1) The supreme court may review the Texas abortion laws. The Supreme Court will announce on Monday, if they will review it. B. Jessie Hill thinks that the Supreme Court will probably review it. The Texas Attorney General feels it should not be reviewed because he thinks abortions don't meet health regulations.
2) The judge shielded him from the charges. The judge cited a precedent from 125 years ago used originally in the "old west." The Supremacy Clause declares the Constitution, the primary law of the land. Jens David Ohlin said the ruling's impact could be far-reaching.
3) Many of the Longhorns are not excite about the trip but UT did a cultural prep for the trip. The University of Washington's team went through a two week course of learning Mandarin. The trip is an experiment, The president of UT is looking at a possible trip to China next year as well to "engage alumni and explore outreach possibilities." Administrators and coaches are concerned about students missing so much class time.
4) On Sunday history was made because million of people voted in an election to test whether the military's power can be loosened. People lined up in Buddhist temples, schools and government buildings early in the morning to vote in the rain. The day was peaceful and here was no violence or irregularities. The main fight is between Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy and the ruling Union Solidarity Development Party.
5) Pope Francis deemed that stealing financial documents is a crime. The pope said publish in the two books last week did not help, the books say that there is greed in the Vatican. The pope is upset because the operation took advantage of the "illicit act of handing over confidential documentation."
6) The sanctuary cities are Dallas, Austin and Houston. Both authors use quotes to support their evidence. The first article is centered around Greg Abbot while the second one is more about the sanctuary cities. The first cartoon is making fun of the sanctuary cities saying, even though it's illegal for you to cross the border, if you come to these cities you're safe! I don't really have an opinion on the subject.
This editorial page is different because it has two views and two cartoons instead of one of each and that there are no actual editorials on it
(1) Why would they review the law? What about it might be unconstitutional? The law may place an "undue burden" and the court would clarify what an "undue burden" is when it comes to abortion law. (-1)
ReplyDelete(2) How does the Supremacy Clause work in this case? The charges were dismissed because the judge determined that serving on a FEDERAL task force was enough to give a local policeman FEDERAL protection from a local trial. Yes, Ohlin said it could be far-reaching? How far-reaching? (-2)
(4) Who is expected to win? And why is the potential outcome so significant? (-2)
(5) What two discoveries of financial corruption were mentioned in the article? Why is the pope upset about the "elicit act"? (-2)
(6) You don't really discuss the arguments of the two articles fully. You mention what topics are brought up but not the opinion expressed by each author. You discuss the first cartoon adequately but ignore the second. (-3)
90
(1) Why would they review the law? What about it might be unconstitutional? The law may place an "undue burden" and the court would clarify what an "undue burden" is when it comes to abortion law. (-1)
ReplyDelete(2) How does the Supremacy Clause work in this case? The charges were dismissed because the judge determined that serving on a FEDERAL task force was enough to give a local policeman FEDERAL protection from a local trial. Yes, Ohlin said it could be far-reaching? How far-reaching? (-2)
(4) Who is expected to win? And why is the potential outcome so significant? (-2)
(5) What two discoveries of financial corruption were mentioned in the article? Why is the pope upset about the "elicit act"? (-2)
(6) You don't really discuss the arguments of the two articles fully. You mention what topics are brought up but not the opinion expressed by each author. You discuss the first cartoon adequately but ignore the second. (-3)
90