectively judge the performance of public officials. In fulfilling their responsibilities, public schools must educate students on core American values such as fairness, equality, justice, respect for others, and the right to dissent.

Rapid social, political, and technological changes have escalated controversy over what and how schools should teach. References to sexuality, profane language, descriptions of violence and other potentially controversial material have raised questions for generations of parents and educators. Addressing those questions is even more complicated now, when most school communities are made up of individuals with differing backgrounds, cultural traditions, religions, and often languages. With students and parents bringing a range of expectations and needs to the classroom, educators are challenged to balance the educational needs of an entire student body while maintaining respect for the individual rights of each member of the school community.

The First Amendment can help resolve this tension. It defines certain critical rights and responsibilities of participants in the educational process. It both protects the freedom of speech, thought, and inquiry, and requires respect for the right of others to do the same. It requires schools to resort to " more speech not enforced silence " in seeking to resolve our differences.

The First Amendment and Public Schools
A. The First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.-First Amendment of the United States Constitution ratified December 15, 1791

The first provision of the Bill of Rights establishes the rights essential to a democratic society and most cherished by Americans: the right to speak and worship freely, the right to assemble and to petition the government, and the right to a free press. Although most countries purport to guarantee freedom of expression, few provide the level of protection for free speech that the First Amendment guarantees.
B. The Public Schools
The potential for tyranny by the state and abuse of government authority particularly worried framers of the Bill of Rights. Thus, the language of the First Amendment begins by prohibiting certain government conduct -i.e., "Congress shall make no law respecting...." Like most of the Constitution, these limitations control only what the government may do, and have no effect on private individuals or businesses. Although the Bill of Rights originally limited only the power of the federal government, the Fourteenth Amendment extended the limits imposed by most of the Bill of Rights to state and local governments as well. Since public schools and public libraries are part of state and local government, they must follow the First Amendment as well as many other provisions of the Constitution. However, as this manual will make clear, the First Amendment applies somewhat differently to schools than it does to many other public institutions.

Public schools are institutions which in some respects most embody the goals of the First Amendment: to create informed citizenry capable of self-governance. As many commentators have observed, a democracy relies on an informed and critical electorate to prosper. As Noah Webster observed in 1785: "It is scarcely possible to reduce an enlightened people to civil or ecclesiastical tyranny." And on the eve of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Benjamin Rush stated that "to conform the principles, morals, and manners of our citizens to our republican form of government, it is absolutely necessary that knowledge of every kind should be disseminated through every part of the United States." Not surprisingly, universal access to free public education has long been viewed as essential to democratic ideals.

America's public schools are the nurseries of democracy. Our representative democracy only works if we protect the "marketplace of ideas." This free exchange facilitates an informed public opinion, which, when transmitted to lawmakers, helps produce laws that reflect the People's will. Schools, however, can sometimes limit students' right to free speech and expression when necessary to achieve legitimate educational goals. As the Supreme Court put it in Mahanoy Area School District v. B. L. (2021):

Schools have many responsibilities: They must teach basic and advanced skills and information; they must do so for students of different backgrounds and abilities; they must teach students to work independently and in groups; and they must provide a safe environment that promotes learning.

Given these multiple responsibilities, school officials have wider discretion than other state actors in regulating certain types of speech. For example, they can forbid profane speech on campus (according to Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986 )) and can punish students for advocating illegal drug use (as in Morse v. Frederick (2007)). They can also censor student speech in school publications, such as school newspapers and yearbooks, see Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988). More importantly, schools can censor student speech which is likely to substantially disrupt school operations ( Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969)). Therefore, speech is not quite as free inside schools as it is outside.
1. School Publications: School Newspapers and Yearbooks
However, the limits on student speech are quite narrow, and in general, students and teachers do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." (Tinker v. Des Moines ) See below for examples of how the First Amendment applies to schools in specific ways .

The Supreme Court has ruled that student journalists have very limited rights when they write for school-sponsored publications such as school newspapers and yearbooks. The school can censor articles for many reasons, including because school officials think that the subject is inappropriate. Some courts have even said that schools can censor editorials because school officials disagree with the views expressed in them.
2. Off-campus Publications: "Underground' Newspapers, Websites, Etc.
However, several states have laws which give greater protection to student journalists. A list of those states and links to descriptions of their legislation can be found .

Concerns about censorship in "official" school papers may prompt students to publish material produced outside of school, or on websites maintained privately without use of school facilities. Some schools have attempted to censor these publications and suppress off-campus speech they find offensive, disturbing, or unflattering. However, courts have been willing to uphold school censorship of off-campus speech only in unusual circumstances in which the speech has a very high likelihood of substantially disrupting school (such as by publishing answers to tests) or harming particular persons (such as by harassing or threatening them).

