中山看脱肛哪里比较好中山怎么治肛门瘙痒,中山哪有治肛裂的医院,中山那家医院肛裂专业,中山肛泰医院治疗什么,中山便秘的解决办法,中山屁眼为什么出血,中山大便拉稀后出血

INDIANAPOLIS -- For the more than 100 supporters who crowded a second-floor meeting room – and overflowed into a ninth-floor ballroom – the United Methodist Church’s hearing in Indianapolis Friday about Rev. David Meredith was a referendum on their own place in the church.Meredith, an openly gay man who has served as the pastor of Clifton United Methodist Church in Cincinnati since 2012, was called to Indianapolis for a hearing before the UMC’s North Central Jurisdictional Committee on Appeals.At issue is whether his 2016 marriage to his partner of three decades, Jim Schlachter, disqualifies him from remaining as an ordained minister within the UMC.READ MORE | Gay United Methodist Church pastor to stand 'trial' in IndianapolisThe challenge was raised by a group of 11 UMC denomination members, including at least two fellow clergymen, shortly after Meredith and Shlachter’s wedding. In letters sent to the UMC’s West Ohio Conference, the objectors cited the denomination’s Book of Discipline, which states that homosexuality is “incompatible” with Christian teaching:“While persons set apart by the Church for ordained ministry are subject to all the frailties of the human condition and the pressures of society, they are required to maintain the highest standards of holy living in the world. The practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. Therefore self-avowed practicing homosexuals are not to be certified as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church.” 1550

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’s no secret we’re living in a very divisive time right now. It seems to be Democrats versus Republicans, or conservatives versus liberals. Whether it’s a family member or life partner, many of us are living with someone of an opposing viewpoint.In recent years, Jim Ryan has gotten used to playing pool by himself, but of course, he’d rather not play alone. He says in his old age he’s really appreciated having somebody else by his side.“I’m a widower and it’s nice to have a significant other that can help you out, and you can help them out,” Ryan said.Two and a half years ago, he met a new partner, but it didn’t take long to find out their political opinions were very different. He says he’s been a lifelong Democrat, and she’s a Republican. In a game of pool, if he were solids, she’d be stripes.“She said well, ‘Is that a dealbreaker since we’re opposite viewpoints?’ And I said 'Well, let me get back to you on that’ and we’ve been dating ever since,” Ryan said.Even though their feelings for each other are mutual, Ryan’s partner did not want to be identified in this story. He says she told him there’s too much tension between parties right now. Nonetheless, they have found a way to continue loving each other regardless of their political differences.“Politics, like religion, can be a game changer,” Couple's Counselor Ray Wynfield said.Ray Wynfield has been a couple’s counselor for nearly four decades. He says he offers advice to couples who politically disagree.“It’s a choice, people need to know it’s a choice. You can end a relationship over a church or religion, you can a relationship over politics – over Trump and Biden.”However, if you want to keep the peace between you and your significant other, or another family member, Wynfield says there’s a simple solution.“Don’t discuss it," Wynfield said. "Unless you can discuss it in a kind and respectful way where both people’s opinions and both people’s positions are respected.”Ryan says that’s something he often practices.“There are times where I have to bite my lip, and usually I’m the one that bites my lip,” Ryan said.According to Wynfield, if you and a loved one are struggling to get along in the midst of election season, you can work on skills to find peace between each other.“We need good communication skills, we need skills on how to be aware of our emotions, how to be aware of other people’s emotions,” Wynfield said.If you really do want to discuss politics, he says you shouldn’t react to another person’s views in a hateful way.“Even if you don’t like their candidate, even if you don’t respect their candidate, even if you think their candidate is evil, you don’t say that,” Wynfield said.In his 70 years of life, Ryan says he’s had civil conversations with people of opposing viewpoints. He’d like to see the same happen at the Capitol and all over the country.“I have a lot of friends that are lifelong Republicans and we get along just fine,” Ryan said.Above all else, Wynfield says we need to focus on the good our loving relationships bring us. He says there is so much more to each of us than our political affiliation.“What I hope people do in the next two weeks and after the election regardless of the results – that people can be kind and loving to each other and really appreciate the magic that they can have with a special friend,” Wynfield said. 3368

