David Schwartz said that distributed ledger technology is not yet scalable or private enough for banks.
A surprising comment was heard yesterday – or rather, a comment that came from a surprising source – when the chief cryptographer of Ripple said that the technology is not ready for banks to use, according to Reuters.
This is surprising because Ripple products are supposed to be designed exactly for that purpose, using blockchain technology to make international money transfers quickly and cheaply. Ripple has partnered with literally hundreds of businesses and financial institutions and made billions of dollars.
The results of tests of its products have generally been reported as very favourable, and its coin XRP has a market cap of $21.8 billion, according to coinmarketcap.com. SWIFT, the money transfer system that the world has been using since the 1970s is scrambling for a response.
However, according to Reuters, David Schwartz of Ripple said that distributed ledger technology is not yet scalable or private enough for banks.
The Bank of England tested Ripple back in 2017, calling it promising but "not sufficiently mature". On the other hand, Bank Santander is planning to launch a Ripple-based international payment application soon.
Ripple's most widely used products are xCurrent and xRapid.
xRapid uses third parties to fund transactions. It selects an exchange which will convert the money to XRP and send it abroad. Once there it the XRP is converted into the currency of the destination and transferred to the recipient. In May, Ripple testing the service to send money from the US to Mexico, and reported that it would save customers between 40 and 70 percent of the usual transfer fee.
xCurrent is a bank-to-bank payment service which is supposed to make all currencies and cryptocurrencies immediately fungible. It works by using 'connectors' that all hold money too. This latter service does not use XRP, while the former does.
One of the most notable clients of xRapid is Western Union, a partnership which was announced in February. However, according to a report in Fortune, the financial services and communications company has yet to see any savings.
Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse remains optimistic. He told CNBC earlier this month that he expects dozens of banks to be using Ripple by the end of next year.


text:
Due to recent outbreak of the Novel Coronavirus, please take note of special arrangement announced by the Hongkong Post, banks or other relevant bodies and make timely MPF contributions and other administration processes. To avoid unnecessary delay, adopt e-Contribution and autopay now!
Macau Pension
MPF contribution calculator
Information relating to the HKSAR Government's Employment Support Scheme
Insurance Authority Levy on Insurance Premium
Employer Administration Workshop
Manulife Hong Kong has been a trusted name for over 120 years. Since we started serving customers in Hong Kong in 1897, we have grown to become one of the city's top providers of financial services, offering a diverse range of protection and wealth products and services to 2.2 million customers in Hong Kong and Macau. Today, we continue to introduce financial solutions that help people make their decisions easier and lives better.
Our product portfolio encompasses individual and group life and health plans, MPF products, ORSO schemes, mutual funds and wealth management solutions.
We are the No. 1 MPF scheme sponsor in Hong Kong based on assets under management and net cash flows, according to the Mercer MPF Market Shares Report. We are also among the city's topmost-ranked insurance brands in terms of customer satisfaction.
We understand you need different types of insurance at different stages in your life. That's why we provide a wide range of products and services to give you the protection you need and the peace of mind you hope for.
Through our extensive network of partnerships, we give our customers the Manulife advantage. By working with our agents, bank partners – China CITIC Bank International Ltd, DBS Bank (Hong Kong) Ltd and Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong) Ltd – as well as brokers, independent financial advisors and other partners, we are committed to providing financial solutions tailored to not only your changing needs but your family's as well.
For over 120 years, we have been Hong Kong people's trusted financial planning partner. Looking ahead, we will continue to leverage our strengths to serve you and the community better.
Manulife commences operations in Shanghai and Hong Kong.
Its South China Branch moves to Hong Kong Club Building.
Manulife forays into Hong Kong's group pension fund market.
The South China Branch is re-named as the Hong Kong Branch.
The company's agency force moves into the Connaught Centre office at Central.
Manulife (International) Limited is established as a subsidiary of Manulife Financial Corporation.
Manulife's Macau Branch commences operations.
Shares of Manulife Financial Corporation trades as "MFC" on the Toronto, New York and Philippines stock exchanges and under "945" in Hong Kong.
The company hits the one-million-customers mark in Hong Kong.
Manulife is designated a Worldwide Partner of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games.
Manulife celebrates 115 years in Hong Kong, and its 125th anniversary globally.
New Manulife Tower opens in Kowloon East.
Manulife enters into a 15-year regional distribution agreement with DBS Bank, covering Hong Kong, Singapore, China and Indonesia.
Manulife and Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong) Ltd enter into a 15-year pension distribution partnership.
ManulifeMOVE is launched, which is an innovative, easy-to-use health and wellness program that rewards customers with discounted premiums for living a healthier, more active lifestyle.