Unlike student speech in school, student speech off campus cannot be punished just because it includes profanity, or advocates illegal drug use, or for any reason other than it is very likely to substantially disrupt school. In particular, schools have limited ability to punish or censor off-campus speech about politics or religion. If an independent student publication is distributed on campus, school officials have a bit more power to confiscate or ban it, but only if there is a risk that it will cause substantial disruption of the school.

Student rights can often be limited if students use school resources (such as school computers or the school's internet service) to create or distribute publications. Students can help avoid conflict with school officials by ensuring their unofficial publications are produced and maintained separately from any school course and without school materials or teacher assistance.

Also, it is important for students who use their school's technology to know their school's "Acceptable Use Policy" (AUP). An AUP, which is often found in district guidelines or in a student handbook, sets out the rules and regulations governing student use of school computer networks. Some sample acceptable use policies can be found , but your school's policy might be different in some ways.

Since the Tinker case in 1969, students, school administrators, and courts have struggled with the boundaries and limits of student dress and grooming requirements. Beginning in the early 1970s, the courts were inundated with cases that confronted the issue, and have found few clear answers. The circuit courts remain split over the control school administrators can exercise with respect to student dress and grooming. The issue often is complicated by gender and guidelines that reinforce rigid binaries. In one case, a school disciplined a boy for wearing an earring, although earrings are permitted under the dress code for girls. Other examples are hair length restrictions for boys but not girls, or dress requirements designed to enforce notions of modesty for girls but not boys. Some public schools have required uniforms, but this has hardly solved the problem, as strict dress codes of this sort are often challenged. In contrast, gender-neutral guidelines about appropriate dress rarely result in challenges.

Since gang members often identify themselves through clothes and insignia, principals have often turned to dress codes in an effort to discourage gang membership and activities. Courts have generally held that these codes are valid.

In recent years, there s been an increasing number of cases involving off-campus student speech which has effects on-campus. Often, that speech takes place on social media. Schools cannot punish students for profane speech that takes place off-campus (except during a field trip, which courts consider part of the school). Nor can they punish students for off-campus speech which advocates illegal drug use. However, schools can sometimes punish students for off-campus speech which has a strong chance of coming on campus and disrupting school, such as racist speech when the school has a history of racial conflict. And, schools can of course punish students for off-campus speech that harasses students or school employees, or which threatens violence against the school.

A. Understanding Censorship
Censorship

Censorship is the suppression of speech or other expression that the censor (a person or institution with the power to suppress speech) does not like.

Parents and community groups often try to remove school materials that discuss sexuality, religion, race, or ethnicity-whether directly or indirectly. For example, some people object to the teaching of Darwin's theory of evolution in science classes because it conflicts with their own religious views. Others think schools should not allow discussion about sexual orientation or gender identities, and other people call for eliminating The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn from the English curriculum because they think it is racist.

As these examples show, demands for censorship originate across the entire spectrum of religious, ideological, and political opinion.

When people ask schools to censor materials, schools must balance their First Amendment duties against other concerns, such as maintaining the integrity of the educational program, meeting state education requirements, respecting the judgments of professional staff, and addressing deeply held beliefs in students and members of the community. In dealing with challenges to materials, educators are on the strongest ground if they are mindful of two fundamental principles that the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized: 1) schools have broad power to decide what and how to teach, as long as their decisions are based on sound educational principles and are aimed at improving student learning; and 2) the decisions that are most vulnerable to legal challenge are those that are motivated by hostility to an unpopular or controversial idea, or by the desire to force acceptance of a particular viewpoint.

Pursuant to these principles, when someone claims in a lawsuit that a school's actions violate the First Amendment, courts generally defer to the professional judgments of educators. That means that courts will often uphold a decision to remove a book or to discipline a teacher, if the decision serves legitimate educational objectives, including administrative efficiency. However, it is equally true that schools which demands for censorship are on equally strong or stronger grounds. As the Supreme Court stated in its 2021 decision, schools have a strong interest in protecting unpopular expression, in exposing students to a wide range of views, and in giving students the opportunity to discuss those views.
B. Distinguishing Censorship from Selection
Therefore, it is extremely unlikely that a school official who relied on these principles and refused to accede to pressures to censor something with educational value would ever be ordered by a court of law to do so.

