This article clearly shows how many immigrants 4th amendment writes are being violated everyday in Los Angeles, due to racial profiling, and how the Republicans try to defend these searches that are clearly unlawful, by simply saying that some of them MAY be illegal. Democrats clearly oppose these searches due to how unconstitutional the stops that go on in the LA area are, and how the defense that republicans have given are beyond ridiculous.

For considering restrictions: Supporters of exploring such a policy argue from a public safety standpoint, especially after high-profile shootings involving transgender individuals. They suggest that gun laws already disqualify people with certain mental health conditions, and some see gender dysphoria as fitting into that framework. From this perspective, restrictions could be justified as preventive measures, aimed at reducing risk before violence occurs, even if it means narrowing gun rights for a specific group.

At the University of Pennsylvania, red paint dripped down a statue of Benjamin Franklin, the university's founder, catching the school's attention to investigate further. A pro palestinian group had later posted online admitting they were the ones behind it. Police then used local Wi-fi logs and cameras to trace a phone number near the statue then they the court ordered to seize the student's phone. 

Columbia University lost $400 million in funding until it gave campus police the power to arrest students. At George Mason University, two sisters had their house searched after graffiti incidents, where political flags and weapons were found, causing them to be banned from campus but not charged. At UC Santa Cruz, student Laaila Irshad had her phone taken during an investigation and still had not received it back months later, even without being accused of a crime. Indiana University Bloomington saw a vandalized statue that led to one of the few criminal charges when a student was accused of mischief after their car and phone were searched. At UNC Chapel Hill, police searched the dorm of Laura Saavedra Forero, a protester identified in footage, and took her phone, though no charges were filed. Across campuses, many students had devices seized but were never actually criminally charged, raising concerns about privacy and free expression.

These events connect directly to the 4th amendment, which protects unreasonable searches and seizures. Many students and civil liberties advocates argue that seizing phones and searching dorms without filing charges exceeds the limit and invades privacy, discouraging free speech and protest (also connecting to the 1st amendment, freedom of speech and assembly). They see it as an abuse of power that ignores constitutional rights. However, universities and police, say that when warrants are ever issued by a judge the searches are legal and justified. From their perspective, these actions are required to keep campuses safe, prevent vandalism and hold students accountable when laws are broken. This debate shows how the friction between safety and constitutional rights is affecting college students today.

The first who was 17 when he was convicted and sentenced to life without parole for a series of armed robberies. The second case involved Joe Sullivan, who was 13 when he was convicted of robbing a home and later returning with an accomplice to rape, brutally rape, a 73-year-old woman. They are both being sentenced for life in prison, the problem is that it violates the 8th amendment to sentence them to life in prison beacasue they are under aged but at the same time, the crimes that they committed where unforgivable.

Many different people had their own perspective on the situation but it was mainly split into two. One side suggesting to keep the assault weapons, saying how the bill of rights mentions how every citizen has the right to own a gun. The other side though claimed that the guns purchased by civilians should be used for self defense only and there shouldn't be a reason on why civilians should have military grade weaponry.

Supporters of extending constitutional rights to undocumented immigrants argue that the language of the Bill of Rights protects “persons,” not just citizens, and that due process ensures fairness and prevents abuses of power. Opponents counter that stronger restrictions are necessary for immigration enforcement and national security, and they argue that broad protections could slow deportations and strain the legal system. This ongoing debate highlights how the Fifth Amendment’s promise of due process is interpreted differently depending on one’s perspective about immigration policy.

On the other hand, there is record that in 1962 the supreme court ruled against state sponsored prayer, because it conflicted with the first amendment. Trump continued, stating that prayer groups, or reading religious text outside of instructional time should be awarded as a right. He believes that the school system is teaching kids an “anti-religious” state of mind and that a country without religion is not a strong country.

-Agathe

In 1988, there was a massive oil spill on the coast of Alaska known as the Exxon Valdez spill. 4 lives were taken and it affected 1,300 miles of the Alaskan coastline. There was also the deaths of 2,800 sea otters, hundreds of seals, unknown numbers of salmon and hundreds of thousands of seabirds. As a result, Alaska got awarded $2.5 billion for punitive damages but it was cut to $500 million on a 5-3 vote after they went to court. 

The Justice Department claims rather than removing their restrictions entirely, the Order directs the Government not to take adverse action against religious organizations that it would not take against other organizations in the enforcement of these restrictions. This lawsuit also states that the order would require the IRS to remove taxing from religious organisations (mainly churches). Further stating that the order was only meant to benefit religious groups.

In response, Trump said that the filing of the order was misunderstood and watered down before its signing, allowing for discrimination of LGBTQ+ members.

I feel the original intention of the EO was to give more power to religious organisations, such as churches, "giving preference to religion over non-religion", while allowing these boosted power communities to "discriminate against gays and lesbians." This may also show his perspective on humanity, feeling the church is the almighty, and being gay is bad (just like way back Europe). Knowing not many people would like this he tried to cover up what it actually was about to protect himself from backlash.

The amendment involved is freedom of religion, which the implications here can vary depending on how religious you are. For example, if you are very religious, you most likely support this amendment, and think this executive order is great, as it benefits you. Although, if you are not religious, even if you support the amendment, you may find that religious organizations shouldn't get more power over other groups/ think it's unfair. Overall you perspective on this situation can depend of how much it can benefit you, or how much it relates to you.

The city confirmed that even though the case didn't go their way, they would not be changing any policies.

Through this case, we observe that the first amendment is being involved. Shurtleff is being denied the right to express his religious beliefs, a clear violation of his rights of Freedom of Religion, and in a way and also his Freedom of Expression.