# data[].attributes.headline
FINAL                 Diamond Martinez      OC 1  

# data[].attributes.subject
FINAL                 Diamond Martinez      OC 1  

# data[].attributes.body
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IYU8Y2TM4mQ3myNTiPzAUb3simxrsTjZzZqCBEvEGh4/edit?usp=sharing

# data[].attributes.body
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission : https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2017/16-111_f29g.pdf

U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a narrow victory to a Christian baker from Colorado who refused for religious reasons to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.

violated his religious rights under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.court did not issue a ruling on the circumstances under which people can seek exemptions from anti-discrimination laws based on their religious views.violated the Colorado anti-discrimination law that bars businesses from refusing service based on race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation by rebuffing gay couple David Mullins and Charlie Craig in 2012.
- https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/20/us/gay-pride-lgbtq-same-sex-parents.html

same sex couple controversy has forced them to apply for adoption of their own daughter.

- https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/michigan-sued-after-gay-couples-are-rejected-adoption-n803236

Michigan sued ; illegally allowing faith-based organizations to reject same-sex couples who want to adopt children or become foster parents, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said Wednesday in a lawsuit challenging the practice.

# data[].attributes.headline
Diamond Martinez      OC 1                  CURRENT EVENTS          June 28,2018 

# data[].attributes.subject
Diamond Martinez      OC 1                  CURRENT EVENTS          June 28,2018 

# data[].attributes.body
-The supreme court is ordering lower courts in washing to take a look into a recent case of a florist who refused to provide service for the wedding of two men because of her religious objection to same-sex marriage. This decision reflects heavily on the supreme court passing the chance to decide on whether business owner can refuse service on religious grounds, to comply with anti-discrimination laws that protect lgbt-people. this case shows similarity to the case where Colorado Civil Rights commission expressed anti-religious bias in violation of the bakers constitutional rights to deny service to a same sex couples upcoming wedding. Because of this, it is possible that washington courts could be persuaded to by their decision to be in favor of the same ruling, and stand behind it with the first amendment. Although, this still shows the supreme court inability to hear cases/decide upon whether anti-discrimination laws will actually be enacted when religion is a factor.

-Because of the supreme court's decision to hide away from these cases, that speaks volumes of how the supreme court views the LGBT community. It also shows that they are in fear of making a decision because it seems that there is no decision that will absolutely everyone happy. I understand how religion is a factor, but I still believe that business owners should understand there should be a seperation between a business and personal views. The LGBT community has faced discrimination and being ignored from the higher power for far too long. I believe it is time that this community receives actual representation, because just as overly religious people deserve their rights protected, so do the LGBT community. Discrimination has gone on far too long, and if the supreme court keeps hiding from cases such as these it will just create even more tension between many because lgbt is not being represented and others that commit hate crimes will perceive this as their chance to continue acting in hate and violence. The lgbt community is being attacked by this continuing ignored punishment.

Associated Press. "

Justices won't hear case of anti-gay marriage florist" Fox News. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/25/justices-wont-hear-case-anti-gay-marriage-florist.html

# data[].attributes.headline
Diamond Martinez    OC 1            current events          June 27,2018

# data[].attributes.subject
Diamond Martinez    OC 1            current events          June 27,2018

# data[].attributes.body
-The supreme court decides in favor of ruling against abortion information being mandatory information provided at clinics. The State of California may not require religiously oriented “crisis pregnancy centers” to supply women with information about how to end their pregnancies. Their ruling declared that the First Amendment prohibits California from forcing the centers, which oppose abortion on religious grounds, to post notices about how to obtain the procedure. The centers seek to persuade women to choose parenting or adoption. Although, Licensed clinics must provide a government-drafted script about the availability of state-sponsored services, as well as contact information for how to obtain them, one of the state services is abortion. One of defendant's statement was the observation that a state can lawfully require a doctor to tell a woman seeking an abortion about adoption services, although there isn't much clarification onto why it shouldn't be able to require a medical counselor to tell a woman seeking prenatal care or other reproductive health care about childbirth and abortion services? Carrying a child has as many health risk as abortion and both should be given information to the patient so they understand their options and procedures. But the supreme court decided their decision was due to Government not being allowed to force persons to express a message contrary to their religious views. Freedom of speech secures freedom of thought and belief. This law imperils those liberties.

