In The Matter Of Certain Amendments Certification To The Adopted And: Fill & Download for Free

I’m happy you asked with your real name, Adam Nash, and you’re going to get a real answer because of that.The Constitution specifically and explicitly guarantees due process and the equal protection of the law to non-citizens in the Fourteenth Amendment:All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.A big piece of this was worries that states might try to go back to some form of slavery, or at the very least end up doing a lot of discriminating, by essentially stripping people of their state citizenship, which was precisely what was happening in 1868.First, it’s important to note that the infamous Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott v. Sanford had not yet been overruled - there were black people in the United States that were not considered citizens. There was also the matter of the decision in Barron v. Baltimore that stated that the Federal Constitution did not apply to the individual States except where expressly stated. Because of these two decisions, States could abridge free speech, free press, perform searches on black homes without legal recourse, lynch blacks that stepped out of line, and more.That’s why after the Civil War and the passage of the 13th Amendment, Southern states immediately moved to adopt “black codes” that severely restricted the rights of the newly freed blacks so as to essentially place them back in at least the social standing of slavery. White Southerners passed laws restricting the rights of blacks to own real or personal property, to form contracts (meaning whites couldn’t be bound to contracts entered into with blacks,) and instituting severely harsher criminal penalties - essentially jaywalking could get you a death sentence. This was justified because blacks were not citizens either of the individual States nor of the United States, and therefore entitled to no rights under the either the federal or various state constitutions.In response, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which would have granted full citizenship to all former slaves and essentially to all people currently in the United States. The Southern states fought it bitterly, contesting the constitutional basis of its passage. President Andrew Johnson agreed, and vetoed the law.Enraged by this, Congressional Republicans, who were excluding Southerners from Congress at the time as not having been readmitted to the Union with representation in Congress, drafted the Fourteenth Amendment, and in particular the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses, both of which are expressly targeted at the individual States themselves. They required ratification of this amendment as part of the Southern re-entry into congressional representation.Section 1 of the 14th Amendment first guarantees citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States.” However, the Republican drafters of this language were worried that white Southerners could interpret this to exclude any African-born slaves, or even to black people born after secession, and that’s why the drafters went a step further to make sure that the equal protection clause applied to anyone in the jurisdiction of the United States. That’s why the equal protection clause is explicitly guaranteed to “all persons within its [each State’s] jurisdiction.”Edit: Hat tip to Shaun Darragh for pointing out that certain people remained excluded for a good long while after this. Native Americans were not granted citizenship until 1924 under the American Indian Citizenship Act, and could be legally excluded from voting by states until 1957.Aha! you might think - these all explicitly apply only to the states! So the federal government, which exclusively oversees immigration and non-citizen residents, would not be bound by such language! Unfortunately for such an interpretation, the Supreme Court has ruled in Bolling v. Sharpe and more recently opined in dicta in Lawrence v. Texas that the Fifth Amendment requires the same equal protection of the laws under the Federal government.(Note: while the Court has ruled that the Fifth Amendment requires equal protection of the laws of the Federal government, the Federal government exclusively has jurisdiction over dealings with the Native American tribes, and that continues even today to be a poor and discriminatory relationship that does not particularly reflect either due process or equal protection. But I digress.)Now, resident aliens and undocumented immigrants are not granted the entire range of rights granted to full citizens and the court has been somewhat inconsistent on the subject. The Supreme Court has allowed restrictions on voting in federal elections and state laws requiring public school teachers to be citizens and from being public notaries. The Court has struck down laws banning resident aliens and undocumented immigrants from attending public schools and laws requiring citizenship for bar applications to become a lawyer. It is unclear as to what level of scrutiny is applied to review of these laws; in some cases, the Court has applied strict scrutiny, in others it has applied something like a heightened intermediate scrutiny.Lastly, there is a very good reason to grant non-resident aliens due process and equal protection: the civil rights of actual citizens. If due process and equal protection is suspended whenever a person is suspected of being an undocumented immigrant, it is only a matter of time before actual U.S. citizens, naturalized or natural-born, are going to be caught up in the process and have their civil rights abridged while they are forced to prove their citizenship. This has already happened, even and especially recently.