document_title: Creation and evolution in public education in the United States

question_text: who led the crusade to prohibit the teaching of evolution

text: Early law[edit]

text: Until the late 19th century, creation was taught in nearly all schools in the United States, often from the position that the literal interpretation of the Bible is inerrant. With the widespread acceptance of the scientific theory of evolution in the 1860s after being first introduced in 1859, and developments in other fields such as geology and astronomy, public schools began to teach science that was reconciled with Christianity by most people, but considered by a number of early fundamentalists to be directly at odds with the Bible.

text: In the aftermath of World War I, the Fundamentalist–Modernist Controversy brought a surge of opposition to the idea of evolution, and following the campaigning of William Jennings Bryan several states introduced legislation prohibiting the teaching of evolution. Such legislation was considered and defeated in 1922 in Kentucky and South Carolina, in 1923 passed in Oklahoma, Florida, and notably in 1925 in Tennessee, as the Butler Act.[1] The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) offered to defend anyone who wanted to bring a test case against one of these laws.[1] John T. Scopes accepted, and he started teaching his class evolution, in defiance of the Tennessee law. The resulting trial was widely publicized by H. L. Mencken among others, and is commonly referred to as the Scopes Trial.

text: Scopes was convicted; however, the widespread publicity galvanized proponents of evolution.

text: When the case was appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court, the Court overturned the decision on a technicality (the judge had assessed the fine when the jury had been required to). Although it overturned the conviction, the Court decided that the law was not in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court held:

text: We are not able to see how the prohibition of teaching the theory that man has descended from a lower order of animals gives preference to any religious establishment or mode of worship. So far as we know there is no religious establishment or organized body that has its creed or confession of faith any article denying or affirming such a theory. — John Thomas Scopes v. The State 154 Tenn. 105, 289 S.W. 363 (1927)[2]

text: The interpretation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment up to that time was that Congress could not establish a particular religion as the State religion. Consequently, the Court held that the ban on the teaching of evolution did not violate the Establishment Clause, because it did not establish one religion as the "State religion." As a result of the holding, the teaching of evolution remained illegal in Tennessee, and continued campaigning succeeded in removing evolution from school textbooks throughout the United States.[3][4][5]

text: Modern legal cases[edit]

text: In 1967, the Tennessee public schools were threatened with another lawsuit over the Butler Act's constitutionality, and, fearing public reprisal, Tennessee's legislature repealed the Butler Act. In the following year, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) that Arkansas's law prohibiting the teaching of evolution was in violation of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court held that the Establishment Clause prohibits the state from advancing any religion, and determined that the Arkansas law which allowed the teaching of creation while disallowing the teaching of evolution advanced a religion, and was therefore in violation of the Establishment Clause. This holding reflected a broader understanding of the Establishment Clause: instead of just prohibiting laws that established a state religion, the clause was interpreted to prohibit laws that furthered any particular religion over others. Opponents, pointing to the previous decision, argued that this amounted to judicial activism.

text: In reaction to the Epperson case, creationists in Louisiana passed a law requiring that public schools should give "equal time" to "alternative theories" of origin. The Supreme Court ruled in 1987 in Edwards v. Aguillard that the Louisiana statute, which required creation to be taught alongside evolution every time evolution was taught, was unconstitutional.

text: The Court laid out its rule in Edwards as follows:

text: The Establishment Clause forbids the enactment of any law 'respecting an establishment of religion.' The Court has applied a three-pronged test to determine whether legislation comports with the Establishment Clause. First, the legislature must have adopted the law with a secular purpose. Second, the statute's principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion. Third, the statute must not result in an excessive entanglement of government with religion. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-613, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 2111, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971). State action violates the Establishment Clause if it fails to satisfy any of these prongs. — Edwards v. Aguillard[6]

text: The Court held that the law was not adopted with a secular purpose, because its purported purpose of "protecting academic freedom" was not furthered by limiting the freedom of teachers to teach what they thought appropriate; ruled that the act was discriminatory because it provided certain resources and guarantees to "creation scientists" which were not provided to those who taught evolution; and ruled that the law was intended to advance a particular religion because several state senators that had supported the bill stated that their support for the bill stemmed from their religious beliefs.

text: While the Court held that creationism is an inherently religious belief, it did not hold that every mention of creationism in a public school is unconstitutional:

text: We do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught. Indeed, the Court acknowledged in Stone that its decision forbidding the posting of the Ten Commandments did not mean that no use could ever be made of the Ten Commandments, or that the Ten Commandments played an exclusively religious role in the history of Western Civilization. 449 U.S., at 42, 101 S.Ct., at 194. In a similar way, teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction. But because the primary purpose of the Creationism Act is to endorse a particular religious doctrine, the Act furthers religion in violation of the Establishment Clause. — Edwards v. Aguillard[6]

text: Intelligent Design and Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District[edit]

text: The ruling was one in a series of developments addressing issues related to the American creationist movement and the separation of church and state. The scope of the ruling affected state schools and did not include independent schools, home schools, Sunday schools and Christian schools, all of whom remained free to teach creationism.

text: Within two years of the Edwards ruling a creationist textbook was produced: Of Pandas and People (1989), which attacked evolutionary biology without mentioning the identity of the supposed "intelligent designer." Drafts of the text used "creation" or "creator" before being changed to "intelligent design" or "designer" after the Edwards v. Aguillard ruling.[7] This form of creationism, known as intelligent design creationism, was developed in the early 1990s.

text: This would eventually lead to another court case, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, which went to trial on September 26, 2005, and was decided in U.S. District Court on December 20, 2005, in favor of the plaintiffs, who charged that a mandate that intelligent design (ID) be taught was an unconstitutional establishment of religion. The opinion of Kitzmiller v. Dover was hailed as a landmark decision, firmly establishing that creationism and intelligent design were religious teachings and not areas of legitimate scientific research. Because the Dover Area School Board chose not to appeal, the case never reached a circuit court or the U.S. Supreme Court.

