美國高中School Routine Compilation United States (Part 5) – Taiwanese Morning Routine for USA High School Life
-------------------------------------------
Supreme Court of the United States Justice Kennedy's 5 Word Reason For Retiring, During Trump Era Ha - Duration: 4:34.Supreme Court of the United States Justice Kennedy's 5-Word Reason For Retiring, During
Trump Era Has Dems Fuming.
Just after announcing his retirement, vital swing Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy
revealed 5 remarkable words that explain why he chose to retire during President Donald
Trump's term — and liberals couldn't be more outraged.
In an era in which the opposition specializes in social justice, it's crucial to combat
such passive resistance with actual legal justice.
So, while the left is marching in the streets, wearing pink knit hats and chanting repetitive
vulgarities, conservatives are winning elections, passing bills, and implementing legislation.
On Wednesday, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy made an unexpected announcement that
he will decidedly retire under the current administration, handing President Donald Trump
the opportunity to pick his second judge to inevitably tip the SCOTUS scale to the right.
While addressing Justice Kennedy's announcement, President Trump not only honored the 30-year
SCOTUS judge, he also revealed the real reason the moderate justice chose to step down during
his term instead of that of any other president.
According to Trump, Kennedy feels at peace leaving the open seat for him to fill because
he wants the president to "carry on his great legacy," The Daily Caller reports.
Trump further explained that Kennedy has faith in him and trusts that he will uphold the
law.
"Great man.
And I'm very honored that he chose to do it during my term in office, because he felt
confident in me to make the right choice and carry on his great legacy, that's why he
did it," Trump said of Kennedy's retirement.
While speaking in North Dakota, Trump recognized that incumbent Democratic Sen. Mary Kathryn
"Heidi" Heitkamp will likely deny any nomination he chooses, although he expressed
optimism that he will be able to convince the Senate regardless.
"And remember this, so we have a pick to come up, we have to pick a great one.
We have to pick one that is going to be there for 40 years, 45 years.
We need intellect, we need so many things.
There are so many elements, go into the making of a great justice of the Supreme Court, you
gotta hit every one of them.
Heidi will vote no to any pick we make for the Supreme Court," Trump continued.
However, Heitkamp did accept Trump's SCOTUS nominee Neil Gorsuch in 2017, showcasing the
president's ability to gain support from both sides of the political aisle.
Gorsuch was nominated and confirmed in just over 2 months, giving Democrats a legitimate
reason to worry about Trump's promise to "immediately" begin searching for a replacement
for Kennedy ahead of the November elections.
His pick will undoubtedly sway the Supreme Court toward conservatism, as the remaining
8 justices are evenly politically split.
Expectedly, leftists are lamenting the world's end, arguing that a conservative Supreme Court
will result in Nazi-like legislation, a phobia they justify in their trivializing comparison
of President Trump to Hitler.
Senator Chuck Schumer incited panic in the left, equating the restoration of conservative
American values to the abolition of human rights, The Washington Post reports.
"Nothing less than the fate of our health-care system, reproductive rights for women and
countless other protections for middle-class Americans are at stake," Senate Minority
Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a floor speech, calling the Kennedy vacancy
the "most important . . . in at least a generation."
"Millions of people are just months away from determining the senators who should vote
to confirm or reject the president's nominee, and their voices deserve to be heard now,
as Leader McConnell thought they should deserve to be heard then," Schumer said.
"Anything but that would be the absolute height of hypocrisy."
For far too long, the left has wielded the Supreme Court as a weapon against individual
liberties, reducing our constitutional rights to rubble in order to satisfy their desire
to topple Western values.
Now that Trump has the opportunity to swing the Supreme Court, major issues such as abortion,
illegal immigration, LGBTQ privileges, and gun control are in danger of a much needed
legal overhaul.
No longer will the fringe minority be allowed to bully the benevolent majority.
Social justice will soon take a back seat to legal justice.
What do you think about this?
Please share this news and scroll down to Comment below and don't forget to subscribe
top stories today.