[1][2]Some people might argue, “Oh, that’s fine. I’ll just pull out my driver’s license.” Would that be good enough to satisfy a Border Patrol or ICE agent that knows such things can be obtained fraudulently? Perhaps a birth certificate? Passport? This is the problem that voter ID laws face that require some sort of “proof of citizenship”: they disproportionately affect certain groups of actual citizens who cannot afford to get the appropriate papers. Any policy of “papers please or have due process and equal protection suspended” will, as sure as I stand here, lead to an innocent full citizen having their rights trampled by the government.As soon as the law doesn’t protect everyone, abusive governments will start to put people into unprotected categories, every single time, as many times as you care to run the experiment. Even with the explicit guarantee of equal protection in the United States, civil rights have been abridged for various racial minorities on many different occasions.The minute we start to categorize people into “illegals” and start to associate “illegals” with “brown-skinned folks who speak something other than English,” and those people don’t get equal protection and due process, we are all damaged.For these myriad reasons, the Supreme Court has been clear in the application of the law to non-citizens in the United States: the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protections of the law to them.Addendum: Sigh… I didn’t think this of all answers would require my standard disclaimer, but a few people are well on their way to being shoved out the exits as this has started to take off in the last hour or so.I welcome rational debate and dissent on the merits with credible sources and sound reasoning. I will not, however, put up with things like:Comments such as these will be deleted and their owners summarily frog-marched to the nearest airlock. I don’t care if they’re directed at me, or at others. Act like a person, and you can stay. Act like a screeching monkey, and you will be dismissed. I’m off to bed right now. I’ll be back in the morning to check the traps.In the meanwhile, behave yourselves and as always: debate responsibly.Edit 6/30/18: Thanks to those who brought Mr. Patterson to my attention for personal attacks on others. He’s been dealt with appropriately.For those who don’t wish to follow him, let me be clear: don’t be a dick to people. To me, or to others. If I tell you to knock if off, knock it off, and don’t be surprised when you find yourself out the door if you keep fighting.Edit 7/5/18: The Fourth of July seems to have brought out the Stormtrumpers. Apparently they had literally nothing else to do over the holiday than sit on the internet and howl at the void. As such, several people have found themselves on the other side of the exit signs. My favorite was this one:Your hatred warms my flinty black heart.Footnotes[1] https://taskandpurpose-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/taskandpurpose.com/im-us-born-army-vet-border-patrol-just-try-arrest-wife/amp/?amp_js_v=0.1#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Ftaskandpurpose.com%2Fim-us-born-army-vet-border-patrol-just-try-arrest-wife%2F&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Ftaskandpurpose.com%2Fim-us-born-army-vet-border-patrol-just-try-arrest-wife%2F&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Ftaskandpurpose.com%2Fim-us-born-army-vet-border-patrol-just-try-arrest-wife%2F&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Ftaskandpurpose.com%2Fim-us-born-army-vet-border-patrol-just-try-arrest-wife%2F[2] U.S. citizen questioned by Border Patrol in Havre for speaking Spanish (video)

This is a good question, let's enumerate some important laws which came in the newspapers in the past 12 months.We shall make this post crowd-sourced. And we are planning to reward our contributors by giving them credits* -Detailed Well Presented 100 word Explanation - 2000Giving Valid Links and a Small Brief - 1000Giving Names of New Laws - 500Contributors (As of now) - Jai Parimi, Divya Malika, Prasanna, Ashutosh Pandey, Arihant Pawariya (अरिहंत पावङिया), Divya Choudhary (दिव्या चौधरी), Varsha Singh, Priyanka Peeramsetty, User, Gaurav Kumar, Jagannadh, Arpit Pareek, Nikhil Deshmukh, Harshit Ladva1) The National Judicial Appointments Commission Bill, 2014 and the 99th Constitutional AmendmentA bill to provide for the composition of the Judicial Appointments Commission for the purpose of recommending persons for appointment as Chief Justice of India and other Judges of the Supreme Court, Chief Justices and other Judges of High Courts, its functions, procedure to be followed by it and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.Key Issues and AnalysisThe current method of appointments has been examined by various bodies including the Law Commission and the Parliamentary Standing Committee. They vary in the role of the executive and judiciary in making appointments of judges.The composition of the JAC has not been included in the Constitution, but has been left for Parliament to decide by law. This implies that modifying the composition of the JAC would not require a constitutional amendment, but may be altered by a simple majority in Parliament.The Standing Committee examining the JAC Bill has recommended that (i) the JAC be composed of three eminent persons, (ii) the broad parameters for short listing of candidates for HC appointments be laid down in the Bill, and (iii) the center also consider the setting up of state level appointments commissions comprising the Chief Minister, the Chief Justice of HC and the Leader of Opposition.2) Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Reservation Act, 2013Objective - The principle objective of the new bill is fair compensation, thorough resettlement and rehabilitation of those affected, adequate safeguards for their well-being and complete transparency in the process of land acquisition. The title has been amended to reflect this.Need - There is unanimity of opinion across the social and political spectrum that the Old Law (The Land Acquisition Act 1894) suffers from various shortcomings and is outdated. Some of these include Forced acquisitions, No safeguards, Silent on resettlement and rehabilitation of those displaced, Urgency clause, Low rates of compensation, Litigation. To say the least, the Old Act needs to be replaced at the earliest by fair, reasonable and rational enactment in tune with the constitutional provisions, particularly, Article 300A of the Constitution.Link - Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 20133) Companies Act, 2013 (CSR Pref)Objective - Effective from financial year 2014-15, every company, private limited or public limited, which either has a net worth of Rs 500 crore or a turnover of Rs 1,000 crore or net profit of Rs 5 crore, needs to spend at least 2% of its average net profit for the immediately preceding three financial years on corporate social responsibility activities.Impact - The CSR activities undertaken by the companies will benefit hunger and poverty eradication, promoting preventive healthcare, promoting education and promoting gender equality, setting up homes for women, orphans and the senior citizens, measures for reducing inequalities faced by socially and economically backward groups, ensuring environmental sustainability and ecological balance, animal welfare, protection of national heritage and art and culture and many more.Link - Companies Act, 2013, Companies - It's a good articlePRSIndia– This describes the whole