Summary: In this article found in the Seattle Times, Ross Douthat is talking about the Second Amendment and more specifically about the resent gun shooting in Las Vegas, Nevada. The reason why he is doing this is because he does think that after this incident the government should ban “bump stocks”. In the article says that these shooting will keep happening and “bump stocks” have not yet been used for a shooting but people will see how much damage this shooting had and the “bump stock” will probably be used again in a shooting if the government does not make a law. Opinion: I think that this is my most important article because this article is about the Second Amendment which is a very important Amendment but this article states that even if the government band “bump stocks” that shooting will still happened. I do agree with this article that “bump stocks” should be illegal but I also agree that people will keep have mass shootings no matter what gun laws you make unless the Second Amendment is completely destroyed. I also do think that is it important that people hove the write to bear arms.
Summary: In this article Chevel Johnson is talking about the Fourth Amendment and how a policeman from Georgia is being sued because he did not have a warrant or probably cause. Three people were force to get their blood drawn and were trapped in jail for hours simply because an officer had a hunch that they were driving under the influence of marijuana. The officer did not get warrant and there was no probable cause. None of the three people were under the influence of marijuana and all test were negative for any cannabinoid metabolites. Opinion: This is my least important article because no one will be able to remember this case. This article is neither a contraction nor expansion of the Fourth Amendment. The article is just simply about how the officer broke the Fourth Amendment. I do agree that the police officer did not have the right to arrest those three people. I do think the officer should be punished in some way but I personally have no clue how big a punishment a police officer should get for doing something like this.
Summary: In this article from the Seattle times, Jesse J. Holland is talking about whether or not it would be against the First Amendment for owners of NFL teams to punish players for kneeling during that national anthem. Under the First Amendment there is symbolic speech which we make you think that the NFL player are protected but the NFL is a private business. On another hand some legal experts think that the fact that some of the stadiums are payed buy the public’s money or that some teams accepted money from the government in exchange for patriot displays such as the national anthem. This has left the players and anyone who works for any team in a tuff position. The player kneeling during the anthem is dividing the league from its fan. Which is not good for anyone. Option: I think that this is my second most important article because it is a controversial subject but whatever happens will not affect most of the public greatly. This is neither a contraction nor expansion of the First Amendment. I think that the NFL players should not kneel during the national anthem. So the owners of the team should be able to punish the players for doing this. The reason why I think that is because the national anthem is meant to unite us as a country. I do think that NFL player should be able to protest just not during the national anthem at an NFL game.