沈阳哪个医院治荨麻疹有经验(沈阳哪家医院看脸上白癜风比较好) (今日更新中)

The U.S. Constitution states in order to be president, you must be 35 years of age, a natural born citizen, and must have lived in the United States for at least 14 years. To become vice president, you have to be eligible to become president.Sen. Kamala Harris, 55, was born in Oakland, California, in 1964 and a US citizen at birth. Akin to the controversy he tried to stir during the Barack Obama's Presidency, President Donald Trump suggested on Thursday that Harris isn’t eligible to run for vice president.Harris on Tuesday was announced as Joe Biden’s running mate on this year’s Democratic presidential ticket."I heard it today that she doesn't meet the requirements. And, by the way, the lawyer that wrote that piece is a very qualified, very talented lawyer,” Trump said.On Thursday, Newsweek published an op-ed questioning her eligibility. Newsweek defended the op-ed's publication. The argument that the op-ed makes, penned by John C. Eastman, is that Harris isn't a natural born citizen because her parents were not US citizens at the time of her birth. The issue Eastman raises is that the US constitution does not define "natural born citizen." But the 14th amendment clearly states that those born on US soil are citizens at birth."All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside," the amendment reads.Similar controversies have transpired when Sens. John McCain and Ted Cruz ran for president. Both were US citizens at birth, but were not born on US soil. Harris was born to two immigrant parents, a Jamaican father and Indian mother. According to his official college biography, Harris’ father Donald J. Harris was born a Jamaican citizen but has naturalized as an American citizen. Donald J. Harris is a professor emeritus at Stanford.According to her official obituary, the senator’s mother Shyamala Gopalan Harris, who died in 2009, came to the United States as a teenager and began participating in the Civil Rights Movement. She then became a cancer researcher at UC Berkeley. 2124

The state of Massachusetts has ordered that children 6 months of age or older must obtain a flu vaccine by the end of December to attend any daycare, school or college in the state starting in January.The August 20 announcement was met with protest on Sunday. Hundreds held a protest in Boston, demanding the state rescind the order."They are forcing to inject something into our child and we don't agree with it,” protester Mike Megna told WBZ."I've been really stressed out about it. I am thinking of having home schooling until this gets reversed, but I am not going to let them pressure me to get the flu shot,” Jennifer Cordy also told WBZ. Cordy is the mother of 10-year-old student Xavier Cordy.But officials say that the flu vaccine is an important way for public health officials to reduce hospitalizations and deaths, even though the vaccine won’t provide protection from the coronavirus.“Every year, thousands of people of all ages are affected by influenza, leading to many hospitalizations and deaths,” said Dr. Larry Madoff, a medical director with the state's Department of Public Health. “It is more important now than ever to get a flu vaccine because flu symptoms are very similar to those of COVID-19 and preventing the flu will save lives and preserve healthcare resources.”The state is providing exemptions for medical or religious based reasons. Massachusetts is also exempting K-12 homeschoolers as well as college students who are fully off campus and do not attend in-person classes. There is not an exemption for K-12 students who are partaking in virtual learning through their school. 1620