It looked down over Celina, Tennessee like a watchful eye, and for decades, Cumberland River Hospital provided a sense of security for this struggling rural county.But now, the hospital sits empty and dark; its hallways filled with silence. The death of this county’s only hospital has thrust this place into darkness, and dozens more like it across the country are potentially about to suffer the same fate.“We are seeing a huge divide in healthcare among Americans,” explained Johnny Presley, the owner of this small rural hospital.Hospitals across the country are struggling now more than ever, as patients are still avoiding elective surgeries because of COVID-19. Those are the bread and butter of most hospital's bottom line.In Celina, Tennessee, a town of about 1,400 people, the hospital also served as the county’s biggest employer. Presley spent months fighting with Medicare for reimbursement payments until he was finally forced to close the emergency room.He’s poured million of his own money into the hospital in an attempt to save its life.“When people can’t live in the rural communities they grew up in without access to healthcare, it’s almost like you’re in a prison,” he said.The cruel irony of a hospital closing in the middle of a pandemic is not lost on anyone who lives in this or any other rural community in America. At this hospital alone, they were able to stabilize or save more than a dozen COVID-19 patients over the past few months. Patients that now will be forced to drive more than an hour for care to the next closest emergency room.“So, many people are going to die. They’re gonna die because they don’t get the emergency care they need,” said Stephen Headrick, who lives in Celina and has relied on this emergency room countless times over the years.Since 2005, a staggering 174 rural hospitals have shut down nationwide. Fifteen of those closures happened this year alone, leaving a vacuum of care in their absence. Texas and Tennessee lead the nation in hospital closures.By the end of this year, hospitals across the country are expected to lose more than 0 billion, a staggering statistic that ripples far beyond the walls of any emergency room.When Cumberland River closed, nearly 100 doctors, nurses and staff were let go. By some estimates, 2020 may end up claiming the lives of nearly 200 more hospitals.“To keep our hospitals open during this pandemic, the government has to intervene,” Presley explained.With federal aid, Presley could reopen the hospital tomorrow, but so far, his pleas to politicians have gone unanswered.“I think it’s just a travesty that this country is going through. This country is so polarized that the most basic human needs of food and healthcare are being overlooked,” he said.Rural lifelines are on life support as American lives hang in the balance. 2841

INTERACTIVE MAPS: HILL & WOOLSEY FIRE | CAMP FIRECALABASAS, Calif. (KGTV) — The Woolsey Fire ripped through a Calabasas neighborhood late Friday night, causing panic to neighbors who tried to stay behind to protect their home."You got these firebombs falling down, and the wind is blowing them all this way," Allen Nelson described of palm fronds catching fire, raining down on homes causing them to go up in smoke.Neighbors told 10News the fire wasn't a steady line that inched closer, instead fueled by strong Santa Ana winds that brought embers skipping over roofs and lighting patches feet ahead of the fire line.RELATED: How to help California wildfire victimsThey said it felt like the fire leaped toward their neighborhood."A huge wall of flames, I had evacuated in a panic with my kids and my cats," Tina Leeney said."When it came that time, we didn't even have a minute and it was like oh my gosh and I got my parents out and I was like you have to leave," Nelson said.He stayed behind, determined to protect his parents' home, perched on his roof, garden hose at the ready.RELATED: Hollywood's Western Town at Paramount Ranch destroyed in Woolsey Fire"I at some point got off my roof, climbed up that Juniper tree that you can see so I could get my hose up on because the flames on her roof were this high," Nelson said, referencing about two feet between his hands.He called out to a firefighter nearby and pleaded for him to spray the corner of her house to extinguish the flame."He's totally my hero," Leeney said when she came back to check on the neighborhood and climbed onto his roof she heard what he'd done and started crying and thanking him.RELATED: Tips for navigating a wildfire evacuationHe was modest taking her appreciation, and while he was glad to help save his neighbors' homes on either side of his parents' home, he is devastated looking across the street."It's just heartbreaking," Nelson said with a sigh. 2016