-The article itself was very well constructed, it provided enough information and statements to get a clear point of view of each side within the court case. This decision was purely made so that individuals would not say their rights are being taken away by being forced to give such information. Although, I completely disbelieve with the decision because one is very capable to still honor their beliefs while also providing simple information. Those that work in clinics should prioritize their job ,business and most importantly patients. Not informing a patient about multiple options they have towards pregnancy is unsafe because they are not going into a situation with all eyes open so to speak. I believe it is important for young women to be informed about every clinic availed in their communities, while also learning about safety procedures, precautions and options. A clinic withholding information , personally , sounds similar to forcing one option upon a young lady. It is every woman's right to choose and learn about her body and that is the right that the government should be protecting.

liptak Adam. “Supreme Court Backs Anti-Abortion Pregnancy Centers in Free Speech Case” ny times . https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/26/us/politics/supreme-court-crisis-pregnancy-center-abortion.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FU.S.%20Supreme%20Court&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=4&pgtype=collection

# data[].attributes.headline
Diamond Martinez.      OC 1.               Current Events           June 26,2018 

# data[].attributes.subject
Diamond Martinez.      OC 1.               Current Events           June 26,2018 

# data[].attributes.body
-In the 2005 case of Brendan Dassey that was ruled guilty for a murder in Wisconsin , is still found guilty and rejected by the Supreme Court to have case reopened for a trial. Lawyers of Brendan Dassey have concluded that his taped confession was involuntary on the grounds of it being coerced. For two years a lower court and 3 judge panel were in favor of Dassey's confession to be involuntary and should be released. The supreme court did not provide a reason for denying the petition to reopen the case. Lawyers believe the confession should not be admissible in court due to being able to clearly see in the tape that the boy was confused and held in an interrogation for so long that the cops made him believe if he confessed to the murder he would be let go and returned to school. Previous reports also showed that Dassey was a teenage below average intellectual ability , that being a main contributor to his confession built up from confusion. During the time of the investigation, interrogators expressed that Dassey had nothing to worry about and there was no need for a parent or another adult to be present because they were already sure of what happened the night of the murder.

-The article itself was confusing by not including more information on what made the court's decision to find Brendan Dassey guilty, apart from the confession being a factor. I believe there was more evidence involved that could have made the court hold Dassey accountable in 2005. Although, I do not agree with the supreme court withholding Brendan Dassey to another trial, because of the fact that there is reliable explanations that could be used to rule out the confession tape. I believe a criminal should be allowed to have their case reopened in front of a fair trial if their lawyers have provided enough reason for their choices , such as new evidence discovered - which this was once learning about the investigators actions/words and below average iq. I also am not in agreement with the supreme court hiding their reasoning for choosing to deny the hearing of the case once again, perhaps it was because they don't believe their new information to be strong enough. But because within 2005 that an appellate panel decided to release Dassey before the full appeals court overturned it , should be another reason on why the case should be reopened.

Domonoske Camila.

"Brendan Dassey Of 'Making A Murderer' Won't Have Case Heard By Supreme Court" NPR. https://www.npr.org/2018/06/26/623525381/brendan-dassey-of-making-a-murderer-won-t-get-heard-by-supreme-court

# data[].attributes.headline
Diamond Martinez                        OC 1.                                 current events                      June 25,2018 

# data[].attributes.subject
Diamond Martinez                        OC 1.                                 current events                      June 25,2018 

# data[].attributes.body
-This article discusses the domino effect that occurred due to the supreme court's decision this month within a case that involved LGBT+ discrimination. the  Supreme Court ruled for this baker who turned away a gay couple in the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. This case erupted because his religious beliefs were against this couple's sexual orientation. the court’s view determined that the bakers view point was not treated neutrally by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission when it determined he’d violated state law by refusing to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple. Because of this decision , the general public has gathered that the Supreme Court appears to treat LGBTQ people differently than other minorities. There has been a growing impact on how the current minors are to see themselves, their futures. Adults nonetheless, can console themselves with the fact that it was a narrow ruling but it also completely missing the impact that it’s having on that next generation as they’re trying to envision what it means to be apart of the LGBTQ community in America. Supreme Court didn’t resolve the dispute by clearly affirming that LGBTQ people are protected in the Constitution from discrimination, even if that discrimination is based on religious beliefs and that is where the controversy deserves some recognition. Phillips violated the Colorado anti-discrimination law that bars businesses from refusing service based on race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation by rebuffing gay couple David Mullins and Charlie Craig although the supreme court was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion. Religion has been used as an excuse for much discrimination and brutality throughout history.