text: Just as it is permissible to discuss the crucial role of religion in medieval European history, creationism may be discussed in a civics, current affairs, philosophy, or comparative religions class where the intent is to factually educate students about the diverse range of human political and religious beliefs. The line is crossed only when creationism is taught as science, just as it would be if a teacher were to proselytize a particular religious belief.[citation needed]

text: Movements to teach creationism in schools[edit]

text: There continue to be numerous efforts to introduce creationism in U.S. classrooms. One strategy is to declare that evolution is a religion, and therefore it should not be taught in the classroom either, or that if evolution is a religion, then surely creationism as well can be taught in the classroom.[8]

text: In the 1980s, UC Berkeley law professor Phillip E. Johnson began reading the scientific literature on evolution. This led him to author Darwin on Trial (1991), which examined the evidence for evolution from a religious point of view and challenged the assumption that the only reasonable explanation for the origin of species must be a naturalistic one, though science is defined by searching for natural explanations for phenomena. This book, and his subsequent efforts to encourage and coordinate creationists with more scientific credentials, was the start of the intelligent design movement. Intelligent design asserts that there is evidence that life was created by an "intelligent designer" (mainly that the physical properties of living organisms are so complex that they must have been "designed"). Proponents claim that intelligent design takes "all available facts" into account rather than just those available through naturalism. Opponents assert that intelligent design is a pseudoscience because its claims cannot be tested by experiment (see falsifiability) and do not propose any new hypotheses.

text: Many proponents of the intelligent design movement support requiring that it be taught in the public schools. For example, the Discovery Institute (DI), a conservative think tank,[9] and Phillip E. Johnson support the policy of "Teach the Controversy," which entails presenting to students evidence for and against evolution, and then encouraging students to evaluate that evidence themselves.

text: While many proponents of intelligent design believe that it should be taught in schools, other creationists believe that legislation is not appropriate. Answers in Genesis (AiG) has said:

text: "AiG is not a lobby group, and we oppose legislation for compulsion of creation teaching. ...why would we want an atheist forced to teach creation and give a distorted view? But we would like legal protection for teachers who present scientific arguments against the sacred cow of evolution such as staged pictures of peppered moths and forged embryo diagrams."[10]

text: Position of Teaching and Scientific Societies[edit]

text: The National Science Teachers Association is opposed to teaching creationism as a science,[11] as is the Association for Science Teacher Education,[12] the National Association of Biology Teachers,[13] the American Anthropological Association,[14] the American Geosciences Institute,[15] the Geological Society of America,[16] the American Geophysical Union,[17] and numerous other professional teaching and scientific societies.

text: Recent developments in state education programs[edit]

text: Development by state[edit]

text: Alabama[edit]

text: In 1996, the Alabama State Board of Education adopted a textbook sticker that was a disclaimer about evolution. It has since been revised and moderated.[18] In September 2015, the Alabama State Board of Education unanimously approved that evolution and climate change should be required material for the state educational curriculum, these changes to be implemented by 2016. At the same time, a referendum was set for potentially removing the textbook disclaimers.[19]

text: California[edit]

text: In August 2008 Judge S. James Otero ruled in favor of University of California in Association of Christian Schools International v. Roman Stearns agreeing with the university's position that various religious books on U.S. history and science, from A Beka Books and Bob Jones University Press, should not be used for college-preparatory classes.[20] The case was filed in spring 2006 by Association of Christian Schools International (ACSI) against the University of California claiming religious discrimination over the rejection of five courses as college preparatory instruction.[21] On August 8, 2008, Judge Otero entered summary judgment against plaintiff ACSI, upholding the University of California's standards.[20] The university found the books "didn't encourage critical thinking skills and failed to cover 'major topics, themes and components' of U.S. history" and were thus ill-suited to prepare students for college.[20]

text: Florida[edit]

text: On February 19, 2008, the Florida State Board of Education adopted new science standards in a 4-3 vote. The new science curriculum standards explicitly require the teaching of the "scientific theory of evolution,"[22] whereas the previous standards only referenced evolution using the words "change over time."[23]

text: Georgia[edit]

text: In 2002, six parents in Cobb County, Georgia, in the case Selman v. Cobb County School District (2006) sued to have the following sticker removed from public school textbooks:

text: This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.

text:
Approved by
Cobb County Board of Education
Thursday, March 28, 2002[24]

text: Defense attorney E. Linwood Gunn IV said, "The only thing the school board did is acknowledge there is a potential conflict [between the science of evolution and creationism] and there is a potential infringement on people's beliefs if you present it in a dogmatic way. We're going to do it in a respectful way."[25] Gerald R. Weber, legal director of the ACLU of Georgia, said, "The progress of church-state cases has been that the [U.S.] Supreme Court sets a line, then government entities do what they can to skirt that line. ... Here the Supreme Court has said you can't teach creationism in the public schools. You can't have an equal-time provision for evolution and creationism. These disclaimers are a new effort to skirt the line."[25] Jefferey Selman, who brought the lawsuit, claims, "It singles out evolution from all the scientific theories out there. Why single out evolution? It has to be coming from a religious basis, and that violates the separation of church and state."[26] The Cobb County Board of Education said it adopted the sticker "to foster critical thinking among students, to allow academic freedom consistent with legal requirements, to promote tolerance and acceptance of diversity of opinion, and to ensure a posture of neutrality toward religion."[27]

text: On January 13, 2005, a federal judge in Atlanta ruled that the stickers should be removed as they violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.[24] The Board subsequently decided to appeal the decision.[28] In comments on December 15, 2005, in advance of releasing its decision, the appeal court panel appeared critical of the lower court ruling and a judge indicated that he did not understand the difference between evolution and abiogenesis.[29]

text: On December 19, 2006, the Board abandoned all of its legal activities and will no longer mandate that biology texts contain a sticker stating "evolution is a theory, not a fact." Their decision was a result of compromise negotiated with a group of parents, represented by the ACLU, that were opposed to the sticker. The parents agreed, as their part of the compromise, to withdraw their legal actions against the Board.[30]

text: Kansas[edit]

text: On August 11, 1999, by a 6-4 vote the Kansas State Board of Education changed their science education standards to remove any mention of "biological macroevolution, the age of the Earth, or the origin and early development of the universe," so that evolutionary theory no longer appeared in statewide standardized tests and "it was left to the 305 local school districts in Kansas whether or not to teach it."[31] This decision was hailed by creationists, and sparked a statewide and nationwide controversy with scientists condemning the change.[32] Challengers in the state's Republican primary who made opposition to the anti-evolution standards their focus were voted in on August 1, 2000, so on February 14, 2001, the Board voted 7-3 to reinstate the teaching of biological evolution and the origin of the earth into the state's science education standards.[31]

text: In 2004, the Board elections gave religious conservatives a majority and, influenced by the Discovery Institute, they arranged the Kansas evolution hearings. On August 9, 2005, the Board drafted new "science standards that require critical analysis of evolution – including scientific evidence refuting the theory,"[33] which opponents analyzed as effectively stating that intelligent design should be taught.[34] The new standards also provide a definition of science that does not preclude supernatural explanations, and were approved by a 6-4 vote on November 8, 2005—incidentally the day of the Dover Area School Board election which failed to re-elect incumbent creationists (see #Pennsylvania).[35]

