喀什孕期四维彩超多少钱喀什多大做割包皮手术,喀什在哪里看男科比较好,喀什哪儿医院男科比较好,喀什包皮手术到底该不该做,喀什成人可以做包皮手术吗,喀什意外怀孕8周想不要孩子,喀什治疗细菌性阴道炎要好多钱

It is yet unknown what time Thursday White House staff learned that Hope Hicks, a senior advisor to President Donald Trump, tested positive for COVID-19. However, there are reports she had symptoms Wednesday night and attempts were made to quarantine her from staff.Here is a look at Trump’s movements Thursday and people he may have come into contact with.President Trump attended a fundraiser at his golf club in Bedminster, it is not known exactly how many people attended. He and close aides left the White House Thursday afternoon without talking to the media.The president also participated in a roundtable event, coming into close contact with dozens of people, including campaign supporters.The president did not wear a mask Thursday at the events at his golf course or on the plane, according to the Washington Post.He was tested after he returned to the White House late Thursday night. He did not talk to the media when he returned to Washington.Thursday night the president spoke to Fox News host Sean Hannity by phone and tweeted statements about he and the First Lady's positive results. Hicks showed symptoms following a Trump campaign rally in Minnesota Wednesday night, according to CNN and other media. She had spent time that day with the president and other presidential advisors, then flew to the rally together on Air Force One. Multiple reports state Hicks was quarantined on the plane back to Washington, D.C. and deplaned by the rear steps. So far, close aides, Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and the Vice President and Second Lady have all tested negative for the coronavirus.However, the president’s diagnosis is likely to raise questions about the rapid testing system at the White House, which is known to have a lower accuracy rate than more intrusive COVID-19 tests.The president is expected to conduct official and political events from the residence — including a call on Friday with senior citizens about the coronavirus. 1960

It’s no secret we have a connection, possibly obsession, with our smartphones. Often, it’s the first thing we see when we wake up and the last thing before we go to bed. A recent survey wanted to find out what Americans would be willing to sacrifice to keep their phones.About 40 percent of participants would rather be separated from their dog for a month, than be separated from their smartphone for that long.Slightly more, 42 percent, would rather be separated from their significant other than their device for a month. Although, after months of a pandemic and stay-at-home orders, we could all use some space.More than 60 percent would be willing to give up coffee for a month instead of their phone, and 72 percent would rather give up wine for a month.OK, sure, but what about enduring sometimes annoying or awkward situations. About 44 percent would rather serve five days of jury duty than be without their device for five days. And 47 percent would rather stay with their in-laws for a month, than give up their smartphone for a month.The survey was conducted by SimpleTexting, looking at results from 1,000 smartphone users across the country.On the brightside, these are just hypothetical, and there does not appear to be any effort to take away smartphones. Yet. 1284

It kind of feels like a concert, but there’s no musical performance. It’s former First Lady Michelle Obama, having a conversation with tens of thousands of people during her “Becoming” tour stop in Denver.  “This has been an amazing day being here with all of you,” Obama says.  The event, however, was just one part of the time she spent in the community. Just hours earlier, Emma Jones and her mom were among the hundreds of patients and families who packed the lobby of Children’s Hospital Colorado for the surprise visit.After a warm welcome, Obama sat down with Santa to read a book and answer questions from her young audience members.  “Was there really a movie theater in the White House?” asked one child.  Other questions were more serious, including one that asked Obama what advice she’d give to her younger self.“Don't let fear stop you from doing things that will help you grow,” she replied.  “Just being at the hospital and like knowing that something is going on with you in the first place, it's kind of scary,” says patient Emma Jones. “But like just hearing that message from someone who cares a lot about everybody is just super empowering and like it was just really cool.”Following the hospital stop, Obama signed copies of her book at a local bookstore.   With eight tour stops so far, all of them include some form of giving back to young people. In Detroit, Obama surprised a group of college students, sitting in on a discussion on education. In Boston, she made a stop at a Boys and Girls Club, and in Los Angeles, she read books to preschoolers.  It's a reflection of what Obama says is closest to her heart.  “I love kids. If I could spend every day with kids, like you all day, I would do that every single day,” Obama says. 1823

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

In the latest scathing allegation against the Catholic church, Pennsylvania's attorney general said the Vatican knew about a cover-up involving sex abuse allegations against priests. "We have evidence that the Vatican had knowledge of the cover-up," Attorney General Josh Shapiro told NBC's "Today" show Tuesday.He later told CNN's Wolf Blitzer, "Once the Vatican learned of it, I do not know if the Pope learned about it or not."The accusation comes two weeks after the release of a grand jury report saying hundreds of "predator priests" had abused children in six Pennsylvania dioceses over the past seven decades.Shapiro did not specify Tuesday what evidence he has that would suggest the Vatican knew of a cover-up."The only documents which are public are in the report itself, including the references to the Vatican's knowledge," Shapiro's spokesman Joe Grace said."All else remains sealed through the grand jury process."Vatican spokesman Greg Burke said the Vatican would need to learn more details about the evidence before commenting.Shapiro said the grand jury's lengthy investigation into abuse by priests also revealed a widespread cover-up "that went all the way to the Vatican.""This coverup served a very specific purpose," Shapiro told CNN."It was not only to cover it up within the parishes, within the churches. It was also to shield them from law enforcement so law enforcement officials like me couldn't charge them with crimes"In the two weeks since the grand jury's report was released, Shapiro said Pennsylvania's clergy abuse hotline has received more than 730 calls.It's not clear how many of those cases -- if any -- could still be prosecuted within the statute of limitations.But on the civil side, sex abuse cases have already cost the Catholic church and its insurance companies billions of dollars.The Vatican has taken steps to root out some offending clergy members. According to the grand jury report, in 2014, the Vatican said it had defrocked about 850 priests who raped or molested children and sanctioned 2,500 worldwide during the previous decade.The Pennsylvania grand jury report has put dioceses across the country on alert. Several other states have launched their own investigations into Catholic clergy.The-CNN-Wire 2269