# data[].attributes.body
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/04/20/federal-judge-rules-indiana-abortion-law-signed-pence-unconstitutional/537211002/

A law signed by Mike Pence in Indiana that bans abortions for the reason that the fetus may develop a disability was declared unconstitutional by the supreme court. It was decided that the law violates a woman’s right to have an abortion at any time before the legal time limit. The state of Indiana cannot restrict that right. Indiana Attorney General said that the state has an interest in “... Protecting the dignity of the unborn…” That is, keeping them from being terminated because of a characteristic that they possess. That being said, the law violates the rights given to the people by the federal government. It is the job of the judicial branch to keep the legislative in line by examining laws like these. If a law violates a guaranteed right, it must be repealed, and this law meets those requirements.

# data[].attributes.body
Robert Mueller is investigating whether Donald Trump’s “abuse of power” is criminal or just out of line.  The consequence of the criminal abuse of power would lead to Donald Trump’s impeachment from office.  Shortly after the investigation was started Trump’s actions had been exonerated by Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, but many others believed that the President has committed a federal felony offense.  Trump’s impeachment is up to the Congress in the end, although many have said he has overstepped his boundaries by challenging our checks and balances, laws, and separation of powers that were put in place.  For example, the case with James Comey in which there was a criminal investigation against Trump that he told Comey he hoped he would drop the investigation, but it was more of an order in which he does not have the authority to do so.  Trump needs to be aware of his statements, because as we have seen people are not going to stand for our system to be changed in this way.

# data[].attributes.headline
Trump just got checked and balanced (February 2017)

# data[].attributes.subject
Trump just got checked and balanced (February 2017)

# data[].attributes.body
The comment I have below the picture is my summary on the issue.

# data[].attributes.body
In November of 2017 Trump signs an executive order to ban any citizens from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. The order was temporary blocked by a federal judge in Washington. In addition, The Department for Homeland Security suspended all actions that would implement this order, and the Justice Department would challenge the order.The Trump administration fired the acting attorney general because she told people not to support the ban. When the federal judge put a halt on the ban, President Trump issued a lawsuit against this. There was a lot of scrutiny about this ban and brought a ton of uncertainty for many people when they had to travel. Furthermore a federal judge from New York believed this violated the right to Due process. This shows that the judicial branch has the power to check executive orders and over rule them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
trump just got checked and balanced - cnnpolitics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The rapid halting of President Donald Trump's immigration order has given him his first exposure to the limits on his presidential power, a sharp awakening for a real estate mogul accustomed to the wide unilateral prerogative of a chief executive.

# data[].attributes.body
My article is about Donald Trump nominating Neil Gorsuch as judge of the Supreme Court. Donald Trump is from the Executive branch and he's nominating a judge for the Judicial branch. This is a check because president Trump is not allowing the judicial branch to choose their own judge. If the judicial branch were to pick the own judge, then that would be too powerful. Having the judicial branch picking all the nominees would be too powerful because if the judicial branch could nominate their own judges they could nominate the judges that most fit their beliefs or political views. Having the president pick the supreme court nominee limits the judicial power by including his political views and power to be carried out in a different branch of government. In this situation the Judaical's power is being checked by the executive branch and the Executive's power is being checked by the Senate who can approve or reject the nomination.

# data[].attributes.headline
Can Donald Trump Use Military Force Anywhere In The World Whenever He Wants?

# data[].attributes.subject
Can Donald Trump Use Military Force Anywhere In The World Whenever He Wants?

# data[].attributes.body
My article was about the distinction of military power between the congress and the president. The article stated that it is a problem when the two sides don’t agree because in times of war or panic having a country’s military defense at a delay is not ideal. The article also talked about how over time Presidents are gaining more and more power to do what they think is right with the military. Now, people are worried that President Trump might abuse his power because he already launched a missile strike on a syrian missile base. Also not being a the best terms with North Korea is making many people nervous. My opinion is that our President should be able to make whatever decisions he thinks are right for our military. Obviously I think that he would still need to have the congress’s approval on his military orders, but he should have the main say on what happens.

