Articles Of Organization Sc: Fill & Download for Free

“देर आये ,दुरुस्त आये” (Better Late Than Never).The 2013 shocking reversal of Delhi HC 2009 judgement was a major blow for LGBTQ equality in India. However, it was only temporary, and today will go down as a historic day for years to come.After officially recognizing a “third gender” and moving away from the gender duality norms back in 2014, this was the logical progression.CJI Dipak Mishra and the entire bench has displayed immense strength of character and a strong understanding of basic human rights and pronounced the judgement in a manner befitting its stature. Along with making it legal, the words they chose show why it is important that people have equal rights and equal treatment even if their choices do not align with your moral compass, and why laws and even the constitution should continuously evolve."The constitution is a living organic document ... pragmatic interpretation has to be given to combat rigorous inequality and injustice.”“Social morality cannot be used to violate the fundamental rights of even a single individual. Constitutional morality cannot be martyred at the altar of social morality."“No one can escape from their individualism. Society is now better for individualism.”“Sexual orientation is one of the many natural phenomenon. Any discrimination on basis of sexual orientation amounts to the violation of fundamental rights.”“Majoritarian views and popular views cannot dictate constitutional rights. LGBT community possesses human rights like all other sections of society. Equality is the essence of the constitution. 377 is arbitrary.”“I am what I am. So take me as I am.”The activists who have been fighting for this for years need to get the due credit - “dancer Navtej Jauhar, journalist Sunil Mehra, chef Ritu Dalmia, hoteliers Aman Nath and Keshav Suri and business executive Ayesha Kapur.”And to hundreds of organizations and individuals who have displayed solidarity with the cause.May this usher in an era of inclusiveness and prosperity. Jai Hind!

The answer to this question has history behind it.About 65 years ago, the civil rights movement started making waves. Although many organizations existed prior to this point, they started learning how to bring attention to things that were unjust, un-American, and inhumane. Years of small protests and petitions and trying to reason with unreasonable people was not a long term effective strategy. So various groups started making more noise. Boycotts. Voter registration drives. Protests. Sit-Ins. Lawsuits. School integrations.Common protests during this era. Note that schools are more segregated than ever, voting rights is still an issue, and job discrimination is still prevalent. This is America6 year old Ruby Bridges being escorted by US Marshalls. Holy hell, man - US MARSHALLS! Don’t catch you slippin’ upI know - everyone posts Thurgood Marshall pics when they talk about lawsuits in the civil rights era. But frankly, this dude is severely underrated as an attorney. Look what I’m whippin’ upThere were dozens of organizations that did these things, on both the local and the national stage. Collectively, these groups formed the Civil Rights movement. All the while, public opinion from the majority white population of these organizations was horribly, depressingly low. There was backlash against the movement. The federal government had to send troops to escort children to school. People were vilified, brutalized, and killed all because they attempted to be treated humanely and equally.James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner. Killed for attempting to enroll black voters. Missing for six weeks, searches in the area turned up 8 (!) other black murder victims before finding the bodies of the first 3 men. Goodman and Schwerner were shot to death. Chaney was beaten and tortured before he was shot. His body was also mutilated - most likely before and after death.So in a nutshell, there were despicable things that had been going on for decades (for simplicity’s sake I’m just counting the years since slavery “ended”). They were hidden from many white people because those people never thought it was as bad as black people said it was. Others just didn’t care because the problems didn’t affect them directly. The racists doing the actual harm had convinced other white people that all was well. So white people hated what they thought were petty disruptions in the daily lives that they enjoyed so much.The civil rights movement uncovered much of the overt oppression and showed those who cared that the oppression was constant and cruel. And even then, it took decades of pressure to force America to put laws in place to protect its own citizens.Fast forward to now. It’s the same thing, to a slightly lesser degree - racists have convinced the rest of white America that black people are exaggerating. “Look, they can play basketball and football now! One even became president! They’re just being whiny.”So another movement rose. The Black Lives Matter organization made a splash and lifted other organizations from obscurity, while also spawning more organizations. Collectively, many of these organizations are part of the Black Lives Matter movement, AKA “The Movement for Black Lives”. And just like the civil rights movement, there’s backlash against protestors and boycotters. It’s the same old arguments as before - there’s no real problem, the police are justified in everything they do, protesting doesn’t work, they’re not solving the real problems, blah blah blah. And so white opinions of the organization and the movement are low.Same old shit, different generation.For many of you, your kids and/or grandkids will look back on this era like we look back at the civil rights era: “Holy shit, how could people ignore this? What was wrong with the people of that era?”So now we arrive at the question about an unpopular opinion of Black Lives Matter. I say study what they’ve done and who they are. Study issues that plague many black communities and the data and research behind it. Read up on the proposed solutions that have never been implemented, then have an informed opinion.For those that don’t bother or just believe the b.s., who cares what your “unpopular” opinion is? The movement is beyond your ken.Some Black Lives Matter 101 material:This article has some insight into what they’ve done. How Black Lives Matter Changed the Way Americans Fight for FreedomThis article shows in particular how they affected a deleterious law in SC. Black Lives Matter Is Still Here — And Avoiding the Mistakes of Their PredecessorsEdit: fixed the article links

