昌吉验孕棒晚上测两道杠(昌吉男性前列腺炎的医院) (今日更新中)

Infrastructure spending going to be a hot topic in the upcoming midterm elections, with many asking, how are we going to pay to fix America’s aging roads?Correspondent Nicole Vowell traveled to Rhode Island, the smallest state with some of the biggest infrastructure problems.The tiny part of New England spans only about 1,500 square miles and is one of the oldest states. Combined with Rhode Island being nearly 33 percent water, the state is fighting a tough battle to keep roads and bridges intact.Casey Dinges, director of the American Society of Civil Engineers, says one in four of their bridges is structurally deficient. That means, he says, safety standards are ramped up."That bridge will be inspected every year, instead of the standard every two years,” explains Dinges of one of the bridges in the area.The Ocean State may be facing the most worries, but Dinges says, overall, the U.S. just isn't that structurally sound.Last year, Rhode Island earned a dismal D+ infrastructure rating."We've been deferring maintenance and under investing in our infrastructure for decades,” Dinges says of the rating.Of the nearly 800 bridges in the state, approximately 200 of them are considered structurally deficient, which is costing taxpayers millions of dollars to fix.Dinges says for every family in the U.S., it amounts to about per day.The overall goal, Didges says, is for federal and local government to get on board and invest over the next 10 years to upgrade America’s infrastructure."The allocations for what the state needs has not been enough,” Dinges says. 1585

It took Congress almost nine months, but they have finally agreed on another stimulus pkg. The deal provides a one-time stimulus check, extends the eviction mortarium another month, and adds an additional 0 supplemental to extended unemployment benefits.In total, it’s a 0 billion plan that now protects roughly 40 million Americans from potentially being evicted from their homes and prevents 12 million Americans from losing out on unemployment benefits.“It is a success and a win because that won’t happen,” said Stephanie Freed, “Beyond that, it’s not much of a win.”Stephanie Freed is among millions of Americans who are unemployed and have already expired out of unemployment benefits. Under the new deal, she will be able to now apply for unemployment again and will be eligible for the additional 0 weekly supplemental. However, even with reinstated and slightly higher benefits, it will still be a struggle to get by.“The 0 is half of what people needed to survive, and the bigger problem is that it is not retroactive,” said Freed. “There has been five months with no additional benefit, state UI is not a livable wage.”Freed has created an online organization called ExtendPUA in order to help others who are also struggling with unemployment during the pandemic. There are members of Extend PUA that have been getting as little as a week in unemployment benefits since the 0 federal supplemental dropped off in July.Grant McDonald is the co-founder of Extend PUA and knows firsthand that state unemployment benefits alone are not enough to survive. Like many, he has had to drain his savings and take on significant debt to just keep him barely afloat.“Personally, I have not kept up with the number because I have just been trying to keep up with it all,” said McDonald. “I am just trying to pay as much as I can and watch my savings slowly disappear.”In the latest stimulus package, Congress did agree on a 0 stimulus check that some say could help with debt accumulated.“I think 0 is what rich people think poor people think is a lot of money, when in reality, that additional 0 plus the 0, one-time, is not going to help anyone pay any of the accumulated debts,” McDonald added.For Freed, McDonald, and the thousands of unemployed people who have reached out to Extend PUA, the new stimulus deal is something, but nothing close to what they’ve been waiting nearly nine months for.“We understand there are some wins here but mostly it means that we have to keep fighting,” said Freed.The Biden administration has called this latest package a “down payment” to the American people, signaling an expectation for yet another more robust stimulus deal. Members of Congress, on both sides of the aisle, have also mentioned a need for another stimulus deal soon. However, similar messaging was heard after the passage of the CARES Act, and then it took nearly nine months to see a significantly smaller relief package. 2965