-Within this ruling it is noticeable that the supreme court continously denies the LGBTQ community basic human rights. The debate of whether one's religion dictates one's ability to execute certain decisions is on that creates problems like these. Although freedom of religion is important and deserves recognition /admiration and showcasing from those that believe in it , a business owner also has the importance of running their business. Businesses should have the right to deny service if it puts themselves or other customers in harm's way. By this i mean denying service to those that would be causing disruption in the store, harming the experience for others , being rude or impulsive toward other customers. I do not believe in denying service to those that identify as LGBTQ+  because of one's religion , if there is no harm or disruption being caused then why should the owner be allowed to create one . The article was very straightforward but lacked in giving more background info in the case. Based on the case there was outside viewpoints , opinions and effects that resulted from the case.

Signorile Michelangelo. “We Can Already See The Damage From The Masterpiece Cakeshop Ruling”. huffington post . https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-signorile-masterpiece-cakeshop_us_5b1df203e4b0adfb826b0b78

# data[].attributes.headline
icivics                         June 25, 2018 

# data[].attributes.subject
icivics                         June 25, 2018 

# data[].attributes.headline
Diamond Martinez          OC 1                        Current Events           June 20, 2018 

# data[].attributes.subject
Diamond Martinez          OC 1                        Current Events           June 20, 2018 

# data[].attributes.body
- The United Nations' Human Rights Council returned to its regularly schedule meetings and intentions Wednesday ; even though the day before , the U.S. decided to pull out. This decision was made based upon their observation of the council and ,"its chronic bias against Israel". Because of this decision there has been created a debate amongst the U.S. and Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova criticized with comments such as ,"boorish cynicism in stubbornly refusing to recognize its own human rights problems”. Comments like so were used to describe the U.S current position on withholding changes amongst separating migrant children from their parents. The United States stands by its decision, for their commitment does not enforce them to remain a part of a “hypocritical and self-serving organization that makes a mockery of human rights”. Which is their description for the council being biased against israel, by : pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal, tariffs on steel and aluminum against key trading partners, recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and moving the U.S. Embassy there from Tel Aviv, destroying a long-awaited Israeli-Palestinian peace plan. Although, if the council did adopt reforms, the U.S would be happy to rejoin.

- In the beginning the article was confusing due to the lack of reasoning given to describe why the United States left the council to begin with. Because of this, I had to look for clarification through another article that then allowed for information given from both articles to make sense and give me  greater understanding of each side. The first article “ Human Rights Council Back to Work With US Seats Empty “ was more so from the viewpoint of those still involved in the council. While the second article “ US leaving UN Human Rights Council, cites anti-Israel bias “ covered both sides but most the United States. I believe that both articles open up a debate to the community, one that allows us to question the certain decision the united states makes and whether or not they should have our support and why. Human rights is a topic that i always bring my opinion in because it seems that's when your moral attitude is able to show. Given these circumstances , there is now more room to be able to dictate whether these decisions are right or wrong , and sometimes even in between being able to fit into a “gray area” where possibly compromise is able to come about.

Associated Press , "

Human Rights Council Back to Work With US Seats Empty " ny times.

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/06/20/us/politics/ap-us-united-states-human-rights.htm

Lee Matthew , Ledermen Josh " US leaving UN’s Human Rights Council, cites anti-Israel bias". Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-leaving-uns-human-rights-council-cites-anti-israel-bias/2018/06/20/cb0dab5c-7448-11e8-bda1-18e53a448a14_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c505a4fa6f56

# data[].attributes.headline
diamond Martinez        oc 1                current events        June 19,2018 

# data[].attributes.subject
diamond Martinez        oc 1                current events        June 19,2018 

# data[].attributes.body
President Trump can be described as many things , but to him personally a title he thinks he lacks but deserves is Dictator. President Trump has expressed his admiration for those that do carry this title, and because of this there has been controversy , disgust and worrisome. Comments on Kim Jong Un, “He’s the head of a country. And I mean, he is the strong head..He speaks, and people sit up at attention,” he added, “I want my people to do the same.” Trump visualizes his presidency as one that has been lacking respect from the people,  he believes he should have full control of his people, a direct and powerful  impact that should receive no commentary that could lead to a debate. Calling democrats “un-American.” “Can we call that treason? Why not? I mean, they certainly didn’t seem to love our country very much,” he said. Politicians of the opposing party traditionally do not stand or applaud during parts of a State of the Union they don’t agree with.  Trump has continuously praised Kim as “tough” and “talented”, not making an issue of his human rights abuses, which include executing his opponents. “If you can do that at 27 years old, I mean that’s one in 10,000 that could do that. So he’s a very smart guy. He’s a great negotiator. But I think we understand each other.”  in addition, describing Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sisi as a“fantastic guy” and commented approvingly of the way he handled a 2013 coup that took down the president at the time: “He took control of Egypt. And he really took control of it.” ignoring the fact that Thousands of protesters were killed in the process. Trump has described wants such as  a military parade to honor his presidency. Dictators often use these shows of force to project strength and remind people who’s in charge.

