Wednesday, April 3, 2013

Letter from governor promotes insurance

INDIANAPOLIS (WISH) - A letter has gone out to Indiana residents from the governor?s office. And while it may surprise some people, it?s perfectly legitimate.

The letter has the official seal of the governor on the outer envelope. Inside, the letter has the governor's signature. But the big surprise is that the letter talks about an insurance policy.

The Indiana Department of Insurance said the letter is legit. But the governor isn't selling insurance. Instead, he's calling attention to a long-term care insurance program that's been around since 1993.?

Hoosiers still buy the insurance from an insurance company. But because it's part of the state's partnership program, there are two special benefits: Personal control over heath care decisions and protection for certain financial assets that might not otherwise be protected.??

There is of course, more to it than that. Insurance policies should be well researched. For more details on the program, click here.?

Source: http://www.wishtv.com/dpp/news/indiana/letter-from-governor-promotes-insurance

Michael Strahan Griselda Blanco Michelle Obama Speech eva longoria Michael Clarke Duncan Nazanin Boniadi Deval Patrick

Obamacare credits could trigger surprise tax bills

President Barack Obama speaks in the East Room of the White House in Washington, Tuesday, April 2, 2013. Millions of people who take advantage of government subsidies to help buy health insurance next year could get stung by surprise tax bills if they don?t accurately project their income. Starting next year, President Barack Obama?s new health care law will offer generous subsidies to help millions of people buy private health insurance on state-based exchanges, if they don?t already get coverage through their employer. The subsidies are based on income. The lower your income, the bigger the subsidy. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

President Barack Obama speaks in the East Room of the White House in Washington, Tuesday, April 2, 2013. Millions of people who take advantage of government subsidies to help buy health insurance next year could get stung by surprise tax bills if they don?t accurately project their income. Starting next year, President Barack Obama?s new health care law will offer generous subsidies to help millions of people buy private health insurance on state-based exchanges, if they don?t already get coverage through their employer. The subsidies are based on income. The lower your income, the bigger the subsidy. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

FILE - In this March 23, 2010 file photo, President Barack Obama signs the health care bill in the East Room of the White House in Washington. Millions of people who take advantage of government subsidies to help buy health insurance next year could get stung by surprise tax bills if they don?t accurately project their income. Starting next year, President Barack Obama?s new health care law will offer generous subsidies to help millions of people buy private health insurance on state-based exchanges, if they don?t already get coverage through their employer. The subsidies are based on income. The lower your income, the bigger the subsidy. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

Flow chart shows simplified process for applying for health insurance through exchanges

FILE - In this July 21, 2011 file photo, Rep. Charles Boustany, R-La., speaks on Capitol Hill in Washington. Millions of people who take advantage of government subsidies to help buy health insurance next year could get stung by surprise tax bills if they don?t accurately project their income. Starting next year, President Barack Obama?s new health care law will offer generous subsidies to help millions of people buy private health insurance on state-based exchanges, if they don?t already get coverage through their employer. The subsidies are based on income. The lower your income, the bigger the subsidy. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

(AP) ? Millions of people who take advantage of government subsidies to help buy health insurance next year could get stung by surprise tax bills if they don't accurately project their income.

President Barack Obama's new health care law will offer subsidies to help people buy private health insurance on state-based exchanges, if they don't already get coverage through their employers. The subsidies are based on income. The lower your income, the bigger the subsidy.

But the government doesn't know how much money you're going to make next year. And when you apply for the subsidy, this fall, it won't even know how much you're making this year. So, unless you tell the government otherwise, it will rely on the best information it has: your 2012 tax return, filed this spring.

What happens if you or your spouse gets a raise and your family income goes up in 2014? You could end up with a bigger subsidy than you are entitled to. If that happens, the law says you have to pay back at least part of the money when you file your tax return in the spring of 2015.

That could result in smaller tax refunds or surprise tax bills for millions of middle-income families.

"That's scary," says Joan Baird of Springfield, Va. "I had no idea, and I work in health care."

Baird, a health care information management worker, is far from alone. Health care providers, advocates and tax experts say the vast majority of Americans know very little about the new health care law, let alone the kind of detailed information many will need to navigate its system of subsidies and penalties.

