Mediaboss Marketing

The Constitution of India was first amended in 1951 for the welfare of scheduled castes, tribes and backward classes and its latest amendment was for providing 10 per cent quota for economically weaker sections in educational institutions and in appointments.

These details were provided by a Rajya Sabha publication titled 'Rajya Sabha : The Journey since 1952' which has chronicled all the amendments. Their details were shared by the Rajya Sabha Secretariat in a statement.

The government is celebrating 'Constitution Day' or 'Samvidhan Diwas' on Tuesday in the Central Hall of Parliament to mark the 70th anniversary of the adoption of the Constitution by the Constituent Assembly.

President Ram Nath Kovind, Vice President M Venkaiah Naidu, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla and Prime Minister Narendra Modi will address the MPs on the occasion.

The first amendment of the Constitution in 1951 was to empower the state to undertake affirmative action for the advancement of any socially and economically backward classes or categories of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes by restricting the application of fundamental rights.

The latest 103rd amendment passed in 2019 enabled 10 per cent reservation for the economically weaker sections in educational institutions and in appointments.

Since the first Constitution amendment made by provisional parliament in 1951, when Rajya Sabha was not in existence, the Constitution has been amended 103 times so far, the Upper House Secretariat said.

Of these 103 amendments to the Constitution, the 99th amendment for setting up of a National Judicial Commission was held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, it noted.

A maximum of 32 amendments were related to the matters of states including reorganisation, transfer of territories, inclusion of some languages in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution, etc.

Twelve amendments were aimed at extending reservation for SCs, STs and Anglo-Indians in Parliament and state legislatures, eight each related to reservations in educational institutions and employment, including in promotions. Another six amendments related to taxation including introduction of the Goods and Services Tax (GST).

Since coming into being in 1952, Rajya Sabha has passed 107 constitution amendment bills out of which one was negatived by Lok Sabha while four have lapsed on its dissolution, the Upper House Secretariat said.

Accordingly, Rajya Sabha has been a party to 102 Constitution amendments. And the only Bill passed by the upper house in 1990 for proclamation of President's Rule in Punjab, was negatived by the lower house.

Lok Sabha has passed 106 constitution amendment bills.

Read more from the original source:
Indian Constitution: First amendment, and the last - Deccan Herald

MARTINSBURG Retired Delegate John Overington announced his 2019 First Amendment Recognition Award to Charles and Mary Edgar for their efforts in standing up for the sanctity of life.

This couple has for decades been pro-life warriors in their vigorous defense of the Right to Life.

Their articulate and unwavering communication in the media, at rallies, with Letters to the Editor in a positive and constructive way for decades, has been critical in assisting in educating the public on this important issue. Overington stated.

Whether this husband/wife team is active in writing about the importance of being active in the education process or the political arena, their dedication with this issue has made a difference, he said.

Recently Charles Edgar wrote about the importance of being active, rolling up your sleeves and doing something, to make a difference.

Mary Edgar wrote about our Declaration of Independence, and the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Without life, without being born nothing else matters.

Good government does not occur on its own, but because of the vigilance of its citizens. Many years ago I saw an ad that read, To speak out clearly and fairly not only is it a constitutional rightit is a moral duty. This award is for those unpaid citizens who do this, Overington said

At a recent Pro-Life dinner at St. James Catholic Church, Bishop Mark Brennan of the Diocese of Wheeling Charleston blessed the couple for their work. Deacon David Galvin of the St. James Greater Roman Catholic Church praised them for their efforts.

The three-county Pro-Life chapters of West Virginians for Life in Jefferson, Berkeley and Morgan Counties, with Regina Smith, Pam Brush and Betsy Wolfe respectively also gave the Edgars a plaque for their efforts.

View original post here:
Overington recognizes Edgars with First Amendment Recognition Award - Martinsburg Journal

Free Speech Rules: The First Amendment and Government Property

Say the government is handing out money, or access to government property, or some other benefit. Can it exclude certain kinds of speech, or certain kinds of speakers?