of companies act – Checkpoint 135 for CSR4) Right to Information Act (RTI), 2005Objective - Landmark bill, which realized the Right to seek and access Information in line with the interpretation of Art.19(1)(a) of our constitution.Impact - Champion to ensure Transparency and accountability in the governance procedures. it enforces the right of every citizen of India to have an access to the information regarding any money given by the State to any authority, thereby causing such authority to utilize such money reasonably and judiciously and also for keeping a check over their conduct and indulgence in corrupt activities. In 2002, SC’s verdict gave the citizens have a right to know about charges against candidates for elections as well as details of their assets, since they desire to offer themselves for public service and public servants cannot claim exemption from disclosure of charges against them or details of their assets. It is a powerful tool which can be realised in changing social dynamics and needs.Criticism - Debates regarding the ambit of RTI’s scope have been articulated, to be extended, say to the political parties, temples, schools and also privatized public utility companies. Evidences of misusage have come to the limelight, say Naxalites using RTI’s to check the assets of local landlords to loot themGuide to RTI : Page on rti.gov.in5) Special Economic Zones (SEZ) Act, 2005Objective - The SEZ Act is expected to give a big thrust to exports and consequently to the foreign direct investment (“FDI”) inflows into India, and is considered to be one of the finest pieces of legislation that may well represent the future of the industrial development strategy in India. The new law is aimed at encouraging PPP to develop world-class infrastructure and attract private investment (domestic and foreign), boosting economic growth, exports and employmentImpact - The government gets the capital needed to establish the required infrastructure and also the expertise. SEZ’s with relaxed import tariffs help the Import dependent and export driven industries to flourish. SEZ’s create immense employment opportunities and improve the country’s foreign export.Criticism - Practical implementation witnesses several backlogs ranging from regional disparities, grabbing arable land, labour laws issues and supply chain management which fail to be addressed effectively through the bill6) Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013Objective -The government introduced the Bill to redefine the offence of rape and amend the penal laws in line with the recommendations of the Law Commission and the National Commission for Women. The government withdrew the previous Bill and Ordinance, and introduced the Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, 2013. The changes wrt the ordinance in the act are:Impact - Popularly known as the Anti-rape bill, this came out of the protests of 2012 Delhi Gang rape case.Criticism - For not including certain suggestions recommended by the Verma Committee Report like, marital rape, reduction of age of consent, amending Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act.Some detailed work: http://www.atimysore.gov.in/workshops/wppts/gender_issues/crim_law_amnd_2013_drjagadeesh_jsslaw_college.pdf7) Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013Objective - To provide protection against sexual harassment of women at workplace and for the prevention and redressal of complaints of sexual harassment and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. the protection against sexual harassment and the right to work with dignity are universally recognized human rightsImpact - On a broader line, this ensures safe work environment for women against sexual abuse at work place and is capable of garnering a greater female work force and these are the Major features the act provides for.Criticism - It does not cover women in the armed forces and excludes women agricultural workers, "a gross injustice to agricultural workers. The burden of proof is on the women who complain of harassment. If found guilty of making a false complaint or giving false evidence, she could be prosecuted, which has raised concerns about women being even more afraid of reporting offences. Furthermore, the law requires a third-party NGO to be involved, which could make employers less comfortable in reporting grievances, due to confidentiality concerns.8) DNA Profiling Bill, 2012Purpose - DNA analysis makes it possible to determine whether the source of origin of one body substance is identical to that of another, and further to establish the biological relationship, if any, between two individuals, living or dead without any doubt.Tip - Lawful purposes of establishing identity in criminal or civil proceedings.Impact - It will be essential to establish standards for laboratories, staff qualifications, training, proficiency testing, collection of body substances, custody trail from collection to reporting and a Data Bank with policies of use and access to information therein, its retention and deletion.DNA Data Bank Manager will supervise, execute and maintain this system and a DNA Profiling Board of eminent scientists, administrators and Law enforcement officers will administer and carry out other functions assigned to it under this Act.Link - DNA Profiling Bill - PDF9) Nuclear Safety Regulatory Authority Bill, 2011Purpose - So far, India has excellent record in nuclear safety and radiation safety; but the Central Government intends to promote nuclear energy to meet shortfall in total energy requirement of the country; and whereas such excellent safety record in nuclear safety and radiation safety is required to be sustained for growth in the nuclear energy sector.Impact - Now, therefore, it has been considered necessary and expedient to establish regulators to ensure continued excellence in nuclear safety and radiation safety in all applications of radiation and atomic energy on a large scale.10) Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill, 2010Purpose - As the name itself indicates that it is an Act to provide for civil liability for nuclear damage and prompt compensation to the victims of a nuclear incident through a no-fault liability regime channeling liability to the operator.Impact - Appointment of Claims Commissioner, establishment of Nuclear Damage Claims Commission connected there with.11) IT Act, 2000 and IT (Amendment) Bill, 2006Purpose - It is an Act to provide legal recognition for the transactions carried out by means of electronic data interchange and other means of electronic communication, commonly referred to as "Electronic Commerce", which