March 2 2010 Meeting Agenda Members: Fill & Download for Free

How about four? (References below)Iran sanctions. Sec. Clinton accomplished the nearly impossible mission of getting China, Russia, the European Union and the civilized world on board with crippling sanctions against Iran. This is what brought Iran to the negotiating table.Clinton understands the importance of strengthening ties with friends and allies while simultaneously engaging adversaries. Through intensive personal interaction, she deftly built new relationships and managed old ones in a way that advance U.S. interests. She endeavored to ensure that the U.S. has “…a seat at every table that has the potential for being a partnership to solve problems.” For example, she expertly led efforts to rescue Chen Guangcheng, the dissident who took refuge in the U.S. Embassy in Beijing in May 2012, without crippling U.S.-China relations. Clinton was the most active secretary of state in history, as a result. She traveled more frequently and visited more countries than any of her predecessors, her travels have spanned nearly 1 million miles and 112 countries.Clinton articulated a new vision of Economic Statecraft that made domestic economic growth – e.g. helping U.S. companies win business overseas – a key pillar of U.S. foreign policy. She made foreign policy relevant to the broader economic conversation, taking place in the U.S. in a show of political savvy few previous secretaries could match. And Clinton appointed the State Department’s first ever-chief economist to help implement her vision. She also supported the more traditional economic aspects of foreign policy – such as sanctions – including those that crippled the Iranian government – and free trade – including Free Trade Agreements with allies Panama, Colombia, and South Korea.The now iconic picture of senior officials gathered in the Situation Room during the Osama Bin Laden raid will forever memorialize one of the principal national security achievements of the first Obama administration. Clinton supported the raid and was a key player in adjusting U.S.-Pakistan relations afterwards. She was also a strong proponent of NATO airstrikes in Libya that eventually led to Muammar Gaddafi’s ouster. Her active diplomacy was critical to securing United Nations Security Council authorization of the Libya mission and maintaining strong European and regional support for it. Without such robust diplomatic effort, the use of military force – in Pakistan and Libya – would not have been nearly as effective. Clinton’s role in these two military campaigns highlights the central role of foreign policy.ReferencesHolland, Steve (November 14, 2008). "Obama, Clinton discussed Secretary of State job". Reuters. Retrieved November 18, 2008.Barr, Andy (October 14, 2009). "Hillary Clinton: I'd have hired Barack Obama". Politico. Retrieved October 14, 2009."Revelations From The Campaign". 60 Minutes. CBS News. January 7, 2010. Retrieved January 8, 2010.Myers, Steven Lee (July 1, 2012). "Last Tour of the Rock-Star Diplomat". The New York Times Magazine. pp. 18–23, 49.Wolffe, Renegade, p. 314.Holland, Steve (November 19, 2008). "Bill Clinton offers steps to help wife get State job". Reuters. Retrieved November 7, 2009.Calmes, Jackie; Cooper, Helene (November 15, 2008). "Obama's Talk With Clinton Creates Buzz". The New York Times. Retrieved November 7, 2009.Wolffe, Renegade, p. 313.Wolffe, Renegade, pp. 205–207.Libert and Faulk, Barack, Inc., pp. 133–134.Tumulty, Karen; Calabresi, Massimo (November 20, 2008). "Why Obama Wants Hillary for His 'Team of Rivals'". Time. Retrieved November 7, 2009.Dilanian, Ken (June 11, 2009). "In a supporting role, Clinton takes a low-key approach at State Dept.". USA Today. Retrieved November 7, 2009.Libert and Faulk, Barack, Inc., p. 52.Hernandez, Raymond; Luo, Michael (November 18, 2008). "Clinton Said to Be Unsure About Cabinet Job". The New York Times. Retrieved November 7, 2009.Baker, Peter; Cooper, Helene (November 20, 2008). "An Option for Clinton: Enhanced Senate Role". The New York Times. Retrieved April 10, 2010.Kornacki, Steve (November 17, 2008). "Secretary of State: A Prize, but Rarely a Steppingstone". The New York Observer. Retrieved November 7, 2009."Obama Set On Key Cabinet Nominees". NPR. November 21, 2008. Retrieved November 21, 2008."Obama Confirms Hillary In Top Job". Sky News. December 1, 2008. Archived from the original on February 7, 2009. Retrieved December 1, 2008.Baker, Peter (November 29, 2008). "Bill Clinton to Name Donors as Part of Obama Deal". The New York Times. Retrieved December 1, 2008.Hayes, Samantha (December 4, 2008). "Clinton's nomination popular, but is it constitutional?". CNN. Retrieved November 7, 2009.Falcone, Michael (December 19, 2008). "Bush Approves Bill Reducing Secretary of State's Pay". The New York Times. Retrieved December 19, 2008.Clinton, Hillary Rodham (January 13, 2009). "Nomination Hearing To Be Secretary of State". U.S. State Department. Archived from the original on January 24, 2009. Retrieved January 13, 2009.Flaherty, Anne (January 15, 2009). "Senate Panel Backs Clinton as Secretary of State". ABC News. Associated Press. Retrieved May 9, 2009.[dead link]Jones, Jeffrey M. (January 13, 2009). "As Senate Hearings Begin, Hillary Clinton's Image Soars". The Gallup Organization. Retrieved January 16, 2009.Baker, Peter (January 4, 2010). "Obama's War Over Terror". The New York Times Magazine.Phillips, Kate (January 21, 2009). "Senate Confirms Clinton as Secretary of State". The New York Times. Retrieved May 10, 2009.Tumulty, Brian (January 21, 2009). "Clinton sworn in at State Dept. and then resigns Senate". The Journal News. Retrieved January 22, 2009.Rudin, Ken (December 1, 2008). "Obama Brings Hillary to Cabinet, GOP to Ariz. State House". NPR. Retrieved May 9, 2009.Klein, Joe (November 5, 2009). "The State of Hillary: A Mixed Record on the Job". Time. Retrieved November 7, 2009.Pickler, Nedra (January 29, 2009). "Lawsuit argues Clinton ineligible for state post". Newsvine. Associated Press. Retrieved May 9, 2009.O'Reilly, Cary (October 30, 2009). "Clinton Wins Dismissal of Suit Challenging Selection". Bloomberg News. Retrieved October 31, 2009.Parnes, Amie (February 10, 2009). "Clintonites jostle for jobs at State". Politico. Retrieved November 14, 2009.Crowley, Michael (March 4, 2009). "Hillary's State". The New Republic. Retrieved November 14, 2009.Schatz, Joseph J.; Snell, Kelsey (January 9, 2013). "Obama picks Jack Lew to replace Tim Geithner as Treasury secretary". Politico.Rozen, Laura (November 7, 2009). "Five things learned from Hillary Clinton's trip". Politico. Retrieved November 7, 2009.Smith, Ben (January 22, 2009). "U.S. foreign policy: Who's in charge?". Politico. Retrieved November 7, 2009.Secretary Clinton Announces Appointment of Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd SternSmith, James F. (May 19, 2009). "Health pioneer may get Obama post". The Boston Globe. Retrieved November 14, 2009.Rozen, Laura (August 4, 2009). "Paul Farmer out for USAID?". Foreign Policy. Retrieved November 14, 2009.Ackerman, Spencer (November 11, 2009). "New USAID Chief Faces Internal Skepticism". The Washington Independent. Retrieved November 14, 2009.Smith, Ben (March 13, 2011). "Crowley leaves an enigmatic Hillaryland". Politico. Retrieved March 20, 2011.Landler, Mark; Cooper, Helene (December 22, 2008). "Clinton Moves to Widen Role of State Dept.". The New York Times. Retrieved November 7, 2009.Gates, Robert (2014). Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. p. 283. ISBN 0-307-95947-3.Dreazen, Yochi J. (February 26, 2009). "Budget Plan Is Short on State Department Specifics". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved November 8, 2009."Department of State and Other International Programs" (PDF). United States Government Printing Office. Retrieved November 8, 2009.Calmes, Jackie (May 7, 2009). "Obama Unveils New Budget Cuts". The New York Times. Retrieved November 8, 2009.Clinton, Hillary Rodham (May 20, 2009). "FY 2010 Budget for the Department of State: Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State, Before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs". U.S. Department of State. Retrieved November 8, 2009.Hudson and Leidl, The Hillary Doctrine, p. 52.Landler, Mark (January 27, 2009). "Clinton Sees an Opportunity for Iran to Return to Diplomacy". The New York Times. Retrieved January 28, 2009."Hillary Clinton leaves quick stamp on US State Department". Agence France-Presse. January 27, 2009. Retrieved February 8, 2009.Richter, Paul (January 28, 2009). "World breathes sigh of relief, Hillary Clinton says". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved January 30, 2009.Clinton, Hillary (January 22, 2009). "Arrival at the Department of State". State Department. Retrieved February 8, 2009.Landler, Mark (April 1, 2009). "Lower Profile for Clinton, but Her Influence Rises". The New York Times. Retrieved April 6, 2009.Landler, Mark (May 1, 2009). "Her Rival Now Her Boss, Clinton Settles Into New Role". The New York Times. Retrieved May 2, 2009.Wolfson, Charles (April 28, 2009). "100 Days Of Diplomacy: A False Yardstick". CBS News. Retrieved May 2, 2009.Landler, Mark (July 15, 2009). "For Clinton, '09 Campaign Is for Her Turf". The New York Times. Retrieved August 6, 2009.Keating, Peter (June 14, 2009). "The Good Soldier: Hillary Clinton As Secretary of State". New York. Retrieved November 7, 2009.Smith, Ben (June 23, 2009). "Hillary Clinton toils in the shadows". Politico. Retrieved November 7, 2009."Clinton warns Iran on engagement". msnbc.com. Associated Press. July 15, 2009. Retrieved November 8, 2009.Clinton, Hillary Rodham (July 10, 2009). "Town Hall Meeting to Announce the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR)". U.S. Department of State. Retrieved November 8, 2009.Wolfson, Charles (July 17, 2009). "Hillary Clinton's 6-Month Checkup". CBS News. Retrieved November 8, 2009.Sheridan, Mary Beth (December 16, 2010). "State Dept. review calls for emphasis on averting global crises". The Washington Post. Retrieved January 4, 2011.LaFranchi, Howard (December 15, 2010). "Hillary Clinton's vision for foreign policy on a tight budget". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved January 15, 2011.Lemmon, Gayle Tzemach (March 6, 2011). "The Hillary Doctrine". Newsweek. Retrieved April 3, 2011.Hudson and Leidl, The Hillary Doctrine, pp. 4, 53.Clinton, Hillary Rodham (September 25, 2009). "Remarks at the Clinton Global Initiative Closing Plenary". U.S. Department of State. Retrieved November 9, 2009."Clinton unveils US food security initiative". Agence France-Presse. September 25, 2009. Retrieved November 9, 2009."Fight against hunger key to security: Clinton". Agence France-Presse. October 26, 2009. Retrieved November 10, 2009.Kornblut, Anne E. (October 13, 2009). "Clinton Says No to Another Presidential Bid". The Washington Post. Retrieved November 7, 2009.Kornblut, Notes from the Cracked Ceiling, pp. 253–254.Mary Jordan (January 11, 2010). "'Hillary effect' cited for increase in female ambassadors to U.S.". The Washington Post.Combe, Rachael (April 5, 2012). "At the Pinnacle of Hillary Clinton's Career". Elle. Retrieved June 3, 2012.Radia, Kirit; Blakely, Jonathan (February 24, 2010). "Washington Political Battles Hurt U.S. Image and Obama Agenda, says Sec. Clinton". ABC News. Retrieved February 27, 2010.Kolawole, Emi (January 19, 2011). "Hillary Clinton reaffirms: I won't commit to a second term (video)". The Washington Post. Retrieved February 4, 2011.Calabresi, Massimo (November 7, 2011). "Hillary Clinton and the Rise of Smart Power". Time. pp. 26–31.Zhao Yi (February 22, 2009). "A glance at features of Hillary Clinton's Asian tour". Xinhua News Agency. Retrieved March 1, 2009.Landler, Mark (February 20, 2009). "Clinton Reshapes Diplomacy by Tossing the Script". The New York Times. Retrieved April 6, 2009.Luis Ramirez (March 2, 2009). "Hillary Clinton Begins First Foray Into Israel-Palestinian Conflict". VOA. Retrieved March 3, 2009."Clinton: 2 U.S. officials to visit Syria". CNN. March 3, 2009. Retrieved March 3, 2009.David s. cloud (March 6, 2009). "For Clinton, Iran is Middle East key". Politico. Retrieved March 6, 2009.Richard Sisk (March 6, 2009). "Secretary of State Hillary Clinton invites Iran to Afghan talks table". New York Daily News. Retrieved March 6, 2009."Clinton Goofs on Russian Translation, Tells Diplomat She Wants to 'Overcharge' Ties". Fox News. March 6, 2009."Button gaffe embarrasses Clinton". BBC News. March 7, 2009.Dilanian, Ken (June 11, 2009). "In a supporting role, Clinton takes a low-key approach at State Dept.". USA Today. Retrieved July 22, 2009.Pleming, Sue (June 19, 2009). "Clinton has surgery to fix broken elbow". Reuters. Retrieved June 20, 2009.Kessler, Glenn (July 1, 2009). "Clinton Cancels Trip to Russia". The Washington Post. Retrieved November 7, 2009."Moscow visit due for Hillary Clinton". United Press International. July 6, 2009. Retrieved November 8, 2009.Thompson, Ginger; Malkin, Elisabeth (October 30, 2009). "Deal Set to Restore Ousted Honduran President". The New York Times."Honduras' Zelaya says to meet coup backers on Thursday". Reuters. July 7, 2009. Retrieved July 7, 2009."Zelaya returns to Honduras". CNN. September 21, 2009."US diplomat in Honduras trying to revive pact". Yahoo! News. Associated Press. November 11, 2009. Archived from the original on November 12, 2009."Hillary Clinton urges the OAS to readmit Honduras". BBC News. June 7, 2010.Dougherty, Jill (August 3, 2009). "Clinton's trip to Africa her biggest yet". CNN. Retrieved November 7, 2009.Gettleman, Jeffrey (August 12, 2009). "Clinton's Flash of Pique in Congo". The New York Times.Landler, Mark (September 5, 2010). "In Middle East Peace Talks, Clinton Faces a Crucial Test". The New York Times. p. A1.Lee, Matthew (October 10, 2009). "Turkey, Armenia Sign Historic Accord". Time. Associated Press. Retrieved