"Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum." Section 1.10.32 of "de Finibus Bonorum et Malorum", written by Cicero in 45 BC "Sed ut perspiciatis unde omnis iste natus error sit voluptatem accusantium doloremque laudantium, totam rem aperiam, eaque ipsa quae ab illo inventore veritatis et quasi architecto beatae vitae dicta sunt explicabo. Nemo enim ipsam voluptatem quia voluptas sit aspernatur aut odit aut fugit, sed quia consequuntur magni dolores eos qui ratione voluptatem sequi nesciunt. Neque porro quisquam est, qui dolorem ipsum quia dolor sit amet, consectetur, adipisci velit, sed quia non numquam eius modi tempora incidunt ut labore et dolore magnam aliquam quaerat voluptatem. Ut enim ad minima veniam, quis nostrum exercitationem ullam corporis suscipit laboriosam, nisi ut aliquid ex ea commodi consequatur? Quis autem vel eum iure reprehenderit qui in ea voluptate velit esse quam nihil molestiae consequatur, vel illum qui dolorem eum fugiat quo voluptas nulla pariatur?" 1914 translation by H. Rackham "But I must explain to you how all this mistaken idea of denouncing pleasure and praising pain was born and I will give you a complete account of the system, and expound the actual teachings of the great explorer of the truth, the master-builder of human happiness. No one rejects, dislikes, or avoids pleasure itself, because it is pleasure, but because those who do not know how to pursue pleasure rationally encounter consequences that are extremely painful. Nor again is there anyone who loves or pursues or desires to obtain pain of itself, because it is pain, but because occasionally circumstances occur in which toil and pain can procure him some great pleasure. To take a trivial example, which of us ever undertakes laborious physical exercise, except to obtain some advantage from it? But who has any right to find fault with a man who chooses to enjoy a pleasure that has no annoying consequences, or one who avoids a pain that produces no resultant pleasure?" 1914 translation by H. Rackham "But I must explain to you how all this mistaken idea of denouncing pleasure and praising pain was born and I will give you a complete account of the system, and expound the actual teachings of the great explorer of the truth, the master-builder of human happiness. No one rejects, dislikes, or avoids pleasure itself, because it is pleasure, but because those who do not know how to pursue pleasure rationally encounter consequences that are extremely painful. Nor again is there anyone who loves or pursues or desires to obtain pain of itself, because it is pain, but because occasionally circumstances occur in which toil and pain can procure him some great pleasure. To take a trivial example, which of us ever undertakes laborious physical exercise, except to obtain some advantage from it? But who has any right to find fault with a man who chooses to enjoy a pleasure that has no annoying consequences, or one who avoids a pain that produces no resultant pleasure?" To keep reading, please log in to your account, create a free account, or simply fill out the form below.
NEW DELHI: The issue of the legality of the insertion of 'socialism' in the Preamble of the Constitution through the 42nd amendment during the infamous Emergency, which has simmered for decades, will be decided on Monday. Supreme Court on Friday reserved its order on petitions challenging the changes in the Preamble to put 'socialism' and 'secularism' in it in 1976, even while making plain its disinclination to intervene saying 'socialism' in the Indian context meant " social welfare state ". Advocate Vishnu Jain cited the recent judgment of a nine-judge SC bench, in which the court had said during the nascent years of the nation, the country had followed the mixed economy model, which in the 1960s and 70s gave way to to a socialist pattern. "Since the decade of the 1990s, or the liberalisation years, there has been a shift towards pursuing a policy of market-based reforms," it had said. Jain said the nine-judge bench had ruled against imposition of a particular economic ideology, for example socialism, and argued that since the Preamble too formed part of the basic structure of the Constitution, it could not have been amended by Parliament in 1976 in violation of the 13-judge bench 'basic structure' ruling in Kesavananda Bharati case. Similar arguments were advanced by Subramanian Swamy and advocates Ashwini Upadhyay and Alakh A Srivastava. However, a bench of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar said, "The way we understand socialism in India is different from the way it is understood in other parts of the world." The CJI said, "In India, it means a welfare state. Despite the inclusion of the word 'socialism' in the Preamble of our Constitution, we have turned to privatisation and benefited from it. But we have also focussed on equal opportunity for every citizen. So, why should the court go into the validity of inclusion of 'socialism' in the Preamble?" The CJI-led bench said the 1976 constitutional amendment has not prevented courts from striking down many legislations. In favour of the amendment inserting 'socialism' in the Preamble, the bench said, "Power under 168 of the Constitution (to amend the Constitution) extends to amending the Preamble, which is part and parcel of the Constitution." When arguments were advanced that Preamble too was part of the basic structure, which could not have been amended, SC asked, "Who says Preamble is part of basic structure?"US effort to curb China's and Russia's access to advanced computer chips 'inadequate,' report finds
Indigenous activist questions MNO chair's Métis roots