text: In Kansas' state Republican primary elections on August 1, 2006, moderate Republicans took control away from the anti-evolution conservatives,[36] leading to an expectation that science standards which effectively embraced intelligent design and cast doubt on Darwinian evolution would now be changed.[37]

text: On February 13, 2007, the Board approved a new curriculum which removed any reference to intelligent design as part of science. In the words of Bill Wagnon, the Board chairman, "Today the Kansas Board of Education returned its curriculum standards to mainstream science."[38] The new curriculum, as well as a document outlining the differences with the previous curriculum, has been posted on the Kansas State Department of Education's website.[39]

text: In June 2013, Kansas adopted the national Next Generation Science Standards, which teaches evolution as a fundamental principle of life sciences.[40]

text: Kentucky[edit]

text: In October 1999, the Kentucky Department of Education replaced the word "evolution" with "change over time" in state school standards.[41]

text: Louisiana[edit]

text: On June 12, 2008, a bill (SB561) named the "Louisiana Academic Freedom Act" passed into law.

text: Ohio[edit]

text: In 2002, proponents of intelligent design asked the Ohio State Board of Education to adopt intelligent design as part of its standard biology curriculum, in line with the guidelines of the Edwards v. Aguillard holding. In December 2002, the Board adopted a proposal that required critical analysis of evolution, but did not specifically mention intelligent design. This decision was reversed in February 2006 following both the conclusion of the Dover lawsuit and repeated threats of lawsuit against the Board.[42][43]

text: Pennsylvania[edit]

text: In 2004, the Dover Area School Board voted that a statement must be read to students of 9th grade biology mentioning intelligent design. This resulted in a firestorm of criticism from scientists and science teachers and caused a group of parents to begin legal proceedings (sometimes referred to as the Dover Panda Trial) to challenge the decision, based on their interpretation of the Aguillard precedent. Supporters of the school board's position noted that the Aguillard holding explicitly allowed for a variety of what they consider "scientific theories" of origins for the secular purpose of improving scientific education. Others have argued that intelligent design should not be allowed to use this "loophole."[44] On November 8, 2005, the members of the Board in Dover were voted out and replaced by evolutionary theory supporters. This had no bearing on the case.[45] On December 20, 2005, federal judge John E. Jones III ruled that the Dover Area School Board had violated the Constitution when they set their policy on teaching intelligent design, and stated that "In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."[46]

text: Tennessee[edit]

text: On April 10, 2012, a bill (HB 368/SB 893) passed in protecting "teachers who explore the 'scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses' of evolution and climate change." Science education advocates said the law could make it easier for creationism and global warming denial to enter U.S. classrooms. Brenda Ekwurzel of the Union of Concerned Scientists saw it as a risk to education, quoting "We need to keep kids' curiosity about science alive and not limit their ability to understand the world around them by exposing them to misinformation."[47] The passing of the law was praised by proponents of intelligent design.[47]

text: Texas[edit]

text: On November 7, 2007, the Texas Education Agency (TEA) director of science curriculum Christine Comer was forced to resign over an e-mail she had sent announcing a talk given by an anti-intelligent design author. In a memo obtained under the Texas Public Information Act, TEA officials wrote "Ms. Comer's e-mail implies endorsement of the speaker and implies that TEA endorses the speaker's position on a subject on which the agency must remain neutral."[48] In response over 100 biology professors from Texas universities signed a letter to the state education commissioner denouncing the requirement to be neutral on the subject of intelligent design.[49]

text: In July 2011, the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE), which oversees the Texas Education Agency, did not approve anti-evolution instructional materials submitted by International Databases, LLC, while continuing to approve materials from mainstream publishers.[50]

text: Virginia[edit]

text: Despite proponents' urging that intelligent design be included in the school system's science curriculum, the school board of Chesterfield County Public Schools in Virginia decided on May 23, 2007, to approve science textbooks for middle and high schools which do not include the idea of intelligent design. However, during the board meeting a statement was made that their aim was self-directed learning which "occurs only when alternative views are explored and discussed," and directed that professionals supporting curriculum development and implementation are to be required "to investigate and develop processes that encompass a comprehensive approach to the teaching and learning" of the theory of evolution, "along with all other topics that raise differences of thought and opinion." During the week before the meeting, one of the intelligent design proponents claimed that "Students are being excluded from scientific debate. It's time to bring this debate into the classroom," and presented A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.[51][52]

text: Polls[edit]

text: In 2000, a poll commissioned by People for the American Way found that among Americans:

text:
29% believe public schools should teach evolution in science class but can discuss creationism there as a belief;
20% believe public schools should teach evolution only;
17% believe public schools should teach evolution in science class and religious theories elsewhere;
16% believe public schools should teach creation only;
13% believe public schools should teach both evolution and creationism in science class;
4% believe public schools should teach both but are not sure how.[53]

tag: ul

text: In 2006, a poll conducted by Zogby International commissioned by the Discovery Institute found that more than three to one of voters surveyed chose the option that biology teachers should teach Darwin's theory of evolution, but also "the scientific evidence against it." Approximately seven in ten (69%) sided with this view. In contrast, one in five (21%) chose the other option given, that biology teachers should teach only Darwin's theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it. One in ten was not sure.[54]

text: U.S. legal quotations[edit]

text: Epperson v. Arkansas (1968):

text: ...the First Amendment does not permit the state to require that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma...the state has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them.[55]

text: McLean v. Arkansas (1982), the judge wrote that creation scientists:

text: ...cannot properly describe the methodology used as scientific, if they start with a conclusion and refuse to change it regardless of the evidence developed during the course of the investigation.[55]

text: Edwards v. Aguillard (1987):

text: ...Because the primary purpose of the Creationism Act is to advance a particular religious belief, the Act endorses religion in violation of the First Amendment.[55]

text: Webster v. New Lenox School District (1990), the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit stated:

text: If a teacher in a public school uses religion and teaches religious beliefs or espouses theories clearly based on religious underpinnings, the principles of the separation of church and state are violated as clearly as if a statute ordered the teacher to teach religious theories such as the statutes in Edwards did.[55]

text: Peloza v. Capistrano School District (1994), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit wrote:

text: The Supreme Court has held unequivocally that while belief in a Divine Creator of the universe is a religious belief, the scientific theory that higher forms of life evolved from lower ones is not.[55]

text: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005):

text: The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.[46]


document_title: A1A (album)

question_text: who wrote trying to reason with hurricane season

root

text: A1A (album)

text: Chart performance[edit]

text: The album reached No. 25 on the Billboard 200 album chart but did not make the country chart.  Singles included "Presents to Send You" (b/w "A Pirate Looks at Forty") released in February 1975 and "Door Number Three" (b/w "Dallas") in July 1975 which reached No. 88 on the Billboard Hot Country Singles chart.