October 14, 2009."Turkey-Armenia ink historic accord". Al Jazeera. October 10, 2009. Retrieved October 10, 2009."Survivors recount narrow escape from deadly Peshawar market bombing". CNN. October 29, 2009. Retrieved January 23, 2010.Weber, Christopher (November 6, 2009). "Hillary Clinton To Lead U.S. Delegation At Berlin Wall". Politics Daily."Berlin Wall anniversary: Hillary Clinton calls for greater freedom throughout the world". The Daily Telegraph. London. November 8, 2009.Eilperin, Juliet; Faiola, Anthony (December 18, 2009). "U.S. pledges aid, urges developing nations to cut emissions". The Washington Post.Thrush, Glenn (December 17, 2009). "Hillary Clinton tries to save Copenhagen talks". Politico."U.S., others broker modest climate deal". msnbc.com. December 19, 2009.Javers, Eamon (December 16, 2009). "Poll: Clinton approval soars". Politico.Page, Susan (December 30, 2009). "Poll: Americans most admire Obama, Clinton, Palin". USA Today.Quinn, Andrew (January 15, 2010). "Hillary Clinton to go to Haiti on Saturday". Reuters."Clintons honeymoon in Haiti". The Miami Herald. April 2009.[dead link]Clinton, Hillary Rodham (January 21, 2010). "Remarks on Internet Freedom". U.S. Department of State. Archived from the original on January 3, 2014. Retrieved December 18, 2010.Richter, Paul; Pierson, David (January 23, 2010). "Sino-U.S. ties hit new snag over Internet issues". Los Angeles Times.Ryan, Johnny; Halper, Stefan (January 22, 2010). "Google vs China: capitalist model, virtual wall". OpenDemocracy.Landler, Mark; Wong, Edward (January 22, 2010). "China Rebuffs Clinton on Internet Warning". The New York Times.Landler, Mark (February 16, 2010). "Iran Policy Now More in Sync With Clinton's Views". The New York Times.Crowley, Michael (July 14, 2015). "Hillary Clinton endorses nuclear deal". Politico."Clinton pushes talks in Falklands dispute". CNN. March 2, 2010. Retrieved March 2, 2010."UK rejects Hillary Clinton's help in Falklands dispute". BBC News. March 2, 2010. Retrieved March 2, 2010.Llana, Sara Miller (March 2, 2010). "Chile earthquake: Hillary Clinton arrives with satellite phones". The Christian Science Monitor.Tapper, Jake (April 13, 2010). "Obama's Supreme Court Short List Includes Six Women". Good Morning America. ABC News.Ben Smith (April 13, 2010). "A Hillary Clinton trial balloon's short flight". Politico.Landler, Mark; Cooper, Helene (March 19, 2010). "From Bitter Campaign to Strong Alliance". The New York Times.Archibold, Randal C.; Landler, Mark (June 18, 2010). "Justice Dept. Will Fight Arizona on Immigration". The New York Times."State Department Stands By Decision to Include Arizona in U.N. Human Rights Report". Fox News. August 30, 2010.DeYoung, Karen (July 19, 2010). "U.S. hopes Afghanistan-Pakistan trade deal boosts cooperation in war effort". The Washington Post.DeYoung, Karen; Partlow, Joshua (July 21, 2010). "Karzai pledge gets international endorsement". The Boston Globe. The Washington Post.Landler, Mark (July 23, 2010). "Offering to Aid Talks, U.S. Challenges China on Disputed Islands". The New York Times.Foderaro, Lisa W.; Haughney, Christine (July 25, 2010). "Wedding Is Talk of the Town, but Nobody's Talking". The New York TimesLandler, Mark (September 9, 2010). "In a Speech on Policy, Clinton Revives a Theme of American Power". The New York Times. p. A8.^ Jump up to:a b Burns, Robert (September 1, 2010). "Obama Opens Long-Shot Talks on Mideast Peace". ABC News. Associated Press.Landler, Mark; Cooper, Helene (September 2, 2010). "Settlements in West Bank Are Clouding Peace Talks". The New York Times.Tapper, Jake (September 2, 2010). "Eyes on Hillary Clinton as She Leads Mideast Peace Talks". ABC News.Watkins, Tracy (November 5, 2010). "Clinton crushes 25 years of ice". The Dominion Post. Wellington."Favorability: People in the News: Hillary Clinton". Gallup Poll. Retrieved December 6, 2010.Otterman, Sharon (December 17, 2010). "Sharing Stories of a Man Who Loved Big Challenges". The New York Times.Gordon, Michael R.; Landler, Mark (February 3, 2013). "Backstage Glimpses of Clinton as Dogged Diplomat, Win or Lose". The New York Times. p. A1.Arsenault, Mark (December 22, 2010). "US Senate votes to ratify New START arms treaty". The Boston Globe.Knox, Olivier (December 20, 2010). "Obama woos senators on START nuclear treaty". Yahoo! News. Agence France-Presse.Landler, Mark (January 13, 2011). "Clinton Bluntly Presses Arab Leaders on Reform". The New York Times. Retrieved January 15, 2011.Landler, Mark (January 11, 2011). "Clinton Addresses Terrorism and Politics in Yemen". The New York Times. Retrieved January 15, 2011.Rogin, Josh (January 12, 2011). "Media races to cover Clinton's 'trip' in Yemen". Foreign Policy. Retrieved January 15, 2011.Hall, Mimi; Wolf, Richard; Jackson, David (February 2, 2011). "Clinton stays on message as Egypt evolves". USA Today. Retrieved February 4, 2011."Factbox – Evolution of U.S. stance on Egypt". Reuters. February 2, 2011. Retrieved February 4, 2011.Thrush, Glenn (February 2, 2011). "Hillary Clinton plays key role in dance with Hosni Mubarak". Politico. Retrieved February 5, 2011.Smith, Ben; Tau, Byron (January 31, 2011). "Hillary Clinton calls for 'real democracy' in Egypt". Politico. Retrieved February 5, 2011.Brusk, Steve (January 31, 2011). "Egypt, Haiti make for marathon Sunday for Clinton". CNN. Retrieved February 4, 2011."Clinton blasts Cairo attack on journalists". United Press International. February 4, 2011. Retrieved February 4, 2011."Hillary urges probe into new Cairo violence". The Nation. Lahore. February 4, 2011. Retrieved February 4, 2011."Administration Drop Kicks Ambassador for Remarks on Mubarak, but Echoes Sentiment". Fox News. February 7, 2011. Retrieved March 2, 2011.Dozier, Kimberly (February 4, 2011). "Obama "Disappointed" by Intel on Arab Unrest". CBS News. Retrieved March 20, 2011."Hillary Clinton: Middle East facing 'perfect storm'". BBC News. February 5, 2011. Retrieved February 5, 2011."Clinton urges restraint, reform in Bahrain". Agence France-Presse. February 20, 2011. Retrieved March 2, 2011."Clinton concerned about Bahrain as 5th protester reported killed". CNN. March 19, 2011. Retrieved March 20, 2011."Hillary Clinton: Libya may become democracy or face civil war". BBC News. March 1, 2011. Retrieved March 20, 2011.Cooper, Helene; Myers, Steven Lee (March 18, 2011). "Obama Takes Hard Line With Libya After Shift by Clinton". The New York Times. Retrieved March 20, 2011.Wilson, Scott; Warwick, Joby (March 19, 2011). "Obama's shift toward military action in Libya". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 20, 2011.Thrush, Glenn; Negrin, Matt (March 19, 2011). "Behind Barack Obama's turnaround on Libya". Politico. Retrieved March 20, 2011."Clinton Says No Decision Yet on Arming Libya Rebels". International Business Times. April 3, 2011."Congress members grill administration officials on Libya mission". CNN. March 31, 2011.Lillis, Mike; et al. (March 30, 2011). "White House briefing changes few minds on Libya involvement". The Hill.Crabtree, Susan (March 30, 2011). "Clinton To Congress: Obama Would Ignore Your War Resolutions". Talking Points Memo.Charlie Savage (May 25, 2011). "Libya Effort Is Called Violation of War Act". The New York Times.Owen, Robert (2015). "The U.S. Experience: National Strategy and Campaign Support". In Karl Mueller. Precision and Purpose: Airpower in the Libyan Civil War. Rand Corporation. p. 105.Dinan, Stephen, "Bipartisan Congress rebuffs Obama on Libya mission". The Washington Times, Saturday, June 4, 2011Steinhauer, Jennifer (June 3, 2011). "House Rebukes Obama for Continuing Libyan Mission Without Its Consent". The New York Times.Hersh, Joshua (March 17, 2011). "Oh, Hill No". The Daily. Retrieved March 20, 2011.Blitzer, Wolf (March 18, 2011). "Blitzer's Notebook: Behind the scenes on Clinton's Mideast trip". CNN. Retrieved March 20, 2011.Bowden, Mark (2012). The Finish: The Killing of Osama Bin Laden. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press. pp. 198–203. ISBN 0-8021-2034-2.Gollust, David (May 2, 2011). "Clinton: Pakistan Cooperation Helped Find bin Laden". Voice of America.Wan, William (July 25, 2011). "Clinton seeks to reassure China amid U.S. debt stalemate". The Washington Post."Clinton won't give odds on averting UN showdown over Palestinian statehood". The Washington Post. Associated Press. September 15, 2011. Retrieved September 25, 2011.[dead link]^ Jump up to:a b c "Clinton declares 'America's Pacific century'". Reuters. November 11, 2011.^ Jump up to:a b Clinton, Hillary (November 2011). "America's Pacific Century". Foreign Policy (189): 56–63.Burke, Jason (November 30, 2011). "Hillary Clinton begins Burma visit". The Guardian. London."Secretary Clinton's Interview in Rangoon, Burma, with BBC". U.S. Department of State. December 2, 2011.McDonnell, Patrick J. (February 5, 2012). "Hillary Clinton warns of 'brutal civil war' in Syria". Los Angeles Times."Clinton rips Russia, China for vetoes at U.N. on Syria". Asbury Park Press. Associated Press. February 25, 2012. p. A12.Labott, Elise (July 6, 2012). "Clinton Slams Russia, China Over Syria". CNN.Gordon, Michael R.; Landler, Mark (February 7, 2013). "Senate Hearing Draws Out a Rift in U.S. Policy on Syria". The New York Times. p. A1."Travels with the Secretary". U.S. Department of State. Archived from the original on July 12, 2012. Retrieved December 16, 2012.LaFranchi, Howard (September 5, 2012). "Hillary Clinton vs. Condi Rice: Who gets the 'most traveled' crown?". The Christian Science Monitor.Richter, Paul (February 15, 2012). "Hillary Clinton to World Bank? 'Not happening,' aide says". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved February 16, 2012..Fujita, Akiko; Dover, Elicia; Schabner, Dean (May 19, 2012). "Chen Guangcheng: Chinese Dissident Arrives US". ABC News.Mohammed, Arshad (June 7, 2013). "Clinton Defends Drone Strikes After Al Qaeda Leader Abu Yahya al-Libi Killed". Huffington Post. Reuters."Clinton faces Pakistani ire at drone attacks". NBC News. 2009. Retrieved April 13, 2015.Miller, Greg (December 27, 2011). "Under Obama, an emerging global apparatus for drone killing". The Washington Post.Lee, Matthew (June 28, 2012). "Frequent flier Hillary Clinton hits 100-country mark". Detroit Free Press. Associated Press."US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on historic Laos visit". BBC News. July 11, 2012. Retrieved July 11, 2012.Saleh, Heba (July 15, 2012). "Clinton in talks with Egypt military head". Financial Times. Retrieved April 13, 2015."Protests as Clinton holds meetings in Egypt". CNN. July 16, 2012."For Us or Against Us: Egyptians Confront Clinton with Conspiracy Theories". Time. July 15, 2012. Retrieved October 4, 2013."Clinton threatens sanctions for undermining Somali political transition". The Hill. February 23, 2012. Retrieved September 14, 2012."Clinton encouraged by Somalia's governing progress". Yahoo! News. August 4, 2012. Retrieved September 14, 2012."Hillary Clinton Congratulates Somalia's New Leaders – Calls for Continued Reforms". Raxanreeb. September 12, 2012. Archived from the original on September 18, 2012. Retrieved September 14, 2012."US envoy dies in Benghazi consulate attack". Al Jazeera English. September 12, 2012. Retrieved September 12, 2012.Robinson, Dan (September 12, 2012). "Obama Condemns Libya Attack That Killed US Ambassador". VOA News.John Solomon (September 12, 2012). "Years of warning about embassy security preceded Libya attack". Washington Guardian. Retrieved November 5, 2012."Cease-fire declared in Gaza conflict". CNN. November 21, 2012."Egypt clashes between Morsi backers, protesters hurt 200". CBC News. December 6, 2012.Kessler, Glenn (January 9, 2013). "Hillary Clinton's overseas diplomacy versus other secretaries of state". The Washington Post.^ Jump up to:a b Packer, George (February 11, 2013). "Long Engagements". The New Yorker.Dwoskin, Elizabeth (January 10, 2013). "Hillary Clinton's Business Legacy at the State Department". Bloomberg Businessweek.Goldberg, Jeffrey. "The Obama Doctrine". The Atlantic.Ghattas, Kim (April 14, 2016). "Hillary Clinton Has No Regrets About Libya". Foreign Policy.Zenko, Micah (June 24, 2015). "Book Review – 'The Hillary Doctrine: Sex & American Foreign Policy'". Council on Foreign Relations. Also published in Newsweek as "Did Hillary Implement a Women's-Issues Foreign Policy?", June 26, 2015.Hudson and Leidl, The Hillary Doctrine, pp. 52–53.Hudson and Leidl, The Hillary Doctrine, pp. 57–60."Pakistani Opinion Ever More Critical of the U.S.". Pew Research. June 27, 2012. Retrieved August 16, 2013.Parnass, Sarah; Hughes, Dana (December 23, 2012). "Departing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Leaves Behind a Legacy of Firsts". ABC News."Clintons personally paid State Department staffer to maintain server", The Washington Post, September 5, 2015. Retrieved 2015BibliographyHeilemann, John; Halperin, Mark (2010). Game Change: Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime. New York: HarperCollins. ISBN 0-06-173363-6.Hudson, Valerie M.; Leidl, Patricia (2015). The Hillary Doctrine: Sex & American Foreign Policy. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 0-231-16492-0.Kornblut, Anne E. (2009). Notes from the Cracked Ceiling: Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and What It Will Take for a Woman to Win. New York: Crown Books. ISBN 0-307-46425-3.Libert, Barry; Faulk, Rick (2009). Barack, Inc.: Winning Business Lessons of the Obama Campaign. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: FT Press. ISBN 0-13-702207-7.Wolffe, Richard (2009). Renegade: The Making of a President. New York: Crown Publishers. ISBN 0-307-46312-5.Further readingAllen, Jonathan; Parnes, Amie (2014). HRC: State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton. New York: Crown Publishers. ISBN 0-8041-3675-0.Clinton, Hillary Rodham (2014). Hard Choices. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 1-4767-5144-7.Ghattas, Kim (2013). The Secretary: A Journey with Hillary Clinton from Beirut to the Heart of American Power. New York: Times Books. ISBN 0-8050-9511-X.

