Hawaii asks for broader appeals court review on Trump travel ban

      Without a doubt, Trump's recent travel ban has brought forth several controversies and has caused distress among several people within and outside the country. In the article, it talks about hawaiii wanting to have "broader appeal courts to review Trump's travel ban. As we've already learned, on of the most important powers of the judicial branch is judicial review. This is when the Supreme Court reviews legislative acts to see if it violates the constitution or not. It is also one of the ways that The Supreme Court can check the presidents action. In the article, it says that Trump's revised travel plan will be reviewed by a random panel of judges. Also, instead of a normal panel of three judges, they wanted to have an "en Banc" Court where there are eleven judges instead. However, according to the article, this will make it easier for republican appointees to be placed and Trump would be approved without any opposition. As we learned in class, in order for a case to reach The Supreme Court, the Party must appeal the federal courts decision for a writ of certiorari. Similar to the state of Hawaii, I feel that it is necessary to have this reviewed by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court consists of a panel of judges that are republican, democratic, conservative, and liberal. It would be much fairer to have this case decided by them. Also the final decision of the court would be used to handle situations like this in the future. Whether or not the courts show judicial restraint or activism is up to them. However, if would be a safer process to go through them instead of regular federal courts. If things go as planned, the case will reach the Supreme Court, and hopefully they will I'll rule it as unconstitutional. What do you guys think? Do you think that the case will even reach the supreme courts level?  I also was thinking about how the newly appointed judge would have major influence on the final opinion. Do you feel that Justice Neil M. Gorsuch would make a major difference in the final opinion because Trump appointed him?









ARTICLE LINK

BOOOOOM - Group D

This article talks about the bombing of Afghan on Thursday. It was interesting because it spoke about how the strike was aimed to hit mountains and destroy caves that were being used for improving intensive explosive devices. With this airstrike came a death of nearly 70 militants. Was it worth it? One really interesting part of the article that I felt needed to be related back to class is wether or not Trump ordered this strike. In the article, it was stated that Trump is yet to say if he had part in ordering this strike. In class, we spoke about how a president isn't allowed to declare war without Congress. ( I am aware this isn't a war ) But isn't he still entitled to speak/give insight on the incident?   If he did order the strike, with reason, do you believe that his silence is leading to tension? It was odd to me how relations with Afghan have been calm and we haven't heard anything lately. Then this happens. DO you believe there was a better way to go about this?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/14/world/asia/mother-of-all-bombs-afghanistan-us-moab.html?.rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fworld&action=click&contentCollection=world&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0

The Future Of The U.S

         While i was searching the web for articles there is 4 that stood out to me and i had to write about them. It all started with the bombing in Syria which made a lot of noise throughout the internet it was something that the U.s  had no business interfering with. Especially with the way that they did it, more than a dozen bombs killing mothers, fathers and children they are no better than Isis. In result to these bombings many of the super powers may believe that they are being threaten. This is where my second article comes into play. Korea is started to test their bombs again even though they have been told that they cannot because global threats. They have increased their testing in the past few days. This is obviously a result to Trumps attack on Syria.One last piece of information is that the US Navy aircraft has reverse its course and has started heading back to KoreanAll of these military advances seem to be a threat to the "peace" we have in the world. If Trump feels that the attack was justified i believe he should step up and say it because this silence is creating a environment of distress throughout the United States. My question to you, the reader, is do you feel that trumps attack was the start of this and if it continues can it escalate to something worse




http://video.foxnews.com/v/5390738127001/?#sp=show-clipsArticle 1 Article 2 Article 3   Article 4

Terror attack in Egypt is America safe from ISIS?

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/israel/2017/april/palm-sunday-bombings-rock-two-egyptian-churchesThis article is about a recent bombing On Sunday morning at St. Mary's Church in Tanta, Egypt, to celebrate Palm Sunday, one of the holiest days of the year for Christians. During the  service, a terrorist bomb ripped through the church, killing at least 27 and wounding more than 70. in jut a  few hours later, a car blew up outside St. Mark's Cathedral in Alexandria killing at least 16 and wounding 41. Both of these attacks were claimed to be from the terrorist group no other than ISIS. its truly unfortunate that these people had to die in such a cruel way the main question is what will our president do in this day and age to prevent an attack like this happening in the U.S.    That doesn't mean to cut off entry into the U.S by putting on a Muslim ban because this act can be seen as unconstitutional and as a violation to the first amendment. i feel like their should be other ways to crack down on terrorist organizations like ISIS without violating other peoples rights and abusing presidential powers. What  do you so pose will happen with this ISIS group and our President? What actions do you think he could make to ensure a saver space for us to live in with out fear of a terror attack happening in the U.S?

