High Schooler Suing School for Banning her MAGA Hat

A Senior at Clovis North High School in Fresno, Maddie Mueller, is suing her school for banning her from wearing a MAGA to school. Mueller believes it is her first amendment right to be able to wear the hat. Mueller is a part of a Conservative activist group called The Valley Patriots, and the group wore their MAGA hats to school on February 20th, the day she got dress coded. She explains, “I don’t care if I offend anybody. I’m just showing support for the president and what I believe.” Mueller had been dress coded in the past as well, for wearing a “Build that wall” shirt.

Clovis Unified School District Chief Communication Officer Kelly Avants reasoned that the dress code is meant to allow kids to feel safe at school and free of distractions. The school claims to have no problems with Maddies politics, but do have an issue with the hat causing disruptions at school.

This issue relates to the rights of students at public school, and to what degree their freedom of speech can be limited while on school grounds.  The First Amendment guarantees the freedom of speech, including conveying political messages. However, Avants argues that that right is not absolute, particularly students in public high school like Clovis North. Although it is understandable that it his  her first amendment right to able to wear the hat to school, if the hat is causing disruptions and arguments on school grounds, does the school have the right to ban the hat?

Questions:

1)Do you believe Mueller should be able to wear her hat to school?

2)Does the school have a right to ban her from wearing the hat, even if she has the right to convey political messages in the First Amendment?

3)Do you believe Mueller will succeed in suing the school?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/02/22/teen-was-told-her-maga-hat-violates-school-code-shes-fighting-back/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9b9f727745f4

Cohen Makes Explosive Testimonies Against Trump Under Oath to Congress

Cohen taking oath in front of Congress

Summary
In his hearing in front of the House Oversight and Reform Committee, Michael Cohen, Trump's former lawyer for 10 years made explosive accusations against Trump under oath, stating that he "is a racist. He is a con man. And he is a cheat." Among the accusations, Cohen asserts that Trump lied and made Cohen lie to the public about various issues such as his business dealings in Russia (ex. Trump Moscow), stolen Democratic emails and payments to cover up his sexual affairs. Cohen supported his claims by providing documents such as checks issued by Trump to him, contradicting Trump's previous statements. While Cohen denied allegations of visiting Prague in 2016 to collude with Russians, Cohen pleaded guilty to previously lying under oath and other charges against him, stating that he did it to protect Trump, though now he will not. Cohen's testimony thus implicates Trump for federal crimes. 

While Democrats took Cohen's testimony as a proof of Trump having committed crimes during office, Republicans still stood by Trump, challenging Cohen throughout the hearing in addition to coining him as a liar and claiming that the hearing is organized by Democrats seeking to kick Trump out of office. Though not so consistent with the specific details, Cohen's general perspective of Trump aligns with most of Trump's closest advisers and staff who have left him.

In response, Trump has lashed out against Democrats for scheduling the hearing to take place during the same time as his summit with Kim Jong Un in Vietnam and repeatedly called Cohen a liar without providing much evidence on Twitter.

Michael Cohen's testimony in front of Congress parallels with that of John Dean's against President Richard Nixon during the Watergate scandal. Both testimonies were from close aides of the Presidents that implicates them for crime in front of Congress.

Questions

1. Given that he lied under oath in the previous hearing, how much of Cohen's testimony this time is true? What motivates him to speak out against Trump?
2. What consequences do you think Cohen's testimony will have on Trump? 
3. Why do you think the Republicans still stand by Trump? How far can Trump go before the Republicans withdraw their support for him?

Sources

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/27/us/politics/michael-cohen-trump.html

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/28/politics/donald-trump-michael-cohen-liar/index.html

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/27/politics/michael-cohen-prague-testimony-russia/index.html

Trump and Kim Jong Un Meet Again

Link


Trump began his summit in Hanoi, Vietnam with Kim Jong Un quite unconventionally. Both he and Kim enjoyed a one-on-one discussion prior to eating dinner together Wednesday evening. This meeting will test the two leaders abilities to get some real progress in limiting North Korea's nuclear programs. Although the two met last year in Singapore, there was very little tangible progress despite their cordial behavior. During their meeting, Trump expressed his admiration for the North Korean dictator. He also explained that he hopes to help North Korea grow economically in exchange for surrendering their atomic weapons program. Kim Jong Un also hopes that he and Trump will be more successful with their negotiations this time. Their summit is happening in the midst of Michael Cohen's testimonies in Washington which could cast a shadow over any of Trump's progress with North Korea. The current investigation puts pressure on Trump to come out of Hanoi with a substantial agreement. North Korea has indicated that they would like major sanctions relief in return for closing their nuclear program. The question is how flexible the U.S. is willing to be in negotiations. I would argue that preventing North Korea from developing an ICBM is crucial to our country's security.

Do you think that Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un will reach a compromise?

How important is reaching an agreement at this summit?

Who do you think will pay the bigger price if an agreement is met? The U.S. or North Korea?