It's complicated, but here are the five rules of the First Amendment and Government Property

Rule 1: A few forms of government property are treated as so-called "traditional public forums." There, the government generally can't exclude speech based on its content.

The classic examples are sidewalks and parks, as well as streets used for parades. Unless speech falls within one of the narrow First Amendment exceptions (such as true threats of crime, or face-to-face insults that tend to provoke a fight), the government can't restrict it. Such places are technically government property; but that gives the government no extra authority to control such speech.

The postal system is analogous. At least since the mid-1940s, the Supreme Court has held that the government can't exclude certain kinds of content from the mail. To quote Justice Holmes in an early case, "The United States may give up the Post Office when it sees fit," but until then "the use of the mails is almost as much a part of free speech as the right to use our tongues."

Rule 2: Sometimes, the government deliberately opens up property or funds in order to promote a wide diversity of private speech, using objective criteria. Many public schools, for instance, let student groups use classrooms that aren't otherwise being used. Public libraries often offer rooms for meetings of community groups. Public universities might offer free e-mail accounts or web hosting to all students, and sometimes public universities offer money to student groups to publish newspapers or invite speakers.

These are called "limited public forums," and the government can limit them to particular speakers (for instance, just students), or to particular kinds of speech (for instance, just speech related to the university curriculum). It can also have reasonable, viewpoint-neutral exclusions (for instance, saying that certain benefits or property can't be used for promoting or opposing candidates for public office). But it can't impose viewpoint-based criteriait can't, for instance, let all groups use a meeting room in a library but exclude racist groups.

Rule 3: A lot of government property is open to the public, but not for speech. Airports, for instance, are set up to promote transportation, not speaking; but people there will wear T-shirts with messages on them, talk to friends, maybe even approach strangers with leaflets. In these so-called "nonpublic forums," the rule is much like in limited public forums: Speech restrictions are allowed, but must be reasonable and viewpoint-neutral.

Rule 4: Some government property is set up for the government itself to speak; and there, the government can pick and choose what viewpoints it conveys or endorses. The walls of most public buildings are an example; the government can choose what art to put up there, and it might refuse to display art that conveys ideas that it dislikes.

Likewise, when the government spends money to promote its own messages, it doesn't have to promote rival messages. It can have a National Endowment for Democracy without having to fund a National Endowment for Communism. It can put out ads supporting racial equality, without paying for ads supporting racism.

Sometimes there are close cases; for instance, when Texas authorized many kinds of license plate designs, but excluded Confederate flag designs, the Supreme Court split 5-to-4. The majority thought license plate designs were government speech, and the government could pick and choose which ones to allow, even when the government accepted dozens of designs requested by private groups. The dissent thought they were a limited public forum, in which viewpoint discrimination was forbidden because the government was supporting so many different (and often contradictory) forms of speech. But while there are close cases, many are pretty clear: The government often clearly promotes views it chose itself, and sometimes clearly promotes a wide range of private views.

Rule 5: Similar principles likely apply to government benefit programs, and not just to the provision of real estate or of money. Charitable tax exemptions, for instance, are likely a form of limited public forum: The government can discriminate based on content (you can't use tax-deductible donations to support or oppose candidates for office), but not based on viewpoint.

Likewise, the Supreme Court held that the government can't deny full trademark protection to trademarks that are seen as "disparaging," "scandalous," "immoral," or racist. Such restrictions, the Court said, were impermissibly viewpoint-based.

Of course, private property owners aren't bound by the First Amendment, whether they're distributing money or access to real estate. And, as we see, the government as property owner isn't bound by the First Amendment quite the same as it is when deciding whether to jail or fine them for their speech. But, except when it comes to the government's own speech, viewpoint discrimination is generally forbidden even on government property.

So to sum up:

The government generally can't exclude speech based on its content in "traditional public forums."

The government can deliberately open up "limited public forums," that are restricted to particular speakers or kinds of speech, but it can't impose viewpoint-based criteria.

In "nonpublic forums," speech restrictions are allowed, but must be reasonable and viewpoint-neutral.

For government property set up for the government itself to speak, the government can pick and choose what viewpoints it conveys or endorses.

Similar principles likely apply to government benefit programs, and not just the use of physical property.

Written by Eugene Volokh, who is a First Amendment law professor at UCLA.Produced and edited by Austin Bragg, who is not.

This is the eighth episode of Free Speech Rules, a video series on free speech and the law. Volokh is the co-founder of The Volokh Conspiracy, a blog hosted at Reason.com.

This is not legal advice.

If this were legal advice, it would be followed by a bill.

Please use responsibly.

Music: "Lobby Time," by Kevin MacLeod (Incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/b

Continue reading here:
The First Amendment and Government Property: Free Speech Rules (Episode 8) - Reason

Pixabay

Theres much in the Knight Foundations recent report Student Views on the First Amendment that raises serious concern. Girls and students of color, for example, are more likely to agree that the First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees.

But the report also gives reason for optimism. The survey data indicate two positive trends regarding civics education. First, the percentage of high school students reporting that they have taken courses that provide instruction on the First Amendment has increased over time and seems to be holding steady, with roughly two-thirds of respondents reporting that they have taken such courses.

Another reason for optimism: instruction seems to make a difference. As the report notes, such coursework has a significant impact on student support for First Amendment rights and protections.

This outcome is not at all obvious. Another Knight Foundation survey, for example, finds that teachers may not be completely on board, with only 45% favoring First Amendment protections for school newspapers reporting on controversial stories. Further, high school is a time when students start exploring topics, like math and language, in significant depth. And for the first time they have the opportunity to take coursesfrom child psychology to fashion designthat engage their budding career interests. With this as the competition, its not obvious that government and civics coursesthe proverbial spinach of the high school curriculumwould rise to the challenge and make a dent in students sensibilities.

Given this less-than-obvious result, its worth thinking what might be behind it. No doubt, curricular content plays a role. Consider, for example, that a 2017 Brookings study found a majority of students surveyed did not know that hate speech is constitutionally protected. Clearly, teaching students what the First Amendment does and does not protect is an essential step to close gaps in basic knowledge.

While pundits wring their hands over such results, the experienced and artful teacher knows how to turn a knowledge gap like this into genuine surprise that sparks discussion. Discussion leads to aha! moments. All this suggests that curriculum is only part of the story. To make a difference, we cant expect that teaching First Amendment content (alone) will do the heavy lifting. In all likelihood, the teachers who are making the biggest difference are those who introduce and help students practice First Amendment Thinking.

Maria Krisanova/Unsplash

By First Amendment Thinking, I mean the habit of seeing how the rules of the game play out when the details of the situation conform and do not conform to ones own concerns. Its likely, for example, that female students and students of color are less supportive of the First Amendment because they are thinking of a time when they have felt the pains of exclusion, discrimination, harassment, or fear because someone else was exercising his or her First Amendment right to be a jerk. Teaching First Amendment content (alone) conveys the lesson that, except in rare circumstances, one has to tolerate such speech. This can be a fairly bitter pill for anyone who feels as though they are already disadvantaged and marginalized within the dominant society. To always be the person expected to check their emotions and maintain a posture of tolerance in the face of bigotry gets old.

And in the face of such bigotry, the case for censorship can seem compelling. Its the artful teacher who encourages students to develop the discipline of First Amendment Thinking by, for example, inviting students to imagine whether someone, somewhere, might take offense at a text that the student considers profound. It doesnt matter what the text isa poem by Maya Angelou, a theory advanced by Albert Einstein, a Margaret Atwood novel, the Bible, the Quran, a Harry Potter film. It doesnt take long before students realize that the speech they consider most sacred will be offensive to someone. By flipping the script in this way, the artful teacher helps students understand why offense cannot serve as justification for censorship without catching them in the censors trap as well.

