濮阳东方男科技术很哇塞(濮阳东方男科医院看病好吗) (今日更新中)

It was supposed to be a raucous, week-long, open floor debate on immigration -- the President's signature issue and such a contentious topic that Democrats shut the government down over it just a month ago.Instead, it was the incredible shrinking immigration debate, which lasted roughly one hour on the floor and ended without a single amendment passing to protect DACA recipients or send a cent of funding for President Donald Trump's border wall."I'm ready to move on," said Louisiana Republican Sen. John Kennedy. "We wasted a whole week here. And I'm ready to move on. There are other issues in front of us."Fingers were pointed in all directions as members retreated from the floor, defeated, frustrated and downright mad that after weeks of negotiations, the best chance they had to broker a deal ended without any resolution for a population everyone agreed they had wanted to help.A group of bipartisan lawmakers -- the same group responsible for helping end a government shutdown weeks before -- fumed at the White House's treatment of their proposal, which they argued could have inched toward passage, had the White House stayed on the sidelines rather than actively lobbied against them.On the floor of the Senate, Sen. Susan Collins, a moderate Republican from Maine, was frustrated that the amendment her group had brokered without Sen. Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader, was being referred to as the Schumer amendment. The name undermined the entire point of her group's efforts: that it had been reached by the middle, not by party leaders. Collins could be heard telling colleagues that the move was "so wrong."Sen. Mike Rounds, a Republican from South Dakota, acknowledged "there were a few games being played.""You don't forget 'em, but you just roll with them," Rounds said.Just hours after senators had reached an agreement on a plan that provided a path to citizenship for DACA recipients in exchange for billion in border security, the administration began their effort to undermine the amendment. President Donald Trump issued a veto threat. And in a briefing call with reporters Thursday, two administration officials, one of them a White House official, called the bill "outrageous" and "irresponsible," and argued it would "put many innocent lives at risk.""The bill is so spectacularly poorly drafted, I mean unless you imagine it was drafted for the purpose of gutting immigration enforcement," the White House official said, before the officials criticized Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, who fought back."I could care less about what an anonymous White House official says. I'm looking for leadership from the White House, not demagoguery," Graham told reporters.Sen. Chris Coons, a Democrat from Delaware, said he blamed the White House "a great deal.""It is striking to me that the White House and the Department of Homeland security actively and aggressively campaigned against the McCain-Coons bill and the bipartisan Rounds-King bill and yet both of those bills got more votes significantly then the White House- initiated Grassley bill," Coons said.Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a Republican from Alaska, lamented that the White House had missed an opportunity."I fear that you've got some within the White House that have not yet figured out that legislation almost by its very definition is a compromise product and compromise doesn't mean getting four Republicans together and figuring out what it is that those four agree on, it is broader," she said.GOP efforts to kill amendment 3535

In updated guidance, the CDC said that those who have recovered from the coronavirus do not need to be re-tested for the virus for three months after their infection barring they’re asymptotic.The refreshed guidance suggests that the CDC expects those with previous coronavirus infections are unable to spread the virus for three months.“People who have tested positive for COVID-19 do not need to quarantine or get tested again for up to 3 months as long as they do not develop symptoms again,” the guidance says. “People who develop symptoms again within 3 months of their first bout of COVID-19 may need to be tested again if there is no other cause identified for their symptoms.”In a statement to CNN, the CDC clarified that does not automatically mean someone is immune for three months. The updated guidance comes after much discussion and speculation on the possibility of becoming infected for a second time with the virus.The guidance is “based on the latest science about COVID-19 showing that people can continue to test positive for up to 3 months after diagnosis and not be infectious to others,” the statement read. 1138