Schools make decisions all the time about which books and materials to include in or exclude from the curriculum. Hence, they are not violating the First Amendment every time they cross a book off a reading list. However, they could be acting unconstitutionally if they decide to remove a book solely because of hostility to the ideas it contains.

For example, administrators and faculty might agree to take discussion of evolution out of the second grade curriculum because the students lack sufficient background to understand it, and decide to introduce it in the fourth grade instead. As long as they are not motivated by hostility to the idea of teaching about evolution, this would not ordinarily be problematic. The choice to include the material in the fourth grade curriculum tends to demonstrate this was a pedagogical judgment, not an act of censorship.

However, not every situation is that simple. For example, objections to material dealing with sexuality or sexual orientation commonly surface in elementary schools and middle schools when critics claim that such material is not "age appropriate" for those students. Often, it becomes clear that their concern is not that students will not understand the material, but that they simply do not want the students to have access to that type of information. If professional educators can show a legitimate pedagogical rationale for maintaining such material in the curriculum, it is unlikely that an effort to remove it will be successful.
C. Consequences of Censorship
Moreover, while individual parents have considerable control over their own child's education and can request their child be given a different book, they have no right to impose their preferences on other students and their families.

Censorship based on individual sensitivities and concerns restricts the world of knowledge available to students. Based on personal views, some parents wish to eliminate material depicting violence, others object to references to sexuality, others to speech about racial issues or images that offend them. Some parents oppose having their children exposed to fiction that doesn't have a happy ending, teach a moral lesson, or provide positive role models. If these and other individual preferences were legitimate criteria for censoring materials used in school, the curriculum would narrow to including only the least controversial and probably least relevant and interesting material. It would hardly address students' real concerns, satisfy their curiosity, or prepare them for life.

Censorship also harms teachers. By limiting resources and flexibility, censorship hampers a teacher's ability to explore all possible avenues to motivate and "reach" students. By curtailing ideas that can be discussed in class, censorship takes creativity and vitality out of the art of teaching. Instruction is reduced to bland, formulaic, pre-approved exercises carried out in an environment that discourages the give-and-take that can spark a student's enthusiasm for learning. To maintain spontaneity in the classroom setting, teachers need latitude to respond to unanticipated questions and discussion, and the freedom to draw on their professional judgment and expertise, without fear of consequences if someone objects, disagrees, or takes offense.

School censorship is particularly harmful because it prevents young people with inquiring minds from exploring the world, seeking truth and reason, stretching their intellectual capacities, and becoming critical thinkers. When the classroom environment is not open and inviting, honest exchange of views is replaced by guarded discourse, and teachers lose the ability to reach and guide their students effectively.

A. The Numbers
How Big a Problem Is Censorship?
B. What Kind of Material Is Attacked?
The American Library Association (ALA), which tracks and reports censorship incidents, reports that there are hundreds of challenges in schools and public libraries every year. ALA estimates that roughly four or five times as many go unreported.

ALA offers an instructive analysis of the motivation behind most censorship incidents:

The term censor often evokes the mental picture of an irrational, belligerent individual. Such a picture, however, is misleading. In most cases, the one to bring a complaint to the library is a concerned parent or a citizen sincerely interested in the future well-being of the community. Although complainants may not have a broad knowledge of literature or of the principles of freedom of expression, their motives in questioning a book or other library material are seldom unusual. Any number of reasons are given for recommending that certain material be removed from the library. Complainants may believe that the materials will corrupt children and adolescents, offend the sensitive or unwary reader, or undermine basic values and beliefs. Sometimes, because of these reasons, they may argue that the materials are of no interest or value to the community.

C. What Does "Age Appropriate" Mean?
While demands for censorship can come from almost anyone and involve any topic or form of expression, most incidents involve concerns about sexual content-specifically LGBTQ+ content-religion, profanity, or racial slurs. Many incidents involve only one complaint, but nonetheless trigger a review process that can become contentious. Parents who support free expression do not step forward to participate in public discussions as frequently as those seeking to remove materials, leaving school officials and teachers relatively isolated. It is then their task to assess the pedagogical value of the materials carefully. If they give in to viewpoint-based demands, they can undermine educational objectives, as well as encourage more challenges.

One of the most common demands for censorship involves the claim that certain school materials are not "age appropriate."

Educators generally use the term "age appropriate" when they mean the point at which children have sufficient life experience and cognitive skills to comprehend certain material. For example, educators may decide that detailed scientific information about human reproduction may not be age-appropriate for six-year-olds but would be understood by 12-year-olds who have been introduced to basic biology.