involve the use of alternatives to paper based methods of communication and storage of information, to facilitate electronic filings of documents with the Government and other related agencies.Tip - It is renamed as the Information Technology Act, 2008Impact - To promote efficient delivery of Government services by means of reliable electronic records.12) National Green Tribunal Bill, 2009Purpose - For the effective disposal of cases relating to environmental protection and conservation of forests and other natural resources including enforcement of any legal rights relating to environment and giving relief and compensation for damages to persons and property.Impact - National Green Tribunal law is enacted in view of the involvement of multi-disciplinary issues relating to the environment and also to implement the decisions taken at Rio de Janeiro and Stockholm Conferences.Link - NGT Bill - PDF13) Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969Objective - It is designed to ensure that the operation of the economic system does not result in concentration of the economic power to the common detriment.The act also provides for probation of monopolistic, unfair and restrictive trade practices.Impact - The MRTP Commission if on enquiry concludes that the practice under consideration is of restrictive or unfair in nature , it may:Order discontinuation of the practice and restrict its repetition (cease and desist order ), the agreement shall be void and shall stand modified as may specified in the order. It extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir.Link - MRTP Act, 196914) Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2008(Coal scam and SC verdict, so important)Objective - To develop and regulate mining & mineral industries and bring it under the control of one union by setting up mineral funds on National level, granting concessions, share benefit schemes while preventing illegal mining.Impact - Safeguards on regulating and safe disposal of waste in consonance with environmental norms will be incorporated. Through implementation of proper taxing and speedy approvals on action against violations illegal mining will be preventedLink - Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Bill 200815) Whistleblower Protection Bill, 2011It seeks to establish a mechanism to register complaints on any allegations of corruption or wilful misuse of power against a public servant. The Bill also provides safeguards against victimisation of the person who makes the complaint.Highlights of the BillThe Bill seeks to protect whistleblowers, i.e. persons making a public interest disclosure related to an act of corruption, misuse of power, or criminal offence by a public servant.The Vigilance Commission shall not disclose the identity of the complainant except to the head of the department if he deems it necessary. The Bill penalises any person who has disclosed the identity of the complainant.Key Issues and AnalysisThe Bill aims to balance the need to protect honest officials from undue harassment with protecting persons making a public interest disclosure. It punishes any person making false complaints. However, it does not provide any penalty for victimizing a complainant.16) Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection) Bill 2014Objectives: The Bill seeks to achieve the objectives of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Children. It specifies procedural safeguards in cases of children in conflict with law. It seeks to address challenges in the existing Act such as delays in adoption processes, high pendency of cases, accountability of institutions, etc. The Bill further seeks to address children in the 16-18 age group, in conflict with law, as an increased incidence of crimes committed by them have been reported over the past few years.Coverage: The Bill defines a child as anyone less than 18 years of age. However, a special provision has been inserted for the possibility of trying 16-18 year old committing heinous offenses, as adults. A heinous offense is defined as one for which the minimum punishment under the Indian Penal Code is seven years.17) Citizens Charters & Grievance Redressal Bill, 2011. (CCGR)The Citizen's Charter and Grievance Redressal Bill 2011 also known as The Right of Citizens for Time Bound Delivery of Goods and Services and Redressal of their Grievances Bill, 2011 or Citizens Charter Bill was a proposed in Lok Sabha in December 2011. The bill lapsed due to dissolution of the 15th Lok Sabha.The Right of Citizens for Time Bound Delivery of Goods and Services and Redressal of their Grievances Bill, 2011 lays down obligations of every public authority towards citizens, specifying delivery of goods and services in a time-bound manner and providing for a grievance redressal mechanism for non-compliance of citizens charter.Highlights :The Bill makes it mandatory for every public authority to publish a Citizen’s Charter within six months of the commencement of the Act.The Citizen’s Charter shall list the details of the goods and services provided by a public authority; the name of the person or agency responsible for providing the goods or services; the time frame within which such goods or services have to be provided; the category of people entitled to the goods and services; and details of the complaint redressal mechanism.Grievance redress officer : It requires every public authority to designate grievance redress officers in all public offices to enquire into and redress any complaints from citizens in a timeframe not exceeding 30 days from the date of receipt of the complaint.Public Grievance Redressal Commissions : The Bill provides for constitution of the state public grievance redressal commission and the central public grievance redressal commission consisting of chief commissioners and other commissioners.Penalty : DA and Commission can impose fine of Max. Rs 50000 to concerned officials/GRO. The penalty shall be recovered from the salary of the official. Such penalty may be awarded as compensation to the appellant.Corruption Prevention : The Designated Authority and the Commissions may refer a matter to the appropriate authorities if there is prima facie evidence of a corrupt act under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. An appeal against the decision of the Central Commission shall be filed before the Lokpal. An appeal against the decision of the State Commission shall be filed before the Lokayukta.Criticism :Against federal Spirit : Citizens’ charter bill provides for GRO and Grievances Commission at state and central level, but Parliament doesn’t not have jurisdiction to enact such