Trump's choice to believe in such strong respect, speaks loudly upon the type of mindset our president currently has. This showcases how much trump lacks in a moral mindset. Ideally, some or most of his supporters may already have this image of him , one similar to the one he has for himself although it is not smart to speak for everyone. Having trump indulge in  dictatorship will take away from the democracy we have been involved in for decades. Personally , that much respect is not one that he deserves considering how he lacks greatly in creating any progress for many issues he has chosen to ignore. Trump having this mindset is a scary thing to acknowledge, considering the amount of change he could construct and the amount of people he could care less for in the process.

Terkel, Amanda "

Donald Trump Really Wishes He Were A Dictator"

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-dictator_us_5b23c3c3e4b0d4fc01fdb2b0

# data[].attributes.headline
Diamond Martinez.       OC 1.                   Current Events.         June 18,2018

# data[].attributes.subject
Diamond Martinez.       OC 1.                   Current Events.         June 18,2018

# data[].attributes.body
Attorney general, Barbara Underwood, sues Trump over a charity non-profitable foundation that he has used for illegal conduct.  Donald J. Trump Foundation engaged in "extensive unlawful political coordination with the Trump presidential campaign." "repeated and willful self-dealing transactions to benefit Mr. Trump's personal and business interests." the foundation violated "basic legal obligations for non-profit foundations.", trump himself made all decisions related to the foundation. Regardless of these decisions purpose or legality , it is still showcased that this organization went against its purpose and missued charitable assets. "This is not how private foundations should function and my office intends to hold the Foundation and its directors accountable” Attorney general, a Democrat, said that the president used the foundation's name and funds it raised from the public to pay off his legal debts, promote Trump-branded hotels and other businesses "and to purchase personal items."

Because of this case being brought to the public, it creates an uneasy atmosphere for those that support trump's campaign. It make it questionable upon whether our money / system is being out to use in the right manner. It is a debate on whether or no Trump is responsible enough to follow certain rules, systems , or if he will continue taking matters into his own hands. Illegal conduct made by the president makes communities question their future, especially when it narrows down to economic / financial topics.

Magan, Dan . " New York attorney general sues Trump and family over charity, claiming 'illegal conduct' for 'more than a decade'' politico . https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/14/new-york-attorney-general-sues-trump-and-family-over-charity.html accessed 18, June 2018

# data[].attributes.headline
Diamond Martinez       OC 1              Current events.      June 11,2018

# data[].attributes.subject
Diamond Martinez       OC 1              Current events.      June 11,2018

# data[].attributes.body
- Trump being president and his “over use” when it comes to cellular devices seems to be a possible hinder on his effectiveness in the white house. Due to trump's inability to comply to standard procedures , such as phone upgrades monthly or security checks, it is possible that he is putting himself in directly in the face of danger. He is allowing himself to be in a vulnerable spot when denying proper and needed security measures. Trump's opinion is that it is “too inconvenient”, while democratic lawmakers are eager to make him be apart of such procedures by proposing a threat assessment. It is not only trump in danger but those that work in the white house / with trump due to the possibility of being spied on or gaining information.

- Personally i believe this shows how irrational trump is as a president. The article compared trump's actions to obama's , stating that obama would hand over his phone for inspection every 30 days to be examined by telecommunications staffers for suspicious activity. I believe this shows the difference in importance and compliance each president had for their position. The goal of this article was to put attention on trump's misguided priorities. Trump has a very active social media persona when it comes to twitter, which is gravely obvious, but it also should be taken into consideration that he is the president and is in no way showcasing as one. He is merely warming up a seat in the white house while his fingers take part in exercising a few times a day. Instead of having officials importantalize matters that deserve attention, such as actual matters that danger civilians lives, they have to focus on creating a story on how trump is being irritable, making his presidency inconvenient.