How did states in America lose their right to secession?By popular misconception and consensus thinking… but they have never lost their Right to secede.Let’s go back to the beginning… the end of the *Civil War, aka the Revolutionary War, which resulted in the Treaty of Paris, 1783:Article 1:His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof. British-American Diplomcay : The Paris Peace Treaty of September 30, 1783As Terje Eggestad correctly points out,(But the rest of his answer is inaccurate ) in international law, in order to become a legitimate State, [a compulsory political organization with a centralized government that maintains a monopoly of the legitimate use of force within a certain territory.] it must be recognized by other States.This was recently an issue in Myanmar.But as we can see, England did exactly that with each of the original 13 States.to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such,So, now we have established that each of the original 13 colonies are now 13 individual sovereign countries.And these 13 countries formed the confederacy, known as the United States under the Articles of Confederation. And this is where the confusion begins, because in the Articles of Confederation, there was a clause (preamble) which read:To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting.Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.The interesting thing is, each State was recognized by the Crown of England, as being independent, and the founders too, more often than not, referred to the States as being independent, so how is it, if we are to rely on this, that they intended the US to be perpetual, i.e. never ending, or be made to dissolve?Then we get to the Philadelphia Convention, which was intended to amend the Articles, not create a whole new system.This is a lengthy, but interesting read:Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787Also, the thing to remember is, the Articles of Confederation, and the Articles of Federation aka the Constitution, are both contacts, treaties among sovereign countries. And in neither one, do they nullify the Paris Treaty, nor surrender sovereignty to a national (unitarian) government.Much of the Articles of Confederation were copied directly to the new COTUS, but the preamble was not, so it no longer contains a perpetual union clause.Every State that entered the Federation, after the original 13 ratified the COTUS, were granted Statehood, i.e., the State was recognized by the Governments of the of the States of the Federation, via the Federal Congress. That way, every State that entered the Federation, entered on equal footing with the others that were already members of the Federation. So every State, after the original 13, is a recognized State/Country/Nation, what ever you want to call it, and I think it could be argued, that being recognized as such, also makes it a party to the Treaty of Paris, which to my knowledge has never been altered or nullified. If someone knows differently please forward me a link or let me know, thanks.But since there is no longer a “perpetual union” clause, these States are in no way duty bound by it. And that the COTUS nullified the Articles of Confederation, totally replacing it, then it does not apply to the original 13 either. And this is the reason:Article 7:The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this constitution between the states so ratifying the same.So, if the other 4 States failed to ratify the COTUS, they would be on their own, to do as they pleased, dissolving the confederacy… Lincoln’s and everyone else’ argument, that the US is a perpetual union, and a State may not secede is erroneous at best.*note:Civil War: [A civil war, also known as an intrastate war in polemology, is a war between organized groups within the same state or country. The aim of one side may be to take control of the country or a region, to achieve independence for a region or to change government policies.]M-W : a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same countryIn 1776, the colonies were part of the British Empire, and all of the residents of the “US” were British subjects or Citizens. So a war against England, was in fact, a war against fellow Citizens, with the end goal to achieve independence of the region of the British Empire, known as the colonies, later to be called the Confederated United States of America.So the so called “Revolution” is actually a civil war, and the so called “Civil War” is a war between to separate entities, the Federation of United States, and the Confederate States, commonly referred to as the War of Northern Aggression, or the War between the States. But it was not actually a civil war.BTW, The SC decision in 1869 is politically biased, and completely wrong. They state in Texas v White:In deciding the merits of the bond issue, the court further held that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null".Well, we know this is completely false because as EVEN Hamilton points out:Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? Federalist No 84Meaning, that if the Federal Government is not specifically granted an authority to do a thing, then it CANNOT do that thing. And this is reiterated in the 10th Amendment:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.So which Article, Section or Clause prohibits a State from seceding from the Federation? I haven’t found one yet, but I haven’t learned to read with a Progressive bias, either….