Form 6 Ica: Fill & Download for Free

Lemme give you a solid breakdown of ICAS here, from the guy who has faced the worst side of it.Positives:1. If you manage not paying for internal failures(i.e. not getting any) it can be cheap as hell to pass through ICAS2. The fact that this is Manipal automatically means you will have ample space and place to enjoy, party, kill time, and meet some of the most epic people3. ICAS has some good universities on its partners panel.4. ICAS will take you if you have fucked up everywhere else. (Though rumour has it they plan on putting up an entrance test)Now... (*Deep sigh*) the negatives:1. If you blow your mind out working every week, studying hard, and kinda committing Seppuku on your social life, you will get a great GPA, and go to a University someone completely talentless and hopeless got into with just a decent SAT score (eg. UIUC, Asgard of ICAS, took my friend in on just a 78% in CBSE boards and an 1820 SAT score, in ICAS we have to piss our pants to get in there, those who do get in are revered amongst the peasants)2. Really short vacations in comparison to the MIT people here3. The faculty is the same as or worse than MIT, with a few decent teachers4. The outgoing percentage of students is less than 50%. At least 1 in 2 students that get into ICAS leave it without completing shit and wasting a year5. ICAS doesn't really promote participation in outside ICAS events as such, you need a nice student council and drive to really take part in them (Though I hear things are changing, Jai Vittaleshwar Sir)6. ICAS has destroyed more lives than it has made. But those who got through are smiling pretty wide right now completing 2 years for cheap.So to sum it up, if you can chuck your I.V. League college dreams to the side, bend low and work hard as you get screwed, and not hate on the shitty standards that this place sets up, ICAS can make you a winner. Your target is far, your arrow is heavy, and your eyes are burning pretty hard.

Services like IAS, IFS, IPS, IRS-IT, IRS-C&CE are quite popular among UPSC Aspirants, but common people know about IAS & IPS only, they are even unaware of Indian Foreign Services (IFS).IAS, IFS, IPS are the premier services, but IRS-IT & IRS-C&CE are also quite good & popular.Some lesser known Civil Services but among these IAAS & IRTS are really powerful services :-IAAS (Audit & Accounts Services)IRTS (Railway Traffic Services- most powerful services in railways)IRPS (Railway Personnel Services- they're basically HR of railways)IRAS (Railway Accounts)RPF (Railway Protection Force)ICAS (Civil Accounts)ITS (Foreign Trade)IDES (Defense Estates Services- They're appointed as CEOs in Cantonments)IDAS (Defense Accounts)These following services are less powerful than those stated above (1 to 9) :10. ICLS (Corporate Law)11. IOFS (Ordinance Factories)12. IIS (Information Services)13. IPoS (Postal Services)14. IP&TAFS (Postal & Telecommunications Accounts & Finance Services)The following services are really very powerful services (15 to 18) , although they are Group-B Services :15. DANICS (UT Civil Services)16. DANIPS (UT Police Services)17. PCS (Puducherry Civil Services)18. PPS (Puducherry Police Services)19. AFHQ (Armed forces Headquarters)- least powerful service among all services.

Actually, no, that’s not what the law says.First, the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse. They appropriated money in a bill and the President signed that bill into law.There were conditions attached to the funds, such as Ukraine undergoing a review by the Department of Defense who had to certify that they had made specific anti-corruption reforms…which they did. Ukraine met all the requirements for the aid specified in the law and the U.S. government certified that was the case…months before the freeze was ordered, in fact. The appropriation was required by law, not just if the President feels like it.Otherwise, what’s to stop a Democrat from simply unilaterally cutting defense spending?What’s to stop a Republican from unilaterally defunding food stamps, Medicaid, PBS, the EPA, the Department of Education, the IRS, and Obamacare subsidies?The law is what stops them.The government is required to spend what the law says it is required to spend. Otherwise, what’s the point of negotiating over spending bills if the President can just do what he wants regardless of the law?There’s something called the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Take note of the year. It’s right after another ignominious presidency and time of scandal. You see, Trump is not the first Oval Office occupant to get cute with Congressional appropriations. As in other ways, Donald J. Trump is following in the footsteps of one Richard M. Nixon.What is the Impoundment Control Act?