This article was about Warrantless Cell Phone Location Searches. It starts off by explaining the Carpenter v United States case and how the U.S Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the government's warrantless activity in this particular scenario. They said, "although the content of personal communications is private, the information necessary to get those communications from point A to point B is not." And they said that just "like mailing addresses, phone numbers, and IP addresses [are] information that facilitates personal communications, rather than part of the content of those communications themselves. The government's collection of business records containing these data, therefore, is not a search." I think that this is an expansion of the 4th Amendment because the police are completely disregarding people's privacy. Even though whatever device they're using will help stop crime they should still have to get a warrant from the government before going onto someone's phone for information.
This article is about a survey that was taken from college students. The survey shows that 1/5 of college students out of the 1,500 current undergraduate students at U.S. four-year colleges and universities think that if a speech is violent than violence can be used to silence the speech. The survey was taken by John Villasenor, a Brookings Institution senior fellow, and University of California Los Angeles professor. The questions were meant to measure students' understanding of the First Amendment. 4/10 students said that the First Amendment does not protect hate speech and when given this scenario: A public university invites a very controversial speaker to an on-campus event. The speaker is known for making offensive and hurtful statements. A student group opposed to the speaker uses violence to prevent the speaker from speaking. Do you agree or disagree that the student group's actions are acceptable? 19% of the students said yes. Some explanations for these results are that freshmen arrive on campus with more intolerant attitudes towards free speech and that Americans of all ages have become more unfriendly toward civil and political liberties. I don't think this is a contraction or expansion of the 1st Amendment. If a speaker were to their share rude and offensive feelings in public attacking them would not be the answer. I think that this is the most important article because I think that the 1st Amendment is the best Amendment and it's what separates America from any other country. One of the great things about The First Amendment is that it gives everyone the right to say anything they want to, and they should be able to say it without having to worry about being physically attacked. I think that it's really important for people to understand that not everyone has the same opinion as yours but you can't react with violence just because you don't like what they're saying. I think that people need to also understand that some people will say hateful things and that if you don't like what they're saying then you can just walk away or leave. You don't have to physically hurt someone or throw tomatoes or whatever at a speaker because you don't like what they're saying.
This article was about how it doesn't matter what side you side with on the Second Amendment, but that the Second Amendment is the argument. This article starts off by saying that there are always two sides to an argument. In this case, it's regarding gun laws. One side argues against the Second Amendment and the other side is for the Second Amendment. The article then goes to say that it's very common to see the requirements of our Constitution being disregarded. In New York, it's basically impossible to get a gun license unless you're a security guard or police officer. Even to apply for a gun you have to pay a fee of $400 just to submit it. The writer of the article finishes by saying that even if you don't support the Second Amendment you should be influencing legislators to amend the Constitution rather than influencing legislators to create laws that disregard it. This article is about the Second Amendment and I don't think it's an expansion or contraction of the Second Amendment. I agree with the author of the article because I think that guns laws should be more specific and that there should be certain limits for gun users. After hearing about the shooting in Vegas and how easy it was for the guy to get all those guns through was just shocking. I think that people should have license's for guns and take a mental health test or something like that before they are able to own a gun.