"They know it's out there," said Mark Cummings, who manages the H&R Block office where Baird was getting her own taxes done. "But in general, they don't know anything about it."

A draft of the application for insurance asks people to project their 2014 income if their current income is not steady or if they expect it to change. The application runs 15 pages for a three-person family, but nowhere does it warn people that they may have to repay part of the subsidy if their income increases.

"I think this will be the hardest thing for members of the public to understand because it is a novel aspect of this tax credit," said Catherine Livingston, who recently served as health care counsel for the Internal Revenue Service. "I can't think of what else they do in the tax system currently that works that way." Livingston is now a partner in the Washington office of the law firm Jones Day.

There's another wrinkle: The vast majority of taxpayers won't actually receive the subsidies. Instead, the money will be paid directly to insurance companies and consumers will get the benefit in reduced premiums.

Health care providers and advocates for people who don't have insurance are planning public awareness campaigns to teach people about the health care law and its benefits.

Enroll America, a coalition of health care providers and advocates, is planning a multimillion-dollar campaign using social media, paid advertising and grass-roots organizing to encourage people who don't have insurance to sign up for it, said Anne Filipic, a former Obama White House official who is now president of the organization.

The Obama administration says it, too, is working to educate consumers.

"On Oct. 1, each state will have a marketplace up and running where consumers can choose a private health insurance plan that fits their health needs and budget," said Treasury spokeswoman Sabrina Siddiqui. "The premium tax credits will give middle-class Americans unprecedented tax benefits to make the purchase of health insurance affordable for everyone, and we will continue to work with consumers, community health organizations and other stakeholders to raise awareness and understanding of these tax benefits."

The subsidies, which are technically tax credits because they are administered through the tax code, will help low- and middle-income families buy health insurance through the state-based exchanges. Under the new law, nearly every American will be required to have health insurance starting in 2014, or face penalties.

The enrollment season starts Oct. 1.

The subsidies are available to families with incomes up to 400 percent of the poverty level. This year, four times the poverty level is about $62,000 for a two-person family. For a family of four, it's $94,200.

About 18 million people will be eligible for subsidies, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

If families get bigger subsidies than they are entitled to under the law, the amount they have to repay is capped, based on income and family size. If they get less than they qualify for under the law, the government will pay them the difference in the form of a tax refund.

There are also special rules that protect people who marry or divorce from being required to pay back subsidies just because their marital status changes.

There are four thresholds for repaying the subsidies:

?A family of four making less than $47,000 would have to repay a maximum of $600.

?If the same family makes between $47,000 and $70,000, the amount they have to repay is capped at $1,500.

?If the same family makes between $70,000 and $94,200, the amount is capped at $2,500.

?Families making more than four times the poverty level have to repay the entire subsidy.

"It's potentially going to come as a shock to individuals who meet that criteria where their income hits a point where they owe money back," said Rep. Charles Boustany, R-La., chairman of the House Ways and Means oversight subcommittee. "The fact is, with variations in income, people could end up owing money back and that will create consternation and problems for them."

The total amount of money that taxpayers will have to repay is unclear, but congressional estimates offer some clues.

Twice since the health care law was passed Congress has increased the caps for how much people will have to repay. Combined, the two measures are expected to raise more than $40 billion over the next decade, according to Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation.

"I think people will get there," said Livingston, the former IRS official. "They will develop instincts about it the way we all do about any process we go through multiple times. But when it's new, in the early years, this will be a real learning curve."

___

Follow Stephen Ohlemacher on Twitter: http://twitter.com/stephenatap

Associated Press

Source: http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/386c25518f464186bf7a2ac026580ce7/Article_2013-04-02-Health%20Care-Tax%20Surprise/id-3e89424da5e1445d93a71e7c1568e958

fisker karma super tuesday states shepard fairey is snooki pregnant snooki pregnant gbc hedy lamarr

Sony patent claims touch force detection via microphone

Sony patent claims touch pressure detection via microphone

In the annals of "clever patents that may never amount to anything," we now have an entry from Sony: a method of sensing touch strength with sound. Since capacitive touchscreens can't detect pressure on their own, a second film is needed that can add weight and cost. Sony's freshly granted patent claims that a microphone can take on that job instead by listening to the sound your finger or stylus makes when it hits the screen and deducing force from that. It could also be used with a camera-based position detection system as shown above, meaning your finger's location and force could be calculated on a non-active surface like an ordinary table. Obviously such a device would only detect taps, not presses, and Sony has claimed a calibration method that the average user may not want to bother with. It probably seemed like a good idea at the time of filing (2009) when other force-sensing options had yet to hit market, but this one seems unlikely to see daylight -- though, you never know.