[1][1][1][1]The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (ICA) reasserted Congress’ power of the purse. Specifically, Title X of the Act – “Impoundment Control” – established procedures to prevent the President and other government officials from unilaterally substituting their own funding decisions for those of the Congress. The Act also created the House and Senate Budget Committees and the Congressional Budget Office.Why was the ICA necessary?Congress passed the ICA in response to President Nixon’s executive overreach – his Administration refused to release Congressionally appropriated funds for certain programs he opposed. While the U.S. Constitution broadly grants Congress the power of the purse, the President – through the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and executive agencies – is responsible for the actual spending of funds. The ICA created a process the President must follow if he or she seeks to delay or cancel funding that Congress has provided.The President does not appear to have followed that process.Coming back to the assertion in the question, “Aid can be paused at the president’s discretion” — where does it say that?It seems the opposite is true:The U.S. ConstitutionGives Congress the power of the purseArticle I, Section 9, Clause 7 (the Appropriations Clause)Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 (the Taxing and Spending Clause)Obligates the President to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."Article II, Section 3, Clause 5 (the Take Care Clause)The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 discussed aboveThe actual spending law that appropriated the nearly $400 million to UkraineThat’s “the offense” — and that’s not even getting into bribery, extortion, campaign finance violation (illegal to solicit something of value from foreigners) that we’ve all heard about by now.Bribery is one of only two misdeeds explicitly mentioned in the Constitution as impeachable offenses, but all of the above represent an abuse of power, the classic “high crime.”As for the second assertion in the question, that it was “resumed” so it must be okay, that is just bananas, to use the technical term. It was resumed AFTER the whistleblower report and AFTER Congress began investigating. If you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar, dropping the cookie at that point doesn’t mean much.Update #1, Nov ‘19: I should also add that it was delayed so long that they actually couldn’t resume in time to send all of it. The Department of Defense estimated more than $100 million would be unable to be used in time, but after working tirelessly to catch up after the delay, they were able to deliver 86% of what was appropriated before it was too late to legally spend. So it is false or at least incomplete to say it was resumed. It took another act of Congress to get the rest of it reauthorized so it could finally be fully “resumed”.Update #2, Jan ‘20: My analysis was just confirmed and there’s no longer any doubt: Trump broke the law when he withheld the funds. This was the official conclusion of the Government Accountability Office (GAO).[2][2][2][2][3][3][3][3][4][4][4][4][5][5][5][5][6][6][6][6][7][7][7][7][8][8][8][8][9][9][9][9] The GAO is a nonpartisan government watchdog.The GAO’s legal finding noted:Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law. OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act (ICA)… Therefore, we conclude that OMB violated the ICA.Rest assured, they gave the question a serious examination and explained it clearly, with copious legal citation. The legal analysis explaining their finding was 9 pages (but a fairly quick skim) and readily available if you’d like to understand it better.It includes a number of statements that not only back up the answer above, but astute observers will note they debunk various excuses we’ve heard from the administration and Trump’s defenders:“The Constitution grants the President no unilateral authority to withhold funds from obligation.” [Trumpists claimed he could]“Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law.” [Trumpists claimed he could]“DOD was required to notify Congress 15 days in advance of any obligation of the USAI funds.” [Trumpists claimed nothing was required as long as money was spent by end of fiscal year]“The burden to justify a withholding of budget authority rests with the executive branch.” [Trumpists claimed he could do whatever he wants and didn’t owe Congress any justification]“OMB’s assertions have no basis in law.”“The ICA authorizes the deferral of budget authority in a limited range of circumstances: to provide for contingencies; to achieve savings made possible by or through changes in requirements or greater efficiency of operations; or as specifically provided by law. 2 U.S.C. § 684(b). No officer or employee of the United States may defer budget authority for any other purpose.” [Trumpists claimed he could do whatever he wants]“The ICA does not permit deferrals for policy reasons…OMB’s justification for the withholding falls squarely within the scope of an impermissible policy deferral.” [Trumpists tried to use corruption and foreign policy as excuses]“Enacted statutes, and not the President’s policy priorities, necessarily provide the animating framework for all actions agencies take to carry out government programs.” [Trumpists claimed his policies trumped the law]“The Constitution specifically vests Congress with the power of the purse…” [Trumpists claim he can do whatever he wants with appropriations]“The Constitution also vests all legislative powers in Congress…” [Trumpists claim he can ignore laws telling him what to do with taxpayer funds, among others]“The President is not vested with the power to ignore or amend any such duly enacted law See Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 438 (1998) (the Constitution does not authorize the President “to enact, to amend, or to repeal statutes”). [Trumpists claim he can do whatever he wants because of Article II; this points out the Court said otherwise.]