In the article, “The Self-Dealing Presidency of Donald Trump”, written and edited by James Bennet, who is the editorial page editor at the New York Times states that President Trump is exploiting the presidency for his own personal profit, also known as the emolument clause. He provides examples of Trump violating the emolument clause by stating, “Presidents have been generally transparent about their financial holdings, placing assets in blind trusts and releasing their tax returns. Mr. Trump — whose global empire of hotels, real estate, golf courses and other businesses is awash in foreign money — has refused to take those steps.” He also notes that Trump refuses to release any information about his financial standings. Bennet also uses sources such as Brett Shumate, a deputy assistant attorney general, to further push his credibility by stating, “Americans shouldn’t have to worry that their leader’s primary allegiance is to his own financial fortunes.” Bennet also believes that the president should release his business entanglements, debt, and interests so that the general public doesn’t have to worry about if the president has the countries best interests at heart. Bennet’s target audience would be the average American, because this topic not only affects the government, but it also affects the general public’s view of the president. My opinion on the subject would be that it shouldn’t matter if the president releases his financial standings or not because Trump was a business man before he became president, and just because he is the president shouldn’t mean that he needs to release delicate information about his personal businesses. He owns numerous businesses and buildings that contain sensitive information that even I wouldn’t want to be exploited to the general public if I was in Trump’s shoes. Now if this matter directly affects the U.S. government and not just people getting their feelings hurt over the president making a little bit of side money the yes, I do believe that Trump is in violation on the emolument clause. 

     In the article, "Repeal of the Second Amendment", written by Bret Stephens who is Op-Ed columnist on foreign policy and domestic affairs, makes the claim that the government should, "take the guns—or at least the presumptive right to them—away." Stephen backs up his claim with statistical evidence, and common-sense reasoning of homicide rates, and unintentional deaths due to misuse of firearms from credible sources such as Centers for Disease Control, The Washington Post, American Journal of Public Health, and F.B.I. statistics for gun violence. He also sights the Federalist papers and refers to Madison stating that, “I wonder what Madison would have to say about that today, when more than twice as many Americans perished last year at the hands of their fellows as died in battle during the entire Revolutionary War.” Stephens use of sighting Madison is meant to evoke emotion from his intended audience, and to make his audience reflect on the current gun laws that we have in place. His intended audience for his argument is directed toward the average American who is sick and tired of this “wild, wild west” society that we live in. After reading his argument on why we should repeal the second amendment, I would say that Stephens definitely has me in his corner for stricter gun laws, but to completely get rid of the second amendment seems impossible especially when the United States is “gun crazy”. He provides reasons and evidence on why we should repeal the second amendment, but it seems like his argument isn’t a logical solution for gun violence in the United States because not every citizen is just going to give up ownership of their firearms.