tag: p

text: Songs[edit]

text: The songs were all written by Buffett except for "Door Number Three," a novelty song about the game show Let's Make a Deal co-written with Steve Goodman, and "Dallas", written by Coral Reefer Band guitarist Roger Bartlett.  There are also two cover songs: "Stories We Could Tell" from John Sebastian's 1974 album Tarzana Kid and "Making Music for Money" originally written by Alex Harvey for The First Edition's 1974 album I'm Not Making Music For Money.

text: The album's songs are typical of Buffett's music in the early and mid-1970s.  The music is heavily country oriented with Buffett backed by the Third Coral Reefer Band with a number of Nashville session musicians.  Likewise, several of the songs (the entire second side of the album) are nautical-themed, a feature of Buffett's music following his move to Key West, Florida.

text: The lyrics of "Nautical Wheelers" refer to "living & dying in ¾ time", the title of Buffett's previous album; and the song actually is in ¾ time signature.

text: Critical and commercial reception[edit]

text: Professional ratingsReview scoresSourceRatingAllmusic[2]

tag: table

text: Although it was not extremely commercially successful at the time of its release, A1A is generally considered one of Buffett's better albums.  Reviewer Vik Iyengar of Allmusic calls A1A "one of Jimmy Buffett's classic '70s albums that established his persona, and it is a perfect introduction to his music."[3]  "A Pirate Looks at Forty" from the album appears on all of Buffett's major greatest hits collections and is a perennial concert favorite, one of "The Big 8" that he has allegedly played at almost every concert.

text: Track listing[edit]

text:
"A Pirate Looks at Forty"

Perennial concert favorite from A1A
Problems playing this file? See media help.

text: Side A

text:
"Making Music for Money" (Alex Harvey) 4:01
"Door Number Three" (Jimmy Buffett, Steve Goodman) 3:03
"Dallas" (Roger Bartlett) 3:25
"Presents to Send You" (Jimmy Buffett) 2:40
"Stories We Could Tell" (John B. Sebastian) 3:18
"Life Is Just a Tire Swing" (Jimmy Buffett) 3:04

tag: ol

text: Side B

text:
"A Pirate Looks at Forty" (Jimmy Buffett) 3:57
"Migration" (Jimmy Buffett) 4:13
"Trying to Reason with Hurricane Season" (Jimmy Buffett) 4:21
"Nautical Wheelers" (Jimmy Buffett) 3:35
"Tin Cup Chalice" (Jimmy Buffett) 3:38

text: Personnel[edit]

text: The Third Coral Reefer Band

text:
Jimmy Buffett - vocals, guitar
Roger Bartlett - acoustic lead and road band
Steve Goodman - acoustic lead guitar
Reggie Young - electric lead guitar
Doyle Gresham - pedal steel
Greg "Fingers" Taylor - harmonica
Tommy Cogbill - bass
Mike Utley - piano, organ
Farrell Morris - percussion
Sammy Creason - drums
Buzz Cason, Bergen White, Don Gant - background vocals

text: Notes[edit]

text:
Jump up ^ Holden, Stephen. "Jimmy Buffett: A-1-A Review". Rolling Stone. Archived from the original on 14 January 2009.

Jump up ^ https://www.allmusic.com/album/r2915

Jump up ^ Allmusic review by Vik Iyengar.  Accessed 25 September 2007.

text:
hidevteJimmy BuffettCoral Reefer Band
Michael Utley
Greg "Fingers" Taylor
Mac McAnally
Robert Greenidge
Deborah McColl
Jim Mayer
Peter Mayer
Roger Guth
Ralph MacDonald
Studio albums
Down to Earth
High Cumberland Jubilee
A White Sport Coat and a Pink Crustacean
Living and Dying in 3/4 Time
A1A
Rancho Deluxe (soundtrack)
Havana Daydreamin'
Changes in Latitudes, Changes in Attitudes
Son of a Son of a Sailor
Volcano
Coconut Telegraph
Somewhere over China
One Particular Harbour
Riddles in the Sand
Last Mango in Paris
Floridays
Hot Water
Off to See the Lizard
Fruitcakes
Barometer Soup
Banana Wind
Christmas Island
Don't Stop the Carnival
Beach House on the Moon
Far Side of the World
License to Chill
Take the Weather with You
Buffet Hotel
Songs from St. Somewhere
'Tis the SeaSon
Live albums
You Had to Be There
Feeding Frenzy
Buffett Live: Tuesdays, Thursdays, Saturdays
Live at Texas Stadium
encores
Sound board live albums
Live in Auburn, WA
Live in Las Vegas, NV
Live in Mansfield, MA
Live in Cincinnati, OH
Live in Hawaii
Live at Fenway Park
Live in Anguilla
Compilation albums
Down to Earth/High Cumberland Jubilee compilations
Greatest hits compilations: Songs You Know by Heart
Boats, Beaches, Bars & Ballads (box set)
A Pirate's Treasure
All the Great Hits
The Great Jimmy Buffett
Biloxi
Great American Summer Fun with Jimmy Buffett (EP)
Calaloo (EP)
Meet Me in Margaritaville: The Ultimate Collection
Soundtrack, Christmas,and musical albums
Rancho Deluxe soundtrack
Christmas Island (Christmas album)
Don't Stop the Carnival (musical)
'Tis the SeaSon (Christmas album)
Songs
"Margaritaville"
"Come Monday"
"A Pirate Looks at Forty"
"Volcano"
"Fins"
"Cheeseburger in Paradise"
"It's 5 O'Clock Somewhere"
"Changes in Latitudes, Changes in Attitudes"
"One Particular Harbour"
"Why Don't We Get Drunk"
"Southern Cross"
"Brown Eyed Girl"
"Son of a Son of a Sailor"
"God's Own Drunk"
"Pencil Thin Mustache"
"Grapefruit—Juicy Fruit"
"Boat Drinks"
"Gypsies in the Palace"
"Jamaica Mistaica"
"He Went to Paris"
"Knee Deep"
"The Great Filling Station Holdup"
"Hey, Good Lookin'"
"Surfing in a Hurricane"
"Trip Around the Sun"
"Math Suks"
Videos
Live by the Bay
Parrot Heads in Paradise
Tales from Margaritavision
Music for Montserrat
Minimatinee#1
Bridge to Havana
Live at Wrigley Field
Live at Fenway Park
Live in Anguilla
Books
The Jolly Mon
Tales from Margaritaville
Trouble Dolls
Where Is Joe Merchant? A Novel Tale
A Pirate Looks at Fifty
A Salty Piece of Land
Swine Not?
Commercial endeavors
Jimmy Buffett's Margaritaville
Margaritaville Records
Margaritaville merchandising
Mailboat Records
Cheeseburger in Paradise Restaurant
Margaritaville Casino and Resort
Land Shark Lager
Related articles
Discography
Parrothead
Radio Margaritaville
Hemisphere Dancer
Savannah Buffett
Save the Manatee Club
"Margaritaville (South Park)"
Songs from St. Somewhere Tour