However, when censors complain that a book is not "appropriate," they often mean that students shouldn't be exposed to the material for reasons of personal ideology or belief. The objection usually occurs when the material concerns sexuality and often reflects a fear that exposure to it will undermine moral or religious values. Acceding to the pressure to censor in this situation can be tantamount to endorsing one moral or religious view over another.
D. Who Gets Censored?
Responding to questions about age appropriateness, the National Council of Teachers of English noted that "materials should be suited to maturity level of the students," and that it is important to "weigh the value of the material as a whole, particularly its relevance to educational objectives, against the likelihood of a negative impact on the students... That likelihood is lessened by the exposure the typical student has had to the controversial subject."

The books targeted by censors include both popular and classic titles, affecting choices made by almost every age group. The of most challenged books in 2020 includes:
E. The Chilling Effect
Some of these titles appear on the ALA's list of most challenged works year after year. For example, The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian has made the list eight times since 2010; has been on the list every year since 2016, and has been the most challenged book each of the last three years. To Kill a Mockingbird , Of Mice and Men, and The Bluest Eye have appeared periodically on the list for two decades or more.

Censorship often leads directly to self-censorship. It occurs every day. Sometimes it's obvious even if no one uses the "c" word. Sometimes it is more insidious (and less justified)-for example, when a teacher decides not to use a particular story or book or a librarian doesn't order a particular magazine because of fears about possible complaints. It is impossible to quantify the damage that self-censorship does to education. But it is common enough to have its own name: "the chilling effect." This is the idea that restricting access to information based on particular viewpoints will discourage the use of potentially controversial (or even complicated) material in the future, that teachers, for example, will avoid teaching a book just because they don't want to risk the disruption a formal complaint would cause, even if they truly believe that book would be an excellent educational choice.

A. School Officials, Boards, and State Mandates
Roles and Responsibilities: Promoting First Amendment Values at School

The school board's role is to define an educational philosophy that serves the needs of all its students and reflects community goals. In this process, most districts see a role for parents and other community members. Educational advisory boards can also assist educators in discerning the needs and perspectives of the community. Open school board meetings can keep the public informed about the school district's educational philosophy and goals, encourage comments, questions and participation, and increase community support for the schools. Although public debate about the educational system provides opportunities for community input and can assist educators in developing materials to meet students' needs and concerns, actual curriculum development and selection are tasks uniquely suited to the skills and training of professional educators. Hence, school boards should defer to the judgment of review committees composed of educators when making decisions about curricular materials.
B. Principles Governing Selection and Retention of Materials in Schools
While curriculum development relies heavily on the professional expertise of trained educators, it is also controlled by state education law and policy. Educators' choices are influenced by factors such as competency standards, graduation requirements, standardized testing, and other educational decisions made at the state level.

School officials have the constitutional duty to ensure that curriculum development and selection decisions are made without attempting to advance any particular political or religious viewpoint. School districts otherwise have broad discretion when selecting classroom instructional materials.

In contrast, policies governing school libraries and classroom resource materials place a priority on including a wider range of materials. The ALA Library Bill of Rights (1948) recognizes the library's essential role in providing resources to serve the "interest, information, and enlightenment of all people of the community." With minor modifications, these principles also apply in the school setting.

The considerations specifically relevant to school libraries are identified by National School Board Association guidelines:

To provide materials that will enrich and support the school's curricula;

To provide materials that will stimulate knowledge, growth, literary appreciation, aesthetic values, ethical standards, and leisure-time reading;

To provide information to help students make intelligent judgments;

To provide information on opposing sides of controversial issues so that students may develop the practice of critical reading and thinking; and

To provide materials representative of the many religious, ethnic, and cultural groups that have contributed to the American heritage.

C. Complaint Procedures
The ALA believes that library materials "should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval."

All school districts should adopt formal policies and procedures for responding to complaints about materials. Formal policies clarify how the complaint process works; help faculty, staff, and administration fulfill their legal obligations; let parents and students know what criteria are used for removing materials and how they are applied; ensure that all voices are heard and considered; and protect the academic freedom of teachers.

When materials are challenged, schools with a well-articulated process for handling complaints are more likely to resist viewpoint-based censorship pressures than districts without one. Having a policy in place, and following it scrupulously, ensures that complainants will receive due process, and that challenged materials will be judged on their educational merits rather than personal opinions. It is important for teachers and administrators to be familiar with these policies and understand their importance. Armed with this knowledge, school officials are less likely to submit to pressure or react with unilateral decisions to remove books.

