Maryland Domestic Partnership: Fill & Download for Free

The key to understanding the situation of marriage quality in the U.S. is to realize that cultural attitudes did not change very quickly: They evolved over an extended period of time. In that light, the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) was a culmination, not a beginning.Massachusetts was the first U.S. state to legalize same-sex marriages in 2003, and by the time the Supreme Court announced its Obergefell decision, 37 states had already declared the legality of same-sex marriages, and five additional states were already far along in the process of also legalizing same-sex marriage. Only a small group of states had laws on their books not permitting same-sex marriage, and, in a real way, the Obergefell decision affected only a small percentage of the states.At the same time, general cultural attitudes toward marriage equality had evolved over the space of about 40 years. In 1973, Maryland became the first state to specifically define marriage as a union of one man and one woman, and a handful of other states quickly followed suit. But the tide soon began to turn, and by the late 1980s, states and municipalities began allowing same-sex couples to form legal domestic partnerships that provided many of the benefits and rights as legal marriage. This movement toward marriage equality was dealt a severe blow in 1996, when Congress passed and President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which declared that only heterosexual couples would be able to receive federal marriage benefits. However by the early 2000s, the movement toward state-recognized civil unions between same-sex couples gathered momentum across the country, and states began to slowly recognize same-sex marriages on the state level.That’s the legal evolution. Yet cultural attitudes expressing support of — or, at least, an indifference toward — marriage quality informed many of those state legalizations, first of civil unions and legal domestic partnerships, and ultimately of marriage itself. Of course, when the push toward marriage equality began to pick up steam, opposition arose, and a vocal opposition sprung up. However prominence of this opposition belied a simple fact: Theirs was a distinctly minority opinion, and it would soon be steamrolled by legal recognition.I recall back around 1998 I was doing the laundry in my local laundromat and one the the TVs was tuned to Bill O’Reilly’s FOX News show. He had on two women whom he described as his “culture warriors,” who were presenting the results of a nationwide analysis of cultural attitudes toward gay marriage, and he was rubbing his hands in anticipation of the results. He was very — and visibly — disappointed when the women outlined how they found that the clear majority of Americans either supported same-sex marriage, or at least had no problem with it. O’Reilly quickly ended the segment and moved on, but I found the results to be extremely noteworthy.

Why does the emoluments issue seem like the biggest Trump ‘crime’ yet?Because many clear eyed experienced Democratic Party leaders are seeing the writing on the wall and they don’t expect the Mueller investigation to find Trump and Russian collusion, Trump and Russian obstruction, or believe that they can remove Trump from office by impeachment for a campaign finance violation.So as Democrats continue to beat their heads against the wall because Trump is in the White House and not Hillary Clinton, the insomniacs among them turned to the emoluments clause.A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a pair of lawsuits claiming that President Donald Trump’s failure to divest himself of his real estate empire and other business holdings violated the Constitution’s provision banning receipt of foreign “emoluments” while in public office.U.S. District Court Judge George Daniels ruled that the two suits were fatally flawed because the plaintiffs failed to show injury directly related to the use of Trump’s properties by foreign officials and governments.Daniels, who sits in Manhattan and is an appointee of President Bill Clinton, also said the issue was one that Congress should police, not the courts.“As the only political branch with the power to consent to violations of the Foreign Emoluments Clause, Congress is the appropriate body to determine whether, and to what extent, Defendant’s conduct unlawfully infringes on that power,” the judge wrote. “If Congressdetermines that an infringement has occurred, it is up to Congress to decide whether to challenge or acquiesce to Defendant’s conduct. As such, this case presents a non-justiciable political question.” Judge dismisses suits claiming Trump violated emoluments clauseWhat’s the evidence that Trump is financially benefitting from his time in the White House?Trump's personal fortune has shrunk by $1B since his presidential bidDonald Trump lost big money while president for the second straight year, report saysThis is from CNN’s legal analyst:Is it OK for a business executive who wins the presidency to continue to run his business? Legal scholars and critics of President Donald Trump argue that it's a violation of the Constitution's Foreign Emoluments Clause. But it's not that simple.Another lawsuit has been filed, this time by the State of Maryland and the District of Columbia, against the President for his violation of the clause.There are a number of preliminary issues the court needs to resolve to even determine if it can hear this case. The plaintiffs might lack the necessary standing to even bring the case to court, that is, that they have (1) suffered an injury (2) that is fairly traceable to what the defendant did and (3) can be remedied by a court.This case may also present a "nonjusticiable political question" that should be left alone by the courts, and is for resolution by another branch of government.But assuming for the moment that a court eventually reaches the issue of whether President Trump has violated the Emoluments Clause, the plaintiffs will have their work cut out for them. This is a part of the Constitution that really hasn't been litigated before, at least to this extent.The Emoluments Clauses are two distinct provisions in the Constitution designed to guard against corruption of the chief executive.The Foreign Emoluments Clause prohibits any "Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust" from accepting "any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State" absent "the Consent of the Congress." U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. B, The Domestic Emoluments Clause, entitles the president to receive a salary while in office and forbids him from "receiv[ing] within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them." U.S. Const. art. II, § l, cl. 7.The text itself appears to back up the plaintiffs' position. No emoluments, period. The language does not make an exception for profits unrelated to office.But if you look at the history of the words, and their likely meaning at the time, it appears that the emoluments restriction was limited to gains arising from one's station or employment within the government, not one's outside investments or businesses.It's not just reasonable minds that differ on the issue. Brilliant academic scholars bitterly disagree about it, too. Those who believe Trump has violated the Foreign Emoluments Clause, for example, take the position that any benefit, or any payment at all from a foreign government, is an automatic violation. To them, if a single Saudi prince bought a Trump steak with royal money on the first day of the presidency, then the Foreign Emoluments Clause was violated and continues to be violated daily with every steak, hotel room or golf club membership purchased by a foreign government which is inuring to the benefit to the President.This is an overly restrictive reading of the Emoluments Clauses and the words contained therein. It's a modern interpretation that is at odds with the history and meaning of the terms as they were understood at the time of the Constitutional convention. The word "emoluments" is limited to benefits derived from one's office.Says who? Says the Supreme Court, for one.In one 1850 case, the court defined emoluments as relatively "comprehensive," but still only "embracing every species of compensation or pecuniary profit derived from a discharge of the duties of the office. ..." Accordingly, there's support for the proposition that the payment must be for official services. A payment from a Saudi prince directly to Trump for a pardon of a Saudi national prosecuted by federal authorities would be a purchase of the President's official services, and surely a violation of the Foreign Emoluments Clause. The President's many businesses do not (at least not officially) offer presidential influence for sale. Steaks are not the same as pardons, or trade deals, or plum government contracts.And even for those who advocate that any benefit violates the clause, a strict reading would actually defeat the plaintiffs' case.The "any benefit" folks are right that the text of the Constitution contains no explanation or limitation of the word "emolument" or the other kinds of benefits that violate the clause. But strict reading of the text also forecloses any violation of the clause because of another word: "Person."The Foreign Emoluments Clause says that "no person holding any office of profit or trust" shall accept. ... There is no mention of "business entity" or "corporation" or "limited liability limited partnership." When expounding the Constitution, every word must be given its appropriate meaning; the presumption is that no word was unnecessarily used, or needlessly added. You may say: "Yeah, but come on. The framers didn't anticipate or deal with multinational companies." Sure they did. Long before there was Big Pharma, there was Big Indigo and Big Tea in the form of the British East India Company. The Online Shopping for Electronics, Apparel, Computers, Books, DVDs & more of the 17th century was created by a royal charter, but Americans took the corporate concept and adapted it to private enterprise. For example, when an employee at Amazon receives his paycheck as payment, he doesn't receive money directly from us, the customers -- although we may all be happy to turn over half of our paycheck to the corporate giant for Amazon Prime and same-day delivery service. Still, no one would argue that customers are directly paying the guy working the conveyor belt at a shipping facility. He's paid by the company.Similarly, a payment to Trump's company is probably not a violation. But even assuming for argument's sake that foreign governments paying Trump's companies is the same as paying him, these payments are not for presidential services. They are for non-presidential steaks, or "yuge" hotel rooms, or other products and services.The Maryland/DC lawsuit could go either way, but it should be dismissed. As a public policy, it would foreclose any successful businessman who wants to continue to own his enterprise in the future from running for president. To some, that may not be a bad result, but the problem is that it wouldn't be a constitutional outcome. Trump's businesses aren't a violation of Constitution

