An Ordinance To Amend An Ordinance Entitled &Quot: Fill & Download for Free

LAW:'Law' is a system of rules that are enforced through social institutions to govern behaviour . Laws can be made by legislatures through legislation , the executive through decrees and regulations, or judges through binding precedent (normally in common law jurisdictions).or In other words,the system of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties.BILL and ACT:A 'bill ' is an initial stage of an act.An "act" is the actual law or bill trying to be passed.The process includes• A Bill is a draft legislation proposed by a member of the Parliament or it may be introduced by the government itself.• The Bill is laid threadbare in the lower house of the parliament and once it has been passed after deliberations, the Bill goes to the Upper house for approval. It is only after the bill gets passed by the upper House also that it is sent to the President for his assent.• The Bill finally becomes a law (Act) of the land once it has been passed by the parliament and also got assent from the President.ORDINANCE:Ordinance is an authoritative law or decree issued by the President or Governor when parliament or state legislation is not in session. Once an ordinance is approved by the legislature it turns into an act or statute.The process includesThe President acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers, so it is the government that takes the decision to issue an ordinance. After the Cabinet decides to issue an ordinance, it is sent to the President. The President may return the ordinance once if he feels that it requires reconsideration but has to promulgate it if it is sent back to him after reconsideration.Validation-The ordinance is valid for six weeks from the date when the next session starts. If the two Houses start their sessions on different dates, the later of the dates will be considered. The ordinance may lapse earlier if the President withdraws it or if both Houses pass resolutions disapproving it.AMENDMENT:Amendment is process of bringing changes and correction in the existing statutes. The process of amendment starts with the introduction of the amendment bill, once that is approved by the Parliament and President; it becomes an amendment act and changes the parent act accordingly.Now here is the main task to understand the difference between CONSTITUTIONAL AND NON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS.Constitutional change may also be non constitutional. I use the concepts of non constitutionality to denote a category of actions that is distinguishable from the countervailing category of constitutional actions.It is constitutional, for example, for the President of the United States to refuse to assent to a bill that has passed both congressional chambers. The Constitution of the United States authorizes the President to do just that. It is in this sense that the presidential veto is constitutional.In contrast, the Parliament of Canada may not pass a law prohibiting citizens from voting in a national election. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms affirms, and the Supreme Court has confirmed, that all citizens are entitled to exercise the right to vote. Therefore to prevent a Canadian citizen from casting a ballot would be unconstitutional because it would run counter to the Canadian Charter.Unconstitutional actions like this one fall into the broader category of nonconstitutionality because they violate the terms or spirit of the constitutional order.Hope it will help...credit-Richard Albert's 'Non Constitutional Amendment'

The farmers have been protesting this particular bill right from its inception, I totally agree that everyone is entitled to have an opinion and I shall express my personal opinion, I believe that reforms are necessary for progress and without them development cant sustain.I also believe that if our Kisan has a few concerns regarding this particular bill, we need to assure them that it is all for their good.Seventy-three years after Independence and almost 30 years after liberalization, our Kisan was not free to choose where and whom to sell his produce, The government aims to grant the farmer freedom of choice to sell his produce and allow private firms to be a part of the agricultural supply chain that would ultimately improve price stability and reduce wastage.What are the ordinances?First of all, I’ll explain in brief the three different ordinances that were passed in the parliament.1. The Farmers' Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) OrdinanceUnder this ordinance, the farmer can sell his finished crops to any merchant anywhere. There will be no compulsion to sell in APMC mandi of their own specific area. The government is putting this forward as part of “one nation, one market.”2. The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm ServicesUnder this ordinance, the farmer broadly signs a contract to sell the crops on the basis of the parameters set by his crop standards. It is believed that this may reduce the risk of the farmer.3. Amendment in Essential Commodities Act 1955The moneylenders and businessmen used to earlier buy crops at affordable rates and store them in large numbers, and engage in black marketing. The government enacted the Essential Commodities Act in 1955 to curb black marketing. But now, under the new amendment, agricultural products like cereals, pulses, oilseeds, edible oils, and potatoes have been removed from it.Why are our Farmers concerned and protesting?As far