The most effective complaint procedures provide that:

Complaints must be made in writing.

Complainants should identify themselves both by name/address and by their interest in the material (i.e. as a parent, student, religious leader, etc.).

Complainants must have read/seen the entire work objected to.

The complaint must be specific about the reasons for the objection.

Complaints should request a specific remedy (i.e., an alternative assignment for a student, or removal/exclusion affecting the entire school community).

Complaints, standing alone, will not be considered grounds for disciplining teachers or librarians.

Complaints are adjudicated by a diverse committee of stakeholders, including teachers, administrators, parents, and students.

Challenged materials remain in the curriculum/library until the challenge is adjudicated and all appeals are completed.

A list of model policies is available here.

It is advisable for policies to contain a statement supporting intellectual and academic freedom, and an explanation of the importance of giving students access to a wide variety of material and information, some of which may be considered controversial. The policy should also specify that viewpoint-based concerns - disagreement with a specific idea or message, and personal objections to materials on religious, political, or social grounds - do not justify removal of a book or other material. Such concerns may, however, justify a parent's request that his or her child be assigned alternate material. These principles, if uniformly and consistently implemented, protect students' right to learn. They also make it possible for educators to exercise their professional judgment, and help insulate them and the school district from legal challenge and community pressure.

In order to prepare for challenges, educators should do all of the following:

School administrators and teachers should work together to develop an understanding about how they will respond if material is challenged, recognizing that it is impossible to predict what may be challenged.

Educators should have a rationale for the materials they use, especially when they think some of it is potentially controversial.

In approaching material that may be controversial, keep parents advised about what material students are using and why it has been selected.

Encourage parents with questions about curricular materials to address them to their child's teacher, and encourage teachers to be willing and available to discuss concerns with parents.

Schedule regular meetings for parents. In one innovative program in South Carolina, librarian Pat Scales invited parents to the library once a month, without students, to discuss contemporary young adult books that their children might be reading, to understand how the books helped their children grow intellectually and emotionally, and to encourage parents to use the discussion of books to spark conversation with their children. As a result, she never had a censorship problem, and she became a resource for parents seeking books to help their children address troublesome issues. (Pat Scales' book, Teaching Banned Books (ALA, 2001) describes this program in detail.)

Involve members of the community in any debate over challenged materials. Broadening the discussion usually reveals that only a small number of people object to the same book at the same time.

Support the value of intellectual and academic freedom. Conscientious teachers who are caught in a censorship dispute deserve support from their colleagues and the community. Otherwise, teachers will stick to the tried and true or the bland and unobjectionable.

For more advice on how teachers can safeguard their selection of instructional materials from successful challenges, see NCAC resources for teachers and administrators .

​
Major Educational Organizations Take a Stand for the First Amendment
Censorship Policies

Many national and international organizations concerned with elementary and secondary education have established guidelines on censorship issues. While each organization addresses censorship a little differently, each is committed to free speech and recognizes the dangers and hardships imposed by censorship. The organizations couple their concern for free speech with a concern for balancing the rights of students, teachers, and parents. Many place heavy emphasis on the importance of establishing policies for selecting classroom materials and procedures for addressing complaints. The following summarizes the censorship and material selection policies adopted by leading educational organizations.

National Education Association (NEA)

The NEA is America's oldest and largest organization committed to advancing the cause of public education. Its 2.5 million members work at every level of education. Elected representatives from across the country are responsible for setting policy, which includes resolutions on selecting and developing education materials and teaching techniques. The resolutions embody NEA's belief that democratic values are best transmitted free from censorship and deplore "pre-publishing censorship, book burning crusades, and attempts to ban books from the ... curriculum." The NEA encourages its members to be involved in developing textbooks and materials and to seek the removal of laws and regulations that restrict selection of diverse materials.

The National Council of Teachers of English and the International Reading Association (NCTE/IRA)

An 80,000-member organization devoted to improving the teaching and learning of English and the language arts, the NCTE offers support, advice, and resources to teachers and schools faced with challenges to teaching materials or methods. The NCTE has developed a Statement on Censorship and Professional Guidelines recognizing that English and language arts teachers face daily decisions about teaching materials and methods.

The IRA has 90,000 members worldwide, working in a variety of educational capacities. Its goal is to promote high levels of literacy by improving the quality of reading instruction and encouraging reading as a lifetime habit. The IRA supports "freedom of speech, thought, and inquiry as guaranteed by the First Amendment."

The NCTE and IRA have issued a joint statement on intellectual freedom:

all students in public school classrooms have the right to materials and educational experiences that promote open inquiry, critical thinking, diversity in thought and expression, and respect for others.

