濮阳东方看妇科病收费正规濮阳东方男科医院割包皮便宜吗,濮阳东方男科治病便宜吗,濮阳东方医院看男科怎么走,濮阳东方医院治早泄靠谱,濮阳东方可靠吗,濮阳东方看男科口碑很好价格低,濮阳东方医院看妇科口碑放心很好

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 our crazy, fast-paced world, it can be tough to take a breath and slow things down, and that even includes places we go to escape the every day. Researchers are taking the time to listen, to make sure that tranquility is never destroyed.When we think of our national parks, we think of birds chirping and water running. Not traffic, honking, planes and helicopters.“It's tough,” Dr. Job said. “It's cold it's rainy sometimes I sit in the middle of thunderstorms hoping for the best sometimes I'm surrounded by animals that are big.”He’s battling the elements in Yellowstone National Park for a purpose; his purpose is to quiet the national parks.“It's an issue,” Dr. Job said. “Over the last decade visitation to the national parks has skyrocketed.”Hundreds of millions of people visit national parks every year, and with people comes noise. Dr. Job manages the Listening Lab, which is part of the Sound and Light Ecology Team at Colorado State University.  The group of students he leads found that noise doubled background sound levels in 63 percent of U.S. parks and protected areas.That’s why Dr. Job’s team spend days in national parks across the country recording their natural sounds. Back at the Listening lab, Elena Gratton is listening through recordings from Yellowstone National Park.“I'll probably go back to these spots and pull out those sounds,” Gratton said.One of the highlights? Wolves howling without any cars or people.She’ll put together the best parts so people who aren’t able to visit a national park can still listen and be transported.“You can see a picture of this place and that's great but it's on a screen,” Gratton said. “But the moment you put these headphones on you can shut your eyes and you can be there.”Jared Lamb is listening for a different purpose. He categorizes the sounds he hears and that information goes to the national parks. They then use it to determine how to better manage noise pollution.“When I first came it was, it didn't really, it didn't really feel like I was doing much,” Lamb said. “It just felt like a lot of numbers. But now after being here for a while I kind of see the implications and how important it is.”Parks then can do anything from unplugging a generator to limiting helicopter tours. But Dr. Job says it can be even more simple than that.”Listen,” Dr. Job said. “I always tell people the more you listen the more you'll hear.”A renewed appreciation for one of nature’s biggest gifts. 2499

INDIANAPOLIS, Indiana — More than 150 names were read during a vigil Wednesday evening and family and friends gathered at the Indiana event to light a candle for each one. Each name was someone who was the victim of gun violence over the past year. Deandra Yates organized the vigil. She works with Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America and founded Purpose for My Pain, a support group of families of victims of violence. "We need better gun legislation. We need to make sure that families that have at-risk youth are supported and have resources for mentoring and different programming for their kids,"  Yates said. Yates says she's encouraged by the million grant that Indianapolis has received from the Trump Administration to fight gun violence. IMPD will receive 0,000 of that grant to hire three crime analysts for the city to help sniff out leads before crime happens. Those analysts will process shell casings and guns used in crimes to see if they were used in other crimes in the city. The hope is that the police can connect the crimes and get the ones responsible off the street. Another focus for those analysts will be on social media, tracking what criminals are sharing and talking about online.The other 0,000 from the grant will go to the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office to handle all of the gun violence cases. 1399

In congratulating president-elect Joe Biden on Monday, former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton publicly called for the Electoral College to be abolished and advocated for the presidential election to be decided by the popular vote."I believe we should abolish the Electoral College and select our president by the winner of the popular vote, same as every other office," Clinton tweeted Monday. "But while it still exists, I was proud to cast my vote in New York for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris."The Electoral College upheld Biden's victory over President Donald Trump on Tuesday, as he received the expected 306 electoral votes he won in the 2020 election. Clinton served as one of the 29 electors from the state of New York who cast their vote for Biden on Monday. 789

In just the latest reminder of the dangers of pollution in our oceans, a dead whale in Indonesia has been found with 13.2 pounds (six kilograms) of plastic waste in its stomach.The 31.17-foot sperm whale was found near Kapota Island in Wakatobi National Park, southeast of Sulawesi.Park officials found bags, plastic bottles, sandals and 115 plastic cups in the whale's stomach, as well as a sack containing more than 1,000 pieces of string."Although we have not been able to deduce the cause of death, the facts that we see are truly awful," said Dwi Suprapti, marine species conservation coordinator at WWF-Indonesia, in a statement to CNN.The macabre discovery was made in an area popular with tourists and comes at a time of increasing concern over the impact of plastic pollution on marine life.In June, a short-fin male pilot whale died in southern Thailand and was later found to have ingested more than 17 pounds of plastic bags and packaging.During an autopsy, veterinarians found more than 80 plastic bags in the whale's stomach.A 2015 report by Ocean Conservancy and the McKinsey Center for Business and Environment found that over 50% of the plastic leaking into world oceans comes from China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam, suggesting that the two whales died in dangerous waters for marine life.The report claims that a 65% reduction in plastic waste leakage in those five countries would lead to a 45% reduction globally.Without intervention, the amount of plastic cluttering the Earth's oceans will triple within a decade, according to a recent study by the UK government.However, there is evidence that lawmakers are taking notice of the threat, as the European Parliament voted to ban single-use plastics in October.The proposal covers items such as straws, cotton swabs and cutlery, in addition to obliging EU states to recycle 90% of plastic bottles by 2025.In October, the dangers of plastic were underlined when a decades-old bottle washed up almost intact on a UK beach.The plastic bottle of dishwashing liquid was at least 47 years old, with its branding still clearly visible.The-CNN-Wire 2140