南昌精神心理医院网站南昌第十二医院治疗精神科正规嘛好么,南昌哪家能治焦虑症,南昌怎么治疗轻度忧郁,精神疾病医院南昌哪家好,南昌抑郁专业医院,南昌那所医院看恐惧症好,南昌癫痫专科医院哪里好

In yet another aggressive attempt to bypass federal appeals courts, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Friday to hear a challenge to President Donald Trump's policy that bars most transgender individuals from military service.The policy, first announced by the President in July 2017 via Twitter and later officially released by Secretary of Defense James Mattis, blocks individuals who suffer from a condition known as gender dysphoria from serving with limited exceptions. It also specifies that individuals without the condition can serve but only if they do so according to the sex they were assigned at birth.District courts across the country have so far blocked the policy from going into effect. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in one challenge earlier this fall and the DC Circuit will hear arguments in early December.On Friday, Solicitor General Noel Francisco filed petitions asking the justices to take up the issue in three separate cases that are still in lower courts so it could be decided definitively this term. Francisco argues that lower court rulings imposing nationwide injunctions are wrong and warrant immediate review.He writes because of the injunctions, "the military has been forced to maintain that prior policy for nearly a year" despite a determination by Mattis and a panel of experts that the "prior policy, adopted by (Defense Secretary Ash Carter), posed too great a risk to military effectiveness and lethality."House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi vowed to "fight this discriminatory action" in a statement Saturday."The President's ban is a cruel and arbitrary decision designed to humiliate transgender Americans who have stepped forward to serve our country," she added. "This bigoted ban weakens our military readiness and our country, and shows this president's stunning lack of loyalty to those who risk all to defend our freedoms."Earlier in the month, the Department of Justice warned the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that it planned to ask for emergency relief to lift the nationwide injunction.The filing comes after Chief Justice John Roberts and Trump got into a public dispute about the independence of the judiciary this week. Roberts issued a rare statement on Wednesday criticizing the President for calling one lower court judge who ruled against him an "Obama judge." The President responded via Twitter criticizing Roberts and accusing the American judiciary of undermining national security.Under normal circumstances, the Supreme Court does not like to take up an issue before it has made its way through the lower courts. The justices like to have issues percolate below so that they can benefit from the opinions of lower court judges.Francisco has moved aggressively at times to get cases before a Supreme Court that is more solidly conservative with the addition of Justice Brett Kavanaugh.Francisco asked the justices to step in to review the lower court's decision in a case related to the addition of a citizenship question to the 2020 Census. He also asked them to review an adverse lower court opinion blocking the proposed phase-out of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. 3198

It's Election Day, which means people will be shuffling to the polls throughout the day. But before you take off to cast your vote, make sure you check that your polling location is still open.Here's a map and list of closing times across the United States.6 p.m. ET: Most of Indiana, eastern half of Kentucky7 p.m. ET: Georgia, most of Florida, New Hampshire, rest of Indiana, western half of Kentucky, South Carolina, Vermont and Virginia7:30 p.m. ET: Ohio, North Carolina, West Virginia8 p.m. ET: Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Washington, D.C., Florida panhandle, Illinois, most of Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, most of Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, eastern half of South Dakota, Tennessee, most of Texas8:30 p.m. ET: Arkansas 9 p.m. ET: Colorado, rest of Kansas, Louisiana, rest of Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, western half of South Dakota, rest of Texas, Wisconsin, Wyoming10 p.m. ET: Arizona, southern half of Idaho, Iowa, Montana, Nevada, most of North Dakota, southeast portion of Oregon, Utah11 p.m. ET: California, northern part of Idaho, rest of Oregon, rest of North Dakota, WashingtonMidnight-1 a.m. ET: Alaska and HawaiiAnd you can find your polling location here.PHOTOS: Voter turnout around the nationMore information on voting rights and things you should know before you head to the polls can be found here and here.Susan Gonzalez is a digital producer and reporter for the E.W. Scripps national team. Follow her on Twitter @TheNewsan. 1580

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 is only 9 in the morning, but the sun in Little Rock, Arkansas is beating down on the pavement as it does this time of the year.It is uncomfortably muggy, so 78-year-old Elizabeth Eckford elects to walk in the shadows of the trees that line Central High School.It is a place she’s grown comfortable with over the course of the last 50 years as she’s remained mostly silent about her experiences as a student at the school.“Talking about the past is a walk through pain,” she said. “It was very, very difficult. I had felt so terribly, terribly, terribly, alone,”Elizabeth was one of the nine black students sent to attend the all-white school on the first day of desegregation in 1957, the resulting reaction of the town has become known as the Little Rock Crisis.Many might recognize Elizabeth’s picture taken by a news photographer that day."At one point [the mob of white students] said get a rope, as I was walking, let’s lynch her,” Eckford recalls. "It was a very frightening, a very threatening time.”Elizabeth endured the harassment until she reached the doors of the high school, but was turned away by National Guardsmen. Alone, she remembers wondering what to do next as she walked over to a bus bench a block from the school.“I remember that bus bench meant safety to me,” Eckford recalls. "There was a pack of reporters and photographers in front of me walking backwards and asking me questions. I didn’t say anything because I was afraid if I opened my mouth I would cry in public.”Over the course of the next 50 years the words that berated Elizabeth manifested into PTSD. The school, that picture, crowded hallways; they would all elicit panic and anxiety. It wasn’t until 1997, when Elizabeth began sharing her story with students at Central High School that she started to heal.“They were very patient with me,” she said. "When I would cry they waited and gave me a chance to resume. It meant that to them I was a human being.”Today, Elizabeth Eckford speaks at national conventions and remembrance events of that first day of desegregation. She says walks by the school and crowded hallways no longer elicit anxiety.She also remains modest in her triumph and dedicated in her pursuit to help others."I point out that [students] can just reach out to support someone who is being harassed,” she said. "Just treat that person in a way that you would want to be treated. That can be very powerful. It was very powerful for me." 2454

In proximity, the United States and Canada couldn’t be closer.  But when it comes to gun control, the two countries couldn’t be further apart. “A majority of the people do not feel the need to have a gun because we’re quite safe,” says Debbie Thorburn, a Windsor, Ontario resident.In Canada, they talk about guns differently because they look at guns differently.“You have the Second Amendment,” said Brian Green, a manager at General Guns in Windsor. “We don’t.”Detroit, Michigan saw 302 homicides in 2016, with most involving a firearm. Across the river in Windsor, during the same time, there were only three. “I would think that most Canadians are squeamish around firearms and don’t want any part of it,” said Al Frederick, Windsor’s police chief. “The difference, I think in my view, is the accessibility to firearms,” he said. “We don’t have a culture of people that are eager to carry or seek out to carry a firearm.”In Canada, unlike the U.S., it’s a crime for the average citizen to even walk around with a gun.  But that’s far from the only thing separating the two countries.A first-time gun buyer in the United States can walk into a store and leave with a gun the same day; in Canada, it can take months.The U.S. still allows for some gun purchases without a background check. That’s not the case in Canada, where they’re mandatory for any gun license. “Your file is given to an officer and it’s their job to go through it and prove that you are able to have a license,” said Brian Green of General Guns.While there’s often a push to expand gun rights in the U.S., in Canada there are few leading that fight. As one Canadian told The Now this week, “Guns are a right where you live. They’re a privilege where we live.”“I don’t think there’s a nation on Earth where they have armed their citizenry which has reduced violence,” Chief Frederick said. 1909