-------------------------------------------
NC among 17 states suing Trump administration over separation of families - Duration: 2:06. For more infomation >> NC among 17 states suing Trump administration over separation of families - Duration: 2:06.-------------------------------------------
United States housing bubble - Duration: 2:46. For more infomation >> United States housing bubble - Duration: 2:46.-------------------------------------------
Australia's approach to both China and the United States needs to change, says Bob Carr - Duration: 10:13.Amid the escalating threat of a large-scale trade war between the United States and China, former foreign minister Bob Carr has warned that Australia's approach to both major powers needs to change
In his new memoir, Run For Your Life, Mr Carr warns that we need to consider the "big disturbing idea" that if conflict was to arise between the US and China, following the US into war by default "might be a danger to Australian security, not a guarantor of it"
Speaking with news.com.au, Mr Carr warned us not to underestimate the gravity of a potential flare-up between China and the US, saying it may lead to a "shooting war"
"The greatest threat Australia faces is the prospect that a trade war between America and China could become a Cold War," he said
"And that Cold War could flare into a shooting war as a result of a misjudgment." For several months, a potentially devastating trade war has been bubbling between the two powers, with some arguing the impacts could be worse than the global financial crisis of 2009
But Mr Carr believes Australia's devotion to a declining US, combined with our hostile stance towards China in the past 18 months, could ultimately work against us
He argues a "China panic campaign" has dominated the public conversation at the expense of a healthy diplomatic relationship
At the same time, he said he "questions the wisdom of throwing everything behind the bet that American power will continue to have force in the world"
CHINA 'TO OVERTAKE' US AS WORLD'S LEADING POWER According to the Lowy Institute's Asia Power Index, which ranks 25 countries and territories by their power, China is set to surpass the US by 2030, almost doubling the latter's economy
The rising superpower has already exceeded the US in terms of diplomatic influence, economic relationships and geoeconomic security
At the same time, the relationship between Australia and China has been soured by a back-and-forth exchange of vague threats, reports of a "diplomatic deep freeze", and ongoing accusations of China's attempts to influence and interfere in Australian politics — which Mr Carr described as a "panic campaign sailing way beyond any evidentiary base"
He attributed people's fear of the rising superpower to three points. "The ultimate panic is China's unmistakeable economic rise," he said
"There was no hard or soft landing. The realisation of this has shocked a lot of people
" He also attributed people's concerns to Beijing's assertiveness in the South China Sea, having recently noted our options beyond "vigorous diplomatic assertion" are limited there
"I think what's happening to America is the third ingredient. The most passionately pro-American people in our think tank and our security establishments are just shocked by the sudden possibility of American political deadlock and decline
This has encouraged a panicked response to China's rise." Last month, Foreign Minister Julie Bishop hit out at Mr Carr, accusing him of acting against the national interest over claims he used Labor MPs to ask questions about the author of a top-secret report on Chinese interference
"I find it extraordinary that senators would have their questions drafted by a former Labor member who has clearly a different view of the national interest than I would think the opposition here in Canberra does," Ms Bishop told Fairfax Media
"It is a matter for Bob Carr to answer what contractual or financial arrangements he has with organisations
" But Mr Carr rejected any claims he's advocating for Australia to embrace China any more than it did under the former Abbott government
"(The relationship) can easily be improved. They've allowed a couple of speeches to be written by members of the anti-China Taliban — fundamentalists and zealots," he told news
com.au. "Those people have been given a bit of a free run for 18 months. It's now time to put the professional diplomats back in charge
" A recent Lowy Institute poll also found that, while the majority of Australians remain concerned by Chinese investment, the overwhelming majority also see China as more of an economic partner (82 per cent) than a military threat (12 per cent)
So what's the solution? "Our position should be a fully engaged diplomacy with China," Mr Carr said
"We're the only American ally that can't get a meeting with Chinese leadership." Last month, Chinese leader Xi Jinping, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and South Korean President Moon Jae-in met as a summit in Tokyo
"Why can't we be part of that sort of dialogue, while strongly maintaining our position on the South China Sea? If I was Foreign Minister today, the language on the South China Sea would be the same as Julie Bishop's, because that's the Australian position
"A fully-engaged diplomacy which gives the opportunity to influence Chinese behaviour … you can't do it unless you're engaged with them
At the present time, we're handicapped by a more adversarial stance on China than any other US ally
" Some defence experts news.com.au has spoken to have argued that Australia's position will be to toe the line between its two relationships for as long as possible, but under pressure, we'd ultimately take America's side
But Mr Carr says the notion that Australia shouldn't have to "choose" between the US and China, he suggests, is not a pipe dream, but a very real possibility if we play our cards right
"We should continue saying to China what we've done since Whitlam, letting the Chinese know we are part of the US alliance system and the alliance is not directed at them," he notes
"But we should also let the Americans know that our alliance commitment with them does not preclude us from a positive and pragmatic policy towards China
"It's easy to be an ally of the US and a serious partner of China as it continues to make its transition, the most vast and most concentrated in human history, to being ultimately a rich country and vastly more powerful in the world
"It just takes diplomacy, fuelled by confidence." Run For Your Life will be published by Melbourne University Publishing on July 2
'Vigorous diplomatic assertion' Australia's only option in South China Sea: Carr2:16 Former Foreign Minister Bob Carr has told Sky News he backs the Australian government's tough rhetoric towards China
Mr Carr says he doesn't see what options Australia has remaining besides a 'vigorous diplomatic assertion,' since conflict with China is untenable
He says the US is in a similar situation and cannot do much to rectify the situation apart from ramping up freedom of navigation controls
His comments follow the deployment of Chinese missiles to disputed South China Sea islands, which has been censured by US Defence Secretary James Mattis and backed by Defence Minister Marise Payne
June 3rd 2018a month ago/display/newscorpaustralia.com/Web/NewsNetwork/Network News/World/
-------------------------------------------
Barack Obama - 44th President of the United States | Biography | Hungama Kids - Duration: 3:14.In your life, if you are walking down the right path and you are willing to keep walking,
eventually you will make progress.