law. Only State legislature has jurisdiction to make laws regarding state public services.More than ten states have already enacted a Citizen Charter Act or Public Services Guarantee Act in their respective states. Many of these state laws have provisions that are much better than the proposed Bill.Lack of Autonomy : According to the bill, the commissioners may be removed without judicial inquiry.Duplication of work : Several states have their own grievance redressal laws, The mechanism provided under these laws is different from that provided under the Bill. This will lead to duplication of work and organizations.MNREGA Act, RTE Act, National Food Security Bill, and the Public Procurement Bill also have their own grievances redressal forums. This will again lead to more duplication.Sources :Copy of Bill : Page on prsindia.orgSummery of Bill : Page on prsindia.orgWiki Page : Citizen's Charter and Grievance Redressal Bill 2011Mrual Page : Citizens Charter Bill 2011: Salient Features, Issues, CriticismRediff Page : All you need to know about the Citizen's Charter Bill18) Right to Education Act, 2009The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act or Right to Education Act (RTE), was enacted on 4 August 2009, which describes the rules and regulations for free and compulsory education of children between 6 and 14 under Article 21A of Constitution. India became one of 135 countries to make education a fundamental right of every child when the act came into force on 1 April 2010.Highlights :The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act 2009 stipulates that private schools reserve 25 per cent of seats at the entry level for children belonging to ‘disadvantaged groups’ and ‘weaker sections’.The Act also provides that no child shall be held back, expelled, or required to pass a board examination until the completion of elementary education. There is also a provision for special training of school drop-outs to bring them up to par with students of the same age.Mentally and physically challenged children, entitled to free education in special schools, were included in the definition through an amendment in 2012.It also prohibits all unrecognised schools from practice, and makes provisions for no donation or capitation fees and no interview of the child or parent for admissions.Criticism :The act has been criticised for being hastily-drafted, not consulting many groups active in education, not considering the quality of education, infringing on the rights of private and religious minority schools to administer their system, and for excluding children under six years of age.Problems faced :Poor Response : Lack of awareness about the Act, inability to meet the distance criteria and difficulty in obtaining necessary certificates from government authorities could be some of the reasons for this.The Act provides for admission of children without any certification. However, several states have continued pre-existing procedures insisting that children produce income and caste certificates, BPL cards and birth certificates.The Act is not applicable to private minority schools and boarding schools.Report on the status of implementation of the Act released by the Ministry of Human Resource Development admits that 8.1 million children in the age group six-14 remain out of school and there’s a shortage of 508,000 teachers country-wide.Conclusion :For all its flaws, the RTE Act is a progressive piece of legislation that aims to take education to the masses and fill the gaps in the social system.Sources :Copy of Act : Page on ssa.nic.inWiki page : Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education ActHindu Article : Advantages and disadvantages of RTE Act19) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2013 (POSCO)Objective – The act aims at ensuring protection of children from sexual abuse.Pros –1. Gender Neutral bill. 53% victims of children are victims.2. Stringent punishment (upto life imprisonment)3. Covers broad range of sexual crimes such as non-penetrative sexual assault, sexual harassment, and the use of children for pornography4. Includes special procedures to prevent the re-victimisation of children at the hands of an insensitive justice delivery system5. Protects victims identity and provides assisting legal, medical and psychological facilitiesCons –1. Criminalises all consensual sexual contact below 18 years age.2. The age provision is not in consonance with other acts.3. Regressive and draconian considering today’s social realities. Children are increasingly aware of each others sexualities at early age.4. Child marriage is prevalent on large scale. The age provision ignores this reality. Liable to bogus and unjustified complaints.Source – The Hindu : Good Act, bad provision20) The Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill, 2013Objective – The act aims to combat corruption in government agencies and public sector businesses in India.Pros -1. Covers the offence of giving a bribe to a public servant under abetment. Specific provisions related to giving a bribe to a public servant, and giving a bribe by a commercial organisation.2. Redefines criminal misconduct to only cover misappropriation of property and possession of disproportionate assets.3. Modifies the definitions and penalties for offences related totaking a bribe, being a habitual offender and abetting an offence.4. Introduces Powers and procedures for the attachment and forfeiture of property of public servants accused of corruption.5. The Act requires prior sanction to prosecute serving public officials. The Bill extends this protection to former officials.Cons -1. The Bill makes giving a bribe a specific offence. There are diverging views on whether bribe giving under all circumstances must be penalised. Some have argued that a coerced bribe giver must be distinguished from a collusive bribe giver.2. The Bill has deleted the provision that protects a bribe giver from prosecution, for any statement made by him during a corruption trial. This may deter bribe givers from appearing as witnesses in court.3. The Bill has replaced the definition of criminal misconduct. It now requires that the intention to acquire assets disproportionate to income also be proved, in addition to possession of such assets. Thus, the threshold to establish the offence of possession of disproportionate assets has been increased by the Bill.4. By redefining the offence of criminal misconduct, the Bill does not cover circumstances where the public official: (i) uses illegal means, (ii) abuses his position, or (iii) disregards public interest and obtains a valuable thing or reward for himself or