Curi, Maria. "

Dem lawmakers ask for threat assessment over Trump's phone use" politico , https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/07/trump-phone-use-threat-assessment-631205 . accessed 11 June 2018

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.hhs.gov - health & human services
- social services > adoption
- de facto adoption and fostering in traditional societies.
-  The Church sees adoption as a natural remedy for infertility and highly preferable to the use of reproductive biotechnologies. The adoption of children whose birth families are unable to care for them is also considered part of the mission of a Christian family (Cahill

# data[].attributes.headline
Diamond Martinez.      OC 1                 Current Events        June 14,2018

# data[].attributes.subject
Diamond Martinez.      OC 1                 Current Events        June 14,2018

# data[].attributes.body
- Because it is 2018, there has been a growing amount of support for possible changes that could happen when it comes to the political world. But i believe it comes down to the question of whether or not there is currently enough support and peace of mind to allow change to happen. Such as , new mexico carrying the possibility to elect their first native american woman to congress. Deb Haaland is a democrat that intensifies her voice within the largely seen debate of immigration policies. In addition, her campaign reflects change that takes steps forward while as of late we have been seen as living in the past , being for lgbtq + rights , medical benefits on tribal lands, treaty rights and being able to support your family. Although Haaland won the top vote amongst other 5 democrats, she still faces competition against a conservative reformer that turns his face on issues such as immigration, gun laws, policies aimed at strengthening New Mexico’s weak economy, and criticism or support of Mr. Trump.

- In my opinion the article didn't do Deb Haaland enough justice when it came to her political views overall. Of course ,the unfair immigration topic that is popular right now is a major concern of hers but having her elected into congress would be a larger accomplishment than just within immigration policies. Her background suggest there would be growth in giving a voice to the unprivileged, struggle when it comes to health care, families that are struggling, stricter gun laws, and women. Having Deb Haaland in office would be a large step forward as we know it, we couldn't have a female president (not saying hillary clinton was who i was in support of because i was for bernie ) but we could have a native american woman in congress that understands the true struggles that deserve attention , rather than a white man that chooses to deny giving attention to important topics that need his commentary.

Romero, Simon . "

New Mexico Could Elect First Native American Woman to Congress". Ny Times, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/06/us/deb-haaland-new-mexico-congress.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FU.S.%20Congress&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=30&pgtype=collection Accessed 14, June 2018

# data[].attributes.headline
Diamond Martinez       OC 1.             Current Events       June 6, 2018 

# data[].attributes.subject
Diamond Martinez       OC 1.             Current Events       June 6, 2018 

# data[].attributes.body
As the lgbtq community grows larger each year , it should be common knowledge to almost all people, the large disputes that can and have erupted from such topic. The lgbtq community deserves representaton and protection from discrimination, especially now in 2018 , where hate crimes and separation are growing to be more accepted. As we make our way towards reelections, it becomes a priority to note of nominees, such as Dana Rohrabacher , that choose to represent their campaign as one that is not for growth but rather in favor of discrimination. Dana Rohrabacher expressed this view during a meeting with a group of Realtors saying, "Every homeowner should be able to make a decision not to sell their home to someone (if) they don't agree with their lifestyle." in addition, Rohrabacher continued to express his disagreement with the lgbtq communities life style by addressing how he will not be in support of protecting these individuals  from housing discrimination. Dana Rohrabacher reasoning for this is his view of the Fair Housing Act not being in need of reconstruction or the adding of lgbtq indidivuals. Because of his decision to not increase federal protections for the lgbtq , many assosications refuse to give any more support for his campaign, such as The National Association of Realtors.

The importance of this dispute was to acknowledge the cause and effects that are coming about when it relates to lgbtq community. It is the duty of civilians and associations to recognize the moral standpoint of each campaigner and whether or not they will do what they can to push our nation , as a whole into the right direction. No, campaigners can not enforce those to agree with lgbtq and their life style, but they can try and enforce justice / balance for those that are apart of the community. It is important for everyone to feel as though theyre being represtned, adding the lgbtq commnity to the  fair housing act would be a step towards that. Every individual is entitled to a healthy happy life, campaigners should take into consideration those that are being ignored and harmed, and how they could stop this from continuing.