Not only is this sentence right, but the man who said this, also proved it right.
Today, we will meet the same personality.
Let's meet and know more about the 44th President of United States
and the first Afro-American President of US
Barack Hussein Obama
Right from the age of 6 till 10, Obama spent his childhood in Indonesia and in 1971,
he returned to Honolulu and lived here till he completed his high school.
He did various jobs like community organizer, consultant and instructor for a community
organizing institute, Law lecturer etc.
Besides, along with his wife he organized many Charity programs and helped various NGOs too.
Obama always believed in compassion towards others and was very liberal towards all the religions.
Right from the time he was a senator & till the time he was a President
he worked towards the betterment of American citizens by introducing & changing lot of policies
like Domestic policies,
Economic Policies, Health reforms, Environmental policies, Energy policies etc.
With his political career and life he conveyed a big message to humanity that
all the people of the world are one and they should be treated with equality.
Obama has rightfully quoted
"Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time.
We are the change we seek."
A profound thought, said so simply and then proved right.
Even after leaving Presidency, he still continued to work for the well being of the people
and today, along with his wife, he runs a Charity program.
We hope that you will definitely be motivated and inspired by Barack Obama's beliefs and his life.
Do share and like this video
And for more such infotaining videos don't forget to subscribe to Hungama Kids.
-------------------------------------------
The United States Withdraws from the U.N. Human Rights Council | Connecting Point | June 28, 2018 - Duration: 9:06.>>> EARLIER THIS MONTH THE UNITED STATES FOLLOWED THROUGH
WITH ITS PROMISE TO WITHDRAW FROM THE HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL.
CITING THE NEED FOR REFORM ON THE COUNCIL, AMBASSADOR NIKKI
HALEY MADE THE POTENTIAL MOVE KNOWN A YEAR AGO.
BUT WHAT IMPACT WILL THIS WITHDRAWAL HAVE?
WE GET DIFFERING OPINIONS FROM PROFESSORS VINCENT FERRARO OF
MOUND HOLYOKE COLLEGE AND GARY LEFORT FROM AMERICAN
INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE. >> MY INITIAL REACTION WAS A
LITTLE DISAPPOINTED, BECAUSE IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE AN TORGS BEST
WAY TO DO IT IS FROM WITHIN. BUT AT THE SAME TIME I
UNDERSTAND WHERE THE U.S. IS COMING FROM.
THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION BELIEVES THAT THE COUNCIL IS
POLITICALLY BIASED TOWARDS ISRAEL.
A NUMBER OF ITS MEMBERS ARE COUNTRIES THAT HAVE A HISTORY OF
HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS. IN ALL GOOD FAITH IT'S HARD TO
BE PART OF AN ORGANIZATION WHEN YOU DON'T BELIEVE THAT THEY'RE
LIVING UP TO THEIR MISSION AND GOAL.
I THINK WHAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT IS, IT GOES BACK TO THE BUSH
ADMINISTRATION OF 2006, WHEN THE COUNCIL WAS ORIGINALLY CREATED.
>> BECAUSE AT THAT POINT, KOFI ANAN HAD DISSOLVED THE PREVIOUS
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION. >> THAT'S RIGHT.