The company hits the two-million-customers mark in Hong Kong and Macau.
Manulife completes acquisition of Standard Chartered's existing MPF and ORSO businesses, becoming the No.1 MPF scheme sponsor in terms of assets under management and net cash flows.
Manulife celebrates its 20th anniversary in Macau.
The 15-year regional bancassurance partnership between Manulife and DBS officially launches.
Manulife's longest-serving life insurance sales agent, Joe Sun, is awarded a Guinness World Records™ title as "the longest career as a corporate salesperson".
Manulife introduces a refreshed logo and visual identity as part of its global brand update.
Manulife Hong Kong unveils comprehensive tax-deductible health and retirement solutions to support the government's new tax policy.
The latest awards and industry recognition we have won for our product and service excellence as well as community investment achievements in Hong Kong.
Branding and Services
HKMA/ TVB Awards for Marketing Excellence 20161
Hong Kong Insurance Award 20202
Greater Bay Area Insurance Awards 20203
Bloomberg Businessweek Financial Institution Awards 20204
MARKies Awards 20205
Reader's Digest Trusted Brand Award 20206
Next Magazine Top Service Awards 20207
Sing Tao Service Awards - Greater Bay Area Insurance Services (Hong Kong) category 20198
Headline No.1 Awards 20209
Insurance Excellence Awards 202010
Pension / MPF Products
Bloomberg Businessweek/ Chinese: Top Fund Awards 201911
BENCHMARK Fund of the Year Awards 201912
MPF Ratings 2020 Scheme Rating and Awards13
Top Service Awards 20207
Reader's Digest Trusted Brand 20206
GBA Insurance Awards 20203
Bloomberg Businessweek/ Chinese: Financial Institution Awards 20204
SME Partner Awards of Excellence 202014
The Hong Kong Insurance Awards 202015
15 Years Plus Caring Company Logo16
Wastewi$e label from the Hong Kong Awards for Environmental Excellence17
Hong Kong Insurance Awards 201918
HKIHRM HR Excellence Award 2017/201819
Source: HKMA/TVB Marketing Awards Excellence 2016. For details, please refer to http://www.hkma.org.hk/marketing-award/pdf/flipbook/ma2016-souvenir-programme/mobile/index.html.
Source: The Hong Kong Federation of Insurers. For details, please refer to https://www.hkfi.org.hk/hkia/winners2020.html. www.hkfi.org.hk/hkia/.
Source: Metro Finance. For details, please refer to www.metroradio.com.hk/Campaign/2020/104/GBA_InsuranceAwards/.
Source: Bloomberg Businessweek (Chinese Edition). For details, please refer to www.bbwhkevent.com/fia2020.
Source: MARKies Awards 2020. https://awards.marketing-interactive.com/markies-hk/winners.
Source: Reader's Digest. For details, please refer to www.trustedbrands.asia/hongkong/.
Source: Next Magazine. For details, please refer to hk.nextmgz.com/article/2_746442_0.
Source: Sing Tai Daily, January 13, 2020
Source: Headline Daily, October 8, 2020.
Source: iMoney Magazine. For details, please refer to www.imiea.hk.
Source: Bloomberg Businessweek (Chinese Edition). For details, please refer to www.bbwhkevent.com/tfa2019.
Source: WealthAsia Media. For details, please refer to www.benchmark.exchange/hk/asset-management/mpf-result-announcement-2019.
Source: MPF Ratings Limited. For details, please refer to www.mpfratings.com.hk/ratings-and-awards/.
Source: Hong Kong Economic Journal, August 18, 2020.
Source: The Hong Kong Federation of Insurers. For details, please refer to https://www.hkfi.org.hk/hkia/2020finalists.html.
Source: Hong Kong Council of Social Service. For details, please refer to https://www.caringcompany.org.hk/.
Source: Hong Kong Awards for Environmental Excellence. For details, please refer to https://www.ecc.org.hk/hkaee/textonly/english/winners/el_cl_list/list.html.
Source: The Hong Kong Federation of Insurers. For details, please refer to https://www.hkfi.org.hk/hkia/winners2019.html.
Source: Hong Kong Institute of Human Resource Management. For details, please refer to https://www.hkihrm.org/index.php/zh/pe/hr-excellence-awards/2017-18.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
To young pro-Israel activists in the US: Oppose BDS, but drop hasbara
In advocating for Israel, you should refuse to be a shill for the government, which you did not elect and for whom you are not responsible.
By ABE SILBERSTEIN
Activists from the BDS movement against Israel [File]. (photo credit: Wikimedia Commons)
To the American Jewish college and high school students who attended the AIPAC Policy Conference or the Ambassadors Against BDS conference in March: Over the next few years you will live in a political climate largely hostile to Israel and Zionism. While there has always been strong anti-Israel feelings on college campuses and in other progressive spaces, today it is amplified by the international boycott movement and intersectional activist movements, which seek to connect the struggles of oppressed people throughout the world.