another person.5. Under the Act, the guilt of the person is presumed for the offences of taking a bribe, being a habitual offender or abetting an offence. The Bill amends this provision to only cover the offence of taking a bribe.Source - The Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill, 201321) Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART) (Regulation) Bill 2010Objective – The bill aims at legalizing (commercial) surrogacy.Pros –1. Offers legal protection to child and surrogate mothers.2. Regulation of IVF/ART clinics and holding them Accountable for ensuring best medical practices.3. Curbs exploitation of mother. Limits number of child births per mother to five.4. Introduces age limit for surrogate mother – 21 to 35.5. Ensures Child’s citizenship to be same as parents.Cons –1. Legal back up will lead to widespread commercialization of surrogacy, posing serious ethical, moral and philosophical questions.2. Mandatory certificate ensuring legality of surrogacy in foreign couple’s home country needed. Impediments in smooth commercial functioning.3. No provision in the bill if parent’s change their mind or die. Child’s responsibility in this case is debatable.4. Plethora of in-genuine clinics in India. Exploitation of poor and illiterate mothers because of their incapability to understand legalities involved.Source - Issues of surrogacy, PIB English Features22) Biotechnology Regulatory Authority Bill, 2013Objective - The Bill sets up an independent authority, the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI), to regulate organisms and products of modern biotechnology.Pros –1. BRAI will regulate the research, transport, import, containment, environmental release, manufacture, and use of biotechnology products.2. Regulatory approval by BRAI will be granted through a multi-level process of assessment undertaken by scientific experts.3. BRAI will certify that the product developed is safe for its intended use. All other laws governing the product will continue to apply.4. A Biotechnology Regulatory Appellate Tribunal will hear civil cases that involve a substantial question relating to modern biotechnology and hear appeals on the decisions and orders of BRAI.5. Penalties are specified for providing false information to BRAI, conducting unapproved field trials, obstructing or impersonating an officer of BRAI and for contravening any other provisions of the Bill.Cons -1. The Tribunal has jurisdiction over a ‘substantial question relating to modern biotechnology’ – An ambiguous term.2. The Tribunal will consist of one judicial member and five technical members. This is not in conformity with a SC decision that the number of technical members on a bench of a Tribunal cannot exceed the number of judicial members.3. The Tribunal’s technical members shall be eminent scientists or government officials with experience in the field. It is unclear whether the technical expertise of the latter can be equated with the former.4. The Bill does not specify any liability for damage caused by a product of biotechnology. Therefore, it will remain open to the courts to determine liability arising out of any adverse impact of modern biotechnology.5. Tribunal will not accept complaints from civil society, in spite of the fact that the Bill directly or indirectly affects every citizen. No public consultation done.6. Non clarity over Dept of GoI that will service BRAI. No mention of mandatory labelling of GM crops.7. Takes away rights of states to decide on Agriculture, which is state subject.8. The Convener of the Selection Committee for members of BRAI will be from the Department of Biotechnology (DBT), which is a vendor of genetic engineering (the technology that BRAI is supposed to regulate) in the country. Conflict of Interest will arise.Source - The Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India Bill, 2013Unconstitutional, unethical, unscientific23) Coal Regulatory Authority Bill, 2013ObjectiveTo set up an independent regulatory body for the coal sector that shall help in the regulation and conservation of coal resources and will benefit all stakeholders i.e. - coal companies, coal consuming industries such as power, steel, cement and coal bearing States and people, directly or indirectly associated with the coal industry.A fund called ‘The Coal Regulatory Authority Fund” is created to credit all the receipts and fees received.Constituents1 chairperson + 4 members. One each from legal , technical , administrative and financial wings. All to be selected by a committee of Group of Ministers (GoM) headed by Cabinet Secretary.What will it do ?Inject transparency in allocation of coal blocks.Decide and Monitor operational norms and mining closure compliances and such.Determine pricing of the fuel and publishing surveys, information, statistics, etc related to coal sector and coal quality.Adjudicate disputes between entities and between entities and other persons.Advise government on technologies, policy, promotion, investment etc.Ref :- The Coal Regulatory Authority Bill, 2013,Coal Regulatory Authority Bill likely in Winter session24) eWaste (Management and Handling) Act, 2011What is it ?E-waste has beendefined as “waste electrical and electronic equipment, whole or in part or rejects from their manufacturing and repair process, which are intended to be discarded”.AIM :-Reduction in the use of hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment.Specifying threshold for use of hazardous material including lead, mercury and cadmium.Ministry of Environment & Forest (MoEF) thus introduces the concept of "Extended Producer Responsibility".How will it work ?It fixes responsibilities on every producer, seller, consumer or bulk consumer, collection centre, dismantler and recycler of e-waste involved in the manufacture, sale, purchase and processing of electrical and electronic equipment or components.E.g. :Recycling of E-Waste generated during manufacturing and "End of Life" of electronic and electrical equipments.Setting up of collection centres by companies or individuals to collect E-waste and discard them.Setting up of funds by corporate to boost scientific and eco-friendly disposal of E-waste.CritiqueNo accountability set on anyone.E-Industry remains skeptical of the efficacy of this act.No specific targets set.Ref :- @E-waste management rules kick in today@Page on moef.nic.in25) Prevention of Communal and Targeted Violence Bill, 2011What is it ?The bill is intended to prevent “any act or series of acts, whether spontaneous or planned, resulting in injury or harm to the person and or property, knowingly directed against any person by virtue of his or her