The White House on Monday backed down from its threats to revoke Jim Acosta's press pass."Having received a formal reply from your counsel to our letter of November 16, we have made a final determination in this process: your hard pass is restored," the White House said in a new letter to Acosta. "Should you refuse to follow these rules in the future, we will take action in accordance with the rules set forth above. The President is aware of this decision and concurs."The letter detailed several new rules for reporter conduct at presidential press conferences, including "a single question" from each journalist. Follow-ups will only be permitted "at the discretion of the President or other White House officials."The decision reverses a Friday letter by the White House that said Acosta's press pass could be revoked again right after a temporary restraining order granted by a federal judge expires. That letter -- signed by two of the defendants in the suit, press secretary Sarah Sanders and deputy chief of staff for communications Bill Shine -- cited Acosta's conduct at President Trump's November 7 press conference, where he asked multiple follow-up questions and didn't give up the microphone right away."You failed to abide" by "basic, widely understood practices," the letter to Acosta claimed.CNN won the temporary restraining order earlier on Friday, forcing the White House to restore Acosta's press access for 14 days. Judge Timothy J. Kelly ruled on Fifth Amendment grounds, saying Acosta's right to due process had been violated. He did not rule on CNN's argument that the revocation of Acosta's press pass was a violation of his and the network's First Amendment rights.Many journalists have challenged the administration's actions against Acosta, pointing out that aggressive questioning is a tradition that dates back decades.But Trump appeared eager to advance an argument about White House press corps "decorum," no matter how hypocritical.Since the judge criticized the government for not following due process before banning Acosta on November 7, the letter looked like an effort to establish a paper trail that could empower the administration to boot Acosta again at the end of the month.The letter gave Acosta less than 48 hours to contest the "preliminary decision" and said a "final determination" would be made by Monday at 3 p.m.CNN's lawyers had signaled a willingness to settle after prevailing in court on Friday. Ted Boutrous, an attorney representing CNN and Acosta, said they would welcome "a resolution that makes the most sense so everyone can get out of court and get back to their work."But in a new court filing on Monday morning, CNN's lawyers said the defendants "did not respond to this offer to cooperate." Instead, the letter from Shine and Sanders was an "attempt to provide retroactive due process," the filing alleged.So CNN and Acosta asked the judge to set a schedule of deadlines for motions and hearings that would give the network the chance to win a preliminary injunction, a longer form of court-ordered protection to Acosta's press pass.They were seeking a hearing "for the week of November 26, 2018, or as soon thereafter as possible," according to the court filing.A preliminary injunction could be in effect for much longer than the temporary restraining order, thereby protecting Acosta's access to the White House.In a response Monday morning, government lawyers called the CNN motion a "self-styled 'emergency'" and sought to portray the White House's moves as a lawful next step."Far from constituting an 'emergency,' the White House's initiation of a process to consider suspending Mr. Acosta's hard pass is something this Court's Order anticipated," they said.The DOJ lawyers continued to say that the White House had made "no final determination" on Acosta's access, and asked the court to extend its own deadline, set last week, for a status report due at 3 p.m. Monday, in light of the White House's separate self-imposed deadline for the Acosta decision.At lunchtime, Kelly granted the government's request and extended the status report deadline to 6 p.m. Monday.The case was assigned to Judge Kelly when CNN filed suit last Tuesday. Kelly was appointed to the bench by Trump last year, and confirmed with bipartisan support in the Senate. He heard oral arguments on Wednesday and granted CNN's request for a temporary restraining order on Friday."We are disappointed with the district court's decision," the Justice Department said in response at the time. "The President has broad authority to regulate access to the White House, including to ensure fair and orderly White House events and press conferences. We look forward to continuing to defend the White House's lawful actions."Trump seemed to shrug off the loss, telling Fox's Chris Wallace in an interview that "it's not a big deal."He said the White House would "create rules and regulations for conduct" so that the administration can revoke press passes in the future."If he misbehaves," Trump said, apparently referring to Acosta, "we'll throw him out or we'll stop the news conference.""This is a high-risk confrontation for both sides," Mike Allen of Axios wrote in a Monday item about Trump's new targeting of Acosta. "It turns out that press access to the White House is grounded very much in tradition rather than in plain-letter law. So a court fight could result in a precedent that curtails freedom to cover the most powerful official in the world from the literal front row."The-CNN-Wire 5546

The US Food and Drug Administration has again expanded the list of recalled medications that contain valsartan, used as a component in a set of drugs to treat heart failure and blood pressure.The expanded list was posted Monday.The FDA announced an initial recall in July after lab tests revealed that some drugs could have been tainted with a substance that may lead to a higher risk of cancer. The drug had been recalled in 22 other countries.The expanded recall includes some drugs that contain valsartan and hydrochlorothisazide, but not all drugs containing valsartan are affected. 594

The US stock market sank deeper into the red following sluggish economic reports on Monday and bad news from a couple of blue-chip giants.The Dow fell 600 points by late afternoon, or 2.6%. The S&P 500 lost 2.6% and retreated to its lowest level of the year. And the Nasdaq joined the Dow & S&P 500 in negative territory for 2018. All three indexes have plunged about 7% so far this December.The Dow closed down 507 points for the day.And the Russell 2000 index of small-cap stocks tumbled into a bear market, marking a 20% decline from the record highs notched in late August.A weaker reading from the New York Federal Reserve about manufacturing in the Empire State and a drop in confidence from the nation's homebuilders weighed on the markets."Investors are zeroing in on this idea of slower growth for 2019," said Michael Arone, chief investment strategist at State Street Global Advisors. "More people are worried about a recession in late 2019 or 2020."The political noise in Washington isn't helping either. President Trump, in a tweet Monday morning, repeated his criticism of the Federal Reserve for its recent rate hikes. The Fed meets Wednesday and is widely expected to raise rates again.But Trump tweeted that "it is incredible that with a very strong dollar and virtually no inflation, the outside world blowing up around us, Paris is burning and China way down, the Fed is even considering yet another interest rate hike. Take the Victory!"The Fed is supposed to be politically independent. Any evidence that it might be swayed by attacks from Trump could unnerve the markets."If the Fed doesn't raise rates it will look like it's succumbing to the bullying of Trump's tweets," Arone said.But Nancy Perez, managing director at Boston Private, said the Fed is likely to slow down its pace of rate hikes in 2019 simply because the economy is slowing, not because of pressure from Trump.Perez added that the recent market turmoil is justified because investors are readjusting to this fact."We have been getting a bump in profit margins due to lower taxes but the earnings growth itself is not sustainable," Perez said. "Projections will come down and volatility will continue." 2247

来源：资阳报