Foran,  Clare. “Rep. Dana Rohrabacher loses endorsement for saying it's OK to not sell homes to gay people”. cnn , https://www.cnn.com/profiles/clare-foran . accessed 6 june 2018

# data[].attributes.headline
Diamond Martinez.      OC 1              Current events       June 13, 2018

# data[].attributes.subject
Diamond Martinez.      OC 1              Current events       June 13, 2018

# data[].attributes.body
- The controversy that is immigration has been around for a long while now, showcasing no steps closer to a fair solution. As of right now, house GOP leaders have began meetings with the intention of crafting the “perfect” proposal for this controversial situation. Many of their concerns have centered around where those in the Dreamers Program would be standing. One proposal is from republican Raul Labrador, which is a new merit-based visa system. This visa system is one that questions whether the program , along with green cards, would be labeled as a “special pathway”. Because of this ideology, it is becoming a struggle for those in house to decide upon what is the appropriate action to take without letting the general public or republicans view any decision as “special”. Continuing, would be the debate upon what will happen within border security, and the building of the wall. Some republicans believe that their proposal of enforcing heavier security and the idea of the wall build up , is one that is secure. Although, Meadows countered: “I hear others talking about the McCaul bill and is that in it, is it not.” To suggest that any one person’s bill is all in there is not accurate.” there is no finalization yet, but it should speak volume on how this process should stop being a debate and instead be a topic where each side is “happy”, considering Moderate Republicans are growing tired, threatening to band with Democrats to use a rare discharge petition procedure to circumvent GOP leaders and put bills protecting Dreamers on the House floor.

-I do not believe the support of DREAMERS should be categorized as a “special treatment”. The Dreamers Act is an organization that gives equality for those that are being treated less than for coming to the united states. Those apart of the Dreamers community, are qualified to be considered actual citizens, they are people that are working just as hard as any other american and usually even harder than some. So they can label this controversy as a special treatment, but in my opinion it is actual created a equal system. The controversy that comes within the build up of the border is one that shouldn't be talked heavily and as if it is finalized, because of how unprofessional that tactic is. Nothing is finalized and everything that has been discussed thus far is no more than a proposal and telling the public this is more important than those in office feeling powerful in their proposals.

Bade, Rachel . "

House Republicans struggle to hash out immigration deal". politico, https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/08/republicans-immigration-framework-634121 . accessed 13, june 2018

# data[].attributes.headline
Diamond Martinez       OC 1                 Current events         June 12,2018 

# data[].attributes.subject
Diamond Martinez       OC 1                 Current events         June 12,2018 

# data[].attributes.body
- Since a change was created ,upon President Trump meeting with Kim Kardashian, the idea of prison reform has been reopened and now proposed as a bill. In general, this bill is one that will help some prisoners to be involved in a process of having cases reviewed and it would be able to help those that are seen “worthy” of a second chance when it comes to being released. While this bill is one that is said to be focused upon improving prisoners quality of life , it has come to the attention of many democrats that this bill being passed is “too narrow”. Those that have been opposed to this bill are focusing on the idea of broader reformers being more effective, this is so changes could have a positive effect on a larger group, such as: creating mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes. Prison reform is a case that has multiple debates, debates that are for certain program changes while others disagree for reasons such as safety or money. The current bill is one that was benefit taxpayers, increase public safety and create hope and opportunity for individuals wanting a second chance. This proposal is one that will benefit many, but it still goes to create multiple questions such as if this small step is worth it , will it stop here or be the beginning to more helpful prison reform proposals, and whether this is enough.

- This bill plays a large role for those that are deserving of a second chance, and should be given help and attention needed to make this process a smooth one. Although, i agree with the democrats position on this bill because in general a bigger picture should be taken into consideration. By this i mean the changes that should be proposed to the general prison system. For instance this would be, minimum and maximum sentences when it comes to general cases that would involve certain things such as those dealing with drug issue , rape cases, the environment, peoples proper application of their amendments. I believe trump's proposal is in fact too narrow and in my opinion trump as president works too slow for this to represent a small step towards improvement and that would eventually lead to more changes. Having trump in office , there has not been many chances for actual beneficial change for the citizens to even be viewed. So , having this ability , this chance to view the controversial debate that comes within prison reform , this should be an advantage the president takes and uses for actual benefits. I do not believe in either party to settle for such a small step when there has been no signs yet, of trump's presidency being a fast and effective one when it comes down to taking individuals into perspective .

Schor, Elana. "

Koch group unveils six-figure prison reform campaign". Politico, https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/11/koch-brothers-freedom-partners-prison-reform-636554 . accessed 12 June 2018

# data[].attributes.body
mandatory anti-harassment/ anti-discrimination : https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hres724/text

# data[].attributes.body
This is a piece I made January 17th, I last edited it in march but this is the unedited version.
I've been having writers block for almost a month and a half now.
I would like to start writing again , but maybe some topics would be helpful ; although I may be too busy to spare some time.

https://padlet.com/mtz060801/p635d2pb2hfl

:-)

# data[].attributes.body
- couldn't upload the law preview