Like you, I don't believe Israel should be treated as apartheid South Africa was in the 1980s. While no major American university will actually divest from Israel, the BDS movement has the potential to create a poisonous environment in which pro-Israel students are deemed racists by their peers. Thus it's important, to appropriate a term from our critics, to normalize discourse around Israel. To do this, we must be honest about the direction in which Israel is heading.
Your role should begin and end with making Israel a normal state in the eyes of the next generation of progressive Americans, the only group to which BDS appeals in the first place. You are not a public relations agent for the Netanyahu government. A normal state is subject to strong criticism, sometimes fierce and unfair.
Unfortunately, while your passion and love for Israel is real, the current Israeli government is making your job much harder, by exploiting the weak delegitimization movement to enact "illiberal democracy" at home. Separating your advocacy for a country, culture and people, from propaganda for a state, will be crucial to your success.
As students, you probably don't have enough time to follow everything that's happened in Israel in recent weeks. In early March, the Knesset passed legislation to ban entry to both supporters of the BDS movement and those who boycott the settlements. While the narrow practical effect of this law will only apply to noncitizens, it sends a message to the government's left-wing opponents at home, whether they be politicians, NGOs or critical journalists, who oppose the settlement movement: the state considers your views dangerous and will use its awesome powers to weaken you.
Sometimes, a new law isn't necessary for the state to behave in such a manner. On March 14, Jeff Halper, an Israeli citizen, was detained by the police in the West Bank settlement of Ma'aleh Adumim on suspicion of possessing BDS pamphlets. As former Israeli state attorney Talia Sasson pointed out, this was in gross violation of Israeli law and norms. But in times of hysteria, laws can bend quite easily to ultra-nationalist impulses.
On March 21, it was reported that the Public Security Ministry was trying to create an internal database of Israelis who support boycotts against Israel or the settlements. Although this proposal seems to have been killed by the attorney-general, it is emblematic of a hard-line approach to boycotts. The creation of such a database on the views and political activities of private citizens would draw justified and inevitable comparisons to the McCarthy era. That the Israeli government is thinking this way should frighten you.
Such an approach, distasteful in itself, is also completely unjustified. The BDS movement has not succeeded in isolating Israel, not even in Europe, where Israeli defense exports grew by nearly $1 billion in 2016. Indeed, one aspect of Israel advocacy in recent years has been to point out the failures of BDS. Stories about new investments, acquisitions, or economic growth in Israel are often met with the hashtag #BDSFail.
So the question becomes: Is BDS failing miserably or is it a movement so strong that it has compelled Israel to monitor, detain, and ban peaceful opposition? It can't be both.
In advocating for Israel, you should refuse to be a shill for the government, which you did not elect and for whom you are not responsible. While I probably don't agree with most of you on the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories, I hope we can at least agree that Israeli leftists and Diaspora progressive Zionists are not your enemies. But in equating settlement boycotts, which have been a feature of anti-occupation advocacy in Israel for decades, and BDS, that is effectively what the Israeli government is asking you to do: expand your list of opponents to include friends who happen to disagree with the government.
Finally, please resist those who are trying to bring these tactics to US campuses. Databases of domestic enemies, or shame lists like Canary Mission, are not the way to defend a democracy against an ideological threat. This was the case in 1953, and it remains so in 2017.
Abe Silberstein writes on Israeli politics and US-Israel relations from New York.
jerusalem post opinion
Your Investments: Have your cake and eat it too
By AARON KATSMAN
Office Depot awaits back-to-school sales
Your Taxes: An ESOP is not a fable
By LEON HARRIS
By HILLEL FULD
Europe could pay high price for ignoring the Iranian/Hezbollah threat
By ELY KARMON


The 1092 series single mailbox features a traditional dome design with 4 columns as cornerstones. The prominent overhead archway of the Wilton series single residential mailbox creates a basis for the body of the weather-resistant, vandal-resistant, and UV-protected top-mount mailbox.
Ample room inside the Wilton single mailbox accommodates small parcel delivery along with the mail. Each system is a complete kit, ready to assemble and install. An elegant, economical and long lasting mailbox for any development!


text:
Texas's More Honest Take On Garza v. Hargan
Leah Litman
Texas has a knack for writing amicus briefs that offer some of the more outlandish justifications for some of the federal government's more outlandish policies. Texas did it in the entry ban litigation, arguing, against logic and doctrine, that the Youngstown framework somehow resolves the constitutional challenges to the President's entry ban/suspension on refugees. Texas is doing it again in Garza v. Hargan, the case in which the Trump administration is attempting to impede undocumented young women's access to abortion by refusing to release the women from its custody so that they can obtain abortions.