# data[].attributes.body
Thousands of immigrants were thrown into legal limbo by President Trumps executive order to temporarily ban traveling between 7 majority Muslim countries. The order which was placed in mid February was put to a halt by a federal judge in Washington. Trump is now taking this issue to court and there is a lawsuit being put in place. Trump and Mike pence have still continued to criticize the states and Home land on their decisions to stop enforcing the order but even under these circumstances they believe that the order will prevail. Immigrants have been claiming in their legal briefs to ave been forced to sign legal government documents waiving their rights to enter the US. This has been making them upset because if something were to happen to them, they could get arrested and sent back to where they cam from. The order puts a travel ban on 7 majority Muslim countries for 90 days, the admission of any refugees for 120 days, and the admission of refugees from Syria indefinitely. It was made and put into use poorly people are saying and the reason for Trumps making this order was to mainly prevent future conflicts that have been mainly been from these specific reigns. Because of this, that's why there is a lot of commotion going on!

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.oregonlive.com/today/index.ssf/2017/04/judge_blocks_trump_order_on_sa.html

The Judicial Branch has blocked any attempt by the Trump administration to withhold funding from sanctuary cities that protect immigrants from deportation and that do not cooperate with the US immigration authorities. The Justice Department stated that the president has no authority to attach new conditions to federal spendings. When this issue was taken to court, Trump wanted the injunction to stay in place until the courts made a determination whether or not the policy was constitutional. Yet again, the Judicial Branch stopped that from taking place. The judge said "Federal funding that bears no meaningful relationship to immigration enforcement cannot be threatened merely because a jurisdiction chooses an immigration enforcement strategy of which the president disapproves,". If the funding was withheld, many cities would be losing thousands of dollars that make their budgets possible and the overall well being of the cities would be impacted. This is a perfect example of the Judicial Branch imposing checks on the Executive Branch in order to make sure that their actions are constitutional and that the President is not abusing the power invested in the Executive Branch of the federal government.

# data[].attributes.headline
Defiant Trump Vows to Take Immigration Case to Supreme Court

# data[].attributes.subject
Defiant Trump Vows to Take Immigration Case to Supreme Court

# data[].attributes.body
On Wednesday April 25th, 2017 President Trump vowed to challenge California’s Jurisdiction all the way to the Supreme Court after a federal judge there stopped him from withholding funds for sanctuary cities to penalize them for shielding illegal immigrants. Trump has twice has been blocked by courts from imposing a temporary travel ban on visitors from select Muslim-majority countries. The judge who issued the latest ruling is from California, the same state as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which heard the previous cases.  The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has not yet actually heard the case which usually has to be done before a case can be brought to the supreme court.But Mr. Trump’s confidence in a future victory at the Supreme Court follows the successful confirmation of his appointment of Justice Neil M. Gorsuch. Mr. Trump signed an executive order shortly after becoming president targeting cities and counties that limit their cooperation with federal immigration authorities which is to be discussed. I agree that the supreme court should be able to decide if Trump can carry through with his plans to cut funding for sanctuary cities.

# data[].attributes.headline
In Trumps order, a test of America's check and balances

# data[].attributes.subject
In Trumps order, a test of America's check and balances

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2017/0206/In-Trump-s-orders-a-test-of-America-s-checks-and-balances

President Trump's Executive Order on the travel ban in February 2017 was halted by a federal judge in Washington and federal appeal courts were then scheduled to hear arguments to decide the final ruling. Trump and Mike Pence continued to criticize their decision and were confident they would prevail, but Homeland Security followed the ruling and stopped enforcing the order, along with the State Departments. This was Trump's first look at how he will be limited and what checks there are to his power. There were still instances in many airports where the judicial ruling wasn't followed days after the order was issued, which would be a “constitutional crisis” says Lee Gelernt, an L.A lawyer, if the states are not quick to appeal to the federal courts check on the executive power. I think it was a good call to halt the travel ban from Muslim-majority countries, mainly because of the issues that it was causing, and much of it was up to interpretation of each specific state airport, leading to lots of conflict and uncertainty.

# data[].attributes.headline
Trump Makes Travel Ban on 7 Muslim Countries

# data[].attributes.subject
Trump Makes Travel Ban on 7 Muslim Countries

# data[].attributes.body
Recently, Trump tried creating a ban that kept travelers from entering the United States from seven predominantly Muslim countries. However, very soon after, the federal judges made an order in Seattle to lift the ban that Trump had created, because the judicial branch has the power to declare laws that the president makes, unconstitutional. However, the White House has vowed to get this ban reinstated because it caused the State Department to cancel a whopping total of 60,000 visas of people from the affected countries.This is a great example of Checks and Balances, because the judicial branch is checking the President, looking over his decision, and making the decision that his actions were unconstitutional. I personally believe that it was right for the judicial branch to override Trump’s ban. The reason I believe this, is because I believe it is unconstitutional to ban people of innocence from entering the United States. However, I believe that it was smart that Trump was trying to tighten the security of our country from terrorist, but I believe he could have done it in a different way, for example finding a way to tighten air security even further.