Their mutual policy sets out four principles aimed at translating the ideals of the First Amendment into classroom reality: (1) to actively support intellectual freedom; (2) to foster democratic values, critical thinking, and open inquiry; (3) to prepare for challenges with clearly defined procedures; and (4) to ensure educational communities are free to select and review classroom curricula to meet student needs.

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD)

The ASCD is an international organization of professional educators committed to excellence in education. Its mission is to "forge covenants in teaching and learning for the success of all learners." The ASCD recognizes the importance of balancing the rights and needs of students, teachers, and parents with freedom of expression:

When challenges arise, school officials should bear in mind that education is governed by the public . . . [Educators] should recognize the value of citizen participation and respect the right of parents to shape their children's schooling. At the same time, educators should insist that, as in other fields, professional judgment must not be completely subservient to the popular will. Educators' primary allegiance must be to the integrity of knowledge and the welfare of students.

The ASCD stresses the importance of establishing complaint procedures and affirms that materials are never to be restricted for the purpose of suppressing ideas.

American Library Association (ALA)

The ALA, "the voice of America's libraries," is dedicated to providing leadership for the "development, promotion and improvement of library and information services...in order to enhance learning and access to information for all." The ALA has a widely emulated Bill of Rights affirming all libraries as forums for information and ideas. The ALA's policies stipulate that libraries should provide materials from all points of view; challenge censorship; cooperate with free speech groups; grant access to all regardless of origin, age, background, or views; and provide exhibit space on an equitable basis. Drawing on the United Nation's Declaration of Human Rights, the ALA emphasizes the importance of free speech: "We know that censorship, ignorance, and limitations on the free flow of information are the tools of tyranny and oppression. We believe that ideas and information topple the walls of hate and fear and build bridges of cooperation and understanding far more effectively than weapons and armies."

National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP)

Dedicated to supporting elementary and middle-level principals and other education leaders in their commitment for all children, NAESP sets policy on curriculum and instruction. In its statement on censorship and academic freedom, "NAESP affirms the right of the student and teacher to use a wide variety of curriculum and literary materials and to explore divergent points of view." NAESP also emphasizes the importance of establishing procedures to address selection of materials and challenges to selections. These procedures are to be carried out "professionally and equitably," according to established professional criteria and the values and needs of the community.

National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC)

Founded in 1974, NCAC is an alliance of over 50 national non-profit organizations-including literary, artistic, religious, educational, professional, labor, and civil liberties group-united in their support of freedom of thought, inquiry, and expression. NCAC works with teachers, educators, writers, artists, and others around the country dealing with censorship debates in their own communities; it educates its members and the public at large about the dangers of censorship and how to oppose them; and it advances policies that promote and protect freedom of expression and democratic values. For specific advice on strengthening your book selection procedures and resisting censorship, submit a Censorship Report to NCAC at ncac.org/report-censorship.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The First Amendment protects both students and teachers in schools. NCAC presents the following collection of materials on the topic of censorship in schools for the use of students, educators, and parents everywhere. This information is not intended as legal advice. If you face

# data[].attributes.body
on Thursday Ed Henry interviewed president trump about how he’s going to stand up to the NRA. Trump Will not do anything to hurt the 2nd amendment, trump will stand up to the NRA as long as no constitutional gun laws are infringed on. "I am if it's not going to hurt a good, solid great American citizen from keeping his weapon because they want that, And they are entitled to that. We have a Second Amendment, I don't want to have crazy people have guns. I don't want to have bad people have guns. But, we're going to do nothing to hurt the Second Amendment. And what we want to do is see if we can come up with a compromise, and that's what we're working on." Trump is trying to reinforce the 2nd amendment but trying to come to a compromise for better gun laws without infringing on the constitution gun laws.

# data[].attributes.body
This article shows the second amendment and how it is affecting the country greatly.Others will and already are pressing the issue of gun control. I think it is ridiculous at this point to suggest that we don't need to do everything possible to keep dangerous assault weapons out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them. The families of shooting victims need more than our thoughts and prayers; they deserve action. In this article it is not necessary saying to take away guns and the second amendment all together but that the government has to be much more strict

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
CLOSE

My mom worried about the Oregon district, but I felt safe there. Now I realize that evil lives in the Americans who are supposed to be my neighbors.