Further, First Amendment Thinking encourages students to adopt Nobel laureate James Buchanans famous dictum, which is to understand government oversight without romance. As applied to state censorship, Buchannans insight reminds us that it is dangerous to assume that people who have the power to censor others will always exercise that power in the best interest of the public. First, the public interest is a tangle of competing interests, so even a well-intentioned political actor will not be able to live up to the challenge. Second, because people who hold the power to censor have interests of their own, it is unlikely that they will have a strong incentive to protect the interests of those who do not hold such power. This includes marginalized minority groups who have historically borne the brunt of political and cultural oppression.

In short, First Amendment Thinking helps students understand why we have a Constitution in the first place. Constitutional constraints like the First Amendment are not put in place to advance the interests of a particular group. On the contrary, the Founders put these constraints in place to protect the rights of every individual from unconstrained power. What the Knight Foundation report shows is that theres nothing obvious or easy about thinking like an informed citizen. It takes patience and artful teaching.

Link:
Artful Teachers Teach First Amendment Thinking - Forbes

If youve been reading Binghamton Review headlines, youll know that crazed leftists have been preventing conservative students from expressing their right to free speech by forming a leftist mob. However, if you look a little closer at the real story, youll recognize the headlines and statements for what they are: an attempt to spin events in conservatives favor.

On Nov. 18, protesters shut down an event hosted by Binghamton University College Republicans and Young Americas Foundation, who invited Arthur Laffer to speak on campus. If youre familiar with Laffer, the most recent target of the crazed leftists, you may know that he was a key adviser to former President Ronald Reagan and an architect of the explosion in inequality that transpired under that administration. Does that sound like someone whos at risk of having their free speech taken away by college students? Am I expected to believe that my freedoms, security and comfort are under threat from college protesters, and powerful and wealthy men like Laffer are my allies in this fight for free speech? I feel insulted by the suggestion that this could be true.

Freedom of speech, an inviolable principle of political democracy, has been turned into a political bludgeon by the political right. There is not a single student or student organization on campus that has the power to threaten the freedom of speech of someone like Laffer. Freedom of speech exists so that people like Laffer can be held accountable, not so that they can endlessly run the university lecture circuit. I was under the impression that student protest was considered a component of freedom of speech, and not evidence of crazed leftism.

When students yell, lack civility or use politically polarizing language, are they not exercising their right to freedom of speech? We may disagree politically and on what manner of action is appropriate to voice our views, but this disagreement is not one around the freedom of speech. Progressive student organizations on campus have their political views and goals, and clearly so do Turning Point USA (TPUSA) and College Republicans. Are we supposed to pretend these arguments will never result in protests, angry yelling or confrontation?

While the average BU student enjoys a relatively privileged lifestyle, it is important to remember that political decisions affect peoples lives. People like Laffer helped construct policies that hurt workers, while their superiors like Reagan went on racist rants behind closed doors. When Reagan dealt a death blow to the power of organized labor in America, the right did not protest the repression of their freedom of speech or right to strike. Rather, they celebrated the accomplishment of their political goal. When you choose to agitate for your political views, when you choose to bring archconservatives to campus, you have entered the sphere of public debate. I think that TPUSA and College Republicans should be allowed to say what they say. But I think if politics is to be understood as the serious matter it is, then rhetorical tricks using free speech as a bludgeon against crazed leftists should be off the table. Calling organized students mobs also strikes me as a deeply anti-democratic sentiment. If students of color, LGBTQ students and their allies see a reason to yell and protest, people should listen. Disagreement is a natural fact of political life and is protected by freedom of speech which is exactly what protesting students were exercising.

John-Paul Keblinski is a junior double-majoring in sociology and geography.

View post:
BU protesters were exercising their First Amendment rights - Binghamton University Pipe Dream