Showing results for "Provisions" in Politics & Social Sciences

"Provisions” is a virtual table where we gather to learn about culture, food, daily life, and the things that unite us around the world. It is a chance to meet and speak with people from different backgrounds while also learning about the ways that their culture has influenced things like food, language, and worship. Kristy Engel and Melanie Baggao will invite friends from around the world to share with the "table". You will hear from them, firsthand, about life in that particular place. To sign up for updates visit: http://eepurl.com/hXEar5

We're all wayfaring through this world. Host Ali Elashram dispenses oral provisions for the journey and discusses what he sees as common roadblocks holding people back from meeting the needs implanted within them from the start, so that listeners can be more empowered to live well and uncover who they really are and what they're really made of. You'll learn about human needs and their fulfillment, curtailing wants, respecting and drawing from tradition, resisting monoculture, outward sobriety and inward ecstasy, productively navigating diversity and pluralism, and advice to avoid getting ...

"Spending Bill Fails as Republicans Oppose Gay Rights Provision" is from the May 26, 2016 Politics section of The New York Times. It was written by Emmarie Huetteman and narrated by Caroline Miller.

"Senate Democrats Block Zika Bill over Planned Parenthood Provisions" is from the September 6, 2016 US section of The New York Times. It was written by Emmarie Huetteman and Sabrina Tavernise and narrated by Caroline Miller.

Originalism, the view that the meaning of a constitutional provision is fixed when it is adopted, was once the fringe theory of a few extremely conservative legal scholars but is now a well-accepted mode of constitutional interpretation. Noted legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky gives a comprehensive analysis of the problems that make originalism unworkable as a method of constitutional interpretation. He argues that the framers themselves never intended constitutional interpretation to be inflexible and shows how it is often impossible to know the "original intent" of any provision.