>> AND ELEANOR ROOSEVELT CHAIRED THAT ONE.
BUT TO BRING IN PROFESSOR FERARO, WE HEARD NIKKI HALEY,
THE HEAD OF THE AMBASSADOR TO THE U. N. SAY ABOUT A YEAR AGO,
THAT IF CHANGES WEREN'T MADE THE U.S. WOULD REMOVE ITSELF FROM
THE COUNCIL. DO YOU THINK THE U.S. SHOULD
HAVE DONE THAT? >> ABSOLUTELY NOT.
>> WHY IS THAT? >> WELL, IF YOU FIGHT AND LOSE,
THAT'S ONE THING. BUT IF YOU DON'T FIGHT, THEN
YOU'RE DEFINITELY GOING TO LOSE. >> HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE
SEEN THE U.S. PUT UP MORE OF A FIGHT TO USE YOUR WORDS?
>> I THINK HUMAN RIGHTS ARE UNDER ASSAULT ALL OVER THE
WORLD. THE UNITED STATES IS ONE OF THE
MOST IMPORTANT VOICES IN FAVOR OF HUMAN RIGHTS, AND FOR THE
UNITED STATES TO EXCUSE ITSELF MEANS THAT ESSENTIALLY IT
DOESN'T THINK THAT THE ISSUE IS IMPORTANT.
>> WHEN AMBASSADOR HALEY SAID THAT SHE FELT, TO YOUR POINT
PROFESSOR LEFORT, THAT THERE ARE ABUSES, THERE ARE PEOPLE ON THE
COUNCIL WHO HAVE BEEN APPOINTED TO THE COUNCIL REPRESENTING
COUNTRIES WHERE HUMAN RIGHTS MAY BE BEING TRAMPLED, SHE'S
CONCERNED THAT THE U.S. BEING CONNECTED TO THE ORGANIZATION
ALIGNS THE U.S. WITH THAT PERSPECTIVE.
IS THAT NOT THE WAY EITHER OF YOU SEES IT?
>> THAT'S HOW I SEE IT, THAT'S WHY I SAY I UNDERSTAND THE U.S.
POSITION. WHEN YOU HAVE A COUNCIL THAT
BETWEEN 2006 AND 2016 HAD 135 RESOLUTIONS AND 68 OF THOSE
RESOLUTIONS WERE DIRECTED TOWARDS ISRAEL, THAT SEEMS KIND
OF UNFAIR. WHEN YOU HAVE A NUMBER OF
COUNTRIES THAT ARE CONSIDERED NONFREE THAT HAVE A HISTORY OF
HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, LIKE CHINA AND VENEZUELA, SAUDI
ARABIA, FOR EXAMPLE, THEN THAT JUST REENFORCES THE POSITION
THAT THE UNITED STATES HAS TAKEN.
WE DON'T WANT TO BE IN THE COUNCIL CONFIGURED THIS WAY.
THERE'S A NEED FOR REFORM. >> PROFESSOR FERARO, HOW DO YOU
THINK THE U.S. COULD HAVE STAYED INVOLVED BUT WORKED WITHIN THE
ORGANIZATION TO TRY AND BRING ABOUT SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT
WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE IN LINE WITH WHAT THE TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION WAS TRYING TO GET AT?
>> FIRST OF ALL, THE UNITED STATES SHOULD CLEAN UP ITS OWN
ACT. WE CAN TALK ABOUT OTHER
COUNTRIES NOT ADHERING TO HUMAN RIGHTS.
BUT WATER BOARDING IS AGAINST THE GENEVA CONVENTION AND THE
UNITED STATES DID THAT. IN 1994 THE UNITED STATES SIGNED
A CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF CHILDREN, WHICH SPECIFICALLY
PROHIBITS THE FORCIBLE SEPARATION OF CHILDREN FROM
THEIR PARENTS. SO IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO FIND
ANY NATION IN THE WORLD TODAY THAT ADHERES DISTRICTLY TO HUMAN
RIGHTS. ON THE ISSUE OF ISRAEL, IT MAY
BE A INDICATION OF BIAS, I'M NOT GOING TO DISCOUNT THAT.
BUT ONE CAN'T FORGET THAT THE UNITED NATIONS WAS CENTRAL IN
THE FORMATION OF ISRAEL. AND IT CREATED IN 1947 THREE
ENTITIES, A JEWISH ZONE, AN ARAB ZONE AND AN INTERNATIONAL CITY
OF JERUSALEM. THE SITUATION IN THE MIDDLE EAST
IS SOMETHING THAT THE U. N. CREATED.