as 1st ordinance is concerned, the reason is that farmers who depend on APMC's monopoly are angry with these ordinances. According to the IE report, farmers fear that after the introduction of this new system, the process of procurement by the government at MSP will end.However, there has been no mention, either directly or indirectly, in the ordinance that after this new system, MSP-based government procurement will be abolished.Now talking about the second ordinance, Farmers can sign a contract with firms that can guarantee them an MSP before sowing but they believe that the corporates will have a bigger say in deciding the prices and they wouldn’t want to deal with small farmers.Now addressing the third ordinance, the farmers believe that the corporates have the ability to hoard in large quantities and they could use this ability to beat down prices.How do you convince farmers that these laws are beneficial?Only the government is capable to address the farmers and convince them about the benefits of the law.To convince them regarding the first ordinance, where the farmers think that with these new laws the MSP system will end whereas the government has repeatedly said that this system will continue, the only possible solution is a legal guarantee that would solve all the problems in this aspect.Regarding the second ordinance, there is a lack of awareness among the masses and as far as I have read about this ordinance,Farmers have equal say in setting the sale price. They can withdraw from the contract at any point of time without any penalty whereas the corporates will have to pay the agreed price and also penalty on breaching the contractAlso, 10,000 Farmer-Producer organizations (FPO’s) will be set up to help small farmers to deal with corporates.So this can be solved simply with better communication and awareness.Now talking about the Third ordinance, I believe that this will attract foreign investments in the food supply chain by addressing the fear of excessive regulatory interference and also help in improving price stability as crop prices won't drop down after a bumper crop or spiral sky high after crop failure.Certain regulations are necessary for this particular ordinance that would convince the farmers and help to gain their confidence.Conclusions: To sum up, all of the problems can be solved by legally guaranteeing our Kisan brethren about MSP and having awareness drives about the benefits of the ordinances. Also, the opposition needs to avoid using this particular thing to serve its political agenda and creating unawareness among the masses.I hope you liked my answer and I apologize for any unintentional error, edits are welcome.Thanks for reading.

You're in luck! The Secession Convention, which voted 166 to 8 in favor of secession, told us exactly why they had just done so.“A declaration of the causeswhich impel the State of Texas to secedefrom the Federal UnionThe government of the United States, by certain joint resolutions, bearing date the 1st day of March, in the year A. D. 1845, proposed to the Republic of Texas, then a free, sovereign and independent nation, the annexation of the latter to the former, as one of the co-equal States thereof,The people of Texas, by deputies in convention assembled, on the fourth day of July of the same year, assented to and accepted said proposals and formed a constitution for the proposed State, upon which on the 29th day of December in the same year, said State was formally admitted into the Confederated Union.Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated States to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?[When they say "Confederated States" in this paragraph, they are referring to the United States of America, not the Confederate States of America, which did not yet exist even in provisional form on February 1, 1861.]The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretenses and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slave-holding States.[In other words, the free states are seeking to prevent the expansion of slavery into the territories won during the Mexican War.]By the disloyalty of the Northern States and their citizens and the imbecility of the Federal Government, infamous combinations of incendiaries and outlaws have been permitted in those States and the common territory of Kansas to trample upon the federal laws, to war upon the lives and property of Southern citizens in that territory, and finally, by violence and mob law to usurp the possession of the same as exclusively the property of the Northern States.["Violence and mob law" were hardly unique to abolitionists in the territories. See Bleeding Kansas.]The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refused reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas.[This complaint is simply false. The United States Army maintained numerous forts and installations along the Texas frontier between 1845 and 1861, operated and garrisoned by at least a whole regiment of cavalry. Skirmishes with Comanches and Mexicans were fairly common.]These and other wrongs we have patiently borne in the vain hope that a returning sense of justice and humanity would induce a different course of administration.When we advert to the course of individual non-slave-holding States, and that a majority of their citizens, our grievances assume far greater magnitude.The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in their domestic institutions--a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation. Some of those States have imposed high fines and degrading penalties upon any of their citizens or officers who may carry out in good faith that provision of the compact, or the federal laws enacted in accordance therewith.