It’s a question that was asked early and often following the passing of Aretha Franklin, "How do you honor a queen?"The answer was on display in Detroit Friday morning as more than 120 pink Cadillacs cruised down 7 Mile Road, escorting the hearse carrying the Queen of Soul to Greater Grace Temple.“I had to cut it off!” said Crisette Ellis, the first lady of Greater Grace Temple, noting that the number ballooned so fast she was amazed.The idea sprang out of a common sight at funerals for fallen soldiers, police officers and firefighters. Bishop Ellis wondered aloud, if a motorcade and police cruisers are used to honor a fallen hero what’s the equivalent for a woman who touched generations of people through her music and good deeds?Franklin’s hit song ‘Freeway of Love’ inspired the move to bring in pink Cadillacs. If you lived under a rock, or are too young to remember, the lyric read: “We goin’ ridin’ on the freeway of love, winds against our back. We goin’ ridin’ on the freeway of love, in my pink Cadillac.”“That has been an anthem for those of us that drive a pink Cadillac,” Ellis said. “Driving a pink Cadillac in our world says success. We get respect when we drive a pink Cadillac, so all I can imagine is that Ms. Franklin would look down and say, ‘That is how you show r-e-s-p-e-c-t to the Queen of Soul.”Nancy Pettaway broke into song while showing her Escalade to camera crews on Thursday, “we did that all the way here.”“Going back I think we’ll just turn the music off and reflect,” she said. “It helps you reflect on your own life and what kind of legacy you will leave for other people.”Pettaway drove from Killeen, Texas to Detroit. The trip took 19 hours, and according to organizers, she wasn’t the one making the furthest trip.“A long trip, but so worth it,” said Pettaway.Perda Harris flew from California to meet her daughter, and her pink Cadillac, in Chicago. “Her music just made the house happy,” Harris said.“We just sang out loud,” added her daughter, Caterina Harris Earl. “We danced. We sang. It was associated with every single family gathering that I remember throughout my childhood.”Harris Earl has been driving a pink Cadillac for more than 20 years — she said the music of Aretha Franklin was always part of her life, now the music brings back floods of happy memories. She said she’s always known that Franklin had an impact on her community, but since her passing she’s been able to learn even more about how she worked along Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and supported the Civil Rights movement.”That makes a big difference for all people,” Earl Harris said. “For all women. As an African American woman, it absolutely impacted me.”That impact is why so many reached out to honor Franklin with a 100+ pink Cadillac envoy. Those who showed up to witness the celebration of life on Friday flocked to the street when the pink Cadillacs arrived, some folks who had waited for hours in line risked their place in line to rush over to snag pictures of the line.Nancy Pettaway summed it up well describing why Franklin’s celebration meant to much: “She moved you. Her music made you better, it made me better.” 3170

In his memos documenting conversations with President Donald Trump, former FBI Director James Comey recounts Trump's "serious reservations" about then-national security adviser Michael Flynn as well as the President's concerns about media leaks and Trump's recollection of Russian President Vladimir Putin telling him that Russia had the "most beautiful hookers in the world."The Comey memos provided to Congress on Thursday and obtained by CNN include documentation of seven conversations he had with Trump from January 7, 2017, through April 11, 2017. Four of the notes are classified and have been partially redacted, and three of them are unclassified.There are several recurring themes through the conversations: Trump frequently brings up leaks to the media and they discuss trying to find the source of the leaks. Trump also at least twice brought up the "golden showers thing" and said he was concerned even if there was a small chance his wife had thought it was true.In the January 7 memo, Comey writes that Trump interjected, "there were no prostitutes; there were never prostitutes" about his 2013 trip to Moscow.In his January 28 conversation with Trump, Comey also writes that Trump said "the hookers thing is nonsense," but then later said that "Putin had told him, 'we have some of the most beautiful hookers in the world.'"Comey also writes that the President said on January 28 he had "serious reservations" about Flynn, who soon left the administration and later pleaded guilty for lying to the FBI about his conversations with Russian officials.Trump explained that his reservations about Flynn's judgment by discussing a story about a toast to British Prime Minister Theresa May and someone else who Flynn had said called before her after Trump was inaugurated, but Flynn had not told the President.The unclassified memos include the now-famous conversation Trump had with Comey where he told Comey, "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go.""I replied by saying, 'I agree he is a good guy,' but said no more," Comey writes.Trump is also focused on loyalty, as Comey has said in congressional testimony and his book. In their final April 11 conversation, Comey writes that Trump told him: "I have been very loyal to you, very loyal, we had that thing, you know."Comey said that he assumed Trump was referring to his previous pledge for loyalty before his inauguration, where Comey responded he would provide "honesty," and Trump responded, "honest loyalty."In the February 8 memo, Comey also recounts a conversation with then-White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, where he says that Priebus asked him whether it was a "private conversation," and asked Comey, "Do you have a FISA order on Mike Flynn?"Comey said that he answered Priebus' question, but first told him that it was "the kind of question that had to be asked and answered through established channels." 2932

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

来源：资阳报