text: Jimmy Buffett albums1974 albumsAlbums produced by Don Gant

text: Articles with hAudio microformatsUse dmy dates from March 2012


question_text: who did bon jovi play in u 571

question_tokens: who did bon jovi play in u 571

text: U-571 (film)

text: Plot[edit]

text: After sinking a merchant ship from an Allied convoy, German U-boat U-571 has her engines badly damaged by depth charges from a British destroyer. U-571's skipper Kapitänleutnant Gunther Wassner makes a distress call that is intercepted by American intelligence. The US Navy has its submarine S-33 modified to resemble a German resupply U-boat, to try to steal the Enigma machine coding device and sink the U-571. Before the crew of S-33 receives its assignment, the submarine's executive officer Lieutenant Tyler is unhappy about a recommendation for command of his own submarine being blocked by his commanding officer, Lieutenant Commander Dahlgren.

text: During a storm, S-33's boarding party surprises and overwhelms the crew of U-571. After securing U-571, the American S-33 is torpedoed by the arriving German resupply submarine.  Dahlgren is blown off the deck and seriously wounded; while struggling in the sea he refuses rescue and orders the boarding party on the captured U-boat immediately to submerge. Tyler takes command of U-571 and dives below the surface, where they subsequently engage and sink the resupply submarine.

text: After making repairs and restoring its power, Tyler decides to route the disabled submarine toward Land's End in Cornwall. However, they are spotted by a German reconnaissance plane, which is unaware that U-571 has been commandeered by Americans.  A nearby German destroyer sends over some crew, but before they arrive, Tyler gives orders to fire a shot from the deck gun, which destroys the ship's radio room, preventing it from reporting the situation and revealing that the Allies have the Enigma. The submarine then dives beneath the German destroyer, which begins to drop depth charges. U-571's original master Kapitänleutnant Wassner escapes captivity, and kills one of Tyler's crew, but he is subdued before he can sabotage the engines.

text: Tyler attempts to deceive the destroyer into stopping its attack, by ejecting debris and a dead crew member out of a torpedo tube, faking their own destruction.  However, the destroyer continues to drop depth charges. The crew realizes that Wassner, despite being shackled, is using Morse Code to tap out a signal that the submarine had been captured.  So they knock him out. U-571 drops below 600 feet (180 m), and is damaged by high water pressure. They start to sink, and can only reverse this by ascending uncontrollably. Tyler orders crewman Trigger to submerse himself in the bilge underwater to repressurize the single remaining torpedo tube.

text: Trigger uses an air hose to breathe inside the flooded compartment. He closes the air valve to the stern tube, but finds a second leak, which he can't reach. U-571 surfaces heavily damaged and begins to flood, unable to fire its last torpedo. The pursuing destroyer fires with its main guns: the damage pins Trigger's leg, when he is beyond reach of the air hose. Unable to turn back, he manages to close the valve before he drowns.  Tyler orders Tank to fire the torpedo; the destroyer is unable to take evasive action and is sunk. As the crew sigh in relief, Tank reports Trigger's death. However, the submarine has taken severe damage, and so the crew abandons it with the Enigma in their possession. They watch U-571 as she slips beneath the waves. They are eventually spotted and rescued from their lifeboat by a US Navy PBY Catalina flying boat.

text: Cast[edit]

text:
Matthew McConaughey as Lieutenant Andrew Tyler
Bill Paxton as Lieutenant Commander Mike Dahlgren
Harvey Keitel as Chief Gunner's Mate Henry Klough
Jon Bon Jovi as Lieutenant Pete Emmett
David Keith as Major Matthew Coonan
Jake Weber as Lieutenant Michael Hirsch
Jack Noseworthy as Seaman Bill Wentz
Tom Guiry as Seaman Ted "Trigger" Fitzgerald
Will Estes as Torpedoman Ronald "Rabbit" Parker
T. C. Carson as Seaman Eddie Carson
Erik Palladino as Seaman Anthony Mazzola
Dave Power as Motor Machinist Charles "Tank" Clemens
Derk Cheetwood as Seaman Herb Griggs
Matthew Settle as Ensign Keith Larson
Thomas Kretschmann as Kapitänleutnant Gunther Wassner
Erich Redman as Christian Adams
Burnell Tucker as Admiral Duke

text: Production[edit]

text: U-571 was filmed in the Mediterranean, near Rome and Malta.[5] Footage, sets and models from the movie have been reused for other productions, including 'Submerged,' depicting the loss of USS Sailfish, and the fictional Ghostboat. A non-diving replica of the US submarine S-33 is located in Grand Harbour, Valletta.[citation needed]

text: In the U.S. the film was originally rated "R", because of a scene where Lt. Emmett is beheaded by flying debris. To get a "PG-13", the shot was redone with Emmett instead knocked overboard. This left the audience not knowing what had happened to his character. A death scene was also filmed for Major Coonan, but the effect did not work well, so it was cut.[6]

text: Critical reception[edit]

text: The film was generally well received by critics, with 78 out of the 115 reviews aggregated by the website Rotten Tomatoes giving positive reviews, resulting in a 68% score, with the critical consensus reading: "Excellent cinematography and an interesting plot accompanied by a talented cast and crew make U-571 a tense thriller."[1] It performed well at the box office.[7]

text: The film's depth charge sequences, which produce rumbling bass tones below 25 Hz, are widely cited as a way of testing subwoofers in a home theater set up.[8]

text: Awards and nominations[edit]

text: The film was nominated for two awards at the 73rd Academy Awards: Best Sound Editing and Best Sound Mixing (Steve Maslow, Gregg Landaker, Rick Kline and Ivan Sharrock). It won the sound editing award.[2]

text: Historical inaccuracy[edit]

text: Historical events[edit]

text: The depiction of American heroics in capturing an Enigma machine angered many members of the British military and public. The Allies captured Enigma-related codebooks and machines about fifteen times during the War; all but two of these by British forces. The Royal Canadian Navy captured U-774 and the U.S. Navy seized U-505 in June 1944. By this time, the Allies were already routinely decoding German naval Enigma traffic.