Filed under: , , ,

Comments

Source: USPTO

Source: http://www.engadget.com/2013/04/02/sony-patent-claims-touch-force-detection-via-microphone/

franchise tag lesotho a wrinkle in time benjamin netanyahu storm shelters nick lachey chevy volt

Tuesday, April 2, 2013

NRA-funded proposal calls for armed personnel in schools

By Ian Simpson

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Every U.S. school would have armed, trained personnel under a study funded by the powerful National Rifle Association and unveiled on Tuesday in response to December's massacre at a Connecticut school.

The proposal of the National School Shield Task Force also includes security accords between schools and law enforcement, an online safety assessment tool for schools, state safety standards and improved federal coordination for school safety.

Asa Hutchinson, the panel's director, said having a trained and armed security officer or staff member in each school was a key element of the proposal.

"Obviously, we believe they will make a difference in the various layers that make up school safety," Hutchinson, a former congressman, told a news conference held under unusually heavy security.

"This is not talking about all teachers. Teachers should teach."

Security officers and staffers would need 40 to 60 hours of training that would cost $800 to $1,000 each.

The NRA paid $1 million for the 225-page study. The 12-member panel included Ralph Basham, a former head of the U.S. Secret Service, police and security officers and five representatives from Phoenix RBT Solutions, a law enforcement training firm.

The report's recommendations said the NRA could develop and carry out armed personnel training. Given school funding shortfalls, the National School Shield program also could step in with NRA backing to support safety programs.

The panel also called for adoption of a model state law for armed school staffers and a program to assess threats and support mental health of students.

SAFER KIDS

The gun lobby's proposal is in reaction to the December 14 massacre at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, in which 20 students and six adults were killed.

Mark Mattioli, whose son was among the slain Newtown students, said he welcomed the recommendations and applauded the panel's work.

"This is recommendations for solutions, real solutions that will make our kids safer. And that's what we need," he told the news conference.

Hutchinson's proposal was similar to the post-Newtown call by NRA Chief Executive Wayne LaPierre for armed guards in all U.S. schools. The suggestion drew strong criticism from gun control advocates and the biggest U.S. teachers' union.

In a statement, Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, called the new proposal a "cruel hoax" and said it would fail to keep schools safe. She urged Congress to act on gun-control legislation.

The liberal American Civil Liberties Union rejected Hutchinson's report. It said the proposal could get the federal government in the business of supplying arms to teachers and heighten the risk that students could be funneled into the criminal justice system.

The Newtown massacre galvanized the U.S. debate over firearms, which are protected by the U.S. Constitution. No major gun legislation has passed Congress since 1994.

Lawmakers are scaling back President Barack Obama's ambitions for sweeping gun control measures made after the Newtown killings.

Gun-control advocates say expanded background checks would be the most effective way to reduce gun violence. Opinion polls show that more than 90 percent of U.S. voters and 85 percent of gun owners support it.

While such a measure could pass the Democratic-controlled Senate, it faces long odds in the House of Representatives, where Republicans hold the majority.

The NRA, which claims 4.5 million members, instead wants the federal government to step up prosecutions under existing gun laws.

On the state level, legislative leaders in Connecticut said late on Monday that they had agreed to some of the toughest gun regulations in the nation and expected to adopt them this week.

Asked about the Connecticut legislation, Hutchinson said it would be "totally inadequate" for school safety.

(Reporting by Ian Simpson; Editing by Leslie Gevirtz and Eric Walsh)

(This story corrects the spelling of name to Mattioli from Matteoli in the eleventh paragraph)

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/nra-funded-proposal-calls-armed-personnel-schools-170423486.html

bolton muamba crystal cathedral sxsw st. patrick s day brandon lloyd brandon lloyd celtic thunder

Afghan teenager fatally stabs US soldier

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) ? Senior U.S. military officials say an Afghan teenager has killed an American soldier in eastern Afghanistan by stabbing him in the neck.