The United States' arguments in Garza have, at times, been somewhat hard to pin down. Marty Lederman has helpfully and extensively documented the United States' shifting positions (as well as some more general shiftiness on its part). The United States' arguments include, or have included, that:
(1) The United States does not want to be "complicit" in an abortion by "affirmatively facilitating" one.
(2) The United States has the authority to determine that it is not in these women's best interests to have the abortion even though they have decided otherwise. (This argument was made in the district court, and not pursued thereafter.)
(3) The young women could leave the United States (for countries where they may be at risk of violence or persecution, and where abortions are not permitted).
Texas somehow managed to take this flimsy argumentation and make it even worse in an amicus brief it filed in the district court. (Texas's brief is cosigned by Arkansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, and South Carolina. If you live in any of these states and do not know who your governor or state attorney general is, I would encourage you to learn that information, as well as the other activities your attorney general may have been undertaking. If you live in Michigan, see, for example, this article about AG Bill Schuette.)
In the brief, Texas went all in on the argument that undocumented young women have no Fifth Amendment rights at all (or at least no substantive due process rights—more on that in a bit). (See pg. 3 ("[D]o the Fifth Amendment's substantive due process guarantees apply to unlawfully-present aliens with no connection to this country who were apprehended while attempting to cross the border? The answer is no.").)
The Fifth Amendment reads, in relevant part:
No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
The amendment thus clearly protects persons, not citizens. And Texas acknowledges that "the Supreme Court has held that unlawfully-present aliens are 'persons' protected by the Fifth Amendment." (page 4)
But, Texas continues, "the full scope of the Fifth Amendment's protections that apply to citizens do not cover everyone who merely attempts to enter this country …. '[A]liens receive constitutional protections when they have come within the territory of the United States and developed substantial connections with this country.'" (id.) For that proposition, Texas cites United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, a case about whether the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement applied to a search of a foreign national in Mexico. (The Court said it does not.) From a case about whether the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement applies to a search of a foreign national's residence outside the United States, Texas concludes that some foreign nationals who are undocumented while in the United States have no Fifth Amendment rights at all.*
What, you're not persuaded?
In the arguments in the district court during the first round of this litigation, the United States avoided taking the position that the undocumented young women involved in the case have no rights under the Fifth Amendment. But when the United States merely refused to concede that these women had constitutional rights, the district court was still taken aback: "That is remarkable," the court told the government.
Texas's position is indeed remarkable—it does not account for the text; it dismisses precedent; it has untenable implications; and it makes a mockery of the English language. It does, however, have one thing going for it: Texas's position is a better reflection of how the Office of Refugee Resettlement views these young women—as something less than autonomous human beings.
(1) Text: See above, and below (implications).
(2) Precedent (or lack thereof)
Boumediene v. Bush, a case not discussed in the brief, held that noncitizens who are detained by the United States outside the formal territory of the United States have rights under the suspension clause. Boumediene involved people who were being forcibly held by the United States; that's partially why, according to some commentators, the Court held that they had rights. That is also true here. Boumediene involved people who were being held in an area over which the United States has "de facto" sovereignty. That is also true here, as the United States has both de facto and de jure sovereignty over areas within its borders. Boumediene did not apply a "substantial connections" test.
Zadvydas v. Davis, a case discussed in the brief, assumed that noncitizens who are being detained for immigration proceedings have rights under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. Zadvydas interpreted immigration statutes to allow noncitizens to challenge the length of their detentions so as to avoid concerns under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, the same provision at issue in Hargan. Texas distinguishes Zadvydas on two grounds—one is that it didn't overrule Verdugo-Urquidez's purported requirement that noncitizens have "substantial connections" to the United States. Verdugo-Urquidez is a Fourth Amendment case that predated Zadvydas. Zadvydas also stated that "the Due Process Clause applies to all 'persons' within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent." (Emphases mine.) Texas also points to dicta in Zadvydas that suggested "aliens who have not yet gained initial admission to this country would present a very different question." See the earlier quote from Zadyvdas about persons temporarily or unlawfully in the United States having rights, as well as the below discussion of the implications of Texas's position. See also Justice Kennedy's dissent in Zadvydas, which stated that "[B]oth removable and inadmissible aliens are entitled to be free from detention that is arbitrary or capricious." (Emphases added)
Reno v. Flores, a case not discussed in the brief, rejected a due process challenge to the then-Immigration-and-Naturalization-Services' policy of detaining non-citizen minors during the duration of immigration proceedings. The procedures were challenged on due process grounds; the Court did not take the position that, as noncitizens with potentially no substantial connections to the United States, the children lacked any rights under the due process clause at all.