# data[].attributes.body
On September 16, 2016, President Barack Obama vetoed a bill that would allow family members of victims in the 9/11 terrorist attacks to sue Saudi Arabia. The families of the victims are attempting to sue because of Saudi Arabia’s alleged affiliation with and possible funding of the terrorists that committed the acts. Although Obama has vetoed the bill, congress is likely to overturn the veto. The president believes that this legislation will create divides between the United States and the Middle East, specifically Saudi Arabia who’s a valuable trade partner. He also stated that he was worried that this could open up American citizens abroad to lawsuits from other countries. His final argument claimed that this bill would hinder the long term fight against terrorism because it’d break down coalition between nations attempting to counter the terrorism. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have both issued statements that they would’ve signed the legislation had they been head of the executive branch. Interestingly, Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan did elicit some concern of lawyers making large profits and Americans being opened up to lawsuits.

While President Obama does express concern for legitimate possible issues that could arise, I have to side with the majority on this one. One of Obama’s main claims was that the fight against terrorism would be hindered by this legislation; however, I’d say that countries would be much more hesitant to fund terrorists if there were possible financial repercussions. This would undoubtedly deter the terrorist attacks. The bottom line is that Obama’s first responsibility is to protect American citizens not keep other countries happy. Therefore, I support Congress and their bill.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/23/politics/september-11-bill-saudi-arabia-veto/

# data[].attributes.headline
Can Donald Trump use Military Force Anywhere in the World Whenever He Wants?

# data[].attributes.subject
Can Donald Trump use Military Force Anywhere in the World Whenever He Wants?

# data[].attributes.body
To what extent are presidents allowed to deploy forces without the consent from congress? Donald Trump recently launched a missile attack at Syria as a preemptive measure. He did this all without the approval of congress. Even though congress is the only group allowed to declare war, past presidents have been frequently sending troops to foreign hostile areas without the congress approving these actions, These actions put strain on the constitutional system the framers had envisioned. Although the president is considered the "commander in chief" of military forces he is not giving the responsibility to declare war. The constitution does allow the president to take quick defensive actions. The decision on taking offensive actions are not seen with as much urgency as defensive actions which has time to go through senate to make the appropriate decision. Presidents now seem to operate on the premise of being able to use military forces overseas when it seems appropriate.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/can-donald-trump-use-american-military-force-anywhere_us_58fa33b3e4b0f02c3870e953

# data[].attributes.body
U.S. senators Ron Johnson and Tammy Baldwin have shown support with Trump's cruise missile strike on Syria last week. Now, they want to know the rest of Trump's plans on dealing with the Syrian president. The president of Syria is using chemical weapons on their people and Trump wants to stop him. However, Trump did not get congressional approval for this first missile launch and Tammy Baldwin is urging him to get approval on any future plans.  But, Johnson argues that Trump does not need congressional approval if the military is responding to another chemical weapon attack. Despite the differing opinions, both senators agree that Trump needs to come out with a statement to congress and the american people to tell them his strategy and to seek congressional and public approval.  I think that this is a good idea by the senators to enforce the president to share what he is doing with congress and the people. I also believe that he is in need of congressional approval for military action which is the check Baldwin is referring too.

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2017/0206/In-Trump-s-orders-a-test-of-America-s-checks-and-balances

Trump issued a Homeland Security Order in February that incited a travel ban on many countries that posed a terrorism threat, but the courts exercised their power to deem it unconstitutional after riots and protests around the nation that claimed that it was discriminatory and unconstitutional. Homeland Security and the Trump administration complied, and the order was suspended based on how broad it was and how it was not guaranteeing rights and freedoms to those with valid visas. Trump repeatedly criticized the decision, but did not go against the court orders. In American history, it is not uncommon for the courts to have to check powers like this, and this is just a more recent example. The debate, despite seemingly being settled, had more legal issues to take care of after that, based on individual cases and revisions that could be made to make the ban legal. Even now, some debate still lingers on the issue, and the constitutionality of the president's claims are questioned, but there has not been any more direct opposition on the issue.
I personally stand neutral on the topic, not being swayed either way. The courts have made their choice, and I feel it is in their power to do just that, trusting that they are fair and unbiased, and some adjustments may be made to match both legal terms and the president's wishes. I think the problem is unresolved, but can easily be resolved in the future.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Add your 150-word post and attach a visual.
2. Comment on at least two other people's posts with a 75-word response. This should include your reflection and opinion on the check they described.