House Vetos Trump's National Emergency Declaration

Link

The Democrat lead House of Representatives has voted to reject Trump's declaration of a National Emergency. This markets the first time that congress has attempted to terminate a national emergency from the president. the vote will lead to a standoff between Democratic leaders in the house and President Trump. The White House has issued a formal veto threat if this bill passes the GOP controlled Senate. According to Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell expects the bill to come up for a vote in the Senate in mid March. When it comes up for a vote there is a Chance it passes the Senate as 3 Republicans saying they would support the bill, only one less than needed to get the bill passed. if the bill passes the Senate it would likely be vetoed by Trump and go back to the Senate for another vote.

Questions
1 do you think this will pass the Senate
2 if the bill passes the Senate, would the president veto the bill
3 what do you think will happen if the bill passes the Senate

21 Savage vs. ICE

Earlier this month on February 3rd, 21 Savage (Abraham-Joseph ) was arrested by the ICE in Atlanta claiming he was from the United Kingdom. The ICE state that Abraham-Joseph entered the U.S legally back in 2005, but never left the country after his non-immigrant visa expired. 

Known for his street hard lyrics representing Zone 6, 21 Savage has always represented Atlanta. So it comes to a big surprise to many of his fans to hear that he was born the in the U.K. But while 21 was incarcerated, his mother came out revealed his birth certificate confirming his nationality.

An attorney for Abraham-Joseph said his representatives were working to secure his release. "We are working diligently to get Mr. Abraham-Joseph out of detention while we work with the authorities to clear up any misunderstandings," Dina LaPolt said in a statement to CNN. "Mr. Abraham-Joseph is a role model to the young people in this country, especially in Atlanta, Georgia, and is actively working in the community leading programs to help underprivileged youths in financial literacy."

With a strong legal team behind his back thanks to Jay Z after 9 days, 21 Savage was finally released on bond pending a deportation hearing. Jonathan Jayes-Green, the director of UndocuBlack, which advocates for undocumented people said there was, “a stark difference” between the support 21 Savage has received compared to other detainees. Along with Black Lives Matter and the Black Alliance for Just Immigration, UndocuBlack created a petition for 21 Savage’s freedom that garnered half a million signatures online and was later hand-delivered to the Atlanta Ice office.

“Most of our folks do not have a fan base,” said Jayes-Green. “There is some privilege in that regard. At the same time, detention is still detention and still hurts as a human being.”

“[His] case is no different than … long-term residents of the US who have overstayed their visa, who have children and other relatives who are US citizens,” said Kuck. There are about "4.2 million black immigrants in the US and 619,000 are undocumented," according to Pew Research Center.

Questions:
1. If you are born in a different country than you grew up in your whole life, should you be deported because that is the law or should sympathy be seen for those who have become accustomed to the country?
2. Should the ICE be convicting him in the manner of going out to arrest him? Or should they have caused less drama by secretly dealing with the issue?
3. How do you feel about 21 Savage and him representing Atlanta while truly not being born from there? Does it truly matter in the end?

Alabama Woman Who Lived Under ISIS Rule Can't Return Home

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/20/world/middleeast/isis-bride-hoda-muthana.html
President Trump and Secretary of State Pompeo has reiterated the point that American-born woman named Hoda Muthana would not be allowed to come back into the US. Pompeo claims that she has no legal basis to return to the country as she travelled to Turkey in 2014 and was smuggled into Syria where she met up with ISIS to urge attacks against the West and US. With ISIS having waning influence in the region, Hoda wants to return to the US where she was born and was deeply sorry for her actions in the Middle East. Hoda did have an American passport before traveling to Turkey and was born in the US, which would make her a citizen. However, Pompeo claims that since Hoda was born to a diplomat from Yemen, any person born to diplomats in the US are under the jurisdiction of their respective countries. After joining Islamic State, the Muthanas received a letter that Hoda's passport has been revoked, although Mr. Muthana proved that he ad nondiplomatic status at the time of Hoda's birth, thus giving her an American passport at the time of her birth. The issue lands on the grounds if Mr. Muthana was a working diplomat at the time of Hoda's birth - thus either giving her legal residency status or citizenship. There have been multiple number of women from Europe and the West that have joined ISIS, who are now being held in Kurdish detention camps.

Should Hoda be allowed to return to the US as a citizen?
On what grounds can Hoda be denied citizenship?
Does her past affiliation with ISIS give grounds for a denial of citizenship?

Trump’s use of Emergency Powers angers many

Context: After not getting any funding for the wall, Trump declared a national emergency. This allowed him to use his emergency powers to allocate some funding to build the wall.

After declaring a national emergency to build the wall, Trump has been sued by many individuals and groups. The most notable examples include California (and 16 other states), Center of Biological Diversity, and the Sierra Club, who all sued Trump for similar reasons (mainly abuse of power and economic/environmental challenges from building the wall).

Many presidents have used emergency powers in the past, but usually hasn't been this much backlash. Furthermore, this wall could severely affect our relationship with Mexico, which could be economically harmful to us.

Q1: Do you think Trump should build the wall, despite no funding?

Q2: What do you think about using the National Emergency Act to push one's agenda?

Q3: What are some potential successes/problems with building a wall?

link