 C Week -Trump administration concedes border wall       won't be from 'sea to shining sea


This article is about President Trump and the wall that he would like to build. After reading this article I learnerd that it will cost billions of dollars to make this "wall" that Trump wants. But the only reason why thi is such a big deal, is because he is stressing the fact that he wants the wall. This "wall" has actually been there for a while. "Both under George W. Bush and Barack Obama, the U.S. has built many miles of additional fencing along the border that has significantly reduced crossings." This was stated in the article and many of us didn't know that the "wall" went back to Bush and then came to Obama. The only reason why it wasnt such a big deal was because it wasnt has heavily advertised as Trump is doning it now. Since Bush and Obama, the fencing and the sirvalience that they put up had brought the number of illegal immagrants down by a lot. So there should be no reason why he would want to invest more money into a "wall" that already exist. This will just put us in dept because he expects Mexico to reinburst them back, which will never happen. 



http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-kelly-wall-20170405-story.html

Trump’s U.N. ambassador emerges as fierce but unnuanced voice on foreign policy

Nikki Haley a former South Carolina governor that was given the position of UN ambassador is being the prime example of why we need more experienced people in office. She has no experience with foreign policy so basically she's leading the countries foreign affairs just with her own opinion. Also she spoke on the whole Russia situation and said that the United States isn't interested in lifting any sanctions off of Russia. I find this really strange because 45 has continued in many ways defending the Russians time after time. This shows how chaotic  things are in his administration because the people around him are having a whole different view on the alliances he choose with certain countries. In the article she says this “Everyone at the United Nations is scared to talk to me” about the new U.S. administration’s strong objection to that measure, she told AIPAC. “I want them to know that, look, that happened, but it will never happen again,” she said. “We’re not gong to put up with it.”In this quote you can tell that she is out spoken. Should we make more qualifications for these big positions ? Should we try and train these people who aren't qualified? 




https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trumps-un-ambassador-emerges-as-fierce-but-unnuanced-voice-on-foreign-policy/2017/04/01/0867d926-1637-11e7-833c-503e1f6394c9_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_haley-910pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.e40026e02fd7

Mexico Ready to Play the Corn Card in Trade Talks

In this article it speaks on the still high tensions between Mexico and the United States due to Trumps presidency. During and before Trumps presidency he made many remarks about cutting off ties with Mexico for he believes that they are one of the major sources of Americas problems. In the article it details how Mexico is trying to, in a way, "flex" on America by threatening to turn to places such a Brazil for business. It begins by talking about how Mexico is one of America's major export facets for things like corn. Specifically it states "From the hundreds of millions of tortillas consumed every year to the countless tons of corn-enriched feed that fattens livestock and poultry, corn is perhaps Mexico's most important agricultural commodity, one at the center of its life and culture.Now corn has taken on a new role — as a powerful lever for Mexican officials in the run-up to talks over nafta, the North American Free Trade Agreement ... Much of the corn that Mexico consumes comes from the United States, making it America’s top agricultural export to its southern neighbor." According to this, cutting off ties with Mexico would only hurt Americas economy, for America is not the only place that Mexico can do business with and get the corn that they need(as discussed in the article). The article then goes on to talk about america and mexico are extremely codependent of each other as a lot of money goes into their dealing. In the article it states "American corn shipments to Mexico totaled nearly $2.6 billion last year and are part of an elaborate agricultural trade relationship between the two nations that has helped to interlace their economies. But though the corn business is a tiny fraction of the overall $525 billion in annual trade between the two countries, it has gained outsize importance and become something of a symbol for the nations’ economic codependence." The article also goes on to give alternative arguments. Some people such as Vázquez Salido suggest that this could be good for the countries, mainly mexico, as it will make them a much more independent country. What do you guys think? Do you feel as though this could be a positive thing, as it could end up creating more jobs in Mexico(for internal production of certain crops) or that it will only serve as a detriment? Do you feel like this is the first of many instances in which Donald's mouth could possibly negatively impact the whole country's economy or that this will be a one time thing?  


Link - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/02/world/americas/mexico-corn-nafta-trade.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fus&action=click&contentCollection=us&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=5&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0

A NEW JUDGE HAS ARRIVED?!

This week I wanted to highlight one of the units we talked about this past month which was the justices and the open positon in the supreme court. The current supreme court nominee Neil Gorsuch is scheduled to have a hearing within the next week or such. One of the major criticisms so far that Gorsuch faces is that he is a Trump nominee, which so far has not produce the best candidates for their respective positions. Gorsuch is nominated to take the seat  of the recently deceased supreme court judge Antonin Scalia , with whom he shares an "originalist" philosophy in terms of a constitutional interpretation and making decisions on new amendments. With three liberals four conservatives and a swing judge, Gorsuch taking Scalia's position should not tip the power balance either way. Even with all the pros and cons the Democrats are positive that the republicans can not get the 60 votes needed to end a filibuster even in a republican dominated senate. This is the same thing we have been seeing so far this year of republican nominees being voted against by the democratic party. The situation with the open seat on the supreme court has been long standing since president Obama's term when the seat originally opened. The republicans stood against the democratic nominee and now the democrats are doing the same but will their ever be a decision made? Do you believe that the democrats are justified in withholding the supreme court seat or are they being immature and trying to get back at the republicans. Do you believe that Gorsuch is a good replacement or should there be new perspective brought to the court even if he shares the same ideals as Scalia?https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/home-stretch-for-trumps-supreme-court-nominee-could-forever-alter-the-senate/2017/04/02/2d1fdfb8-17a2-11e7-bcc2-7d1a0973e7b2_story.html?utm_term=.6253cb73f8ef