# data[].attributes.body
#WhereMyArmsFall
#RightForFight

This Amendment secures an American citizen the right to bear arms so the government may not deprive one's possession of legal weapons.

The picture depicts the people;s power to abuse the 2nd amendment and use them for immoral intentions. This photo alludes to the violent shootings that occurred through the shooting from late 2017 to now 2018, such as the Parkland High shooting and the Santa Fe High shooting. Even though there are people who are crazy enough to commit such crimes, schools still continue to educate the 2nd amendment, to show that people can bare arms to protect themselves. In a world where people yield the mentality of violence, it could be appropriate for those to hold firearms to protect themselves.

Saturday, Feb 17 2018

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Editorial cartoons for Saturday, Feb. 17 | HeraldNet.com

# data[].attributes.headline
4th Amendment, freedom from unreasonable search and seizures.

# data[].attributes.subject
4th Amendment, freedom from unreasonable search and seizures.

# data[].attributes.body
#YouCan'tSearchMe!
#SearchMeNot

This proves that one may not be violated  of their  personal bubble due  to a judgmental assumption.

The article discusses the racial assumption to search someone due to the way they look. Though it can be a safety precaution to frisk and search someone, but the number of times someone is stopped and are of certain ethnicity, definitely brings up concerns for the PD's judgment on who they see as dangerous. Because of this people tend to deepen the enforcement of the 4th amendment requiring that an official may not search or seize someone without a serious process to do so.

Sep. 19 2018

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
He should acknowledge the error of the N.Y.P.D.'s stop-and-frisk policy.

By Mara Gay

Ms. Gay is a member of the editorial board.

Image

Mayor Michael Bloomberg, center, with city leaders in 2010, demonstrated support for an Islamic community center near Ground Zero. Credit Credit Seth Wenig/Associated Press

I covered Michael Bloomberg for years and have many stories about him. But this one is my favorite because it reminds me of what a real leader can be.

It was the summer of 2010 and anger was building over an Islamic community center to be built near the World Trade Center site, where two deep gashes still wounded the earth, a constant reminder of the thousands who died.

Word of the project quickly spread, sparking an outpouring of small-minded bigotry. Fox News regularly condemned the plan - how dare Muslims gather so close to where Muslims attacked us? Some family members of those who died there in the Sept. 11 attacks rallied against the project. Pressure mounted on Mayor Bloomberg to kill it, or move it somewhere else.

Mr. Bloomberg, though, would have none of it.

"New York City was built by immigrants," the mayor said that August, speaking with the Statue of Liberty behind him.

"We would betray our values and play into our enemies' hands if we were to treat Muslims differently than anyone else," he said, his voice filled with emotion. "In fact, to cave to populist sentiment would be to hand a victory to the terrorists, and we should not stand for that."

I wondered where that man was this week when Mr. Bloomberg, testing the waters for a Democratic presidential bid, stubbornly doubled down on what is arguably his greatest mistake in office: the aggressive use of the policing strategy known as stop-and-frisk that resulted in millions of innocent black and Latino people being stopped on the streets.

"I think people, the voters, want low crime," Mr. Bloomberg told The New York Times in an interview about his presidential aspirations. "They don't want kids to kill each other."

Mr. Bloomberg, a billionaire who ran New York City for a dozen years, transformed it with bold ideas, like banning smoking in public places and building new parks, that improved the everyday lives of many New Yorkers.

But he could also be oblivious to the needs of people without his money and privilege, often brushing aside concerns about the crisis of affordable housing, for example. Of all his blind spots, though, stop-and-frisk may be the most glaring.

Image

Thousands of people marched on Fifth Avenue in June 2012 to protest the New York Police Department's stop-and-frisk policy. Credit Michael Appleton for The New York Times

A federal judge in 2013 ruled that the way the Bloomberg administration implemented the policing tactic was unconstitutional. Mr. Bloomberg and his police commissioner, Raymond Kelly, had long argued that crime would rise without stop-and-frisk. But they were wrong. Nearly five years after Mr. Bloomberg left office, pedestrian stops are down sharply from their peak in 2011, and overall crime has continued to fall. Some of the strategy's prominent supporters have now acknowledged that the drop in crime shows that they were mistaken.

Mr. Bloomberg, a proud technocrat, is fond of the phrase: "In God we trust. Everyone else bring data." Yet when it comes to stop-and-frisk, the facts don't seem to matter to him. His lack of introspection on this subject diminishes his considerable legacy.

It was not the only subject upon which Mr. Bloomberg offered less-than-enlightened thoughts in the interview. He also questioned the movement against sexual assault and harassment.