Two officials said Monday that Sgt. Michael Cable, 26, was guarding a meeting of Afghan and U.S. officials in Nangarhar province when the stabbing occurred.

One of the officials estimated the attacker was 16 years old, but he escaped so the age couldn't be verified.

The official says the youth was not believed to be from the Afghan security forces so the Wednesday stabbing is not being classified as an insider attack.

Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing.

The Pentagon said in a statement last week that Cable died from injuries sustained when his unit was attacked by enemy forces.

___

Associated Press writer Kimberly Dozier contributed to this report.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/afghan-teenager-fatally-stabs-us-soldier-105007454.html

the heart attack grill joe kennedy iii joseph kennedy iii ghost hunters lightsquared david lee honduras prison fire

Former ?7th Heaven? Star Beverley Mitchell Welcomes Baby GIrl!

Former “7th Heaven” Star Beverley Mitchell Welcomes Baby GIrl!

Beverley Mitchell gives birth to first childActress Beverley Mitchell, who played the role of Lucy Camden on the former television series “7th Heaven” has given birth to her first child. Mitchell and her husband Michael Cameron welcomed baby Kenzie on Thursday. The actress, 32, who currently plays the role of school counselor Kaitlin on “The Secret Life of the American Teenager”, ...

Former “7th Heaven” Star Beverley Mitchell Welcomes Baby GIrl! Stupid Celebrities Gossip Stupid Celebrities Gossip News

Source: http://stupidcelebrities.net/2013/04/former-7th-heaven-star-beverley-mitchell-welcomes-baby-girl/

Kohls Black Friday www.walmart.com Macho Camacho Rise of the Guardians Pumpkin Pie Jack Taylor Apple Pie Recipe

Should laws be colorblind? Supreme Court weighs in

WASHINGTON (AP) ? Has the nation lived down its history of racism and should the law become colorblind?

Addressing two pivotal legal issues, one on affirmative action and a second on voting rights, a divided Supreme Court is poised to answer those questions.

In one case, the issue is whether race preferences in university admissions undermine equal opportunity more than they promote the benefits of racial diversity. Just this past week, justices signaled their interest in scrutinizing affirmative action very intensely, expanding their review as well to a Michigan law passed by voters that bars "preferential treatment" to students based on race. Separately in a second case, the court must decide whether race relations ? in the South, particularly ? have improved to the point that federal laws protecting minority voting rights are no longer warranted.

The questions are apt as the United States closes in on a demographic tipping point, when nonwhites will become a majority of the nation's population for the first time. That dramatic shift is expected to be reached within the next generation, and how the Supreme Court rules could go a long way in determining what civil rights and equality mean in an America long divided by race.

The court's five conservative justices seem ready to declare a new post-racial moment, pointing to increased levels of voter registration and turnout among blacks to show that the South has changed. Lower federal courts just in the past year had seen things differently, blunting voter ID laws and other election restrictions passed by GOP-controlled legislatures in South Carolina, Texas and Florida, which they saw as discriminatory.

"Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes," Justice Antonin Scalia said in oral arguments earlier this year, suggesting that it was the high court's responsibility to overturn voting protections overwhelmingly passed by Congress in 2006.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, part of the court's more liberal wing, countered that while conventional discriminatory tactics may have faded, new ones have emerged. "Congress said up front: We know that the (voter) registration is fine. That is no longer the problem. But the discrimination continues in other forms," she said.

The legal meanings of "equality," ''racism" and "discrimination" have been in flux since at least 1883, when justices struck down a federal anti-discrimination law, calling it an unfair racial advantage for former black slaves. Today, justices face the question of whether the nation has reached equality by a 1960s definition or some new standard.

By some demographic measures, America has reached a new era. But the latest census data and polling from The Associated Press also show race and class disparities that persist.

President Barack Obama, the nation's first black chief executive, was re-elected in November despite a historically low percentage of white supporters. He was aided by a growing bloc of blacks, Hispanics, Asian-Americans and gays, and a disproportionate share of women, who together supported him by at least a 2-to-1 margin.

Another sign of shifting times: Among newborns, minorities outnumbered whites for the first time last year, the Census Bureau reported. "The end of the world as straight white males know it," one newspaper headline said on the morning after the November election.

