Does any body has  written constitution for khalistan?If yes do any body has knowledge about that?
405750
There is a rough draft of the constitution that is available on several Khalistan support sites. There is nothing final as the Punjab region is not its own country. What is interesting is that every state in India wants to be its own country, which makes the Punjab/Khalistan dilemma no different from a lot of other states who want independence from India.\n\nWhat I'm trying to get at is that Khalistan most likely won't happen and never will unless the Indian government is completely overthrown and complete chaos ensues within South Asia.\n\nI, as a Punjabi, am against the idea of Khalistan just because the creation of such a country would displace Hindus and Muslims who have lived in the Punjab for many years before the birth of Sikhism, who's ancestors have supported Sikhism since the beginning teachings of Guru Nanak, and have always supported and allied with Sikhs at all times in history.\n\nYou can say that Hindus betrayed Sikhs in the 1980's, but you fail to realize that it wasn't the Punjabi Hindus who killed, raped, and tortured innocent Sikhs, it was Hindus from UP, Haryana, and Rajasthan that did that. Hindus living in Punjab who attacked Sikhs were Hindus from neighboring states that were placed in Punjab in order to give Hindus the majority vote in the region by the Indian government.\n\nKhalistan is distancing itself from its true allies: Hindus and Muslims who have lived and died in the Punjab, have fought side-by-side with Sikhs, and have cherished every bit of Punjabi culture as any Sikh or Jatt.\n\nAt the same time, who said Sikhs were the only people who could decide if Khalistan should be free? Punjabi Hindus have a right to say whether or not Khalistan should be formed and so do native Muslims in Punjab. Punjab isn't just the home of Sikhs, but the home of Muslims, Hindus, Parsis, Pathans, and Kashmiris. This is all of our land and we need to support each other, not break apart the state again by creating a country that will severly hurt Punjab culturally, ethnically, and religiously.
274597
none so far, but debate over the past year regarding constitutional change (or charter change) has been quite heated. currently, they are still under the constitution of 1987.
865275
I don't know of such a plan, but if it existed, James Madison et. al. took care of that when they drafted the 10th Amendment to the Constitution (part of our Bill of Rights, ratified in 1791). \n\nIt says that any powers not expressly given to the Federal government belong to either the individual states or to the people.\n\nSure would be nice if Congress re-read its own Constitution from time to time, wouldn't it?
136309
You’re asking a great deal, whole sections of libraries hold many books just on this one subject and you could spend a lifetime studying the nuances associated with this Amendment.  For example, It states. . . . . \n\n“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.”\n\nThis has roots in the Articles of Confederation which state in Article II. . . . \n\n“Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”\n\nThese were not simply words to the Founders, during the convention (4 December 1787), James Wilson (Delegate of Pennsylvania) said. . . . \n\n“ . . . Sir, I think there is another subject with regard to which this Constitution deserves approbation.  I mean the accuracy with which the line is drawn between the powers of the general government and those of the particular state governments.  We have heard some general observations, on this subject, from the gentlemen who conduct the opposition.  They have asserted that these powers are unlimited and defined.  They have already been answered by my honorable colleague, (Mr. M’Kean) therefore I shall not enter into an explanation.  But is is not pretended that the line is drawn with mathematical precision: the inaccuracy of the language must, to a certain degree, prevent the accomplishment of such desire.  Whoever views the matter in a true light, will see that the powers are as minutely enumerated and defined as was possible, and will also discover that the general clause, against which so much exception is taken, is nothing more than was necessary to render effectual the particular powers that are granted. . . ”\nContinuing he stated, “ . . . But let us suppose – and the supposition is very easy in the minds of the gentlemen on the other side – that there is some difficulty in ascertaining where the true line lies.  Are we therefore thrown into despair?  Are disputes between the general government and the state governments to be necessarily the consequence of inaccuracy? . . . ”\n\nMy point is that the Founders were both concerned and not of the same mind as to the consequences of the Constitution in the relationship between the general government and the several State governments.  This resulted in a wide difference as to the need of a Bill of Rights including the 10th Article.\n\nIt is also interesting to note that at the time of the convention, all States (colonies) had existing constitutions and these constitutions provided incentive to the writing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  Here with one example, from The Declaration of Rights for the Constitution of the State of Pennsylvania. . . . . \n\n“Chapter I.  That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and unalienable Rights, amongst which are the enjoying and defining life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”\n\nEven after ratification differences arose and these few following selections from United States Supreme Court decisions demonstrate that reality.\n\nFrom the opinion of the U. S. Supreme Court case, Gordon v. United States [1864].  “The reservation to the States respectively can only mean the reservation of the rights of sovereignty which they respectively possessed before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States and which had not parted from by that instrument.”\n\nAnd then in the case of Kansas v. Colorado [1907].  “This Amendment disclosed the widespread fear that the National Government might, under the pressure of a supposed general warfare, attempt to exercise powers which had not been granted.  With equal determination the framers intended that no such assumption should eve
576221
The Constitution is organized into three parts: \n\nPreamble: Describes the purpose of the document and government. \nArticles: Establish how the government is structured and how the Constitution can be changed. There are seven articles. \nAmendments: Changes to the Constitution; the first ten are called the Bill of Rights.