THEREFORE IT HAS A SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITY.
SINCE 1947, THE ARAB ZONE HAS BEEN MADE MUCH SMALLER THAN IT
WAS IN 1947. AND JERUSALEM NOISE LONGER AN
INTERNATIONALIZED CITY. THEREFORE THE UNITED NATIONS IS
RIGHT TO CALL INTO QUESTION WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE MIDDLE
EAST. >> AND I WOULDN'T QUESTION THAT,
I MEAN CERTAINLY THE UNITED NATIONS HAS THAT RIGHT.
BUT IT HAS TO BE A BALANCED RIGHT.
IT CAN'T BE AN OVERFOCUS, ESPECIALLY IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS
AREA, ON JUST ONE COUNTRY WHEN YOU HAVE OTHER COUNTRIES AROUND
THE WORLD COMMITTING ATROCITIES FAR WORSE THAN WE SEE HAPPENING
AS FAR AS THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT.
LIKE SAUDI ARABIA, THE HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS WE SEE IN
NORTH KOREA, OR THE SITUATION IN VENEZUELA OR CHINA FOR THAT
MATTER. >> YOU MENTIONED NORTH KOREA A
MOMENT AGO AND WE SAW PRESIDENT TRUMP MEET WITH KIM JONG UN NOT
LONG AGO. HUMAN RIGHTS DIDN'T COME UP
DURING THAT CONVERSATION. SO, AND WE HEARD THAT SECRETARY
MIKE POMPEO WHEN HE CAME OUT AND SPOKE ABOUT THIS HE SAID THAT
THE HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL WAS AN EXERCISE IN, QUOTE, SHAMELESS
HYPOCRISY, AND HE WENT ONTO TALK ABOUT HOW HE FELT THE COUNCIL
WAS BEING SILENT IN THESE AREAS. SO YOU HAVE THE TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION BEING SILENT ON ONE HAND, NOT BRINGING UP HUMAN
RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN NORTH KOREA, BUT THEN POMPEO COMING
OUT AND SAYING SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
SO HOW DO YOU JIVE THOSE TWO DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW?
>> WE DON'T KNOW FOR SURE WHAT WAS OR WAS NOT DISCUSSED AS FAR
AS THE MEETING WITH PREMIERE KIM AND PRESIDENT TRUMP.
THE MAIN FOCUS WAS DENUCLEARIZATION.
YOU HAVE TO BE SO CAREFUL IN MUDDYING THE ISSUES OR WITH
OTHER ISSUES THAT ARE EQUALLY IMPORTANT, BUT THE MAIN FOCUS AT
THE MEETING WAS REALLY DENUCLEARIZATION.
I'D BE VERY SURPRISED IF IT WASN'T AT LEAST TOUCHED BASE ON,
BUT CERTAINLY WASN'T THE FOCUS, AND THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY
FELT IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ONE OF THE PRINCIPAL FOCUSES.
I THINK THAT WAS THE WRONG FORUM.
GET A CLEAR COMMITMENT TO DENUCLEARIZE, AND THEN ON
FOLLOWUP MEETINGS AND NEGOTIATIONS YOU CAN ADDRESS
ISSUES LIKE THE HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS.
>> PROFESSOR FERARO, TO THE POINT ABOUT SECRETARY POMPEO
SAYING IT'S A SHAMELESS HYPOCRISY, WHAT DO YOU THINK
ABOUT THAT PERSPECTIVE? >> WELL, LOOK AT THE U.S.
ALLIES. PROFESSOR LEFORT HAS MENTIONED
HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES OF SAUDI ARABIA, A STRONG U.S. ALLY.
LOOK AT THE RELATIONSHIP OF TRUMP TO PUTIN, A HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATOR. LOOK AT TRUMP'S RELATIONSHIP TO
THE PRESIDENT IN CHINA. THE TRUTH IS THAT THERE'S
RAMPANT HYPOCRISY ON THE ISSUE OF HUMAN RIGHTS, AND THAT'S
UNFORTUNATE. IN THE UNITED STATES TO BE TRUE
TO ITS VALUES AND ITS CONSTITUTION, SHOULD BE THE
FOREMOST PROPONENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE WORLD.