It may not be as oft-quoted as the First Amendment or as contested as the Second Amendment, but the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution plays a critical role in supporting some of our closest-held notions of American freedom and equality.For one, it clearly states that American citizenship is a birthright for all people who are born on American soil -- something that President Donald Trump has announced he wants to end. Not only would this unravel 150 years of American law, it would loosen a significant cornerstone of the Constitution's interpretation of American identity.In order to better understand this part of the 14th Amendment, we asked two experts in constitutional and immigration law to walk us through the first section. The amendment has five sections, but we will only be dealing with the first, which contains the Citizenship Clause and three other related clauses.But first, some historyThe 14th Amendment is known as a Reconstruction amendment, because it was added to the Constitution after the Civil War in 1868. That places it at an important historical crossroads, when lingering wounds of divisiveness and animosity still plagued the nation and the reality of a post-slavery America begged contentious racial and social questions."Thomas Jefferson said men were created equal, but the original Constitution betrayed that promise by allowing for slavery," says Jeffrey Rosen. "The 13th, 14th and 15th amendments were designed to enshrine Lincoln's promise of a new America."However, as so often is the case, this reaffirmed American ideal fell short of reality. Rosen notes that issues of civil rights and equal treatment continued to be denied to African Americans, LGBT people and other citizens for more than a century after the amendment's ratification.And Erika Lee points out that Native Americans weren't even allowed to become citizens until 1925."Even as [these amendments] were written, obviously there were major built-in inequalities and maybe at the time weren't intended to apply to everyone," Lee says.Why was citizenship by birthright such an important concept?"Citizenship was a central question left open by the original Constitution," says Rosen. "At the time it was written, the Constitution assumed citizenship, but it didn't provide any rules for it. In the infamous Dred Scott decision, the Chief Justice said African Americans can't be citizens of the US and 'had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.'"The US Supreme Court's ruling in the Dred Scott case, named for a slave who unsuccessfully sued for his freedom, has since been widely condemned.READ MORE: Scott v. Sandford"The 14th Amendment was designed to overturn this decision and define citizenship once and for all, and it was based on birthright," Rosen says. "It is really important that it's a vision of citizenship based on land rather than blood. It is an idea that anyone can be an American if they commit themselves to our Constitutional values."What does it mean to be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof?"According to Rosen, this is one of the greatest questions of citizenship. There are two clear examples of people not subject to the jurisdictions of the United States: diplomats and their children, and -- at the time of the 14th Amendment -- Native Americans, who were not recognized as part of the American populace."With those two exceptions, everyone who was physically present in the United States was thought to be under its jurisdiction," Rosen says. "There are numerous Supreme Court cases that reaffirm that understanding, and almost as importantly, there are lots of congressional statutes that assume birthright citizenship."Some scholars, like John Eastman of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, have argued that children of illegal immigrants are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US and thus should not be considered citizens under the Constitution.But Rosen says this is a minority view among constitutional scholars of all political backgrounds."While the Supreme Court has not explicitly ruled [on the instance of children of illegal immigrants], Congress has passed all kinds of laws presuming their citizenship," Rosen says.What is the connection between birthright citizenship and immigration?In 1898, 30 years after the 14th Amendment was adopted, the Supreme Court reached a defining decision in a case known as the United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Lee explains that Wong Kim Ark was the American-born son of Chinese immigrants."Asian immigrants were the first immigrants to the US that couldn't be considered white," Lee says. "So they are treated differently. They are taxed differently, they are stripped of many rights. In the 1880s, they are excluded from immigration and barred from citizenship."READ MORE: The United States v. Wong Kim ArkSo, the main question of the case was, could a person born in America be a citizen in a place where his parents could not be as well? The Supreme Court decided yes, and the case remains the first defining legal decision made under the banner of birthright citizenship."[The Supreme Court's decision] said that the right of citizenship is not a matter of inheritance, that it never descends from generation to generation, it is related to where you're born," Lee says. "It's about the power of place. That has been a very expansive, and at the time, a corrective measure to a more exclusionary definition both legally as well as culturally as to what an American is."Why must it be stated that the privileges of citizenship need to be protected?Before the Civil War, states didn't necessarily have to follow the provisions stated in the Bill of Rights; only Congress had to. The 14th Amendment changed that."This second sentence of the Amendment means that states have to respect the Bill of Rights as well as basic civil rights and the rights that come along with citizenship," Rosen says. "The idea was that there were rights that were so basic; so integral to citizenship that they could not be narrowed by the states."Despite the promises and protections of citizenship, Lee says it is abundantly clear that different racial groups were, and often are, seen as unable or unworthy to function as true American citizens. After all, basic rights of citizenship, like suffrage and equal treatment, were denied certain racial groups for a hundred years after the 14th Amendment."The idea of a law applying to 'all people' seems to be clear. But in reality, the debate and the laws and practices that get established are very much based on a hierarchy of, well sure, all persons, but some are more fit and some are more deserving than others," she says.Throughout history, Asian immigrants, Mexican immigrants, Muslim immigrants and their children, to name a few, have had unspoken cultural caveats applied to their ability to be Americans."For Asian immigrants, the racial argument at the time was that 'It didn't matter whether one were born in the US or not, Asians as a race, are unassimilable. They are diametrically opposite from us Americans,'" Lee says."That was the argument that was used to intern Japanese citizens. It was the denial of citizenship in favor of race: 'The ability to become American, the ability to assimilate, they just didn't have it.'"Why was it important to legalize rights for non-citizens?So far, we've covered the first clause, the Citizenship Clause, and the second, the Privileges and Immunities Clause. These both deal with American citizens.The final two clauses, the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection clause, are a little different, and deal with the rights of all people in the United States.Eagle-eyed Constitution readers will notice that the 14th Amendment contains a "due process" clause very similar to the Fifth Amendment. This, says Rosen, was a technical addition to ensure the Fifth Amendment wasn't theoretically narrowed down to protect only American citizens."The 14th Amendment distinguishes between the privileges of citizenship and the privileges of all people," Rosen says. "The framers [of the amendment] thought there were certain rights that were so important that they should be extended to all persons, and in order to specify that they needed a new 'due process' clause."What does it mean to have 'equal protection of the laws'?"At the time following the Civil War, at its core, it meant all persons had the right to be protected by the police, that the laws of the country should protect all people," Rosen says. "In the 20th century, more broader questions were litigated under the 14th Amendment, like Brown v. Board of Education -- whether segregation was constitutional. Cases involving the internment of Japanese citizens, case from the marriage equality decisions, even Roe vs. Wade have strains of equal protection language and invoke due process law."READ MORE: Brown v. Board of EducationAnother interesting case that speaks directly to the immigration side of the 14th Amendment debate is the 1982 case of Plyler v. Doe, in which the Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional for the state of Texas to deny funding for undocumented immigrant children.READ MORE: Plyler v. DoeWhy are we talking about all this right now?This week,?Trump vowed to end the right to citizenship for the children of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on US soil.But his interest in repealing birthright citizenship isn't a new idea. Lee says for the last 30 years or so, there have been several overtures by the political right to explore "citizenship reform," a timeline that she says aligns with the ascendancy of modern American conservatism.Lee fears if the current push to end birthright citizenship is successful, it could have wider implications than most people assume. People from other countries who are here legally on work or student visas, for instance, could have children who do not legally belong to the only country they know."There have been attempts since the 1990s to break away birthright citizenship, or narrow it down, and it did not seem that they would have a chance at succeeding until now," she says."To me this not only reflects the ascendancy of an extreme right position but also a return to a very narrow and exclusionary definition of Americanness." 10356

It will cost a little less to buy Obamacare coverage in 2019.The average premium for the benchmark silver plan will decline by 1.5%, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said Thursday.It's the first time average premiums have fallen since the Affordable Care Act exchanges opened in 2014 — but the decline comes after a 37% spike for this year's benchmark silver plan.Americans who buy those plans will save a month over this year's rate, on average, but will still be paying 5 more a month than in 2017.Premiums vary across the 39 states that use the federal exchange. The biggest drop will be in Tennessee, where premiums will fall by more than 26%.The vast majority of Obamacare enrollees are not affected by annual premium changes because they receive federal subsidies to offset the cost. 819

In the hectic eight days after President Donald Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and top FBI officials viewed Trump as a leader who needed to be reined in, according to two sources describing the sentiment at the time.They discussed a range of options, including the idea of Rosenstein wearing a wire while speaking with Trump, which Rosenstein later denied. Ultimately, then-acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe took the extraordinary step of opening an obstruction of justice investigation even before special counsel Robert Mueller was appointed, the sources said. The obstruction probe was an idea the FBI had previously considered, but it didn't start until after Comey was fired. The justification went beyond Trump's firing of Comey, according to the sources, and also included the President's conversation with Comey in the Oval Office asking him to drop the investigation into his former national security adviser Michael Flynn.The new details about the genesis of the obstruction case into Trump that became a key element of the Mueller probe shed light on the chaotic week following Comey's firing and the scramble to decide how best to respond. They also help to explain the origins of the Mueller investigation that has stretched across 19 months, consumed Trump's presidency and is building toward a dramatic day of courtroom filings on Friday.A Justice Department official strongly disputed Rosenstein sought to curb the President, emphasizing that his conversations with McCabe were simply about talking through ways to conduct the investigation. "He never said anything like that," the source added.Other sources said that the FBI would only take such dramatic action if officials suspected a crime had been committed. But Rosenstein and other senior FBI officials also had deep concerns about Trump's behavior and thought he needed to be checked, according to the sources.A spokeswoman for McCabe did not provide comment for this story."It's shocking that the FBI would open up an obstruction case for the President exercising his authority under Article II," said the President's attorney Rudy Giuliani.The Washington Post first reported last year that the obstruction investigation started before Mueller's appointment, but the sources offered a more complete picture of the drastic actions law enforcement leaders took during that feverish period.Prior to Comey's firing, top FBI officials had discussed opening an obstruction investigation based on the President saying to Comey, "I hope you can let this go" when discussing Flynn. That episode was later described in memos Comey wrote following the February meeting that the former FBI director would leak soon after his firing.Comey's attorney did not comment for this story, but pointed to Comey's 2017 testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee.Comey, however, hinted at the discussion in his book."We resolved to figure out down the road what to do with the president's request and its implications as our investigation progressed," he wrote.Then, on May 9, Comey was fired.The subsequent meetings led by Rosenstein and McCabe were held soon after the White House made clear that Rosenstein's memo addressing concerns about Comey's conduct during the Hillary Clinton probe was central to the President's decision. One of the sources likened it to "spitballing" about potential steps in the mold of "What are the options. What makes sense. What doesn't?"For the deputy attorney general, the obstruction investigation into Trump and the appointment of the special counsel has turned his entire Justice Department tenure into an awkward role of supervising the Mueller investigation after he -- voluntarily, sources said -- wrote the memo justifying Comey's firing. Critics have argued the Comey memo makes Rosenstein a potential witness in the obstruction case.  3895

来源：资阳报