Plyler v. Doe, a case discussed in the brief, held that Texas could not deny public education to undocumented children. Texas distinguishes Plyer on the ground that its analysis purportedly applies only to aliens that had "developed substantial connections with this country." But nothing in Plyler suggests that Texas could exclude from public schools undocumented children who have been in the United States for only a certain limited period of time, and a better reading of Plyler would be that Texas could not do so.
I should also say, at this point, that it's not clear how Texas's proposed rule that the Fifth Amendment protects only noncitizens with substantial connections to the United States would apply to this case. Texas asserts that the young woman in the case (and possibly all young women subject to ORR's policy) would not qualify for Fifth Amendment protections because she was apprehended at the border, and has been in the federal government's custody ever since.
But why could the women subject to the ORR policy not develop ties to the United States while they are in custody, assuming they have not done so already? One of the reasons why minors are put in Health and Human Services' custody, rather than the Department of Homeland Security's custody, is to make their lives in the United States easier and help them to normalize their lives and perhaps even build connections here. As Marty has noted, ORR has explained that giving HHS, rather than DHS, custody over the minors "helps new populations maximize their potential in the United States by linking them to critical resources that assist them in becoming integrated members of American society." (Emphases mine.)
(3) Other (Potential) Precedent
There are two cases on the Supreme Court's docket this term that would be rather easy to resolve under Texas's understanding of the Fifth Amendment. One case is Sessions v. Dimaya. The question in Dimaya is whether section 16(b), as incorporated into the Immigration and Nationality Act, is unconstitutionally void for vagueness. The vagueness doctrine is based on the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment (a point Justice Gorsuch took pains to clarify during the oral argument). If noncitizens who lack substantial connections to the United States have no rights under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, then that might resolve Dimaya itself, since we would need findings on the petitioner's substantial connections to the United States before addressing the Fifth Amendment argument on the merits. It would also mean that section 16(b) could not be unconstitutionally vague when applied to persons without substantial connections to the United States. QED.
The other case is Jennings v. Rodriguez, which will (or will not, since Justice Kagan is now recused) address whether persons who are detained under three immigration statutes have constitutional rights, under the Fifth Amendment's due process clause, to bond hearings when they are detained for extended periods of time. If persons without substantial connections to the United States have no rights under the due process, that would resolve some of the issues in/applications of Rodriguez. If persons who lack substantial connections to the United States have no rights under the due process clause, it would also mean that such persons could be detained forever, but that detail concerns the implications of Texas's view, which brings me to….
(4) Implications (Or, The Horror)
Texas purports to evaluate the different positions in Garza by considering their implications. See page 10 ("If on the facts of this case Doe ha a Fifth Amendment right to an abortion, it is hard to imagine why she could be denied any other constitutional rights—such as the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.").
So let's consider some implications of Texas's position. When I initially wrote about this case, I highlighted two exchanges between Justice Kagan and the lawyer representing the United States in Rodriguez that were potentially relevant to Garza:
JUSTICE KAGAN: Mr. Stewart, is – is your argument about the new admits, the people who are coming to the border, premised on the idea that they simply have no constitutional rights at all?
MR. STEWART: It is premised on that….
JUSTICE KAGAN: Okay. If it is premised on that, I mean, Justice Scalia in one of his opinions talked about, surely, that -that can't be right; could we torture those people, could we put those people into forced labor? Surely, the answer to that is no. Is that right?
MR. STEWART: Yeah, I should have been more precise in saying they have no constitutional rights with respect to the determination whether they will be allowed to enter the country.
JUSTICE KAGAN: Okay. So -- but they do have some constitutional rights, not to be tortured, not to be placed in hard labor...
And the other exchange:
JUSTICE KAGAN: But if I could just push on Justice Kennedy's question a bit, I mean, for those -- that class of aliens, we are talking about people who have been in this country, who clearly do have various constitutional rights. And are you suggesting that if the backlog is five years, it's okay to keep them there for five years …?
MR. STEWART: I would say that is not unconstitutional….… Let me give you my most extreme answer, and then let me give you a – a backup answer. The most extreme answer is the criminal alien who is detained for more than six months, unlike every other form of detention that are -- is discussed in the briefs, that alien always has the option of terminating the detention by accepting a final order of removal and returning home.
JUSTICE KAGAN: I take it that that's your most extreme answer because it doesn't sound all that good.
(Laughter.)
The idea that persons who lack substantial connections to the United States have no rights under the due process clause is, indeed, laughable. Could the United States forcibly sterilize those persons if it apprehends them at the border? Could the United States take their organs and donate them to citizens? Could the United States conduct medical experiments on the noncitizen children who were detained in Flores, or keep them in "shackles, chains, [and] barred cells"? Could the United States force women apprehended at the border to have abortions?