Let me start this answer by quoting Richard Feynman, “If you can’t explain something in simple terms, you don’t understand it.”Why did 4 million people living in India lose citizenship rights?The simplest answer is:1. BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT CITIZENS OF INDIA.2. GOVT OF INDIA IS TRYING TO IDENTIFY ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. [IT IS HOWEVER UNDECIDED WHAT THEY WANT TO DO WITH THOSE WHO IT IDENTIFIES AS NON CITIZENS]PART – 1To understand the answer to the first question, here are the basic facts that you need to know.1. What is NRC?2. What do you do when you don’t find your name in NRC?3. Why was NRC formed in the first place?WHAT IS NRC?NRC (National Register of Citizens) consists names of Indian citizens of Assam. The NRC was prepared in 1951 after 1951 Census of India.The NRC updation of 2014-2016 across Assam includes names of all those persons (and their descendants) who appear in the NRC 1951 or in any of the Electoral rolls upto the midnight of 24 March 1971 or in any one of the other admissible documents issued upto the midnight of 24 March 1971, which would prove their presence in Assam on or before 24 March 1971.WHAT DO YOU DO WHEN YOU DON’T FIND YOUR NAME IN THE NRC?CALL UP NRC CONTROL ROOM HELPLINE: 0361- 2463303YOU CAN ALSO WHATSAPP ON 9132699735 to register your complaint.If a person's name does not appear in the draft, they have to apply in prescribed forms in their respective NSKs. These forms will be available from August 7 to September 28 and the authorities will then inform them the reason for their names being left out.The next step will be to file the claim in another prescribed form which will be available from August 30 to September 28 and these claims will be finally disposed of after proper hearings.ADDENDUM: WHAT HAS THE GOVT OF INDIA DONE TO CONTAIN THE SITUATION?Prohibitory order under Section 144 of CrPC (code of criminal procedure) has been imposed in seven districts-- Barpeta, Darrang, Dima Hasao, Sonitpur, Karimganj, Golaghat and Dhubri.Vulnerable areas have been identified by the SPs in their respective districts and the situation is being monitored closely to prevent any untoward incident, particularly those arising due to rumour-mongering.The Centre has despatched 220 companies of the Central Armed Police Forces to gear up security in Assam and neighbouring states.Chief Minister Sarbananda Sonowal had held a high-level meeting recently on the NRC draft release and directed the officers to remain alert and help and explain the process of claims and objections to people whose names do not appear in the draft. Sonowal had also directed the officials not to refer any case to the Foreigners' Tribunal based on the NRC draft list.The All Assam Students' Union (AASU) has taken a special initiative to set up a 24-hour control room at its central office here to help people. The applicants can also call 24x7 toll free numbers--15107 from Assam and 18003453762 from outside Assam-- by referring to their 21-digit Application Receipt Number (ARN).The applicants can also check their names by visiting the NRC website and through SMSs.The NRC is being updated under the Supreme Court supervision with March 24, 1971 as the cut-off date for genuine Indian citizens in Assam. The first draft of the ongoing NRC process was released at the midnight of December 31, 2017. It comprised 1.9 crore names out of the total application.PART - 2WHY ARE THEY NOT CITIZENS OF INDIA?For the simple fact that they cannot prove it and they will be given ample opportunity to do so. THE GOVT OF INDIA IS NOT PERSECUTING PEOPLE OR IS UNEMPHATIC OR DISCRIMINATING TOWARDS A CERTAIN COMMUNITY.A lot of ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS are HINDUS.The cut-off date for NRC is 24th March 1971. Remember the date because it is very significant.The genocide in Bangladesh began on 26th March 1971 with the launch of Operation Searchlight. Western Pakistan (currently Pakistan) began a military crackdown on the Eastern Pakistan (Now Bangladesh). During the nine month long Bangladeshi war of Independence members of the Pakistani Military killed no less than 3 MILLION PEOPLE and raped between 200,000 and 400,000 Bangladeshi Women. The actions against women were supported by Muslim Religious leaders who declared Bengali Women as “PUBLIC PROPERTY”. As a result 8 – 10 MILLION people (mostly Hindus) fled to INDIA.WOULD YO GO BACK TO A COUNTRY WHICH DECLARES WOMEN AS PUBLIC PROPERTY?INDO – PAKISTAN WAR for the Liberation of Bangladesh happened during the period 3rd December – 16th December.Now a little more history of what happened to the newly formed country called Bangladesh.SECURALISM was one of the four fundamental principles according to the original 1972 Constitution of Bangladesh. The SECULARISM principle was removed from the constitution in 1977 by Ziaur Rahman and an Islamic State was declared in 1988. In 2010, secularism was reinstated as the basic principles.NOW WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD GO BACK TO SUCH A COUNTRY? WOULD YOU, AS A HINDU BETWEEN 1971 – 1977 – 1988 – 2010?A little bit more of History. In 1964, EAST PAKISTAN RIOTS (Current BANGLADESH) which is referred to as the massacre and ethnic cleansing of Bangali Hindus took place because of an alleged theft of what was believed to be the PROPHET’S HAIR from the HAZRATBAL SHRINE in Jammu and Kashmir.The Hindus again fled from East Pakistan (Current Bangladesh) to India. The refugee rehabilitation became a national problem for India too and lot many of them were resettled in Madhya Pradesh.WHILE WE ARE AT IT, LET’S ALSO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MIGRANTS AND REFUGEES. This is important too.A migrant is a person who makes a conscious choice to leave their country to seek a better life elsewhere. Before they decide to leave their country, migrants can seek information about their new home, study the language and explore employment opportunities. They can plan their travel, take their belongings with them and say goodbye to the important people in their lives. They are free to return home at any time if things don’t work out as they had hoped, if they get homesick or if they wish to visit family members and friends left behind.Refugees are forced to leave their country because they are at risk of, or have experienced persecution. The concerns of refugees are human rights and safety, not economic advantage. They leave behind their homes, most or all of their belongings, family members and friends. Some are forced to flee with no warning and many have experienced significant trauma or been tortured or otherwise ill-treated. The journey to safety is fraught with hazard and many refugees risk their lives in search of protection. They cannot return unless the situation that forced them