220593
read the 1989 Constitution....\nafter marcos regime...\njust read it you;ll find what your are asking for..ok!
703668
While a Constitution seems to be necessary, it is not sufficient by itself.  You need institutions that work too.
668892
No documents are required.Simply because outsiders cannot buy land in J&K as Article 370 of the Indian Constituition is in force there which accords special status to the state and prohibits any purchase of property or settlement by outsiders in the state in order to protect & maintain the existing demography of the state and to prevent it from being altered.
209857
No. The constitution was written to replace the "Articles of Confederation" the United States first failed constitution.\n\nThe Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are actually companion documents.  The Declaration lays out the principles upon which our nation is based, while the Constitution is an outline of the purpose and role of the government based upon those principles.
376737
Has :\n1.Preamble\n2.Natural Rights\n3.List of Grievances\n4.Resolution of Independence\n5.Signer of the Declaration\n\nMeaning :\nWe hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are are life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.\nThat to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,\nThat whenever any Form of Government becomes destructiveof these new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dicate that Governments long established should not be change for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Oject evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, its is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
700895
Yes and no (although Mosque and state would be more appropriate).  I would say it's more of a hybrid.\n\nBangladesh's originial constitution of 1971 established it as a secular republic.  Since then, two successive military governments have ammended the constitution to make Islam the state religion.  None of the 3 democraticaly elected governments rolled back these ammendments.\n\nIn practice, most laws are secular.  There are some notable exceptions including:\n     1. Difficulty in obtaining alcohol.  Only select clubs, hotels, and associations may legally serve it (you can also buy it in the Airport duty free).  In reality, it's readily available in the black market, and not enforced for private occasions.\n     2. Certain portions of the Islamic code apply for inheritance.   Individuals have the right to opt out.  Religious minorities are exempt.\n     3. The blasphemy law is enforced on occasion (highly politicized).  Interestingly, it's a carry over of British common law from the colonial days, but I mention it since it is currently use to suppress publications deemed un-Islamic.  The courts have the right to overturn judgements and have done so.
265775
I have not yet gone through such decision from the Supreme Court, can you help me to get a copy of short judgment over it. I understand that such powers and authorities are fixed and delegated by the parliament.\n\nHowever in my personal opinion the national government must restrain itsself from intervening in the matters of State / Provincial and Local Governments except in the the matters those may jeopardize unity of a nation in the central monetary areas and defense of borders as well as foreign affairs.
926888
Read the 4th, 5th, and 6th articles of the Constitution. One of them has the answer.
588848
Do you mean Constitution? http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/usconst.html\n\nHere you are.\n\nHere's a better one: http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm
1106846
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_constitution
993460
Razi, I hope you get some thoughtful, educated answers to your question. I only have a limited knowledge of the MMA b/c of my Comparative Politics class last semester. I think the MMA is at the heart of the existance of Pakistani politics? Wasn't the succession of Pakistan due to the MMA and other muslim groups that supported Jinnah's muslim nation? If I'm right, the survival of the MMA is dependent upon Mushariff's willingness to step down from his self imposed presidency and allow the government true control. Is this the MMA you are referring to?
1150678
6 constitutions \n1836 was the first