济南男性射精快原因济南男生下面长了一个疙瘩,济南正规专业男科,济南没几下就射精是什么回事,济南阴茎皮有白点,济南阴茎包皮手术,济南前列腺治好多少钱,济南性疾病治方法

It is the silence that John Christian Phifer loves the most as he walks around the 120 acres of a nature preserve in Gallatin, Tennessee. He considers himself a caretaker of the land.But in these rolling Tennessee hills, if you look close enough, you can see that it's not just the land Phifer is caring for.There are 50 people buried throughout Taylor Hollow, all of which are natural burials. Their graves are marked by simple stones, and there are no expensive caskets. Many of the people buried here were wrapped in quilts or buried in beds of wildflowers.It’s a simpler way to say goodbye, and in recent months, this type of burial is gaining popularity."I think with COVID, one of the things everyone has done is they’ve started thinking about making a plan," Phifer said as he walked through one of the wooded paths.Phifer works for Larkspur Conservation, a nonprofit that describes itself as Tennessee's first nature preserve for natural burials. On this hallowed ground, only green burials are allowed to take place.The pandemic has led to an increase in the number of people looking at natural burial options. Natural burials are also giving families a way to grieve and mourn safely outside during the COVID-19 pandemic."I think COVID has heightened folks’ awareness of how important it is to make a plan. Families can still have a burial, families can still have a gathering, they can come together with their loved one," Phifer said.There is also a cost aspect that's driving the increased rise in natural burials. As many American families struggle financially, natural burial offers an end-of-life option that's around ,000. It’s much less than a traditional burial, which usually runs around ,000.There’s also an environmental draw to all of this. Every year, American bury about 73,000 kilometers of hardwood boards, along with 58,000 tons of steel and 1.5 million tons of concrete. Natural burials are often much safer for the environment"It’s not going to be for everyone, and that’s OK,” explained Phifer. “We’re just another tool in working through the end of life.”And while planning for the end is never easy, Phifer sees this as one place people can start. 2193

INDIANAPOLIS -- After Papa John's CEO John Schnatter blamed the NFL and protests during the national anthem for his company's falling pizza sales, he gained some new fans -- just ones he doesn't want. After Schnatter's comments, neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer claimed Papa John's was the official pizza of the alt-right. The website posted a photo of a pizza with pepperoni in the shape of a swastika.Papa John's has since denounced its new supporters. 494

IRVING, Tex. -- Kids across the country are going back to school, and 7-Eleven is celebrating with a sweet deal on their signature frozen drink.The convenience store chain kicked off their Buy One-Get One Free Slurpee event this week, and it lasts through the end of Sunday, August 19.Customers who buy any size or flavor Slurpee drink at participating 7?Eleven stores nationwide can receive a second Slurpee drink free. The free Slurpee drink can be the same size as the one purchased or smaller and must be redeemed at the same time the purchased Slurpee drink is bought.7?Eleven is using the hashtag #SlurpeeBOGO so Slurpee drink fans can share their experience on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and more.But check with your local store first, as there are reports that some locations are not participating in the event.  That includes all Michigan locations.The current featured Slurpee flavor is the bright blue Cap’n Crunch Crunch Berries.  967

It seems the “chicken wars” between fast-food restaurants are heating up once again.Last week, McDonald’s introduced its new spicy chicken McNuggets, which will compete with Wendy’s spicy nuggets. Now, Shake Shack has entered the roost.The restaurant known for its burgers announced Tuesday that its Hot Chick’n will be back for a limited time starting Tuesday. The item has been on the menu twice before. Now it's back and “ready to throw down in the chicken sandwich category,” a representative for Shake Shack said.The spicy version of the restaurant’s Chick’n Shack sandwich is made with real chicken breast (no added hormones or antibiotics) that is slow-cooked in a creamy buttermilk marinade, hand-dipped into Shack-made batter, dredged through seasoned flour and crisp-fried. The chicken is then dusted with a guajillo and cayenne pepper blend, topped with Shack-made cherry-pepper slaw and pickles, all served on a potato bun.Hot Chick’n is also returning with brand new Hot Chick’n Bites, Hot Spicy Fries and Hot Spicy Cheese Fries, made with the same guajillo and cayenne pepper dusting.All four Hot Chick’n items are available in two spice levels, hot and extra hot, and will be at Shake Shack locations nationwide, some exclusions may apply. Guests who order Hot Chick’n through the Shack App or order.shakeshack.com can get access to a third spice level, fire."When developing our Hot Chick’n menu, featuring the Hot Chick’n sandwich and brand new Hot Chick’n Bites, Hot Spicy Fries and Hot Spicy Cheese Fries, we wanted to make sure we launched them in an elevated way, inspired by our deep culinary roots and emphasis on premium ingredients," said Mark Rosati, Culinary Director at Shake Shack. 1718

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