to leave improves.The ongoing scenario deals with immigrants who came into this country illegally and we are more concerned about granting them unquestioned citizenship.While we are discussing about citizenship to immigrants, what are the provisions in other countries?You are granted a work Visa, you abide by the rules and regulations, you contribute tax and you are usually a productive member of society. But here we are talking about people who illegally crossed the border, took advantage of petty politics, grabbed land by force, took away jobs, never paid tax and is creating nuisance for indigenous people.PART - 3SOME MORE HISTORY LESSONS ON THE ISSUE OF IMMIGRANTS.Migration from [current] Bangladesh can be traced back to the year 1905 when Lord Curzon partitioned Bengal into West Bengal [Hindu Majority which included present day states of Bihar and Orissa] and East Bengal [Muslim Majority] which included present day Bangladesh and Assam.Assam during those times had a tiny minority Muslim Population. Migration from East Bengal or Present day Bangladesh started in huge numbers. Between the period of 1905 and 1931 an entire population of East Bengal had transplanted itself into present day Assam.The Muslim League which was founded in December 1906 by then had the two Nation theory [One for Hindus and One for Muslims] in their agenda and they wanted Assam to be a part of Pakistan[if India won independence and the nation was divided amongst Hindus and Muslims]. Assam is very rich in natural resources and arable land and is of significant strategic value. If Assam was in Pakistan the whole of North East would have been easily infiltrated too.Assam could only be included into Pakistan if it had significant Muslim Population.In 1920, the INDIAN FOREST ACT was passed making all forest land government-owned. Between 1920 and 1933 a lot of forest land were granted to the immigrants. For comparison, 47, 637 acres of land were given to 441 Hindus as against 1619 immigrants Muslim families. By 1936, 37.7% of the land was under migrant occupation in Nowgong District alone.In 1936, Sir Syed Muhammad Saadulla became the Prime Minister of Assam who encouraged Muslim Migration from East Bengal in accordance to the agenda of including Assam in Jinnah’s view of future Pakistan. Sir Syed Muhammad Saadulla was the Prime Minister of Assam until 11th February 1946. He was succeded by Gopinath Bordoloi.After independence the effect of Assam’s local resistance to immigration came to the notice of the Indian Govt. The Indian Parliament officially acknowledged the problem of unchecked immigration in 1950 by passing the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act 1950. The act however was only on paper and the ground reality was that the inflow of Muslim immigrants was picking up.Illegal immigration always has been an issue in Assam even right after India’s Independence. The Assam Accord which sets the cut off date at 24th March, 1971 has no problem with any of the people who came to India from Bangladesh.The NRC only outlaws people who cannot prove that they have been in India before 24th March, 1971 or are descendants of those people. This includes a lot of Hindu refugees and Migrants that came into India after the Indo Pakistan war of 1971. They clearly have arrived in India illegally and this is a problem and the GOVT OF INDIA is trying to solve an issue.The illegal immigrants in Assam was estimated to be 1.1 Million during 1971-1991. The Govt recorded the entry of 0.84 Million people into Assam from Bangladesh during 1972-1992 all of which stayed back in India.How would you feel if 20% of the local population are illegal immigrants who take up your resources.To all those who are wondering what will happen to the 4 Million people: The status quo will be maintained. India is one of the few countries in the world where you will not be persecuted. By status quo, I mean they will not be allowed to vote in Assam. They will simply migrate to others states, obtain voters ID card, aadhaar card, ration card etc etc and lead a normal life.4 Million is only the population of immigrants in Assam, the overall estimate of immigrants from Bangladesh is assumed to be around 20 Million and they are spread in the states of Assam, Bihar, West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan, Jammu and Kashmir and other parts of India.Links and references:https://paa.confex.com/paa/2017/mediafile/ExtendedAbstract/Paper9807/migration_Assam_saikia%20et%20al%20PAA%202016.pdfhttp://paperroom.ipsa.org/papers/paper_42931.pdfNational Register of Citizens of India - Wikipediahttp://nrcassam.nic.in/NRC Draft list: Don't panic, here's what you should do if your name is not there1971 Bangladesh genocide - WikipediaSecularism in Bangladesh - Wikipedia1964 East Pakistan riots - WikipediaWhat’s the Difference Between a Migrant and a Refugee?Partition of Bengal (1905) - WikipediaGeorge Curzon, 1st Marquess Curzon of Kedleston - WikipediaAll-India Muslim League - WikipediaIndian Land Rights: a HistoryMuhammed Saadulah - WikipediaPrime Minister of Assam - WikipediaTwo-nation theory - WikipediaIndo-Pakistani War of 1971 - Wikipediahttp://www.assam.gov.in/documents/1631171/0/Annexure_2_.pdf?version=1.0&t=1444717496068IMMIGRANTS (EXPULSION FROM ASSAM) ACT, 1950

Yes.It's been clear that SCOTUS had been intentionally avoiding granting cert on cases that should have been slam dunk, because Kennedy was wobbly.The clearest example was Peruta - which was the poster child for the inherently unjust and corrupt way the progressive left in all areas of government treats what is and always has been a fundamental individual right.Concealed carry is illegal in California without a permit.The permit is issued by the county sheriffs, and they had broad discretion to establish the criteria necessary to obtain one, or to not establish criteria and to deny arbitrarily without cause.Open carry is illegal in California.The San Diego County sheriff established a standard of issuance such that only those who had an occupational need (armed security guards, etc.) could obtain permits.Since open carry is illegal, this provides no way in which an ordinary law-aiding citizen can carry for his own defense.Edward Peruta and four others filed suit.The district court found for the county.On appeal, a three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit found for Peruta, in a 2–1 decision, declared that a may-issue concealed carry permit system, in a state where open carry is illegal, is contrary to the Second Amendment.The sheriff of San Diego County decided not to appeal.Kamala Harris, the state attorney general, despite the state having not been a party to the case, filed an appeal for an en-banc hearing before the Ninth Circuit.The en-banc panel reversed, finding for the county, despite the county no longer being involved in the case, arguing that there was no Second Amendment right to carry concealed, and totally ignoring the fact that open carry was also illegal.This was an absurd decision on its face, totally ignoring the arguments in the case, and creating a serious split with other circuits.SCOTUS denied cert, with Thomas and Gorsuch issuing a blistering dissent:PERUTA v. CALIFORNIASUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATESEDWARD PERUTA, et al. v. CALIFORNIA, et al.on petition for writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuitNo. 