text: While U.S. involvement in the Second World War commenced in mid-1941 with Lend-Lease, tactical participation did not begin until after the attack on Pearl Harbor, by which time Enigma machines had already been captured and had their codes broken in Europe. An earlier military Enigma had been examined by Polish Intelligence in 1928; the Polish Cipher Bureau broke the Enigma code in 1932 and gave their findings to Britain and France in 1939, just before the German invasion of Poland.[9]

text: The first capture of a naval Enigma machine with its cipher keys from a U-boat was made on 9 May 1941 by HMS Bulldog of Britain's Royal Navy, commanded by Captain Joe Baker-Cresswell. The U-boat was U-110. In 1942, the British seized U-559, capturing additional Enigma codebooks. According to Britain's Channel 4, "the captured codebooks provided vital assistance to British cryptographers such as Alan Turing, at the code-breaking facility of Bletchley Park, near Milton Keynes."[9]

text: During Prime Minister's Questions in June 2000, Tony Blair agreed with questioner Brian Jenkins MP that the film was "an affront" to British sailors.[4] In response to a letter from Paul Truswell, MP for the Pudsey constituency (which includes Horsforth, a town proud of its connection with HMS Aubretia), U.S. president Bill Clinton wrote assuring that the film's plot was only a work of fiction.[10]

text: David Balme, the British naval officer who led the boarding party aboard U-110, called U-571, "a great film"[11] and said that it would not have been financially viable without being "americanised". The film's producers did not agree to his request for a statement that it was a work of fiction, but[10] the end credits dedicate the film to the "Allied sailors and officers who risked their lives capturing Enigma materials" during the Second World War. The credits acknowledge the Royal Navy's role in capturing Enigma machines and code documents from U-110,  U-559 and the U.S. Navy's capture of U-505.[11]

text: In 2006, screenwriter David Ayer admitted that U-571 had distorted history, and said that he would not do it again.[12] He told BBC Radio 4's The Film Programme that he "did not feel good" about suggesting that Americans, rather than the British, had captured the naval Enigma cipher: "It was a distortion...a mercenary decision...to create this parallel history in order to drive the film for an American audience. Both my grandparents  [sic] were officers in the Second World War, and I would be personally offended if somebody distorted their achievements."[12]

text: Factual errors[edit]

text: The Kriegsmarine's destroyers never ventured out into the open Atlantic Ocean, but stayed in European coastal waters. During the destroyer's depth charge attack more than eighty depth charges are detonated in the film, despite the fact that they rarely carried more than thirty. Furthermore, when U-571 is being depth-charged, the German destroyer is using active sonar pings. The Kriegsmarine never developed active sonar, but used passive sonar (basically a very sensitive listening device) instead.[13]

text: The German resupply U-boat would most likely not have been sunk by U-571. This would have been difficult for a German U-boat to achieve, as German sonar was not as advanced as British during the war. The only instance of a submerged submarine sinking another submerged vessel was in February 1945 when HMS Venturer sank the U-864 with torpedoes.[14]

text: German Type XIV supply U-boats or Milchkühe ("milk cows") didn't have torpedo tubes or deck guns, being armed only with anti-aircraft guns for defense, and therefore could not have attacked other vessels.[15]

text: One character mentions S-26 sinking in a test dive. The real S-26 did not sink in a test dive, instead sinking in a collision with a patrol combatant, PC-460, in January 1942.[16]

text: Negative portrayal of U-boat sailors[edit]

text: The film portrays U-boat sailors machine-gunning Allied merchant crewmen who have survived their ship's sinking, so that they are not able to report the U-boat's position. In reality, U-boat crewmen were known to have assisted survivors with food, directions and occasionally medical aid.[17] Such assistance only stopped after Admiral Karl Dönitz issued the "Laconia order" following a U.S. air attack on U-boats transporting injured survivors under a Red Cross flag in 1942. German U-boat crews were thereafter under War Order No. 154 not to rescue survivors, which parallelled Allied policy. Even afterwards, U-boats still occasionally provided aid for survivors. In fact, out of several thousand sinkings of merchant ships in World War II, there is only one case of a U-boat's crew deliberately attacking the survivors: that of the U-852 after the sinking of the Greek ship Peleus.[18]

text: Historical fates of U-571 and S-33[edit]

text: The real U-571, captained by Oberleutnant zur See Gustav Lüssow, was never involved in any such events, was not captured, but was in fact lost with all hands on January 28, 1944, west of Ireland.[19] She was hit by depth charges, dropped from a Short Sunderland Mk III flying boat, EK577, callsign "D for Dog", belonging to No. 461 Squadron, Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) and based at RAF Pembroke Dock in Wales.  The aircraft's commander, Flt Lt Richard Lucas, reported that most of the U-boat's 52 crew managed to abandon ship, but all died from hypothermia.

text: The real USS S-33 was stationed in the Pacific Ocean from June 1942 until the end of the war. She was sold for scrap in 1946.[16]


document_title: Economic liberalisation in India

question_text: which type of import policy was adopted before economic reforms in india

text: Economic liberalisation in India

text: Pre-liberalisation policies[edit]

text:
Part of a series on the

History of modern India

Pre-independence

Independence movement

Rebellion / Mutiny / First
War of Independence
1857–1858

British Raj
1858–1947

Partition
1947

Post-independence

Political integration
1947–1949

Non-Aligned Movement
1953–present

States Reorganisation Act
1956

Indo-Pakistani War
1965

Green Revolution
1970s

Indo-Pakistani War
1971

Emergency
1975–1977

1990s
Economic liberalisation

See also

History of India
History of South Asia

 India portal

v
t
e

text: Indian economic policy after independence was influenced by the colonial experience (which was seen by Indian leaders as exploitative in nature) and by those leaders' exposure to Fabian socialism. Policy tended towards protectionism, with a strong emphasis on import substitution industrialization under state monitoring, state intervention at the micro level in all businesses especially in labour and financial markets, a large public sector, business regulation, and central planning.[9] Five-Year Plans of India resembled central planning in the Soviet Union. Steel, mining, machine tools, water, telecommunications, insurance, and electrical plants, among other industries, were effectively nationalised in the mid-1950s.[10] Elaborate licences, regulations and the accompanying red tape, commonly referred to as Licence Raj, were required to set up business in India between 1947 and 1990.[11]

text: Before the process of reform began in 1991, the government attempted to close the Indian economy to the outside world. The Indian currency, the rupee, was inconvertible and high tariffs and import licensing prevented foreign goods reaching the market. India also operated a system of central planning for the economy, in which firms required licences to invest and develop. The labyrinthine bureaucracy often led to absurd restrictions—up to 80 agencies had to be satisfied before a firm could be granted a licence to produce and the state would decide what was produced, how much, at what price and what sources of capital were used. The government also prevented firms from laying off workers or closing factories. The central pillar of the policy was import substitution, the belief that India needed to rely on internal markets for development, not international trade—a belief generated by a mixture of socialism and the experience of colonial exploitation. Planning and the state, rather than markets, would determine how much investment was needed in which sectors.