AND I WISH THAT THE UNITED STATES WOULD RETURN TO ITS
VALUES AND ITS ROOTS, AND ARTICULATE THAT DECISION VERY
STRONGLY. >> WE HAVE ABOUT A MINUTE LEFT,
I WANT TO PUT ONE QUESTION TO EACH OF YOU.
AMBASSADOR HALEY SAID THAT THE UNITED STATES MAY COME BACK AND
BECOME A MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL IF A FEW CHANGES ARE MADE.
DO YOU THINK THAT WILL HAPPEN, DO YOU THINK THE UNITED STATES
WILL EVENTUALLY COME BACK TO THIS HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL?
>> I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT POINT, THAT'S ONE OF THE POINTS
THAT I WANTED TO BRING UP IF THE OPPORTUNITY PRESENTED ITSELF.
THE UNITED STATES ISN'T SAYING THAT IT'S NOT CONCERNED WITH
INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS, IT'S SAYING IT'S CONCERNED WITH THE
WAY IT'S HANDLED IN THE COUNCIL. AMBASSADOR HALEY DID SAY THAT
WE'RE NOT A MEMBER NOW, BUT SOME OF THE PROPOSALS THAT WE HAVE
RECOMMENDED TO IMPROVE THE COUNCIL ARE IMPLEMENTED THAT
THEY WOULD RECONSIDER THEIR POSITION AND REJOIN.
ONE OF THE AGENDA ITEMS IS THE FACT THAT ISRAEL HAS BEEN
BROUGHT UP IN EVERY SINGLE SESSION THAT THE COUNCIL HAS
GOING BACK TO 2006. SOMETHING THAT'S NEVER BEEN DONE
TO ANY OTHER COUNTRY. SO ONE OF THE CONDITIONS WOULD
BE THAT ISRAEL BE TAKEN OFF AS ONE OF THE AGENDA ITEMS AT EVERY
SESSION. >> PROFESSOR FERARO, I WANT TO
GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO RESPOND. >> I THINK AS LONG AS PRESIDENT
TRUMP IS PRESIDENT, THE UNITED STATES WILL NOT RETURN TO THE
HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL, IT'S NOT A PRIORITY FOR HIM, HE DOESN'T
CARE. >> THANK YOU.
-------------------------------------------
How does living in a community property state affect life insurance? Q+A Fridays Ep. 6 - Duration: 2:41.Coming to you live from sunny, Hollywood, California.
Welcome to Quotacy's Q&A Friday where we answer your life insurance questions.
Quotacy is an online life insurance agency where you can get life insurance on your terms. I'm Jeanna and I'm Natasha
Today's question is how does live in a community property state affect life insurance, but first, Natasha, can you tell our viewers
What a community property state is? I can. A community property state follows
The law that all assets acquired during marriage are legally owned 50/50. As of today
There are nine community property states: Arizona
Idaho, Louisiana
Nevada, New Mexico
Texas, Wisconsin
Washington and California.
So, for example,
If John and Jane Smith are living in California, and are married, and John goes out and buys a fancy new Corvette
Jane legally also owns that Corvette.
Right, but it's important to note that all community property states may have slightly varying laws
There is not one uniform community property system.
Good to know. So going back to today's question, how does living in a community property state affect life insurance?
Well it mainly affects the death benefit.
So let's say you and your husband Chad live in
California and Chad buys a life insurance policy on himself and names his mother the sole beneficiary.
You actually legally are entitled to 50% of that death benefit.
And if Chad wants his mother to receive 100% of the death benefit
He will need you to sign a consent form waiving your rights to the benefit.
Okay, so we have a question from one of our blog readers.
She lives in Washington with her husband,
which is a community property state, and
She is wondering if she's entitled to 50% of the death benefit of the policy on her husband that his sister owns.
No
A policy owned by a sibling does not fall under community property law.
That policy owned by the sister is also paid for with her money
This is completely separate from the shared assets of the husband and wife.
But if he purchased the policy himself and made his sister the
Beneficiary then the wife would be entitled to the benefit. Right. And just as another reminder to our viewers community property states
Do not all follow the exact same laws and permanent life insurance is more complex than term
So if you live in a community property state be sure to work with a professional who is familiar with community property law.
We have those professionals here at Quotacy. We do. Thanks for watching.
If you have any questions about life insurance
Leave us a comment. And if you have any questions regarding today's topic check out the blog link posted below.
Otherwise tune in next week when we discuss how to find out if your deceased loved one had a life insurance policy. Bye!
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét