What Caused The Union Of Lose The Civil War - 1139 Words

What Caused the Union to Lose the Civil War? By Amelia E. Hicks On April 10, 1865, General Ulysses S. Grant surrendered to General Robert E. Lee of Confederate forces and delivered a farewell address to his Union soldiers, â€Å"After four years of tiring service, marked by supreme courage and commitment,† said Grant, â€Å"the Union Army has been forced to concede to overwhelming numbers and resources.† According to Grant, the Union lost the Civil War, more commonly referred to in its time as the â€Å"War of Northern Aggression,† not because it fought badly, but rather, because it lacked the motivation needed to collect the sympathy and support from the general public needed to inspire a victory. Join historian and historical reporter, Amelia Elinor Hicks, as she takes us back in time to analyze the events of the Civil War and to learn what caused the Union to lose it. The Civil War was the deadliest of all American conflicts to date. It determined two critical issues unresolved by the American Revolution, specifically, whether the United States of America was to become a country of independent self-governing states or an inseparable nation with a supreme government; and, whether this new nation, designed from a declaration stating that all men are created equal, with the same rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, would remain the largest slaveholding country in the world. The war started because of a difference in opinion between free and slave states as to the controlShow MoreRelatedThe Civil War Of The United States1440 Words   |  6 Pages The Civil War was one of the most deadly wars the United States ever fought it was fought between the North and South and to this day still leaves a big mark on the history of the United States. Though the Civil War seemed to be clear cut on what happened during the conflict its cause is to this day seemingly undecided. Was it the simple piece of legislature called the Kansas-Nebraska act that started it or the election of the United States president Abraham Lincoln that caused the turmoil? EitherRead MoreAmerican War And The American Civil War1551 Words   |  7 Pagesbetween the North and the South which then caused the Southern states of America to decide to leave the American Union and create their own Southern Confederacy. This tore our nation apart. The American Civil War had begun and the very people that were once neighbors had each other’s blood on their hands. Many American lives had been lost. The American lives lost in the Civil War even exceeded the number of Am erican lives lost during World War I and World War II. We were divided. The North wanted toRead MoreKentucky s Role During The Civil War1524 Words   |  7 PagesKentucky’s Role during the Civil War The world has faced the dangers of war almost since the beginnings of time, and America in the mid-1800’s was no different. Despite the Union having won its freedom from England during the Revolutionary War less than a century before, problems were brewing internally within the young and rapidly expanding country. As slavery boomed in the southern states, the North grew less and less content with this state of affairs. It is said that â€Å"to southern whites, theRead MoreThe Struggle Of The Civil War919 Words   |  4 PagesThe Civil War lasted for only four years, from 1861-1865, but it led to many economic, political, and social developments that remained for far longer than the fighting. From 1860-1877, for example, many impactful events happened leading to the start and end of the war and into the rebuilding that was necessary after the fighting left behind devastation. In 1861, Fort Sumter was fired upon, and the north was angered into action causing Lincoln to call for soldiers to come and fight the south. AlongRead MoreThe Civil War : America s Most Memorable War957 Words   |  4 PagesThe Civil War is America’s most memorable war that took place in 1861- 1865. This war was fought over that facts of which the United States would become a confederate with its own states, or all united under a government that promised that every person was created equally. Which meant that there wouldn’t be any more slavery allowed unless a serious crime was committed that person would become a slave to the government by law. When this law was passed the whole south of America went hysterical becauseRead MoreThe Civil War Was A Grave Cause Of Many Events. Many People1663 Words   |  7 PagesThe civil war was a grave cause of many events. Many people may see the results of the war as a chain reaction to many following eras. One of the most prominent eras that emerged from the civil war was the reconstruction era. The reconstruction era emerged around 1865 and continued until 1877. This time period generally refers to the time in United States history in which the federal government set the conditions that would allow the rebellious Southern states back into the Union. The States wereRead MoreUnderstanding The Civil War1710 Words   |  7 Pages Civil War Chris Cowan HIS/155 November 11, 2015 Civil War Understanding the Civil War is very important, to understand the way America has been shaped through out the past couple of centuries. Shelby Foote, a historian, believed that the Civil War defines the people in America. The Civil War was a war involving the North (The Union) and the South (The Confederates) who had different points of view over whether or not slavery was justified. Ultimately around 600,000 Americans lost theirRead MoreWhy Did The North Win The Civil War?1730 Words   |  7 Pagesâ€Å"Why did the North win the Civil War?† is only half of a question by itself, for the other half is â€Å"Why did the South lose the Civil War?† To this day historians have tried to put their finger on the exact reason for the South losing the war. Some historians blame the head of the confederacy Jefferson Davis; however others believe that it was the shear numbers of the Union (North). The advantages and disadvantages are abundant on either sides of the argument, but th e most dominate arguments on whyRead MoreAnalyzing Mission Command Principles Of Gen Braxton Bragg1590 Words   |  7 Pagescommanded by Major General Braxton Bragg, and his opponent at Chickamauga was Major General William Rosecrans. Although the Battle of Chickamauga was the most important victory for the Confederacy in the Western Theatre of operations during the American Civil War, the Confederate’s battle plan was not executed as it was supposed to have been, and victory was achieved mostly by coincidence and not through ability of General Braxton Bragg to provide effective mission command. The battle of Chickamauga was foughtRead MoreThe War Of The American Civil War960 Words   |  4 PagesAbraham Lincoln once stated â€Å"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.† Abraham Lincoln is a hero for the citizens of America because his determination and courage to ending slavery e ven if it meant war caused peace in this nation. Slavery was the vital cause of the American Civil War. The north and the south both had their differences on how to run the country. People in the North believed in unity and that slavery

Enron Was An American Gas Company - 1480 Words

When many people discuss Enron, they immediately associate it with one of the most scandalous accounting scams in history. Enron was an American gas company that arose as the Northern Natural Gas Company in 1931. Internorth was a holding company in headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska, purchased the Northern Natural Gas Company and restructured it is 1979. Founder Kenneth Lay formed the company by merging the two companies and created Enron. Enron was founded in 1985, as one of the world s leading electricity, natural gas, communications and paper companies. The History of Enron Throughout the late 1990s, Enron was considered by many to be one of the country s most innovative companies. The company continued to build several power plants and operated gas lines, but it became most known for its exceptional trading businesses. Other than purchasing and selling gas, Enron created a whole new market with internet bandwidth. This opened the door for advertisers and assisted in internet communication. Enron s journey from an energy company to a trading company was one that many thought was history in the making. The focus of the company went from energy markets to finding new ways of earning money. Many investments were made in the U.S. and around the world to increase its business and open the company to opportunities in new markets. Enron was given the title of America’s most innovative company six years in a row by Fortune s Most Admired Companies survey. This made Enron oneShow MoreRelatedJaclyn Givens. Kathy Osburn. Management 101. 5/8/17. The1400 Words   |  6 PagesJaclyn Givens Kathy Osburn Management 101 5/8/17 The Enron Era â€Å"Just as character matters in people, it matters in organizations,† says Justin Schultz, a corporate psychologist in Denver. The Enron scandal had a big exposure in 2001 confirming the big secret to the increase in billions. In July 1985, Enron formed the merger of Houston Natural Gas and Omaha-based Inter North. The Enron corporation was an American energy company based in Houston Texas. The corporation’s catastrophe in 2001 signifiesRead MoreAgency Theory : Relationship Between Agents And The Business Essay1550 Words   |  7 Pageslevels of risk. Enron, was the world’s largest energy company in 2001. Enron forerunner, Northern Gas Company was incorporated in Delaware on April 25, 1930. From this date through July 1985, Enron had hundreds of purchases and new sub-entity constructions when they acquired Houston Natural Gas Inc. (Kastantin, 2005). On April 10, 1986, the company changed its name to Enron Corporation. Enron was an interstate and intrastate natural gas pipeline company, then later in 1989 Enron started trading naturalRead MoreUnethical Behavior at Enron862 Words   |  4 PagesEnron’s name was formerly Northern Natural Gas Company, which was formed in 1932 in Omaha, Nebraska. But in 1985, it bought the smaller Houston Natural Gas and finally changed its name to Enron. The â€Å"crooked E† logo was designed in the 1990s. Enron was well known for transmitting and distributing electricity and gas throughout the United States. Enron developed, built, and operated power plants and pipelines while dealing with the rules of law. They owned a huge network of natural gas pipelines whichRead MoreThe Ethics Of The Enron Case1407 Words   |  6 PagesThe Enron case is a very popular case to show how the profession of accounting is vital to make the corporate world of business flow reliably. Enron was recognized as one of the world’s major electricity, natural gas, communications and pulp and paper’s company. However Enron was found to record assets and profits at inflated, fraudulent and non-existent amounts. Debts and losses were found to be excluded from financial statements along with other major transactions between Enron and other companiesRead MoreEnron And The Enron Scandal847 Words   |  4 PagesThe Enron scandal, discovered in October 2001, eventually led to the bankruptcy of the Enron Corporation, an American energy company based mostly in Houston, Texas, and also the dissolution of Arthur Andersen, that was one amongst the 5 largest audit and accounting partnerships within the world. Additionally, to being the most important bankruptcy reorganization in American history at that point, Enron without doubt is the biggest audit failure. it s ever the foremost notable company within theRead MoreEnron And The Enron Scandal1588 Words   |  7 PagesEnron was a corporation located in Houston, Texas and in just fifteen years the US energy trading and utilities company grew to become one of America’s largest and more successful cooperation’s. Enron suffered a major fall. After being one of the most successful corporations Enron became the biggest company to file bankruptcy in history. In this research paper it will discuss about the history of Enron, the fraud committed and who is to blame. The historical development of white collar crime in theRead MoreEnron Scandal Of Enron Corporation Essay1145 Words   |  5 PagesIntroduction Enron scandal which aroused in 2001 was one of the most famous events in the area of fraud audit. As the auditor company of Enron, Arthur Andersen failed to prepare true and fair auditing reports. They both suffered lethal loss at that time. The following paragraphs will discuss this fraud event, including the organization history, the organization’s event, the fraud issue in the event, the consequence of the main stakeholders, auditors in the event and their roles, and the current situationRead MoreEnron Scandal1477 Words   |  6 Pagesï » ¿Current issue: Scandals in auditing Enron Scandal 1. Introduction Accounting scandals are political or business scandals which arise with the disclosure of financial misdeeds by trusted executives of corporations or governments. These days, not too often, these scandals are splashed as headlines across media. Why? Because there are complex groups of stakeholders who might be seriously affected by the scandals. Enron scam was the most remarkable scandal in 20 centuries by their institutionalizedRead MoreEnron Of Enron And Enron1387 Words   |  6 PagesEnron was formed in 1985 from the merger of two gas companies from Texas and Nebraska. Enron became the first company with all-American network of gas pipelines. In 1997 Enron bought power generating company Portland General Electric Corp. worth $ 2 billion. Before 1997 ended, the management turned the company into Enron Capital Trade Resources which became the largest American companies that trade in natural gas and electricity. Revenue increased dramatically from $ 2 billion to $ 7 billionRead Mor eEnron Case Study Analysis1699 Words   |  7 PagesBusiness Strategy Enron Case Study 09/08/12 Enron Case Study: From Company to Conspiracy 1. What is the History of Enron, and what current situation does it find itself in? Enron was created by a combination of companies. These companies were Houston Natural Gas and InterNorth. These companies were merged together in July 1985. CEO of Houston Natural Gas, Kenneth Lay became chairman and CEO of the combined company. This happened in February 1986. The company changed its name to Enron on April 10th

Article 370 Free Essays

ARTICLE 370: LAWS AND POLITICS While the Constitution recognises in Article 370 the special status of Jammu and Kashmir, the Central Government’s policies since 1953 have totally undermined its autonomy. Senior lawyer and political analyst A. G. We will write a custom essay sample on Article 370 or any similar topic only for you Order Now NOORANI discusses both aspects and suggests a way out of the mess. â€Å"I say with all respect to our Constitution that it just does not matter what your Constitution says; if the people of Kashmir do not want it, it will not go there. Because what is the alternative? The alternative is compulsion and coercion†¦ â€Å"We have fought the good fight about Kashmir on the field of battle†¦ (and) †¦ in many a chancellery of the world and in the United Nations, but, above all, we have fought this fight in the hearts and minds of men and women of that State of Jammu and Kashmir. Because, ultimately – I say this with all deference to this Parliament – the decision will be made in the hearts and minds of the men and women of Kashmir; neither in this Parliament, nor in the United Nations nor by anybody else,† Jawaharlal N ehru said in the Lok Sabha on June 26 and August 7, 1952. Selected works of Jawaharlal Nehru, Vol. 18, p. 418 and vol. 19 pp. 295-6, re spectively. â€Å"From 1953 to 1975, Chief Ministers of that State had been nominees of Delhi. Their appointment to that post was legitimised by the holding of farcical and totally rigged elections in which the Congress party led by Delhi’s nominee was elected by huge majorities. † – This authoritative description of a blot on our record which most overlook was written by B. K. Nehru, who was Governor of Kashmir from 1981 to 1984, in his memoirs published in 1997 (Nice Guys Finish Second; pp. 14-5). THOSE who cavil at Article 370 of the Indian Constitution and the â€Å"special status† of Kashmir constitutionally ought to remember the â€Å"special† treatment meted out to it politically. Which other State has been subjected to such debasement an d humiliation? And, why was this done? It was because New Delhi had second thoughts on Article 370. It could not be abrogated legally. It was reduced to a husk through political fraud and constitutional abu se. The current debate is much more than about restoration of Article 370 by erasing the distortions. It is about redressing a moral wrong. The United Front government’s minimum programme, published on June 5, 1996, said â€Å"respecting Article 370 of the Constitution as well as the wishes of the people, the problems of Jammu and Kashmir will be resolved through giving the people of that State t he maximum degree of autonomy. † Constitutional abuse accompanied political fraud. Article 370 was intended to guarantee Kashmir’s autonomy. On December 4, 1964, Union Home Minister G. L. Nanda said it would be used to serve as â€Å"a tunnel (sic. in the wall† in order to increase the Cent re’s power. The State was put in a status inferior to that of other States. One illustration suffices to demonstrate that. Parliament had to amend the Constitution four times, by means of the 59th, 64th, 67th and 68th Constitution Amendments, to extend the President’s Rule imposed in Punjab on May 11, 1987. For the State of Jammu and Kashmir the same result was ac complished, from 1990 to 1996, by mere executive orders under Article 370. Another gross case illustrates the capacity for abuse. On July 30, 1986, the President made an order under Article 370, extending to Kashmir Article 249 of the Constitution in order to empower Parliament to legislate even on a matter in the State List on the strength of a Rajya Sabha resolution. â€Å"Concurrence† to this was given by the Centre’s own appointee, Governor Jagmohan. G. A. Lone, a former Secretary, Law and Parliamentary Affairs, to the State Government described in Kashmir Times (April 20 , 1995) how the â€Å"manipulation† was done â€Å"in a single day† against the Law Secretary’s advice and â€Å"in the absence of a Council of Ministers. The Nehru-Abdullah Agreement in July 1952 (â€Å"the Delhi Agreement†) confirmed that â€Å"the residuary powers of legislation† (on matters not mentioned in the State List or the Concurrent List), which Article 248 and Entry 97 (Union List) confer on the Union, w ill not apply to Kashmir. The order of 1986 purported to apply to the State Article 249, which empowers Parliament to legislate even on a matter in the State List if a Rajya Sabha resolution so authorises it by a two-thirds vote. But it so amended Article 249 in its application to Kashmir as in effect to apply Article 248 instead – â€Å"any matter specified in the resolution, being a matter which is not enumerated in the Union List or in the Concurrent List. † The Union thus acquired the power to legislate not only on all matters in the State List, but others not mentioned in the Union List or the Concurrent List – the residuary power. In relation to other States, an amendment to the Constitution would require a two-thirds vote by both Houses of Parliament plus ratification by the States (Article 368). For Kashmir, executive orders have sufficed since 1953 and can continue till Doomsday. â€Å"Nowhere else, as far as I can see, is there any provision author ising the executive government to make amendments in the Constitution,† President Rajendra Prasad pointed out to Prime Minister Nehru on September 6, 1952. Nowhere else, in the world, indeed. Is this the state of things we wish to perpetuate? Uniquely Ka shmir negotiated the terms of its membership of the Union for five months. Article 370 was adopted by the Constituent Assembly as a result of those parleys. YET, all hell broke loose when the State Assembly adopted, on June 26, a resolution recording its acceptance of the report of the State Autonomy Committee (the Report) and asked â€Å"the Union Government and the Government of Jammu and Kashmir to take positi ve and effective steps for the implementation of the same. † On July 4, the Union Cabinet said that the resolution was â€Å"unacceptable†¦ would set the clock back and reverse the natural process of harmonising the aspirations of the people of Jammu Kashmi r with the integrity of the State† – a patent falsehood, as everyone knows. The State’s Law Minister, P. L. Handoo, said on June 26 that the people â€Å"want nothing more than what they had in 1953. † Overworked metaphors (about the clock or the waters of the Jhelum which flowed since) do not answer two crucial questions: Can lapse of time sanctify patent constitutional abuse? Can it supply legislative competence? If Parliament has legislated over the States on a matter on which it had no power to legislate, under the Constitution, it would be a nullity. Especially if the State’s people have been protesting meanwhile and their voice was stifled through rigged elections. Disapproval of Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah’s opportunist politics should not blind one to the constitutional issues. The State’s Finance Minister, Abdul Rahim Rather, a moving spirit behind the Report, resents suggestions of political timing. The repo rt was placed before the Assembly on April 13, 1999. The State Cabinet endorsed its recommendations and decided last April to convene a special session of the Assembly to discuss it. The Government of India was â€Å"once again requested to set up a ministeri al committee in order to initiate a dialogue on the report. â€Å" It provides a comprehensive survey of constitutional developments, which is useful in itself for its documentation. It lists 42 orders under Article 370 and gives the following opinion: â€Å"Not all these orders can be objected to. For instance, none can obj ect to provisions for direct elections to Parliament in 1966†¦ It is the principle that matters. Constitutional limits are there to be respected, not violated. † The ruler of Jammu and Kashmir acceded to India by an Instrument of Accession on October 26, 1947 in respect of only three subjects – defence, foreign affairs and communications. A schedule listed precisely 16 topics under these heads plus four others (e lections to Union legislature and the like). Clause 5 said that the Instrument could not be altered without the State’s consent. Clause 7 read: â€Å"Nothing in this Instrument shall be deemed to commit me in any way to acceptance of any future Constitution of India or fetter my discretion to enter into arrangements with the Government of India under any such future Constitution. † Kashmir was then governed internally by its own Constitution of 1939. The Maharaja made an Order on October 30, 1947 appointing Sheikh Abdullah the Head of the Emergency Administration, replacing it, on March 5, 1948, with an Interim Government with the Sheikh as Prime Minister. It was enjoined to convene a National Assembly â€Å"to frame a Constitution† for the State. Negotiations were held on May 15 and 16, 1949 at Vallabhbhai Patel’s residence in New Delhi on Kashmir’s future set-up. Nehru and Abdullah were present. Foremost among the topics were â€Å"the framing of a Constitution for the State† and â€Å"the subjects in res pect of which the State should accede to the Union of India. On the first, Nehru recorded in a letter to the Sheikh (on May 18) that both Patel and he agreed that it was a matter for the State’s Constituent Assembly. â€Å"In regard to (ii) the Jammu and Kas hmir State now stands acceded to the Indian Union in respect of three subjects; namely, foreign affairs, defence and communications. I t will be for the Constituent Assembly of the State when convened, to determine in respect of which other subjects the State may accede† (emphasis added, throughout). Article 370 embodies this basic principle which was reiterated throughout (S. W. J. N. Vol. 11; p. 12). On June 16, 1949, Sheikh Abdullah, Mirza Mammad Afzal Beg, Maulana Mohammed Saeed Masoodi and Moti Ram Bagda joined the Constituent Assembly of India. Negotiations began in earnest on Article 370 (Article 306. A in the draft). N. Gopalaswamy Ayyangar tri ed to reconcile the differences between Patel and Abdullah. A text, agreed on October 16, was moved in the Constituent Assembly the next day, unilaterally altered by Ayyangar. A trivial change,† as he admitted in a letter to the Sheikh on October 18. Pa tel confirmed it to Nehru on November 3 on his return from the United States. Beg had withdrawn his amendment after the accord. Abdullah and he were in the lobby, and rushed to the House when they learnt of the change. In its original form the draft woul d have made the Sheikh’s ouster in 1953 impossible. ARTICLE 370 embodies six special provisions for Jammu and Kashmir . First, it exempted the State from the provisions of the Constitution providing for the governance of the States. Jammu and Kashmir was allowed to have its own Constitution within the Indi an Union. Second, Parliament’s legislative power over the State was restricted to three subjects – defence, external affairs and communications. The President could extend to it other provisions of the Constitution to provide a constitutional framework if they related to the matters specified in the Instrument of Accession. For this, only â€Å"consultation† with the State government was required since the State had already accepted them by the Instrument. But, third, if other â€Å"constitutional† provisions or other Union powers were to be extended to Kashmir, the prior â€Å"concurrence† of the State government was required. The fourth feature is that that concurrence was provisional. It had to be ratified by the State’s Constituent Assembly. Article 370(2) says clearly: â€Å"If the concurrence of the Government of the State†¦ be given before the Constituent Assembly for the pu rpose of framing the Constitution of the State is convened, it shall be placed before such Assembly for such decision as it may take thereon. â€Å" The fifth feature is that the State government’s authority to give the â€Å"concurrence† lasts only till the State’s Constituent Assembly is â€Å"convened†. It is an â€Å"interim† power. Once the Constituent Assembly met, the State government could not give its own â€Å"concurrence†. Still less, after the Assembly met and dispersed. Moreover, the President cannot exercise his power to extend the Indian Constitution to Kashmir indefinitely. The power has to stop at the point the State’s Constituent Assembly draft ed the State’s Constitution and decided finally what additional subjects to confer on the Union, and what other rovisions of the Constitution of India it should get extended to the State, rather than having their counterparts embodied in the State Const itution itself. Once the State’s Constituent Assembly had finalised the scheme and dispersed, the President’s extending powers ended completely. The six th special feature, the last step in the process, is that Article 370(3) empowers the President to make an Order abrogating or amending it. But for this also â€Å"the recommendation† of the State’s Constituent Assembly â€Å"shall be necessary before the President issues such a notification†. Article 370 cannot be abrogated or amended by recourse to the amending provisions of the Constitution which apply to all the other States; namely, Article 368. For, in relation to Kashmir, Article 368 has a proviso which says that no constitutional amend ment â€Å"shall have effect in relation to the State of Jammu and Kashmir† unless applied by Order of the President under Article 370. That requires the concurrence of the State’s government and ratification by its Constituent Assembly. Jammu and Kashmir is mentioned among the States of the Union in the First Schedule as Article 1 (2) requires. But Article 370 (1) (c) says: â€Å"The provisions of Article 1 and of this Article shall apply in relation to that State†. Article 1 is thus appl ied to the State through Article 370. What would be the effect of its abrogation, as the Bharatiya Janata Party demands? Ayyangar’s exposition of Article 370 in the Constituent Assembly on October 17, 1949 is authoritative. â€Å"We have also agreed that the will of the people through the instrument of the Constituent Assembly will determine the Constitution of the State as wel l as the sphere of Union jurisdiction over the State†¦ You will remember that several of these clauses provide for the concurrence of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir State. Now, these relate particularly to matters which are not mentioned in the Ins trument of Accession, and it is one of our commitments to the people and Government of Kashmir that no such additions should be made except with the consent of the Constituent Assembly which may be called in the State for the purpose of framing its Co nstitution. â€Å" Ayyangar explained that â€Å"the provision is made that when the Constituent Assembly of the State has met and taken its decision both on the Constitution for the State and on the range of federal jurisdiction over the State, the President may, on the recomm endation of that Constituent Assembly, issue an Order that this Article 306 (370 in the draft) shall either cease to be operative, or shall be operative only subject to such exceptions and modifications as may be specified by him. But before he issued an y order of that kind, the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly will be a condition precedent. THE HINDU PHOTO LIBRARY Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru with Sheikh Abdullah. This unique process of Presidential Orders altering constitutional provisions by a mere executive order ends with the final decision of the State’s Constituent Assembly. Ayyangar repeatedly said that the State government’s concurrence alone will not do. â€Å"That concurrence should be pl aced before the Constituent Assembly when it meets and the Constituent Assembly may take whatever decisions it likes on those matters. † (Constituent Assembly Debates; Vol. 8; pp. 424-427). In 1949, no one knew when Kashmir’s Constituent Assembly would be elected. Ayyangar therefore said: â€Å"The idea is that even before the Constituent Assembly meets, it may be necessary†¦ that certain items which are not included in the Instrument of Access ion would be appropriately added to that list in the Instrument†¦ and as this may happen before the Constituent Assembly meets, the only authority from whom we can get consent for the addition is the Government of the State. † This was explicitly only for that interim period. Article 370 (1) (b) is clear. The power of Parliament to make laws for the said State shall be limited to† (1) matters in the Union and Concurrent Lists corresponding to the broad heads specified in the Instrument of Accession â€Å"and (ii) such other matte rs in the said Lists as, with the concurrence of the Government of the State the President may by Order specify†. An Explanation defined â€Å"the Government of the State†. Similar â€Å"concurrence† was required when extending provisions regarding Union instituti ons beyond the agreed ones. But Article 370 (2) stipulated clearly that if that concurrence is given â€Å"before the Constituent Assembly†¦ s convened, it shall be placed before such Assembly for such decision as it may take thereon†. Once Kashmir’s Constituent Assembly was â€Å"convened† on November 5, 1951, the State Government lost all authority to accord its â€Å"concurrence† to the Union. With the Assembly’s dispersal on November 17, 1956, after adopting the Constitution of Jammu and Kas hmir, vanished the only authority which alone could cede: (a) more powers to the Union and (b) accept Union institutions other than those specified in the Instrument of Accession. All additions to Union powers since then are unconstitutional. This unders tanding informed decisions – right until 1957. THE Constituent Assembly of India adopted the Constitution on November 26, 1949. A day earlier, the ruler of Kashmir made a Proclamation declaring that it â€Å"shall in so far as it is applicable to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, govern the constitutional r elationships between this State and the contemplated Union of India†. Article 370 is more than a provision of that solemn document. It is also a sacred compact with the State. On January 26, 1950, the President made his first Order under Article 370, extending specified provisions of the new Constitution to the State. On April 20, 1951, the ruler made a Proclamation for convening the State’s Constituent Assembly. It met on November 5, 1951. Two issues came to the fore. Nehru was eager to secure Kashmir’s â€Å"closer integration† with India; the Sheikh to ensure popular go vernance. The Delhi Agreement that followed was announced at a press conference in Delhi on July 24, 1952 by both. This Union-Centre accord had no legal force by itself. Only an Order under Article 370 could confer that – after the Sheikh gave his â€Å"concu rrence† formally. The Sheikh, meanwhile, pressed for an Order to redraft â€Å"the Explanation† in Article 370 redefining the State government as one headed by an elected â€Å"Sadar-i-Riyasat (State President)†¦ acting on the advice† of his Ministers. As for the Sheikh’s request, Nehru wrote on July 29, 1952: â€Å"It is not a perfectly clear matter from the legal point of view how far the President can issue notifications under Article 370 several times. † On September 6, 1952, President Rajendra Prasad po inted out the illegality of such a course in a closely reasoned Note. (It is appended to the Report. He questioned â€Å"the competence of the President to have repeated recourse to the extraordinary powers conferred on him† by Article 370. â€Å"Any provi sion authorising the executive government to make amendments in the Constitution† was an incongruity. He endorsed Ayyangar’s views on the finality of a single Order under Article 370. â€Å" I have little doubt myself that the intention is that the power is to be exercised only once, for then alone would it be possible to determine with precision which particular provisions should be excepted and which modified. The President concluded: â€Å"The conclusion, therefore, seems to me to be irresistible that Clause (3) of Article 370 was not intended to be used from time to time as occasion required. Nor was it intended to be used without any limit as to time. The correc t view appears to be that recourse is to be had to this clause only when the Constituent Assembly (sic) (Constitution) of the State has been fully framed. † That was over on November 17, 1956. But he yielded to Nehru’s pressure and made the Order on Novem ber 15, 1952. Events took a tragic course. The Sheikh was dismissed from office and imprisoned on August 9, 1953 (vide the writer’s article, How and Why Nehru and Abdullah Fell Out†: Economic and Political Weekly; January 30, 1999). On May 14, 1954 came a compr ehensive Presidential Order under Article 370. Although it was purported to have been made with the â€Å"concurrence† of the State government it drew validity from a resolution of the Constituent Assembly on February 15, 1954 which approved extension to the State of some provisions of the Constitution of India. The Order sought to implement the Delhi Agreement. The Report makes two valid points. Why the haste since the State’s Constitution was yet to be framed? Besides, the order in some respects went beyon d the Delhi Agreement. It certainly paved the way for more such Orders – all with â€Å"the concurrence of the State Government†, each elected moreover in a rigged poll. Ninetyfour of the 97 Entries in the Union List and 26 of the 47 in the Concurrent List were extended to Kashmir as were 260 of the 395 Articles of the Constitution. Worse, the State’s Constitution was overridden by the Centre’s orders. Its basic structure was altered. The head of State elected by the State legislature was replaced by a Governor nominated by the Centre. Article 356 (imposition of President’s Rule) wa s applied despite provision in the State’s Constitution for Governor’s rule (Section 92). This was done on November 21, 1964. On November 24, 1966, the Governor replaced the Sadar-i-Riyasat after the State’s Constitution had been amended on April 10, 1965 by the 6th Amendment in violation of Section 147 of the Constitution. Section 147 makes itself immune to amendment. But it referred to the Sadar-i-Riyasat and required his assent to constitutional amendments. He was elected by the Assembly [Section 27 (2)]. To replace him by the Centre’s nominee was to alter the basic structure. Article 370 was used freely not only to amend the Constitution of India but also of the State. On July 23, 1975 an Order was made debarring the State legislature from amending the State Constitution on matters in respect of the Governor, the Election Co mmission and even â€Å"the composition† of the Upper House, the Legislative Council. It would be legitimate to ask how all this could pass muster when there existed a Supreme Court of India. Three cases it decided tell a sorry tale. In Prem Nath Kaul vs State of J, decided in 1959, a Constitution Bench consisting of five judges unanimously held that Article 370 (2) â€Å"shows that the Constitution-makers attached great importance to the final decision of the Constituent Assembly, and the continuance of the exercise of powers conferred on the Parliament and the President by t he relevant temporary provision of Article 370 (1) is made conditional on the final approval by the said Constituent Assembly in the said matters†. It referred to Clause 3 and said that â€Å"the proviso to Clause (3) also emphasises the importance whi ch was attached to the final decision of Constituent Assembly of Kashmir in regard to the relevant matters covered by Article 370†. The court ruled that â€Å"the Constitution-makers were obviously anxious that the said relationship should be finally d etermined by the Constituent Assembly of the State itself. † But, in 1968, in Sampat Prakash vs the State of J, another Bench ruled to the contrary without even referring to the 1959 case. Justice M. Hidayatullah sat on both Benches. The court held that Article 370 can still be used to make orders thereunder despite the fact that the State’s Constituent Assembly had ceased to exist. FOUR BASIC flaws stand out in the judgment. †¢First, the Attorney-General cited Ayyangar’s speech only on the India-Pakistan war of 1947, the entanglement with the United Nations and the conditions in the State. On this basis, the court said, in 1968, that â€Å"the situation that existed when this Article was incorporated in the Constitution has not materially altered,† 21 years later. It ignored completely Ayyangar’s exposition of Article 370 itself; fundamentally, that the Constituent Assembly of Kashmir al one had the final say. †¢Secondly, it brushed aside Article 370 (2) which lays down this condition, and said that it spoke of â€Å"concurrence given by the Government of State before the Constituent Assembly was convened and makes no mention at all of the completion† of its work or its dissolution. The supreme power of the State’s Constituent Assembly to ratify any change, or refuse to do so, was clearly indicated. Clause (3) on the cessation of Article 370 makes it clearer still. But the court picked on this clause to hold that since the Assembly had made no recommendation that Article 370 be abrogated, it should continue. It, surely, does not follow that after that body dispersed the Union acquired the power to amass powers by invoking Article 370 when the decisive ratificatory body was gone. †¢ Thirdly, the Supreme Court totally overlooked the fact that on its interpretation, Article 370 can be abused by collusive State and Central Governments to override the State’s Constitution and reduce the guarantees to naught. Lastly, the court misconstru ed the State Constituent Assembly’s recommendation of November 17, 1952, referred to earlier, which merely defined in an explanation â€Å"the Government of the State†. To the court this meant that the Assembly had â€Å"expressed its agreement to the continued op eration of this Article by making a recommendation that it should be operative with this modification only. † It had in fact made no such recommendation. The Explanation said no more than that â€Å"for the purposes of this Article, the Government of the State means†¦ It does not, and indeed, cannot remove the limitations on the Central Government’s power to concurrence imposed by Clause (2); namely ratification by the Constituent Assembly. The court laid down no limit whatever whether as regards the time or the content. â€Å"We must give the widest effect to the meaning of the word ‘modification’ used in Article 370 (1)†. The net result of this ruling was to give a carte blanche to the Government of India to extend to Kashmir such of the provisions of the Constitution of India as it pleased. In 1972, in Mohammed Maqbool Damnoo vs the State of J K, another Bench blew sky high the tortuous meaning given to the Explanation. It was a definition which had become â€Å"otiose†. But this Bench also did not refer to the 1959 ruling. Cases there are, albeit rare, when courts have overlooked a precedent. But that is when there is a plethora of them. Article 370 gave rise only to three cases. The first was studiously ignored in both that followed. The court found no difference between an elected S adar and an appointed Governor. There is no question of such a change being one in the character of that government from a democratic to a non-democratic system. † If the Constitution of India is amended to empower the Prime Minister to nominate the Pres ident as Sri Lanka’s 1972 Constitution did – would it make no difference to its democratic character, pray? To this Bench â€Å"the essential feature† of Article 370 (1) (b) and (d) is â€Å"the necessi ty of the concurrence of the State Government†, not the Consti tuent Assembly. This case was decided before the Supreme Court formulated in 1973 the doctrine of the unamendable basic structure of the Constitution. GIVEN their record, whenever Kashmir is involved, how can anyone ask Kashmiris to welcome Union institutions (such as the Election Commission) with warmth? Sheikh Abdullah had no cards to play when he concluded an Accord with Indira Gandhi and became Chief Minister on February 24, 1975. At the outset, on August 23, 1974, he had written to G. Parthasarathy: â€Å"I hope that I have made it abundantly clear to you that I can assume office only on the basis of the position as it existed on August 8, 1953. † Judgment on the changes since â€Å"will be deferred until the newly elected Assembly comes into being†. On November 13, 1974, G. P. and M. A. Beg signed â€Å"agreed concl usions† – Article 370 remained; so did the residuary powers of legislation (except in regard to anti-national acts); Constitutional provisions extended with changes can be â€Å"altered or repealed†; the State could review Central laws on specified topics (we lfare, culture, and so on) counting on the Centre’s â€Å"sympathetic consideration†; a new bar on amendment to the State Constitution regarding the Governor and the E. C. Differences on â€Å"nomenclature† of the Governor and Chief Minister were â€Å"remitted to the p rincipals†. Differences persisted on the E. C. , Article 356 and other points. On November 25, the Sheikh sought a meeting with Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. Her reply not only expressed doubt on the usefulness of talks but also on his commitment to â€Å"the b asic features of the State’s Constitution† and to â€Å"the democratic functioning† of the government. Hurt, he wrote back ending the parleys. They met at Pahalgam. An exchange of letters, on February 12, 1975, clinched the deal on the basis of the Agreed Con clusions. This was a political accord between an individual, however eminent, and the Government, like the Punjab Accord (July 24, 1985); the Assam Accord (August 15, 1985); the Nagaland Accord (November 11, 1975); and the Mizoram Accord (June 30, 1986) – e ach between the government and the opposition. It cannot override Article 370; still less sanctify Constitutional abuse. It bound the Sheikh alone and only until 1977. This was explicitly an accord on â€Å"political cooperation between us†, as Indira Gandhi wrote (December 16, 1974). On February 12, 1975, Abdullah recorded that it provided â€Å"a good basis for my cooperation at the political level†. In Parliament on March 3, 1975 she called it a â€Å"new political understanding†. He was made Chief Minister on February 24, backed by the Congress’ majority in the Assembly and on the understanding of a fresh election soon. Sheikh Abdullah’s memoirs Aatish-e-Chinar (Urdu) rec ord her backtracking on the pledge and the Congress’ perfidy in March 1977 when she lost the Lok Sabha elections. It withdrew support and staked a claim to form a government. Governor’s Rule was imposed. The Sheikh’s National Conference won the elections with a resounding majority on the pledge to restore Jammu and Kashmir’s autonomy, which was also Farooq’s pledge in 1996. The 1975 accord had collapsed. It was, I can reveal, based on gross error. The Agreed Conclusions said (Para 3): â€Å"But provisions of the Constitution already applied to the State of JK without adaptation or modification are unalterable. † This preposterous assertion was made in the tee th of the Sampat Prakash case. One order can always be rescinded by another. All the orders since 1954 can be revoked; they are a nullity anyway. Beg was precariously ill and relied on advice which GP’s â€Å"expert† had given him. He was one S. Balakr ishnan whom R. Venkataraman refers to as â€Å"Constitutional Adviser in the Home Ministry† in his memoirs. It is no disrespect to point out that issues of such complexity and consequence are for counsel’s opinion; not from a solicitor, still less a bureaucrat even if he had read the law. Even the Law Secretary would have insisted on the Attorney-General’s opinion. Amazed at what Beg had told me in May 1975, I pursued the matter and eventually met Balakrishnan in 1987. He confirmed that he had, indeed, given How to cite Article 370, Papers

Business Entrepreneur Implementation

Question: Discuss about the Business Entrepreneur Implementation. Answer: Introduction: It could be affirmed and regarded that for becoming a successful and real entrepreneur a number of struggles and obstacles have to be faced by an individual. The same could be observed by individuals if he or she would go through the biographies of the top most entrepreneurs who have achieved success in life. These kinds of entrepreneurs were acknowledged and considered as those individuals who have changed an idea in an innovative manner in order to achieve something and establish an advantageous startup with their ability and eventually built a team. (Forbes, 2016). These individuals also apart from being an entrepreneur have been regarded as innovative creators and thinkers. As they have learnt from their mistakes and have pushed themselves at each stage of life were without failing and stopping they have started to work in a new way something which was too much for their own good. Also, there have also been certain individuals who have initiated their journey to work when they had nearly nothing in hand