16–894. Decided June 26, 2017The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Gorsuch joins, dissenting from the denial of certiorari.The Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arm[s] shall not be infringed.” At issue in this case is whether that guarantee protects the right to carry firearms in public for self-defense. Neither party disputes that the issue is one of national importance or that the courts of appeals have already weighed in extensively. I would therefore grant the petition for a writ of certiorari.ICalifornia generally prohibits the average citizen from carrying a firearm in public spaces, either openly or concealed. With a few limited exceptions, the State prohibits open carry altogether. Cal. Penal Code Ann. §§25850, 26350 (West 2012). It proscribes concealed carry unless a resident obtains a license by showing “good cause,” among other criteria, §§26150, 26155, and it authorizes counties to set rules for when an applicant has shown good cause, §26160.In the county where petitioners reside, the sheriff has interpreted “good cause” to require an applicant to show that he has a particularized need, substantiated by documentary evidence, to carry a firearm for self-defense. The sheriff’s policy specifies that “concern for one’s personal safety” does not “alone” satisfy this requirement. Peruta v. County of San Diego, 742 F. 3d 1144, 1148 (CA9 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). Instead, an applicant must show “a set of circumstances that distinguish the applicant from the mainstream and cause him to be placed in harm’s way.” Id., at 1169 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). “[A] typical citizen fearing for his personal safety—by definition—cannot distinguish himself from the mainstream.” Ibid. (emphasis deleted; internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). As a result, ordinary, “law-abiding, responsible citizens,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 635 (2008), may not obtain a permit for concealed carry of a firearm in public spaces.Petitioners are residents of San Diego County (plus an association with numerous county residents as members) who are unable to obtain a license for concealed carry due to the county’s policy and, because the State generally bans open carry, are thus unable to bear firearms in public in any manner. They sued under Rev. Stat. §1979, 42 U. S. C. §1983, alleging that this near-total prohibition on public carry violates their Second Amendment right to bear arms. They requested declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the sheriff from denying licenses based on his restrictive interpretation of “good cause,” as well as other “relief as the Court deems just and proper.” First Amended Complaint in No. 3:09–cv–02371, (SD Cal.) ¶¶149, 150, 152. The District Court granted respondents’ motion for summary judgment, and petitioners appealed to the Ninth Circuit.In a thorough opinion, a panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed. 742 F. 3d 1144. The panel examined the constitutional text and this Court’s precedents, as well as historical sources from before the founding era through the end of the 19th century. Id., at 1150–1166. Based on these sources, the court concluded that “the carrying of an operable handgun outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense . . . constitutes ‘bear[ing] Arms’ within the meaning of theSecond Amendment.” Id., at 1166. It thus reversed the District Court and held that the sheriff’s interpretation of “good cause” in combination with the other aspects of the State’s regime violated the Second Amendment’s command that a State “permit some form of carry for self-defense outside the home.” Id., at 1172.The Ninth Circuit sua sponte granted rehearing en banc and, by a divided court, reversed the panel decision. In the en banc court’s view, because petitioners specifically asked for the invalidation of the sheriff’s “good cause” interpretation, their legal challenge was limited to that aspect of the applicable regulatory scheme. The court thus declined to “answer the question of whether or to what degree the Second Amendment might or might not protect a right of a member of the general public to carry firearms openly in public.” Peruta v. County of San Diego, 824 F. 3d 919, 942 (2016). It instead held only that “the Second Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.” Id., at 924 (emphasis added).IIWe should have granted certiorari in this case. The approach taken by the en banc court is indefensible, and the petition raises important questions that this Court should address. I see no reason to await another case.AThe en banc court’s decision to limit its review to whether the Second Amendment protects the right to concealed carry—as opposed to the more general right to public carry—was untenable. Most fundamentally, it was not justified by the terms of the complaint, which called into question the State’s regulatory scheme as a whole. See First Amended Complaint ¶63 (“Because California does not permit the open carriage of loaded firearms, concealed carriage with a [concealed carry] permit is the only means by which an individual can bear arms in public places”); id., ¶74 (“States may not completely ban the carrying of handguns for self-defense”). And although the complaint specified the remedy that intruded least on the State’s overall regulatory regime—declaratory relief and an injunction against the sheriff’s restrictive interpretation of “good cause”—it also requested “[a]ny further relief as the Court deems just and proper.” Id., ¶152.Nor was the Ninth Circuit’s approach justified by the history of this litigation. The District Court emphasized that “the heart of the parties’ dispute” is whether the Second Amendment protects “the right to carry a loaded handgun in public, either openly or in a concealed manner.” Peruta v. County of San Diego, 758 F. Supp. 2d 1106, 1109 (SD Cal. 2010). As the Ninth Circuit panel pointed out, “[petitioners] argue that the San Diego County policy in light of the California licensing scheme as a whole violates the Second Amendment because it precludes a responsible, law-abiding citizen from carrying a weapon in public for the purpose of lawful self-defense in any manner.” 