"The stuff I read about is disgraceful - I don't know how true all of it is," he said, before casting doubt on the allegations of sexual harassment against Charlie Rose, who used to produce his PBS show from Bloomberg's offices.

This is all classic Bloomberg: sincere, but also arrogant and sometimes outrageously out of touch. His remarks disparage the experience of racial minorities and women in America. For someone who may seek the Democratic nomination for president, the stance is particularly inexplicable.

Michael Bloomberg can be better than this.

If he is serious about running for president, which those close to him believe he is, he needs to show voters that he can learn from his mistakes.

He should not only apologize for his administration's use of stop-and-frisk, he should begin listening seriously to black and Latino voters in a way he never did as mayor, visiting communities of color. While he's at it, he might want to also listen more to women.

Some high-ranking Democrats in Congress, like Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, are encouraging Mr. Bloomberg to run, according to people who have spoken to him.

The Democratic Party is changing. So is the country. If he wants to run for president, Mr. Bloomberg will have to show voters that he can change, too.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.

A version of this article appears in print on , on Page A22 of the New York edition with the headline: Mr. Bloomberg's Blind Spot on Racial Injustice. Order Reprints | Today's Paper | Subscribe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | Bloomberg's Blind Spot on Racial Injustice

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
He should acknowledge the error of the N.Y.P.D.'s stop-and-frisk policy. By Mara Gay Ms. Gay is a member of the editorial board. I covered Michael Bloomberg for years and have many stories about him. But this one is my favorite because it reminds me of what a real leader can be.

# data[].attributes.headline
4th Amendment, the government must have a search warrant on a probable cause

# data[].attributes.subject
4th Amendment, the government must have a search warrant on a probable cause

# data[].attributes.body
#UNeedsAWarrent
#CheckCheckNothing

This amendment states that a household or possession can only be searched through valid reasoning that are authenticated by officials and established on a document.

This article demonstrates the the amendment not being practiced when a police officer searches a person's house without a warrant. Discussing the dispute, the person stated that he had missing items that were stolen in the process of the "search". This shows how important it is for the fourth amendment to be enforced. Without a legitimate search warrant one's belongings can be damaged or deprived, eliminating important things that are vital for an individual's life.

May 30 2018

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Because Americans have a right to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects," the Fourth Amendment bars the government from conducting "unreasonable searches and seizures" without judicial consent. It would seem to follow, then, that police officers don't have the constitutional authority to poke around on private property without a warrant.

But over the years, the U.S. Supreme Court has - unfortunately - created a so-called automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment that grants the authorities more leeway to search vehicles on public streets in pursuit of illegal contraband.

This exception is what a police officer in Virginia's Albemarle County was relying on when he walked up the driveway of a private residence and pulled back a tarp to find a stolen motorcycle. The owner of the home, Ryan Collins, was arrested on a charge of receiving stolen property. Mr. Collins sued, arguing the police had illegally searched his property.

On Tuesday, the justices ruled 8-1 that the officer erred by not obtaining a warrant. The decision imposes some much-needed limits on the power of law enforcement to conduct vehicle searches and respects the right of citizens to be free from intrusion in their homes and surrounding property - called "curtilage" by the court.

"Nothing in our case law ... suggests that the automobile exception gives an officer the right to enter a home or its curtilage to access a vehicle without a warrant," Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the majority. To hold otherwise would "render hollow the core Fourth Amendment protection the Constitution extends to the house and its curtilage."

The decision is a victory for the Bill of Rights. And as the court's current term winds down, the justices have the opportunity in a couple of pending cases to again stand up for the protections enshrined in the Constitution.

■ The justices will soon decide whether states may force employees to pay for labor representation through collective bargaining, even if they are not union members. Let's hope the court rules that the principles of freedom demand individuals should be under no such obligation. The answer to the "free rider" issue is to rescind the union's bargaining monopoly, not use the power of the state to garnish an employee's paycheck for services he or she didn't request in the first place.

■ The court will rule in the next few weeks whether the authorities may skirt the Fourth Amendment by forcing cellphone companies to turn over records that allow the police to track the movements of a suspect. The justices should hold that requiring law enforcement to obtain warrants for such snooping is perfectly consistent with constitutional requirements.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
EDITORIAL: U.S. Supreme Court strengthens the Fourth Amendment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Because Americans have a right to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects," the Fourth Amendment bars the government from conducting "unreasonable searches and seizures" without judicial consent. It would seem to follow, then, that police officers don't have the constitutional authority to poke around on private property without a warrant.