text: Pre-1991 liberalisation attempts[edit]

text: Attempts were made to liberalise the economy in 1966 and 1985. The first attempt was reversed in 1967. Thereafter, a stronger version of socialism was adopted. The second major attempt was in 1985 by prime minister Rajiv Gandhi. The process came to a halt in 1987, though 1967 style reversal did not take place.[13]

text: In the 80s, the government led by Rajiv Gandhi started light reforms. The government slightly reduced Licence Raj and also promoted the growth of the telecommunications and software industries.[14]

text: The Chandra Shekhar Singh government (1990–1991) took several significant steps towards the much needed reforms and laid its foundation.[15]

text: Prevailing situation during 1980s[edit]

text:
The low annual growth rate of the economy of India before 1980, which stagnated around 3.5% from 1950s to 1980s, while per capita income averaged 1.3%.[16] At the same time, Pakistan grew by 5%, Indonesia by 9%, Thailand by 9%, South Korea by 10% and Taiwan by 12%.[17]
Only four or five licences would be given for steel, electrical power and communications. Licence owners built up huge powerful empires.[12]
A huge private sector emerged. State-owned enterprises made large losses.[12]
Income Tax Department and Customs Department became inefficient in checking tax evasion.[citation needed]
Infrastructure investment was poor because of the public sector monopoly.[12]
Licence Raj established the "irresponsible, self-perpetuating bureaucracy that still exists throughout much of the country"[18] and corruption flourished under this system.[19]

text: The fruits of liberalisation reached their peak in 2006, when India recorded its highest GDP growth rate of 9.6%.[20] With this, India became the second fastest growing major economy in the world, next only to China.[19] The growth rate has slowed significantly in the first half of 2012.[21] An Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) report states that the average growth rate 7.5% will double the average income in a decade, and more reforms would speed up the pace.[22] The economy then rebounded to 7.3% growth in 2014–15.

text: First reforms (1991–96)[edit]

text: Crisis[edit]

text: By 1991, India still had a fixed exchange rate system, where the rupee was pegged to the value of a basket of currencies of major trading partners. India started having balance of payments problems since 1985, and by the end of 1990, the state of India was in a serious economic crisis. The government was close to default,[26][27] its central bank had refused new credit and foreign exchange reserves had reduced to the point that India could barely finance three weeks’ worth of imports. It had to pledge 20 tonnes of gold to Union Bank of Switzerland and 47 tonnes to Bank of England as part of a bailout deal with the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Most of the economic reforms were forced upon India as a part of the IMF bailout.[28]

text: A Balance of Payments crisis in 1991 pushed the country to near bankruptcy. In return for an IMF bailout, gold was transferred to London as collateral, the rupee devalued and economic reforms were forced upon India. That low point was the catalyst required to transform the economy through badly needed reforms to unshackle the economy. Controls started to be dismantled, tariffs, duties and taxes progressively lowered, state monopolies broken, the economy was opened to trade and investment, private sector enterprise and competition were encouraged and globalisation was slowly embraced. The reforms process continues today and is accepted by all political parties, but the speed is often held hostage by coalition politics and vested interests.

text: Liberalisation of 1991[edit]

text: In response, Prime Minister Narasimha Rao, along with his finance minister Manmohan Singh, initiated the economic liberalisation of 1991. The reforms did away with the Licence Raj, reduced tariffs and interest rates and ended many public monopolies, allowing automatic approval of foreign direct investment in many sectors.[29] Since then, the overall thrust of liberalisation has remained the same, although no government has tried to take on powerful lobbies such as trade unions and farmers, on contentious issues such as reforming labour laws and reducing agricultural subsidies.[30] By the turn of the 21st century, India had progressed towards a free-market economy, with a substantial reduction in state control of the economy and increased financial liberalisation.[31] This has been accompanied by increases in life expectancy, literacy rates and food security, although urban residents have benefited more than rural residents.[32]

text: Later reforms[edit]

text:
The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)–Atal Bihari Vajpayee administration surprised many by continuing reforms, when it was at the helm of affairs of India for six years, from 1998–99 and from 1999–2004.[33]
The BJP-led National Democratic Alliance Coalition began privatising under-performing government owned business including hotels, VSNL, Maruti Suzuki, and airports, and began reduction of taxes, an overall fiscal policy aimed at reducing deficits and debts and increased initiatives for public works.
The United Front government attempted a progressive budget that encouraged reforms, but the 1997 Asian financial crisis and political instability created economic stagnation.
Towards the end of 2011, the Congress-led UPA-2 Coalition Government initiated the introduction of 51% Foreign Direct Investment in retail sector. But due to pressure from fellow coalition parties and the opposition, the decision was rolled back. However, it was approved in December 2012.[34]
In the early months of 2015, the second BJP-led NDA Government under Narendra Modi further opened up the insurance sector by allowing up to 49% FDI. This came seven years after the previous government attempted and failed to push through the same reforms and 16 years after the sector was first opened to foreign investors up to 26% under the first BJP-led NDA Government under Atal Bihari Vajpayee's administration.[35]
The second BJP-led NDA Government also opened up the coal industry through the passing of the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Bill of 2015. It effectively ended the Indian central government's monopoly over the mining of coal, which existed since nationalization in 1973 through socialist controls. It has opened up the path for private, foreign investments in the sector, since Indian arms of foreign companies are entitled to bid for coal blocks and licences, as well as for commercial mining of coal. This could result in billions of dollars investments by domestic and foreign miners. The move is also beneficial to the state-owned Coal India Limited, which may now get the elbow room to bring in some much needed technology and best practices, while opening up prospects of a better future for millions of mine workers.[36]
In the 2016 budget session of Parliament, the Narendra Modi led BJP Government pushed through the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The Code creates time-bound processes for insolvency resolution of companies and individuals. These processes will be completed within 180 days. If insolvency cannot be resolved, the assets of the borrowers may be sold to repay creditors. This law drastically eases the process of doing business, according to experts and is considered by many to be the second most important reform in India since 1991 next to the proposed GST.[37]
On July 1st 2017, the BJP-led NDA Government under Narendra Modi launched the Goods and Services Tax (India). This came years after the previous government attempted and failed to push through the same reform and 17 years after the legislation was proposed under the first BJP-led NDA Government under Atal Bihari Vajpayee's administration in 2000. Touted to be India's biggest tax reform in 70 years of independence and the most important overall reform in terms of ease of doing business since 1991. GST replaces a slew of indirect taxes with a unified tax structure and is therefore set to dramatically reshape the country's 2.5 trillion dollar economy.[38]