Texas would have to say yes, I think, because Texas thinks that the "'initial inquiry' in assessing any due process claim" is whether the Fifth Amendment applies to the prospective plaintiff, and the rights the plaintiff is asserting. According to Texas, "the Court should begin with a threshold question: do the Fifth Amendment's substantive due process guarantees apply…." And Texas confidently and definitively answers "no" to that question: It maintains that the Fifth Amendment does not "apply to unlawfully-present aliens with no connection to this country who were apprehended while attempting to cross the border."
On page 3, Texas presents its argument as limited to "the Fifth Amendment's substantive due process guarantee." But why would that be the case? The Fifth Amendment protects one group—"persons"; it does not extend one set of protections (those that are procedural in nature) to one group, and another set of protections (those that are substantive in nature) to a different group. It does not extend full-blown substantive protections to one group, and watered-down or laughable versions of substantive protections to a different group. The text refers to "persons" full stop; all of the Fifth Amendment's protections apply to those persons. If persons without substantial connections to the United States don't have rights the Fifth Amendment, they don't have rights under the Fifth Amendment. In any case, the prohibitions on torture and medical experimentation are derived from the *substantive* guarantees of the Fifth Amendment, which are the ones that Texas says do not extend to persons without substantial connections to the United States.
Texas's argument on the Second Amendment also belies its suggestion that its position about the scope of the Fifth Amendment's protections is somehow limited to the Fifth Amendment's substantive guarantees, rather than its procedural ones: If the word "persons" in the Fifth Amendment has to be construed to mean the same thing as the phrase "the people" in the Second Amendment, then surely "persons" under the Fifth Amendment has to be construed to mean the same thing as, well, itself.
(5) English Language (At Least As Commonly Understood Up To This Point)
The United States has resorted to rather strained usages of the phrase "affirmatively facilitate" and the word "complicity" in this case. The United States is using "affirmatively facilitate[e]" to mean "releasing from our physical custody so that a woman can see a doctor," and "complicit" to mean something like "allowing the abortion to occur and not taking active steps to impede it," which occurs any time the government doesn't criminalize abortion. (For some debunking of this dubious facilitation/complicity argument, see Marty's several posts, Mike Dorf's column, or Judge Millett's en banc concurrence or panel dissent.)
Texas has its own offering of word salad; the first heading of its argument section presents this case as the one that will answer whether the young women have a "right to an Abortion on Demand." What does Texas think constitutes an "abortion on demand"? In this case, it means temporarily releasing a woman from custody so that she can see a doctor and obtain an abortion that she is entitled to receive under state law, and that the government will not pay for. State law in Texas also requires women to jump through a series of hoops before obtaining an abortion, and the women in Garza (at least Jane Doe, who was in Texas) did not seek an exemption from those requirements. It's hardly easy for them to obtain abortions, much less "on demand."
Texas also appears to fear that a ruling against the government would "incentivize even more unlawful entries," as thousands of young women choose to endanger their lives and leave their homes to unlawfully enter the United States in the hope that they will be apprehended by the United States so that they can insist on the United States releasing them from custody to allow them to obtain an abortion. There is no reason to think that would happen, and Texas provides no reason to think that it would; Plyler v. Doe also rejected the dubious suggestion that requiring Texas to allow undocumented children to enroll in public education would lead to an influx of unauthorized entry. The unfounded fear of persons entering the United States so that they can be apprehended by HHS and obtain an abortion that they will pay for is the extent of Texas's argument for why a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction is not in the public interest.
To sum things up: Texas's argument has little to recommend it—not the text, not existing precedent, and not the implications of its position. Texas's argument, however, has managed to attract one vote thus far—Judge Henderson adopted it when the D.C. Circuit decided not to stay an order of the district court. The other dissenting judges, Judge Kavanaugh and Judge Griffith, wisely chose not to do so. It's not hard to understand why.
I will say this about Texas's position: Texas's argument more closely tracks the logic behind the policy that's at issue in Garza. Texas maintains that the undocumented young women in the case are not "people" (formally, for purposes of the Fifth Amendment). And that is how ORR is treating them—as beings who are not fit, to decide for themselves, what is in their best interests. ORR insists that ORR (and let's be honest, probably just Scott Lloyd), rather than the women themselves, can decide whether it is in the women's best interests to have an abortion, and whether it would be better for the women to have the abortion earlier (while still formally in ORR's custody), or later at some indefinite point in the future (while formally in the custody of some yet undiscovered sponsor). ORR is willing to force these women to delay their abortions, increasing the risks to the women's health, and also potentially jeopardizing the women's psychological repose, as they wonder whether they will have to carry their unwanted pregnancies fully to term, and are forced to have later-term abortions.