membership of any group."How ?The billAddresses identity-based or targeted crimes and organised mass violence as special offences.Places accountability of public officers with varying penalties for dereliction of duty it.Provides for the creation of a National Authority and the State authorities to ensure justice and reparation.Addresses issues faced by specific communities like economic boycott, denial of public service, forced migration , hostile environment etc.Empowers state and center government to intercept any messages and communication that it feels might lead to communal violence.Sets up district level authorities to assess compensation.CritiquesCurbing freedom of expression by terming it as Hate propaganda.Presumption of guilt and burden of proof on the accused – The accused will have to prove innocence.All the persons acting under this Act will have blanket of protection of action taken in good faith.Brings civil servants in direct line of fire by vaguely defining "dereliction of duty".26) Competition Act, 2002The Competition Act was passed in 2002Competition Commission of India (CCI) was established on March 1, 2009 as an autonomous body comprising of a Chairperson and six members.CCI not only hears and investigates cases based on the information received by it, but it also takes suo moto action wherever it finds that a prima facie violationCommission had taken suo-moto cognizance of the reported manipulation of the bids by manufacturers of LPG cylinders for supplying cylinders to the Indian Oil CorporationMany more such notices have been sent by CCI in the Petroleum sector, Agricuture sector etc. taking cognisance suo-moto.Role of trade associationsCompetition law treats the activities of trade associations much like any other form of cooperation between competitors.decisions or recommendations of trade associations are treated as agreements between its members and law may be breached even when they are not binding on the members.CCI imposed a nominal penalty of Rs. 1 lakh each on 27 film producers on charges of colluding through an association to exploit multiplex owners.number of cases involving the associations in the Pharmaceutical sector/Film production etc where CCI has passed orders against the associations and asked them to “cease and desist” from activities that may be anti-competitive in nature.Public Procurement and Competition LawPublic procurement is a contentious issue vis-à-vis application of competition lawpublic enterprises, which are generally the big procurers, are subject to competition assessment.Commission has decided a number of matters, including cartelization in government contracts. Penalties have been imposed on firms to discourage the anti-competitive practices and abuse of dominanceCompetition Commission of India is set to change the rules of the game and play the role of a watchdog to check anti-competitive practices in the markethttp://echoofindia.com/reflex-action/competition-commission-india-4-years-enforcement-competition-law-3216927) Prasar Bharati (Amendment) Bill, 201028) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 200229) Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitaion Act, 2013. (Important, Swachh Bharat Abhiyan)30) Child Labour (Prohibition) Act, 198631) Scheduled Tribes and Recognition of Forest Rights Bill, 200632) Environment Protection Law, 198633) Wildlife Protection Act, 197234) The Electricity Act, 200335) Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas Act, 199636) Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 199237) Factories Act 1948/Amendment Bill 201438) Apprentice Act 1961/ Amendment Bill 201439) The Pension Fund Regulatory And Development Authority Act, 201340) The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Bill, 201341) Benami Transaction (Prohibition )Act, 198842) The National Food Security Act, 201343) Pesticides Management Bill, 2008*Maximum Credits per Person - 5000**Contributors earning more than 1000 credits <must> -a) Promote to at least 100 people.b) Share this list everywhere. :P :P LOL !Thank you all. :)Thanks for the A2A Anon. :)

Like all good legal answers… it depends, Chauncey Richburg. You didn’t ask this anonymously, and so I’m going take this question as a sincere one.Define the concept of citizenship as you mean for it to apply here. What differentiates a citizen from a resident?This is important. It was the basis for the 14th Amendment and the basis for those rulings.We need to start with Dred Scott v. Sanford, the infamous 1857 case that ruled that those of African descent, whether slaves or free, were not citizens of the United States and therefore did not have rights under the Constitution. Chief Justice Roger Taney wrote that a “perpetual and impassable barrier was intended to be erected between the white race and the one which they had reduced to slavery.” It proceeded to strike down the Missouri Compromise and was one of the key events that led to the Civil War.It’s a truly appalling decision in today’s context, if you were to read it. The decision reads like a KKK propaganda piece.After the Civil War, we passed the 13th Amendment officially abolishing slavery. However, it’s key to note here the basis for the American institution of slavery. It was based on white supremacy and the belief that other races, particularly Africans, were inherently inferior, sub-human beings. The 13th Amendment didn’t (and obviously couldn’t) abolish this belief.So, the South immediately moved to adopt “black codes.” These black codes severely restricted the rights of the newly freed blacks so as to essentially place them back in at least the social standing of slavery. White Southerners passed laws restricting the rights of blacks to own real or personal property, to form contracts (meaning whites couldn’t be bound to contracts entered into with blacks and could break them at will,) and instituting severely harsher criminal penalties - essentially jaywalking could get you a death sentence.This was justified because blacks were not citizens either of the individual States nor of the United States, and therefore entitled to no rights under the either the federal or various state constitutions.The first response of Congress was the Civil Rights Act of 1866. It would have granted citizenship to former slaves and anyone else in the borders of the United States. It was fought bitterly by the South and Andrew Johnson, who vetoed the law because he thought it was unconstitutional based on Dred Scott.That was what resulted in the very specific language of the Fourteenth Amendment.Section 1 of the 14th Amendment first guarantees citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States.”However, the