Still, issues linger by race, age and class:

?Jobs and income. Black poverty has fallen by half since 1959, to 27.6 percent, but is still nearly three times the poverty rate of whites. Black and Hispanic men are twice as likely as whites to work in the low-paying service sector. Since the 1970s, the unemployment rate for blacks has remained double that of whites.

?Wealth. The wealth gap between whites and minorities is at its widest since 1984. Predominantly younger minorities were hit hard when home prices fell, while older whites were more likely to invest in 401(k) retirement plans and stocks, which have rebounded since the recession. The median net worth of white households was $113,149 in 2009, compared with $6,325 for Hispanics and $5,677 for blacks.

?Class and education. By some measures, the gap between rich and poor has stretched to its widest since 1967. Globalization and automation have eliminated many mid-skill jobs, leaving a polarized pool of low-wage work and high-skill jobs requiring advanced degrees. About 40 percent of whites age 25-29 graduate from college, compared with 15 percent for Latinos and 23 percent for blacks.

?Racial bias. Prejudice against blacks worsened slightly in the four years since Obama was first elected in 2008, according to an AP poll. In all, 51 percent of Americans expressed explicit anti-black attitudes, compared with 48 percent in 2008. Questions designed to ferret out subconscious bias raised the proportion with anti-black sentiments to 56 percent, and the share of people expressing pro-black attitudes fell.

Roderick Harrison, a demographer who is black, says he felt pride in Obama's re-election, which to him reaffirmed a historic achievement not only for black Americans but also a broader coalition of racially diverse groups. Still, he worries that demographic change and Obama's success may lead to a tipping point in the opposite direction, where people in the United States are led to assume racial equality has fully arrived.

The strength of minority support behind Obama was aided by the 1965 Voting Rights Act and other protections, he said.

The term "minority" often refers to an unequal or disadvantaged status and isn't always about numbers or counts, said Harrison, a former chief of racial statistics at the Census Bureau. The District of Columbia, Hawaii, California, New Mexico and Texas already have populations of racial and ethnic minorities that collectively add up to more than 50 percent. Across the U.S., more than 11 percent of counties have tipped to "majority-minority" status.

"Minority status is a matter of exclusion from full participation in society, remaining long after a nation becomes 'majority minority,'" Harrison said.

___

To Bradley Poole, 21, a senior at the University of Texas at Austin, racial progress is measured by the little things. An advertising major, Poole became a member and then president of the school's Black Student Alliance, seeking camaraderie after noticing he often was the only African-American in his classes.

"I definitely feel the difference," he said.

The university automatically grants admission to the top 10 percent of students in each of the state's high schools. That helps bring in students of different backgrounds because Texas high schools are highly racially segregated, reflecting decades of segregated neighborhoods.

In a state where blacks now make up 11.5 percent of the population and Hispanics 38 percent, the university's enrollment of 50,000 students never rose above 3 percent to 4.5 percent black and 13 percent to 17 percent Hispanic. So in 2004 it decided to allow students who miss the 10 percent cutoff to be considered for admission based on a range of socioeconomic factors, including race.

The share of black students has since increased slightly to 6 percent, while Hispanic enrollment rose to 26 percent.

The university's affirmative action plan is being challenged in the Supreme Court by Abigail Fisher, a white student who missed the cutoff and was rejected. Fisher says she was denied fair consideration because of her race.

A 2003 Supreme Court opinion said universities may consider race only as one of several factors to promote diversity. The court said diversity benefits everyone because in a global economy it fosters leaders who can relate to people of different backgrounds.

In the last week, justices also agreed to take up a second affirmative action case this year, deciding whether states may pass laws that restrict the use of race preferences in college admissions. That case involves an appeal to a lower court ruling that found a 2006 voter-approved ban in Michigan unconstitutional, reasoning that such bans put minorities at a disadvantage.

The justices' decision to hear the Michigan case next fall ? with their decision in the Texas case still to be announced this spring ? suggests that the court will not decide in the Texas case to eliminate affirmative action programs in higher education.

In the seven or so states that enacted bans on affirmative action at their public universities, freshman enrollments of blacks and Hispanics almost always fell afterward ? as much as 50 percent at UCLA and the University of California, Berkeley ? although in some cases they later rebounded. Those states now include Arizona, California, Florida, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington. A Supreme Court ruling that further restricts affirmative action could shake up college admissions policies nationwide, perhaps shifting focus to low-income students or low-performing schools.