742 F. 3d, at 1171. The panel further observed that although petitioners “focu[s]” their challenge on the “licensing scheme for concealed carry,” this is “for good reason: acquiring such a license is the only practical avenue by which [they] may come lawfully to carry a gun for self-defense in San Diego County.” Ibid. Even the en banc court acknowledged that petitioners “base their argument on the entirety of California’s statutory scheme” and “do not contend that there is a free-standing Second Amendment right to carry concealed firearms.” 824 F. 3d, at 927.BHad the en banc Ninth Circuit answered the question actually at issue in this case, it likely would have been compelled to reach the opposite result. This Court has already suggested that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry firearms in public in some fashion. As we explained in Heller, to “bear arms” means to “ ‘wear, bear, or carry upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” 554 U. S., at 584 (quoting Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125, 143 (1998) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting); alterations and some internal quotation marks omitted). The most natural reading of this definition encompasses public carry. I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendmentto protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. See Drake v. Filko, 724 F. 3d 426, 444 (CA3 2013) (Hardiman, J., dissenting) (“To speak of ‘bearing’ arms solely within one’s home not only would conflate ‘bearing’ with ‘keeping,’ in derogation of the [Heller] Court’s holding that the verbs codified distinct rights, but also would be awkward usage given the meaning assigned the terms by the Supreme Court”); Moore v. Madigan, 702 F. 3d 933, 936 (CA7 2012) (similar).The relevant history appears to support this understanding. The panel opinion below pointed to a wealth of cases and secondary sources from England, the founding era, the antebellum period, and Reconstruction, which together strongly suggest that the right to bear arms includes the right to bear arms in public in some manner. See 742 F. 3d, at 1153–1166 (canvassing the relevant history in detail); Brief for National Rifle Association as Amicus Curiae 6–16. For example, in Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243 (1846)—a decision the Heller Court discussed extensively as illustrative of the proper understanding of the right, 554 U. S., at 612—the Georgia Supreme Court struck down a ban on open carry although it upheld a ban on concealed carry. 1 Ga., at 251. Other cases similarly suggest that, although some regulation of public carry is permissible, an effective ban on all forms of public carry is not. See, e.g., State v. Reid, 1 Ala. 612, 616–617 (1840) (“A statute which, under the pretence of regulating, amounts to a destruction of the right, or which requires arms to be so borne as to render them wholly useless for the purpose of defence, would be clearly unconstitutional”).Finally, the Second Amendment’s core purpose further supports the conclusion that the right to bear arms extends to public carry. The Court in Heller emphasized that “self-defense” is “the central component of the [ Second Amendment] right itself.” 554 U. S., at 599. This purpose is not limited only to the home, even though the need for self-defense may be “most acute” there. Id., at 628. “Self-defense has to take place wherever the person happens to be,” and in some circumstances a person may be more vulnerable in a public place than in his own house. Volokh, Implementing the Right To Keep and Bear Arms for Self-Defense: An Analytical Framework and a Research Agenda, 56 UCLA L. Rev. 1443, 1515 (2009).CEven if other Members of the Court do not agree that the Second Amendment likely protects a right to public carry, the time has come for the Court to answer this important question definitively. Twenty-six States have asked us to resolve the question presented, see Brief for Alabama et al. as Amici Curiae, and the lower courts have fully vetted the issue. At least four other Courts of Appeals and three state courts of last resort have decided cases regarding the ability of States to regulate the public carry of firearms. Those decisions (plus the one below) have produced thorough opinions on both sides of the issue. See Drake, 724 F. 3d 426, cert. denied sub nom. Drake v. Jerejian, 572 U. S. ___ (2014); 724 F. 3d, at 440 (Hardiman, J., dissenting); Woollard v. Gallagher, 712 F. 3d 865 (CA4), cert. denied, 571 U. S. ___ (2013); Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 701 F. 3d 81 (CA2 2012), cert. denied sub nom. Kachalsky v. Cacace, 569 U. S. ___ (2013); Madigan, 702 F. 3d 933; id., at 943 (Williams, J., dissenting); Commonwealth v. Gouse, 461 Mass. 787, 800–802, 965 N. E. 2d 774, 785–786 (2012); Williams v. State, 417 Md. 479, 496, 10 A. 3d 1167, 1177 (2011); Mack v. United States, 6 A. 3d 1224, 1236 (D. C. 2010). Hence, I do not see much value in waiting for additional courts to weigh in, especially when constitutional rights are at stake.The Court’s decision to deny certiorari in this case reflects a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second Amendmentas a disfavored right. See Friedman v. Highland Park, 577 U. S. ___, ___ (2015) (Thomas, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (slip op., at 6) (“The Court’s refusal to review a decision that flouts two of our Second Amendment precedents stands in marked contrast to the Court’s willingness to summarily reverse courts that disregard our other constitutional decisions”); Jackson v. City and County of San Francisco, 576 U. S. ___, ___ (2015) (same). The Constitution does not rank certain rights above others, and I do not think this Court should impose such a hierarchy by selectively enforcing its preferred rights. Id., at ___ (slip op., at 1) (“ Second Amendment rights are no less protected by our Constitution than other rights enumerated in that document”). The Court has not heard argument in a Second Amendment case in over seven years—since March 2, 2010, in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742. Since that time, we have heard argument in, for example, roughly 35 cases where the question presented turned on the meaning of the First Amendment and 25 cases that turned on the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. This discrepancy is inexcusable, especially given how much less developed our jurisprudence is with respect to the Second Amendment as compared to the First and Fourth Amendments.*  *  *For those of us who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force, the guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem antiquated and superfluous. But the Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it. I respectfully dissent.So, what can we expect to see, if we get another solid gun-rights justice on the Court?We are going to see an end to discretionary permitting.States and communities will still be able to require permits to carry, or even to possess. But the standards of issuance will have to be objective, and permits will be required to be issued to all who meet those standards.Government officials will no longer have the authority to deny without cause.