In my younger days, I would have been hanging out in the Oregon District. On a Saturday night, I would almost certainly have been partying at Sloopy's or one of the other bars or night clubs in the popular Dayton entertainment district at that time. It's chilling to think that I or one of my friends or family might have been among the nine killed or more than two dozen injured in a senseless mass shooting Sunday morning.

Back then, my mother used to warn me about the possibility of shootings like this. With my youthful sense of invulnerability, I would laugh off her concerns, saying, "Aww, ma! Nothing's gonna happen. We're just going out to have a little fun."

I'm not laughing now.

A pile of shoes rests in the parking lot behind Ned Peppers bar in Dayton, Ohio, on Aug. 4, 2019. (Photo: Kareem Elgazzar/The Enquirer)

My youthful naiveté has been replaced with the sobering reality of adulthood and the frustrating realization that the country I live in suffers from the seemingly incurable diseases of hatred and violence. That we can no longer "just have a little fun" without also having to look out for an emergency exit or shelter to dive behind in case we find ourselves dodging a sudden hail of bullets. That evil is indeed real, and that it isn't embodied in some fairy tale witch, ghost or goblin, but in the American citizens who are supposed to be my neighbors.

We are our own worst enemy

Two years ago, I wrote that I wasn't worried about America being destroyed by Russia, Islamic State or some other foreign adversary. What scared me the most was us, what we are doing to each other through our words and actions, that we are our own worst enemy.

I see it every day on social media and in our personal interactions. We have let our differences and divisions push us further apart. Our anger, contempt and intolerance for one another's opinions and beliefs have driven us to become meaner, nastier and more cruel to our fellow man. We dehumanize each other so easily and so often, is there any wonder why we have become so desensitized to these horrible tragedies and our first response is to go to our respective political corners rather than take a moment to mourn the loss of human life - to pause and ask, "What are we doing to each other?"

Ex-GOPer on 2nd amendment: Dayton, El Paso shooting tragedies show guns should be much harder to get

Many will and already have rushed to blame President Donald Trump for fueling hatred with his divisive rhetoric about immigrants and other dog whistles. As the leader of the free world, the president does bear some responsibility, as do all of those in leadership positions, for setting the right tone, a tone of unity. But blaming Trump alone isn't right, because each of us has personal responsibility for the state of our political discourse in America.

Gun control alone won't fix America

Others will and already are pressing the issue of gun control. I think it is ridiculous at this point to suggest that we don't need to do everything possible to keep dangerous assault weapons out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them. The families of shooting victims need more than our thoughts and prayers; they deserve action. But Congress' track record gives no reason for hope that anything will change or that reasonable measures will be taken. Besides, gun control alone won't fix what ails the United States.

There are those in this country whose hearts have been poisoned with hatred for others simply because they are different. There are those who feel a sense of entitlement and who believe that the promises of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in America belong to them alone and those who look like them and share their culture. We must vigorously beat back these ideals, condemning them without equivocation or quarter. Hate groups that support, incite and perform acts of violence based on racism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, xenophobia or religious intolerance must be treated and dealt with like the domestic terrorists they are.

Every day, I see my fears becoming reality. We must find a way to come together, acknowledging the role that each of us has contributed to this toxic mess our nation has become, before it is too late.

I pray that it already isn't.
Kevin S. Aldridge is the Opinion editor of the Cincinnati Enquirer, where this column first appeared. Follow him on Twitter: @kevaldrid
Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2019/08/05/dayton-shooting-gun-control-alone-wont-fix-america-column/1917447001/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Dayton shooting shows evil lives in America. We need gun control, but it won't fix hate.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
CLOSE My mom worried about the Oregon district, but I felt safe there. Now I realize that evil lives in the Americans who are supposed to be my neighbors. In my younger days, I would have been hanging out in the Oregon District.

# data[].attributes.body
.                                                            In this article it explains in good detail how the president of the United States, Donald Trump has disobeyed many different amendments. But the one I want to talk about today is the first amendment, he has bluntly tried to have a Muslim ban, when in the first amendment it clearly states that the people are to have freedom of religion. That is not the only way president trump disobeyed the first amendment, he stated at a press conference that nobody should be allowed to burn the Americans flag, I understand doing that is a total show of disrespect but at the same time the first amendment clearly states that the people are to have freedom of speech, and doing that is your freedom. Also President trump stated that network news has been so fake that he would want licenses to be challenged and revoked. In the first amendment it states that you have freedom of the press, meaning the media outlets can say and record whatever they want.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When he started his long-shot bid for the White House in 2015, Donald Trump appeared to know as much about the Constitution as you might expect of any real estate developer slash reality show host slash beauty pageant judge.

One year after his election - and almost 10 months after he swore on a Bible to preserve, protect and defend that founding document - it's not clear he knows much more, or aspires to.

Instead, throughout his candidacy and presidency, Mr. Trump has treated the Constitution less as a guiding light than as an inconvenient hindrance.

"His idea of the presidency is, he was elected and he can do whatever he wants," said Corey Brettschneider, a professor of political science at Brown University and author of "The Oath and the Office: A Guide to the Constitution for Future Presidents," which will be published in 2018.

"Presidents usually regard the oath as a set of legally binding principles that they abide by," Mr. Brettschneider said. "Trump tends to think of things in terms of real estate law - ways to get around legal requirements rather than enforcing and promoting them. That's scary, because we rely on a president to espouse the norms of the Constitution."

Sometimes Mr. Trump's constitutional illiteracy is amusing, like the time he told a group of Republican senators that he wanted to protect "Article XII," which doesn't exist. More often it's alarming. He has shown disdain for the separation of powers by repeatedly attacking the federal judiciary and individual judges who have ruled against him. He has made a mockery of the emoluments clause by refusing to divest his tangled business empire and profiting openly off his presidency. He has abused the pardon power by granting his first, and so far only, pardon to a former sheriff who was found in contempt of a federal court for defying an order. And he has failed to take care that the laws are faithfully executed, whether by trying to sabotage the Affordable Care Act, leaving hundreds of critical executive branch positions vacant or threatening to prosecute his former political opponent.

But his most frequent target is the Bill of Rights, which protects Americans against the federal government and, through the 14th Amendment, against the states. The list below is a small sampling of Mr. Trump's depredations of those foundational amendments - via tweet, speech or interview - over the past two and a half years.

Donald Trump on the Bill of Rights

By Amendment

Establishment of Religion

Free Exercise of Religion

Cruel and Unusual punishment

Federalism and state powers

President Trump's order denying federal funds to so-called sanctuary cities violates Supreme Court precedent that the federal government cannot commandeer state and local governments to enforce federal laws. (Mr. Trump's complaint was misdirected; it was not the Ninth Circuit that originally blocked the measure, but a federal district judge in San Francisco.)

April 26, 2017

Mr. Trump said this about babies born in the United Statves to undocumented immigrants.Aug. 18, 2015

President Trump urged local police officers to rough up criminal suspects. July 28, 2017

V - Due Process, equal protection

XIV -Due Process, Equal protection

XV - Voting Discrimination

I - establishment of Religion

V - Due process, equal protection

XIV - Due Process, equal protection

The president's ban on travel to the United States by people from several Muslim-majority countries has been struck down by federal courts for violating federal law and the First Amendment, and it also arguably violates the Fifth and 14th Amendments.June 5, 2017

Mr. Trump formed a commission on election integrity to rationalize his lies about the popular vote, then staffed it with the nation's most determined vote suppressors. NOV. 27, 2016

Donald Trump on the Bill of Rights

By Amendment

Donald Trump on the Bill of Rights

By Amendment

I - establishment of Religion

V - Due process, equal protection

XIV - Due Process, equal protection

The president's ban on travel to the United States by people from several Muslim-majority countries has been struck down by federal courts for violating federal law and the First Amendment, and it also arguably violates the Fifth and 14th Amendments.June 5, 2017

V - Due Process, equal protection

XIV -Due Process, Equal protection

XV - Voting Discrimination

Mr. Trump formed a commission on election integrity to rationalize his lies about the popular vote, then staffed it with the nation's most determined vote suppressors. NOV. 27, 2016

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | President Trump, Please Read the Constitution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When he started his long-shot bid for the White House in 2015, Donald Trump appeared to know as much about the Constitution as you might expect of any real estate developer slash reality show host slash beauty pageant judge.

# data[].attributes.body
This article deals with Colin kappernick believing that the NFL owners are black balling him for taking a knee during the national anthem. All though many do not agree with colin he still has his right of freedom of speech  and to voice his opinions and frustrations with police brutality. I personally don’t agree with Colin  taking knee during the national anthem I think if he went about another way he would have a job today

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
© 2018 Advance Local Media LLC. All rights reserved About Us.
The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed,transmitted,cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Advance Local.

Your California Privacy Rights

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Did the NFL 'blackball' Colin Kaepernick? | The Tylt

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick, who sparked controversy by kneeling during the national anthem to call attention to racial injustice, is still unemployed. has been unsigned since becoming a free agent-despite posting better numbers than other quarterbacks on NFL rosters. Is he being blacklisted?