Before opting to enroll at Texas, Poole says he considered attending a mostly white university in Iowa and a historically black college in Louisiana. The college course he now values the most: an advertising seminar that he attended along with a Hispanic, a female student-athlete and an Asian-American. No one in that class was a "minority," he said, and there was a range of perspectives.

Outside class, Poole says his organization has experienced racial incidents. One white student ran up in "blackface" to where members were gathered on campus, daring them to respond. A legal brief filed by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People on behalf of Poole's group lists other racial incidents in recent years, some of which led to suspensions or public apologies.

"Racial diversity is a conversation we need to have," he said.

___

Not since the tumultuous 1960s have U.S. ideals of equality been more closely contested. Legal analysts say a Supreme Court holding of a colorblind Constitution, either as a matter of law or practical effect, could begin to emerge in two rulings on voting rights and affirmative action due out by late June. A third ruling in the Michigan affirmative action case will come next term.

The five conservative justices who make up a majority could overturn the 2003 opinion or take a less dramatic step. The court may opt for tighter restrictions that make it difficult for colleges to consider race or rule narrowly that in a situation like Texas, its unique top 10 percent plan is enough on its own to achieve diversity.

In the court's other racial case, a conservative majority may declare the 1965 Voting Rights Act constitutionally flawed for its focus on racism in the South but leave it up to lawmakers to sort it out.

The court could also find a less sweeping, more technical way of deciding the voting rights case, much as they did four years ago. Back then, Chief Justice John Roberts suggested Congress should update the law to reflect improved conditions in the South. Congress hasn't done so.

Prominent legal bloggers are already warning of sharp public reaction, especially if justices strike down federal voting protections.

"If the court rules in a conservative direction, this will be a pivotal year with regard to race in the Constitution and a year that could have a devastating effect on racial diversity," adds Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Irvine law school.

___

Has the country put its racist past behind it? That question is at the core of the challenge to the Voting Rights Act. The arguments before the court raised questions about whether new, more subtle forms of voting discrimination have taken the place of Jim Crow laws.

In 1870, the Constitution guaranteed blacks the right to vote. But for many decades afterward, whites in the post-slavery South used poll taxes and literacy tests to block African-Americans from voting.

That changed in 1965 with enactment of the Voting Rights Act, which let minorities file lawsuits against voter discrimination. Section 5 of that law went even further, requiring nine states, mostly in the South, and scores of counties and townships in seven other states, all with histories of disenfranchisement, to get federal approval before making any election change. Changes can include everything from a different poll location to a new political redistricting map.

The voting act was renewed by Congress in 2006 for another 25 years. The Justice Department and the federal courts last year used Section 5 to block voter restrictions in South Carolina, Texas and parts of Florida. That saved hundreds of thousands of votes that would otherwise have been lost in November, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. Many were cast by blacks and Hispanics who turned out for Obama.

Lawyers for Shelby County, Alabama, which is challenging Section 5, say the tables have turned in a nation that is now much more racially diverse, with minority voters possibly holding an unfair advantage.

"You have a different constituency from the constituency you had in 1964," attorney Bert Rein told the justices. "Senators who see that a very large group in the population has politically wedded themselves to Section 5 are not going to vote against it."

Richard Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine, and author of Election Law Blog, says the "smart money" now is on the Supreme Court striking down Section 5, leading to consequences for minority voters such as "more brazen partisan gerrymanders, cutbacks in early voting and imposition of tougher voting and registration rules in the formerly covered jurisdictions."

But if the court strikes down "a crown jewel of the civil rights movement," he said, that could spark a public backlash that sends Congress back to the drawing board, with any resulting new law applying equally to all states.

___

Associated Press writer Mark Sherman and AP Director of Polling Jennifer Agiesta contributed to this report.

EDITOR'S NOTE _ "America at the Tipping Point: The Changing Face of a Nation" is an occasional series examining the cultural mosaic of the U.S. and its historic shift to a majority-minority nation.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/laws-colorblind-supreme-court-weighs-071650007.html

national archives brock lesnar kentucky jayhawks wwe wrestlemania oakland shooting mega millions winning numbers