but still had taken a road to success for becoming successful in life. Although there has been a number of examples of such entrepreneurs such as Richard Branson, Teoh Wee Kiat (myBurgerLab) and Uri Levine, Waze. As it has been observed that the entrepreneurs have been observed and recognized as the individuals who were defined as the risk takers so, in this essay the leading life examples of Richard Branson, Teoh Wee Kiat (myBurgerLab) and Uri Levine, Waze would be described. As they in his entire life have struggled hard in order to accomplish what they have achieved today. They have done so to turn out to be a successful entrepreneur and one of the richest men (Wee Kiat Teoh, 2016). Teoh was regarded as a young entrepreneur who was full of zeal and enthusiasm for the wide variety of trade. After completion of his education and attaining a degree in Finance Accounting from Nottingham University, he spent two crucial years of his life in work in the field of recruitment, audit and advertising. Then, with collaboration with two influential individuals, Chin Ren Yi and Cheah Chang Ming, he stepped his first step in the world of foodstuffs, tea and coffee in order to create what people known today as myBurgerLab. But for acheiving success, Teoh had some dreams that was set out in order to achieve the objectives which the corporation made. The dream for MyBurgerLab was, to redefine and modify the industry of foodstuff, tea and coffee by granting honestly good quality food and services with an aim of keeping the highest principles of the culture of any corporation. Richard Branson also on another end was regarded as a entrepreneur and innovator in the range of trade. He was the initiator and flourishing entrepreneur of Virgin Cola (Biography, 2016). During that time of the work of operation, he faced a lot of issues related to the clients. While in 1994, with the collaboration of another association which was known as Cott Corporation, Richard Bransons Virgin Cola was for the first time was commenced in the UK market. The original cola which was observed to be sold in 500ml bottles was advertised as The Pammy. The curves of the bottles were intended to bear a resemblance to Pamela Anderson, who was at the verge of her fame and popularity in the state of UK and USA at that period of time. This Group now holds more than 200 corporations, which comprises of the late Virgin Galactic, a space-tourism meticulous association. But as much as the entrepreneurial undertakings off in the music industry were concern the music era was prolonged under other parts which were settled on Branson and helped him in order to become rich. But at the end of 1990s, Virgin Cola packed up the sales. One of the most significant purposes was that Virgin Cola was not able to compete with the chief brand Coca-Cola. It was the world most eminent coke brand as well as soft drinks from last125 years. Virgin only wanted to enter a business when they think they could propose their clients with something conspicuously different that would disturb the market, but there was not actually a chance to do that in the sector of soft drinks (Virgin, 2016). But the Co-Founder of Virgin Cola was stimulated by his experience, and later started selling his own milkshakes with a couple of friends. He therefore, presently heads one of the chief, most determined drinks brands in Britain (Biography,2016). But for success the idea for Virgin Cola was pleasure the clients with innovative goods, international finest quality standard at a reasonable price that proposes clients with the best value for their cost. Apart from that, there have been a number of struggles and failures among these two beverages. Similarly another entrepreneur Uri Levine, he was one of the most creative entrepreneurs in todays time. He was the originator of Waze, one of the world's principal society-based traffic and direction-finding apps which collaborated with other drivers in the area of individuals who share instantaneous traffic and road data. It was taken over by Google in 2013 for the sum of $1.1 billion (Global Speakers Bureau, 2016). He was in the high tech trade for the last 30 years, and has observed everything ranging from breakdown, middle achievement and tremendous achievement. As a result of which he was able to transport extremely appealing keynotes to adolescent innovators and corporations and propose them a recipe book, a recipe for achievement (All American Speakers, 2016). Therefore, it could be accomplished that when people states that it has been an easy task to carry out any trade. So, in order to be a flourishing innovator an individual has to take all the kinds of dangers at all times. It needs to have a wholehearted assurance both in a corporal and a psychological way. To be well-off unexpectedly only survives in TV serials. Individuals wishes to donate a plenty of time and make an effort in order to determine a victorious trade. Only bears time and power doesnt guarantee that achievement would be achieved, but an individual could never achieve something otherwise (Entrepreneur, 2016). So, it has been observed that there has been numerous numbers of basics which would guide an individual to achieve victory which would comprises of: Unqualified perseverance; Put intelligence in carrying out any effort; Give time, energy and corporeal pressure to the trade of an individual, etc. So, it could be stated that the above mentioned entrepreneurs have faced a lot of evils in order to be successful which they have achieved in the present time. References All American Speakers. (2016) Uri Levine. [Online] All American Speakers. Available from: https://www.allamericanspeakers.com/celebritytalentbios/Uri+Levine [Accessed on 26/12/16] Biography. (2016) Richard Branson Biography. [Online] Biography. Available from: https://www.biography.com/people/richard-branson-9224520 [Accessed on 26/12/16] Biography. (2016) Richard Branson.[Online] Biography. Available from: https://www.biographyonline.net/business/richard_branson.html [Accessed on 26/12/16] Entrepreneur. (2016) Richard Branson. [Online] Entrepreneur. Available from: https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/197616 [Accessed on 26/12/16] Forbes. (2016) The Worlds Most Powerful People.[Online] Forbes. Available from: https://www.forbes.com/profile/jack-ma/ [ Accessed on 23/12/16] Global Speakers Bureau. (2016) Uri Levine. [Online] Global Speakers Bureau. Available from: https://www.gspeakers.com/speaker/?speaker=Levine_Uri [Accessed on 26/12/16] Virgin. (2016) Biography. [Online] Virgin. Available from: https://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/biography [Accessed on 26/12/16] Wee Kiat Teoh. (2016) Speaker Profile. [Online] Wee Kiat Teoh. Available from: https://weekiatteoh.com/profile/ [Accessed on 26/12/16]