BEIJING: The strategy can be referred to as localization, in which factories and supply chains are set up in the domestic markets. The shift towards localization would help countries to create more manufacturing jobs on their own turf.Nevertheless, the procedures to transfer factories and supply chains from China are not as easy as it sounds. Many American-owned factories have already moved away from China and reopened them in southeast and south Asia.Should White House Trade Advisor Peter Navarro persuade US President Donald J. Trump to sign a White House Executive Order calling for American firms to move out of China and to re-shore back home that will likely result in many other Asian nations getting hard hit.Hence that would prove disastrous for the US economy as well. We are entering a worldwide depression. Washington imposing more economic obstacles on Beijing will simply backfire by inflicting deeper pain on American workers and small enterprises.Localization can only be a winner from either one of two different angles: A country faces diplomatic and economic sanctions from many foreign governments; or the country can lure in much more foreign direct investments (FDI).The US markets will not be isolated by other sovereign nations. Americans are the world’s biggest spenders and other countries stand eager to sell products and services to them. Washington would be better served to lure in more FDI, which should include from China.A good approach would be for local governments in the US to open up land space for commercial development, via public-private-partnerships (PPP). Property developers can designate zones for specific type of industries.For example, you can have a science and hi-tech neighborhood, where local officials can offer government subsidies, lower tax rates and other incentives to encourage sci-tech firms from the US and overseas to invest in the zone.That’s a win-win for all involved. American neighborhoods can witness a economic resurgence if they have R&D (research and development) labs getting set up in the district. Chinese companies deserve the right to invest into such designated zones as well.You can utilize the same strategy with localization by establishing more manufacturing hubs in the USA. The Chinese could transfer their factories and supply chains from China to the USA so they can avoid paying higher tariffs and passing through Customs and inspections at the US border when selling their goods to Americans.Despite the economic downturn, the US will remain the world’s largest consumption market for a number of decades to come. The Chinese should play it smart by joining other American companies as they set up more factories in the US.The PPP can be the driving force, in which local governments are coordinating with private enterprises. I had begun to embrace the concept after I visited Frederick County, Maryland last December.You can review the Frederick County official Website to learn more from a link here:https://fcgmd.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=699657e236364730a7329de9396fd914According to the Frederick County, MD Office of Development:“Five areas in Frederick County have been designated as eligible Opportunity Zones -- three are located within the City of Frederick limits, one is located within the City of Brunswick and one exists independently of a municipality. There are investment and development opportunities in all areas.OZs are compatible with existing state/local incentives that may overlap. You are encouraged to use additional incentives such as the Maryland Arts & Entertainment Districts and Maryland Enterprise Zones.”Governor Larry Hogan (R-MD) is taking the right approach and if Chinese factory owners are greeted with openness and tolerance they can deliver more manufacturing jobs to the great state of Maryland.WeChat - 86 13439758718