“Instead, he must “faithfully execute” the law as Congress enacts it…” [Trumpists not only claim he could ignore the ICA and appropriations laws, but that faithful execution of the law means he can justify any action, because he’s “fighting corruption”]"The president has narrow, limited authority to withhold appropriations under the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. OMB told GAO that it withheld the funds to ensure that they were not spent 'in a manner that could conflict with the president's foreign policy.' The law does not permit OMB to withhold funds for policy reasons." [This was a top Trumpist claim]“Therefore, we conclude that OMB violated the ICA.” [The #1 Trumpist claim: no laws were broken.][10]I believe the technical legal term for what the GAO just did to Trump defenses is a smackdown.The GAO’s nonpartisan analysis not only confirmed the abuse of power (Impeachment Article I), they also described the administration’s obstruction of their investigation. Their decision states, “OMB and State have failed, as of yet, to provide the information we need to fulfill our duties,” and:We consider a reluctance to provide a fulsome response to have constitutional significance. GAO’s role under the ICA—to provide information and legal analysis to Congress as it performs oversight of executive activity—is essential to ensuring respect for and allegiance to Congress’ constitutional power of the purse. All federal officials and employees take an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution and its core tenets, including the congressional power of the purse.Being that they fall under Congress, it’s virtually another mark in the obstruction of Congress column (Impeachment Article II).We’ve also learned that emails between the Department of Defense (DOD) and the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB, which unlike the GAO, is partisan) directly implicated Trump in the decision to freeze the funds. Emails show that in response to DOD warning OMB that they can't legally hold the funds any longer, OMB wrote, "Clear direction from POTUS to continue to hold."[11][11][11][11] POTUS refers to Trump by his job title. In other words, don’t worry about following the law, Trump said just do it anyway.For more answers like this, check out: Political Clarity, Demystifying U.S. Politics.Footnotes[1] The Impoundment Control Act of 1974: What Is It? Why Does It Matter?[1] The Impoundment Control Act of 1974: What Is It? Why Does It Matter?[1] The Impoundment Control Act of 1974: What Is It? Why Does It Matter?[1] The Impoundment Control Act of 1974: What Is It? Why Does It Matter?[2] U.S. GAO - About GAO - Press Releases[2] U.S. GAO - About GAO - Press Releases[2] U.S. GAO - About GAO - Press Releases[2] U.S. GAO - About GAO - Press Releases[3] G.A.O. Report Says Trump Administration Broke Law in Withholding Ukraine Aid[3] G.A.O. Report Says Trump Administration Broke Law in Withholding Ukraine Aid[3] G.A.O. Report Says Trump Administration Broke Law in Withholding Ukraine Aid[3] G.A.O. Report Says Trump Administration Broke Law in Withholding Ukraine Aid[4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/white-house-hold-on-ukraine-aid-violated-federal-law-congressional-watchdog-says/2020/01/16/060ea7aa-37a3-11ea-9c01-d674772db96b_story.html[4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/white-house-hold-on-ukraine-aid-violated-federal-law-congressional-watchdog-says/2020/01/16/060ea7aa-37a3-11ea-9c01-d674772db96b_story.html[4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/white-house-hold-on-ukraine-aid-violated-federal-law-congressional-watchdog-says/2020/01/16/060ea7aa-37a3-11ea-9c01-d674772db96b_story.html[4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/white-house-hold-on-ukraine-aid-violated-federal-law-congressional-watchdog-says/2020/01/16/060ea7aa-37a3-11ea-9c01-d674772db96b_story.html[5] Trump administration violated the law by withholding Ukraine aid, government watchdog finds[5] Trump administration violated the law by withholding Ukraine aid, government watchdog finds[5] Trump administration violated the law by withholding Ukraine aid, government watchdog finds[5] Trump administration violated the law by withholding Ukraine aid, government watchdog finds[6] GAO finds Trump administration broke law by withholding Ukraine aid[6] GAO finds Trump administration broke law by withholding Ukraine aid[6] GAO finds Trump administration broke law by withholding Ukraine aid[6] GAO finds Trump administration broke law by withholding Ukraine aid[7] GAO: Trump Broke Budget Law When He Froze Ukraine Funds[7] GAO: Trump Broke Budget Law When He Froze Ukraine Funds[7] GAO: Trump Broke Budget Law When He Froze Ukraine Funds[7] GAO: Trump Broke Budget Law When He Froze Ukraine Funds[8] https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2020-01-16/gao-trump-administration-broke-the-law-in-ukraine-aid-holdup[8] https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2020-01-16/gao-trump-administration-broke-the-law-in-ukraine-aid-holdup[8] https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2020-01-16/gao-trump-administration-broke-the-law-in-ukraine-aid-holdup[8] https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2020-01-16/gao-trump-administration-broke-the-law-in-ukraine-aid-holdup[9] GAO: Trump’s hold on Ukraine aid violated budget law[9] GAO: Trump’s hold on Ukraine aid violated budget law[9] GAO: Trump’s hold on Ukraine aid violated budget law[9] GAO: Trump’s hold on Ukraine aid violated budget law[10] Office of Management and Budget—Withholding of Ukraine Security Assistance[11] Exclusive: Unredacted Ukraine Documents Reveal Extent of Pentagon’s Legal Concerns[11] Exclusive: Unredacted Ukraine Documents Reveal Extent of Pentagon’s Legal Concerns[11] Exclusive: Unredacted Ukraine Documents Reveal Extent of Pentagon’s Legal Concerns[11] Exclusive: Unredacted Ukraine Documents Reveal Extent of Pentagon’s Legal Concerns