The insult to these women's liberty and dignity is dehumanizing; Texas just made that explicit in its choice of argument.
*It's not entirely clear from Texas's brief whether it believes that undocumented persons/persons without legal statutes necessarily lack substantial connections to the United States and thus do not have rights under the Fifth Amendment. For example, on page 2, Texas represents that Doe's concession "that she has 'no legal immigration status'" resolves whether she has any Fifth Amendment rights. If that's the relevant detail, then Texas's position is actually that all persons without legal immigration status have no Fifth Amendment rights. It's also worth clarifying that Doe "has no legal immigration status" in the sense that she has not been granted legal immigration status; some people who have not been granted legal immigration status are eligible for and may ultimately obtain it, including by receiving asylum in the United States. Doe (and some of the other women subject to the ORR policy) may fall into that category, as they fled various forms of violence and persecution in their home countries. But, as I said, Texas's position is unclear, as it elsewhere frames its rule as whether "unlawfully present aliens with no ties to the United States" have rights under the Fifth Amendment.
@LeahLitman
Immigration Women's Rights Reproductive Freedom
Versus Trump: Is There A New Title X In Town?
This week on Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie are joined by guest host Alexandra Brodsky to discuss the Ninth's Circuit's recent decision that let go into effect major new regulations for the primary federal program dealing with family planning and women's health—a program known as Title X. Listen now!
Jason Harrow
Equal Citizens
Charlie Gerstein
Civil Rights Corps
The Bladensburg Cross Decision – A Twisted Cross and the Remaking of Establishment Clause Standards
6/24/19 // In-Depth Analysis
The Court has adopted unreflectively the perspective of Christians in a political majority, without regard to the perspective of others
Robert W. Tuttle
Ira C. Lupu
There Goes Title X: Title X is Contraception, Folks
6/22/19 // Commentary
By Priscilla J. Smith: Conservatives are hiding behind the abortion debate to attack contraceptive access and getting away with it


I got tagged by David Drucker!
And the deal is: come up with 5 ideas for courses you'd take … if only they were offered! The courses have to be something that will 'fix up your life' in one way or another. Since I'm a money coach, I thought I'd think of money-oriented courses I'd take.
This course will teach you how to hunt down, skewer and permanently put out of commission (possibly including bodily damage to the offender) the originators of those phishing e-mails we get. Besides the original offense, it's also an insult: we're not that stupid.
Some warranties are worth paying to extend. Some are a waste of money. This course teaches you how to distinguish between the two.
Ever wished you could tone down Christmas, yet keep the spirit alive with your family?
Ever secretly wished your adult child would pay you back the down payment you helped with 10 years ago?
And what about that secret credit card debt your spouse thinks you don't know about?
This 25 year program will help you navigate the diplomatic difficulties of money and family.
Banks need to pay fewer tellers since they implemented ATMs … so why do they need to charge us $1.75 every time we use one from another bank? This course teaches the dark arts of beating the ATM system. For more information, quote the secret password ATMFEESSUCK.
This guy is a spooky legend in his own time. "Inside the Mind of Alan Greenspan" leads you into the unmapped territory of Greenspan's mind on economics, gdp, interest rates, politics, intuiting the mood of the entire US population, and very, very, very complex mathematical equations. 3 PhDs prequisite, preferably in Math, Physics and Psychology.
OK, I tag these 5 : Lowell Ann, NetChick, Miss 604, MoneyRelations, and MJ! You're it! come up with 5 fix-your-life type of courses you'd take if they were offered…. and tag 5 more.
That is so imaginative. I have to put my creative thinking cap on.
One method for beating ATM fees: Get a bank that doesn't have branch offices (for example an investment bank or an online-only bank). As they don't have any ATM's of their own, they often refund your ATM fees from all banks' ATM's.
1. How to convince the world that print needs to be larger…or …. How to find wonderful, convenient, cheap magnifying glass collections. Who can read phone books, maps, instructions on bottles these days?
2. How to grow food on my balcony. Vegetables that love pots.
3. How to convince people it's good to make reservations before the last minute. Especially when the caterer needs confirmation three days in advance.
4. How to use up a 20 year fabric stash in one week. It's got to be creative and fun!
5. How to handle composting when you live in an apartment …. or …. How to handle guilt trips.
The School of Attitude Adjustment for personal success | Money Relations - Finance and investment blog.