[This entire paragraph is about the reticence of the citizens and governments of the free states to comply with and enforce the aforementioned clause in the Constitution, Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3, which states: "No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due." This is essentially the Fugitive Slave clause, further empowered by legislative acts to that effect. Texas is incensed by the fact that the Northern states are reluctant to return escaped slaves to their Texan masters.]In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon the unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of the equality of all men, irrespective of race or color--a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of the Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and the negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.[Cards are all out on the table now, aren't they!]For years past this abolition organization has been actively sowing the seeds of discord through the Union, and has rendered the federal congress the arena for spreading firebrands and hatred between the slave-holding and non-slave-holding States.[This refers to the rise of the Republican Party.]By consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress, and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments.[In this paragraph, the Texas secessionists reveal their disdain for the very central premise of representative democracy; the rule of the majority.]They have proclaimed, and at the ballot box sustained, the revolutionary doctrine that there is a "higher law" than the constitution and laws of our Federal Union, and virtually that they will disregard their oaths and trample upon our rights.[A critically flawed argument here, as the Constitution itself is not immutable and set in stone. It can be amended by process defined within the document itself, though Texas here would not have it so long as any amendment goes against its own interests. Again, this is not how democracy works.]They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture, and have repeatedly murdered Southern citizens while lawfully seeking their rendition.They have invaded Southern soil and murdered unoffending citizens, and through the press their leading men and a fanatical pulpit have bestowed praise upon the actors and assassins in these crimes, while the governors of several of their States have refused to deliver parties implicated and indicted for participation in such offences, upon the legal demands of the States aggrieved.[This refers to the raid by John Brown and 18 men on the Federal arsenal at Harper's Ferry, Virginia, in October 1859. It seems here that Texas is only too happy to lay the actions of 18 men at the feet of the 20 million who live in the Free states.]They have, through the mails and hired emissaries, sent seditious pamphlets and papers among us to stir up servile insurrection and bring blood and carnage to our firesides.They have sent hired emissaries among us to burn our towns and distribute arms and poison to our slaves for the same purpose.They have impoverished the slave-holding States by unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance.[I suppose, if one were inclined, you could use this itty bitty paragraph to blame the whole thing on tariffs, if you wanted.]They have refused to vote appropriations for protecting Texas against ruthless savages, for the sole reason that she is a slave-holding State.And, finally, by the combined sectional vote of the seventeen non-slave-holding States, they have elected as president and vice-president of the whole confederacy two men whose chief claims to such high positions are their approval of these long continued wrongs, and their pledges to continue them to the final consummation of these schemes for the ruin of the slave-holding States.In view of these and many other facts, it is met that our own views should be distinctly proclaimed.We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.[Again, not pulling any punches, are they?]That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding States. By the secession of six of the slave-holding States, and the certainty that others will speedily do likewise, Texas has no alternative but to remain in an isolated connection with the North, or unite her destinies with the South.For these and other reasons, solemnly asserting that the federal constitution has been violated and virtually abrogated by the several States named, seeing that the federal government is now passing under the control of our enemies to be diverted from the exalted objects of its creation to those of oppression and wrong, and realizing that our own State can no longer look for protection, but to God and her own sons - We the delegates of the people of Texas, in Convention assembled, have passed an ordinance dissolving all political connection with the government of the United States of America and the people thereof and confidently appeal to the intelligence and patriotism of the freeman of Texas to ratify the same at the ballot box, on the 23rd day of the present month.Adopted in Convention on the 2nd day of February, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one and of the independence of Texas the twenty-fifth.So yeah, this is why people answer simply, “It was slavery.”