哈密不割包皮会痛吗(哈密男人做包茎手术费用是多少) (今日更新中)

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

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

IRAPUATO, Mexico (AP) — Several thousand Central American migrants marked a month on the road Monday as they hitched rides to the western Mexico city of Guadalajara and toward the U.S. border.Most appear intent on taking the Pacific coast route northward to the border city of Tijuana, which is still about 1,550 miles (2,500 kilometers) away. The migrants have come about 1,200 miles (1,900 kilometers) since they started out in Honduras around Oct. 13.But whereas they previously suffered from the heat on their journey through Honduras, Guatemala and southern Mexico, they now trek to highways wrapped in blankets to fend off the morning chill.Karen Martinez of Copan, Honduras and her three children were bundled up with jackets, scarves and a blanket."Sometimes we go along laughing, sometimes crying, but we keep on going," she said.While the caravan previously averaged only about 30 miles (50 kilometers) per day, they are also now covering daily distances of 185 miles (300 kilometers) or more, partly because they are relying on hitchhiking rather than walking.On Monday morning, migrants gathered on a highway leading out of the central city of Irapuato looking for rides to Guadalajara about 150 miles (242 kilometers) away."Now the route is less complicated," Martinez said.Indeed, migrants have hopped aboard so many different kinds of trucks that they are no longer surprised by anything. Some have stacked themselves four levels high on a truck intended for pigs. Others have boarded a truck carrying a shipment of coffins.Many, especially men, travel on open platform trailers used to transport steel and cars, or get in the freight containers of 18-wheelers and ride with one of the back doors open to provide air flow.But the practice is not without dangers.Earlier, a Honduran man in the caravan died when he fell from a platform truck in the Mexican state of Chiapas.Jose Alejandro Caray, 17, of Yoro, Honduras, fell a week ago and injured his knee."I can't bend it," Caray said, as he watched other migrants swarm aboard tractor-trailers."Now I'm afraid to get on," he said. "I prefer to wait for a pickup truck."After several groups got lost after clambering on semitrailers, caravan coordinators began encouraging migrants to ask drivers first or have someone ride in the cab so they could tell the driver where to turn off.Over the weekend, the central state of Queretaro reported 6,531 migrants moving through the state, although another caravan was further behind and expected to arrive in Mexico City on Monday.The caravan became a campaign issue in U.S. midterm elections and U.S. President Donald Trump has ordered the deployment of over 5,000 military troops to the border to fend off the migrants. Trump has insinuated without proof that there are criminals or even terrorists in the group.Many say they are fleeing rampant poverty, gang violence and political instability primarily in the Central American countries of Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador and Nicaragua.Mexico has offered refuge, asylum or work visas, and its government said 2,697 temporary visas had been issued to individuals and families to cover them during the 45-day application process for more permanent status.But most migrants vow to continue to the United States. 3279

INDIANAPOLIS —  When educators lose their licenses due to misconduct, that doesn’t necessarily mean they can no longer work with children in Indiana.Todd Boldry, a teacher and basketball coach in Knox County schools, was arrested and charged for child seduction. The state revoked his teaching license in 2013 when Boldry voluntarily surrendered it in exchange for prosecutors dropping the criminal charges.Boldry went on to work with teens as a basketball coach for Indiana Dawgz, a travel team in northwest Indiana.While schools have to perform background checks when hiring, there’s no standard procedure for non-school sports teams, churches, volunteer groups, and other organizations.“It would surprise me very little,” said Mike McCarty, a former detective and owner of Safe Hiring Solutions, a Danville company that runs background checks on school employees.“Most volunteer organizations that work or serve with children, it’s a policy issue, it’s not a law issue,” McCarty said. “There’s no standard requirement and there’s no standard for what a background check is."McCarty said many groups make the mistake of relying on the state’s sex offender registry before hiring.“These registries can be terribly outdated, and they vary from state to state,” he said. “It’s very easy to be a convicted sex offender but not be required to register as a sex offender based on plea agreements or a reduction in sentence.”Some educators who lost their state licenses after they were convicted of crimes against children were not on the sex offender registry.Bruce Ryan was convicted in 2011 of sexual misconduct with a minor after an inappropriate relationship with a student at Charles A. Tindley School, but he’s not on the sex offender registry.Former MSD of Wayne Township administrator John Maples was convicted in 2013 of disseminating matter harmful to minors.Maples lost his educator license, but he’s not on the sex offender registry.Similarly, ex-IPS counselor Shana Taylor, accused of having sex with students, lost her state license, but is not on the sex offender registry after pleading guilty to three felony counts of dissemination of matter harmful to minors.Since 2012, the Indiana Department of Education has revoked or suspended the licenses of 108 educators including teachers, counselors and administrators.The top reason – child seduction.ISTEP impropriety, sexual misconduct with a minor, battery, child pornography and child exploitations were among the other reasons for educators losing their licenses to work with children.Under state law, the Indiana Department of Education automatically and permanently revokes licenses after certain offenses, such as child molesting, child solicitation, child exploitation, sexual misconduct with a minor and rape. 2791

It’s official: Amazon owns Whole Foods.To mark the acquisition, the e-commerce giant slashed prices on more than a dozen popular products at Whole Foods, including organic avocados, almond butter and rotisserie chicken.This has some wondering whether the grocer commonly referred to as “Whole Paycheck” is suddenly within their budget. The short answer: probably not. 375

来源：资阳报