徐州怀孕七个月可以做四维吗徐州无痛胃镜 检查多少钱,徐州做无痛胃镜价格,徐州怀孕多久做四维彩超合适,徐州胃镜检查大约多少钱,徐州做四维那个医院有,徐州4维彩超好吗,徐州怀孕四维彩超有必要做吗

Ivanka Trump last year used a personal email account to discuss or relay official White House business, according to emails released by a nonpartisan watchdog group.The Washington Post reported Monday the White House conducted an investigation into Trump's email usage and that she used her personal email address for much of 2017.According to emails released by the watchdog group, American Oversight, Trump used her personal account to email Cabinet officials, White House aides and assistants. The Presidential Records Act requires all official White House communications and records be preserved.Austin Evers, the executive director of American Oversight, said in a statement, "The president's family is not above the law, and there are serious questions that Congress should immediately investigate. Did Ivanka Trump turn over all of her emails for preservation as required by law? Was she sending classified information over a private system?"The White House had no comment on Ivanka Trump's email practices.A person close to Ivanka Trump told CNN's Poppy Harlow that "Ivanka's mindset is there is no malintent, and she is comfortable because there was no intent to avoid.""There was no intent to avoid government servers. All of it has been preserved," the person continued explaining that if Ivanka Trump sent an email from her personal email to a government employee, then it hits the government server.That response mirrored the argument Clinton made when defending her use of a private email server when it was an issue during the 2016 presidential campaign."The vast majority of my work emails went to government employees at their government addresses, which meant they were captured and preserved immediately on the system at the State Department," Clinton said in a speech in March 2015.Trump's usage of a private email account will bring comparisons to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, whose usage of a private email server instead of a government email account during her time in office was a central part of President Donald Trump's campaign against her in 2016. Trump's supporters often chanted -- and still do, on occasion -- "Lock her up!" at the mention of Clinton, and President Donald Trump has frequently accused Clinton of receiving special treatment because she was not charged for skirting the Presidential Records Act with her email practices.A source close to Ivanka Trump told CNN's Poppy Harlow that "Ivanka's mindset is there is no malintent, and she is comfortable because there was no intent to avoid."."There was no intent to avoid government servers. All of it has been preserved," the source continued explaining that if Ivanka Trump sent an email from her personal email to a government employee, then it hits the government server.This is similar to the argument Clinton made when defending her use of a private email server when it was an issue during the 2016 presidential campaign."The vast majority of my work emails went to government employees at their government addresses, which meant they were captured and preserved immediately on the system at the State Department," Clinton said in a speech in March 2015.The Post reported Ivanka Trump's attorney, Abbe Lowell, forwarded all the emails he believed were related to official government business to her government email account. Lowell believed that would rectify any violations of records law.Peter Mirijanian, the spokesperson for Lowell and ethics counsel for Ivanka Trump, said in a statement, "Like most people, before entering into government service, Ms. Trump used a private email. When she entered the government, she was given a government email account for official use. While transitioning into government, until the White House  provided her the same guidance they had to others who started before she did, Ms. Trump sometimes used her private account, almost always for logistics and scheduling concerning her family."Some advisers to President Trump were alarmed when they heard this news, the Post reports, because of the similarities to Clinton's email use. Trump has called Clinton "Crooked Hillary" for using a personal email account when she was secretary of state.Mirijanian sought to draw a specific contrast between Ivanka Trump's personal email usage and Clinton's, by noting that she did not have the server set up in her home or office."To address misinformation being peddled about Ms. Trump's personal email, she did not create a private server in her house or office, there was never classified information transmitted,  the account was never transferred or housed at Trump Organization, no emails were ever deleted, and the emails have been retained in the official account in conformity with records preservation laws and rules," Mirijanian's statement continues.White House officials were first made aware of Ivanka Trump's email usage through American Oversight's lawsuit, according to the Post.Evers added, "For more than two years, President Trump and senior leaders in Congress have made it very clear that they view the use of personal email servers for government business to be a serious offense that demands investigation and even prosecution, and we expect the same standard will be applied in this case."This is story has been updated.The-CNN-Wire 5316

In some ways, thanks to the COVID-19 pandemic, Cyber Monday began weeks ago when online retailers began pushing holiday sales in mid-October. But forecasters are still projecting that Monday will be the biggest day of online sales ever recorded in the U.S.Online retailers are projected to sell .7 billion in goods on Monday, a figure that would represent year-to-year growth of 35%. Sales on Cyber Monday would outpace those made on both Thanksgiving and Black Friday.Several major retailers announced earlier this year that they would remain closed on Thanksgiving in the hopes of avoiding crowds, marking a stark change from recent years. In addition, the Associated Press reports that Black Friday crowds were thin across the country, as many Americans shopped online to avoid crowds. In fact, retailers like Walmart and Best Buy made Black Friday deals available online to limit the number of people in stores.However, Americans don't appear ready to slow down spending for Cyber Monday. Adobe Analytics predicts that Cyber Monday spending will break the billion for the first time in 2020. For context, the first time Americans spent billion on Cyber Monday came in 2012.Adobe also reports that 42% of online shopping will be done by smartphone this year — a year-over-year increase of 55%. 1314

Investigators believe some of the suspicious, potentially explosive packages sent to 8 prominent politicians and a large media organization may have originated in Florida, according to one law enforcement official.A second law enforcement official said federal investigators are in Florida investigating leads.The latest packages, addressed to former Vice President Joe Biden, are similar to eight others found earlier this week.Those packages were addressed to former President Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and others, as well as actor Robert DeNiro, a vocal critic of President Trump.The President has denounced the apparent bombing attempts, saying "Such conduct must be fiercely opposed and thoroughly prosecuted," but at a rally Thursday night and again Friday morning he blamed the media, tweeting that "fake news is fueling anger around the country."Most of the packages were intercepted at mail facilities and got nowhere near their intended targets. 968

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 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