Republican drafters of this language were worried that white Southerners could interpret this to exclude any African-born slaves, or even to black people born after secession, and that’s why the drafters went a step further to make sure that the equal protection clause applied to anyone in the jurisdiction of the United States. That’s why the equal protection clause is explicitly guaranteed to “all persons within its [each State’s] jurisdiction.”That’s why, whether a person is a citizen or not, no matter what, that person is still entitled to the equal protection of the laws, including the Constitution.The question then becomes one of what are protections under the Constitution, and what are privileges or rights under the Constitution.The Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments deal with protections for those involved in the criminal justice system. The Fourth Amendment covers protections for people in interactions with the government up to the point of arrest. The Fifth Amendment covers protections for people under arrest, but not yet formally charged. The Sixth Amendment covers the protections of those formally criminally accused.There’s a very good reason not to ask whether a person is a citizen or not before enforcing these protections: how do I know whether you’re a citizen or not? Do you have to prove it first? Papers, please? How do I know those aren’t forged?If we start suspending due process and equal protection anytime someone is merely suspected of not being a full citizen, even if they’re a legal resident, it’s just a matter of time before someone innocent gets hammered by the system.This is already happening under the current administration and ICE raids. They’re picking up legal residents, even citizens, and holding them without proof, without charges, without bail hearings, anything.An 18-year-old U.S. citizen, a citizen, was arrested and held for twenty-six days and almost deported, even though he produced a driver’s license, Social Security card, and birth certificate for authorities when they first talked to him.[1] Officers told him he did not have a right to an attorney while in Border Patrol custody, nor allowed him to make any phone calls.That’s what happens when you decide that citizens have protections under the Constitution, and non-citizens don’t.How do you know who is a citizen and who isn’t?It’s funny, because as we are asking this question right now in this country, by this present administration, people with brown skin certainly seem to get looked at a lot closer than people who look like me: a pasty, balding, nearly middle-aged white dude. I don’t get asked about my citizenship. I don’t have to carry a birth certificate around with me.And a guy I know quite well does. He’s a fairly dark-skinned Hispanic man, about the same age as I am. He’s a natural-born citizen. His parents were natural born citizens. His grandparents were immigrants. He worries about this all the time. Every interaction with the police, he has to worry about whether or not they’re going to haul him in under suspicion that he’s here illegally.What’s the difference here between us? I’ll give you three guesses and the first two don’t count.If you value civil rights at all, you don’t want them depending on what you look like and whether or not some officer of the law believes you about your citizenship status.And that brings us back around to your original question, does applying these protections to people regardless of their citizenship status somehow damage what it means to be a citizen?It depends.Do you want to live in that kind of society, one where you have to present papers and hope that an officer believes you? Do you believe that the United States is for white people only and letting anyone else have citizenship dilutes the purity of the country? Do you believe we should still have Jim Crow and black codes and state-enforced apartheid?Then yes, you might believe that equal protection of the laws to everyone regardless of citizenship status damages your concept of citizenship, and denying those protections to non-citizens, when you get to decide who to believe is and is not a citizen, is a rather convenient method of figuring out which people to evict to get the white nationalist society you want.If that’s what you want.What?What’s that? That’s not want you want?I see. You’re totes not racist, but the illegals are voting, you say? Stealing jobs, eh? Gotta put a stop to that, huh?This is why I brought up the protections of the law as distinguished from the privileges of the law.We’re okay with denying non-citizens certain privileges, even some citizen rights under the Constitution. Non-citizen residents may or may not (state depending) have the right to vote. The Supreme Court has upheld restrictions preventing non-citizens from being public school teachers, from holding public office, or from being public notaries. If a citizen gets denied these things, the harm is not as significant.But we’re not okay with denying public school access, the right to an attorney in criminal proceedings, or medical care on the basis of citizenship, because the harm is much greater.We shouldn’t be okay with terrorizing communities by rounding up everyone who looks sorta Hispanic-ish and sorting them all out at the station later.[2] We shouldn’t be okay with indefinitely detaining people, detaining children in ways that could lead to permanent psychological trauma, without charges or trials or any way to challenge the legality of their detention.[3] [4]It hasn’t been particularly clear what standard the Supreme Court has applied to these kinds of cases; at times, it’s appeared to be strict scrutiny, and at other times, it’s more like heightened intermediate scrutiny.But where it comes to discriminatory practices, access to the courts and the protections of criminal justice, and others, aspects of the law where someone innocent could suffer incredible injustice, we really should make sure those protections are afforded to everyone.Because if they aren’t, one day, it might be you who suffers the consequences.First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Socialist.Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Trade Unionist.Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Jew.Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.— Martin NiemöllerFootnotes[1] U.S. Citizen Detained For Weeks, Nearly Deported By Immigration Officials[2] Four days of terror[3] New Trump Policy Would Permit Indefinite Detention Of Migrant Families, Children[4] Lengthy Detention Of Migrant Children May Create Lasting Trauma, Say Researchers