Prettier Images Of French Doors with Blinds Between the Glass – Through the thousands of Ideas on the web regarding french doors with blinds between the glass, we selects the best option together with greatest quality absolutely for our visitor, and this photos ,in actual fact, regarded as one of stocks choices in our greatest photographs gallery about Prettier Images Of French Doors with Blinds Between the Glass. I feel you might think it's great.
written simply by Renee at 2011-12-29 00:54:29. To view many stocks throughout Prettier Images Of French Doors with Blinds Between the Glass figure gallery make sure you abide by this kind of web page URL.


The Land Of The Enlightened is an ominous yet refreshing directorial debut from Belgian filmmaker Pieter-Jan De Pue. The project takes the form of a drama-documentary, filmed over the course of 7 years when the filmmaker was embedded in Afghanistan. The film focuses on the withdrawal of western coalition troops, while at the same time following the narrative of two groups of children, one being from the Kuchi tribe and another group located in the Pamir region. The film gives an eye-opening and macabre insight into the effects of both the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan by the Western coalition, as well as the Soviet-Afghan war in the latter half of the 20th century on the Afghan populace.
De Pue's hybrid form marries fictional narrative with non-fictional subject matter, combining the two in an approach reminiscent of combat journalism. Not only are we able to see the effects these wars have had upon the people of Afghanistan but we are also shown by De Pue just how futile and in vain the 2001 invasion was. This is shown particularly well in a scene where an American officer is speaking to some Afghan village elders about their role in helping him not only protect the security of the region, but to also aid in the fight against the Taliban. Upon asking them for their support he gets no response. This scene showed that not only are the coalition fighting a futile conventional war against the Taliban insurgency, but they are also still fighting a war for the hearts and minds of the people more than 10 years into the invasion, a conflict in which they have evidently failed to succeed.
The story of the American garrison on the hills is paralleled rather effectively with the narratives of two groups of children who both play a core role in the documentary. In these sections, a group from the Kuchi tribe forage for old Soviet munitions such as anti-personnel mines and artillery shells, and sell them to another group of children who work in the 7000 year old Lapis Lazuli mines and use these munitions to quarry for the rare mineral. The exploits of the Kuchi children show the decades old remnants of the effects of the Soviet invasion of their country, as we see the children playing within a field of abandoned Soviet armoured vehicles and tanks while at the same time digging for anti personnel mines left behind by the Soviet army. These scenes effectively display just how desensitised generations of Afghans have become to the decades of invasion and warfare by external forces, which have reduced some of them to foraging for lethal munitions just to make a living.
The film also features another gang of children based in the desolate and arid region of Pamir, who control and raid the caravan routes to Tajikistan by which the rare Lapis Lazuli minerals are exported. These sections poignantly display this nomadic group as a product of a war-torn and hostile land. As the film follows the group, their motives brought to life through their own introspective dialogue, as they dream of becoming Khans in their own right, living in a palace Kabul, and to taking a girl's hand in marriage. Throughout their journey, audio snippets from their radios fill us in on the backdrop of a transitional period of the war in Afghanistan, and the withdrawal of western coalition troops adds to our understanding of the motives of the children.
The Land of the Enlightened is an incredible debut from De Pue as it not only gives a crucial and valuable insight into post-invasion Afghanistan, but it also does so in a beautifully structured format of a tripartite narrative in a hybrid documentary/fiction form. Accompanying all of these great aspects of the film is the beautiful cinematography of De Pue, who captures all in an extremely aesthetically pleasing 16mm celluloid.


Together, We can make an eternal difference!
Tomorrow's leaders face an unprecedented uphill battle. Current statistics show an alarming need to reach today's youth. Effective outreach must grow in order to turn the tide of these ever increasing statistics!
SWCM sees a day when youth have been ignited spiritually. A day when teen pregnancy is the exception and young women and men value the sanctity of marriage and real relationships. We see the day when teens are being mentored on the real meaning of integrity, hard-work, and purpose. A day when men and women are passionately pursuing Jesus Christ. Days when teens are being equipped to become tomorrow's leaders and as a result our nation turns back to His ways and His purposes for our country!
SWCM is currently building its root system of donors and volunteers. The fruit that we bear has a direct correlation to the root system. Simply put, our focus on our root system will enable us to produce more fruit! Since God works through people, our search for others means a greater capacity to add more initiatives and experience exponential growth in the life of the camper, their families and communities.
We believe God has already selected many relationships for us to nurture. We are on an adventure to locate these vital relationships and invite them to join with us in changing the course of history for our young people.
Will you prayerfully consider our invitation to make a difference in thousands of lives? Our desire is to act as a faithful outlet of expression for your God led sacrificial and joyful stewardship.
Gifts can be given annually, quarterly or monthly. Assets (real estate, vehicles, stocks and bonds) are also greatly appreciated, please call for more information!