济南为什么会泌尿系感染(济南早泄手术治疗一般要多少钱) (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 -- Teona Wooldridge was overcome with joy and tears after receiving a ,000 scholarship from a former NBA legend Tuesday night.Wooldridge is a junior at the Charles Tindley Accelerated School in Indianapolis. She had been looking for scholarships and never expected it would happen during a lecture. At the Steward Speaker Series former Los Angeles Lakers great Earvin Magic Johnson randomly chose Wooldridge for the scholarship.  "I was just amazed," Wooldridge said. "For me, it was just a blessing from God."Her parents are youth ministers and teachers with IPS. They said they were grateful for Johnson's generosity."First I thought I was hearing things," Wooldridge's father said. "At first I heard ,000, then ,000 for four years. My heart just dropped. I was so amazed and so grateful."Wooldridge plans on attending Spelman College in Atlanta.  939

It's one of the most frightening new scams to hit in 2018: the porn blackmail scam, or "sextortion" scam.One woman was just targeted and is sharing her story so others don't end up horrified as she was, or worse, losing hundreds of dollars.Linda Wihl is one of the kindest, most clean-living women you'll ever meet. She teaches inner-city children to read through a nonprofit group she started called "Making Sense of Language Arts."  She has a wall full or honors and awards for helping so many children.So you can imagine her surprise when she received an email accusing her of watching porn."They were asking for money to keep quiet, or said they would show pictures of me performing. you know, sex acts." Wihl said.Frightening email says it has goods on youThe email claimed a malware program installed on her laptop caught her visiting porn sites and had a picture of her watching porn taken with her laptop's camera.Her first reaction?"It was bull, for one, because it's not something I do," she said.However, the emailer knew one of her passwords, so she was worried.Wihl's biggest fear wasn't that someone saw her doing something private. It was that a hacker had gotten into her computer, where he could have accessed all sorts of personal information."You don't know who has access and who can use your computer," she said.Fortunately, the security site Krebs on Security says this is just a scam that uses a password stolen from a data breach, possibly the 2012 LinkedIn breach.Wihl didn't send money; she knew the hackers didn't really have anything with which to embarrass her. If you're not quite as saintly as she is, however, you just might fall for it -- especially if you have ever looked at X-rated material on your computer.As always, delete your browser history and don't waste your money.____________________"Don't Waste Your Money" is a registered trademark of Scripps Media, Inc. ("Scripps")."Like" John Matarese on FacebookFollow John on Twitter (@JohnMatarese)For more consumer news and money saving advice, go to www.dontwasteyourmoney.com  2160

It’s taco time. Mookie Betts with the Los Angeles Dodgers helped his team beat the Tampa Bay Rays, and he also helped fans get a free taco.“TACOS ON ME!!!!” the right fielder tweeted out Wednesday morning. 213

Issues of race relations has become a major campaign issue in this year’s presidential election, with the issue getting pushed to the forefront following the Memorial Day death of George Floyd while in Minneapolis police custody.During Thursday’s presidential debate, President Donald Trump declared himself the “least racist person in this room” after he decried the Black Lives Matter movement.“The first time I ever heard of Black Lives Matter, they were chanting ‘pigs in a blanket,’ talking about police,” Trump said. “‘Pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon.’ I said that is a horrible thing. And they were marching down the street. And that was my first glimpse of the black lives matter. I thought it was a terrible thing.“As far as my relationships with all people, I think I have great relationships with all people. I am the least racist person in this room.”Both Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden had a spirited exchange about Biden’s record on race relations. Trump confronted Biden for his support of the Crime Bill in the 1990s while a US Senator.“I said not since Abraham Lincoln has anybody done what I've done for the Black community,” Trump said. “You have done nothing other than the crime bill which put tens of thousands of black men, mostly, in jail.”While there are sections of the bill Biden continues to back, including an assault weapons ban and the Violence Against Women Act, Biden has shied away from backing mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes.“It was a mistake,” Biden said. “I've been trying to change particularly the portion on cocaine. That is why I've been arguing that we should not send anyone to jail for a pure drug offense. They should be going into treatment.”During the discussion on race, Biden attempted to make a personal appeal to Black voters.“I never had to tell my daughter, if she's pulled over, make sure she puts both hands on top of the wheel and don't reach for the glove box, because someone may shoot you,” Biden said. “But a Black parent, no matter how wealthy or how poor they are, has to teach their child, when you are walking down the street, don't have a hood on, make sure that if you get pulled over, yes sir, no sir, hands on top of the wheel, because you are the victim whether you are a person making 0,000 a year or someone who is on food stamps. The fact of the matter is, there is institutional racism in America.”While Trump has previously said that he does not believe there is institutional racism in America, he said that no one has done more for Black Americans in recent history.“Nobody has done more for the Black community than Donald Trump,” he said. “If you look, with the exception of Abraham Lincoln, possible exception, nobody has done what I've done. Criminal justice reform, Obama and Joe didn't do it. I don't even think they tried. They might have wanted to do it, but if you had to see the arms I had to twist to get that done, it was not a pretty picture, and everybody knows it, including some very liberal people that cried in my office -- two weeks later they are out saying, we have to defeat him.” 3120

来源：资阳报