text: Impact[edit]

text: This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: The impact of these reforms may be gauged from the fact that total foreign investment (including foreign direct investment, portfolio investment, and investment raised on international capital markets) in India grew from a minuscule US$132 million in 1991–92 to $5.3 billion in 1995–96.[39]

text: Annual growth in GDP per capita has accelerated from just 1¼ per cent in the three decades after Independence to 7½ per cent currently, a rate of growth that will double average income in a decade.... In service sectors where government regulation has been eased significantly or is less burdensome—such as communications, insurance, asset management and information technology—output has grown rapidly, with exports of information technology enabled services particularly strong. In those infrastructure sectors which have been opened to competition, such as telecoms and civil aviation, the private sector has proven to be extremely effective and growth has been phenomenal.

text: Election of AB Vajpayee as Prime Minister of India in 1998 and his agenda was a welcome change. His prescription to speed up economic progress included solution of all outstanding problems with the West (Cold War related) and then opening gates for FDI investment. In three years, the West was developing a bit of a fascination to India's brainpower, powered by IT and BPO. By 2004, the West would consider investment in India, should the conditions permit. By the end of Vajpayee's term as prime minister, a framework for the foreign investment had been established. The new incoming government of Dr. Manmohan Singh in 2004 further strengthened the required infrastructure to welcome the FDI.

text: Today, fascination with India is translating into active consideration of India as a destination for FDI. The A T Kearney study put India second most likely destination for FDI in 2005 behind China. It has displaced US to the third position. This is a great leap forward. India was at the 15th position, only a few years back. To quote the A T Kearney Study, "India's strong performance among manufacturing and telecom & utility firms was driven largely by their desire to make productivity-enhancing investments in IT, business process outsourcing, research and development, and knowledge management activities".

text: Challenges to further reforms[edit]

text: For 2010, India was ranked 124th among 179 countries in Index of Economic Freedom World Rankings, which is an improvement from the preceding year.

text:
Slow growth of the agricultural sector, where half of Indians earn most of their income[40]
Highly restrictive and complex labour laws.[22][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48]
High inflation[40]
High poverty[40]
Corruption and graft[40]
Lack of political consensus and will[40][49]

text: OECD summarised the key reforms that are needed:

text: In labour markets, employment growth has been concentrated in firms that operate in sectors not covered by India's highly restrictive labour laws. In the formal sector, where these labour laws apply, employment has been falling and firms are becoming more capital intensive despite abundant low-cost labour. Labour market reform is essential to achieve a broader-based development and provide sufficient and higher productivity jobs for the growing labour force. In product markets, inefficient government procedures, particularly in some of the states, acts as a barrier to entrepreneurship and need to be improved. Public companies are generally less productive than private firms and the privatisation programme should be revitalised. A number of barriers to competition in financial markets and some of the infrastructure sectors, which are other constraints on growth, also need to be addressed. The indirect tax system needs to be simplified to create a true national market, while for direct taxes, the taxable base should be broadened and rates lowered. Public expenditure should be re-oriented towards infrastructure investment by reducing subsidies. Furthermore, social policies should be improved to better reach the poor and—given the importance of human capital—the education system also needs to be made more efficient.

text: Though recently labour law reforms have been enacted at the state level[50][51][52][53]

text: Reforms at the state level[edit]

text: According to an OECD survey of the Indian economy [22] states that had more liberal regulatory regimes had better economic performance. The survey also concluded that were complementary measures for better delivery of infrastructure, education and basic services implemented, they would boost employment creation and poverty reduction.


document_title: Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory

question_text: where was the original willy wonka movie filmed

text: Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory

text: Plot[edit]

text: In a small town, Charlie Bucket, a poor paperboy, watches a group of children visit a candy shop. Walking home, he passes Willy Wonka's chocolate factory. A mysterious tinker recites the first lines of William Allingham's poem "The Fairies", and tells Charlie, "Nobody ever goes in, and nobody ever comes out." Charlie rushes home to his widowed mother and bedridden grandparents. After telling Grandpa Joe about the tinker, Joe reveals that Wonka locked the factory because other candy makers, including rival Arthur Slugworth, sent in spies to steal his recipes. Wonka disappeared, but after three years resumed selling candy; the origin of Wonka's labor force is unknown.

text: The next day, Wonka announces that he hid five "Golden Tickets" in chocolate Wonka Bars. Finders of the tickets will receive a factory tour and a lifetime supply of chocolate. The first four tickets are found by the gluttonous Augustus Gloop, the spoiled Veruca Salt, the gum-chewing Violet Beauregarde, and the television-obsessed Mike Teevee. As each winner is announced on TV, a man whispers to them. Charlie opens two Wonka Bars but finds no Golden Ticket. The newspapers announce the fifth ticket was found by a millionaire in Paraguay causing Charlie to lose hope. The next day, Charlie finds money in a sewer and uses it to buy a Scrumdiddlyumptious bar. With the change, he buys another Wonka Bar for Joe. Walking home, as Charlie hears people reading the newspapers; revealing that the Paraguayan millionaire's ticket is a fake, he opens the Wonka Bar and finds the fifth golden ticket. While rushing home, he encounters the same man seen whispering to the other winners, who introduces himself as Slugworth and offers a reward for a sample of Wonka's latest creation, the Everlasting Gobstopper.

text: Returning home with the Golden Ticket, Charlie chooses Joe as his chaperone. The next day, Wonka greets the ticket winners and leads them inside where each signs a contract before the tour. The factory includes a river of chocolate, edible mushrooms, lickable wallpaper, and other sweets and inventions. As the visitors sample these, they see Wonka's workers, small men known as Oompa-Loompas. Augustus falls into the chocolate river and is sucked up a pipe to the Fudge Room. In the Inventing Room, everyone receives an Everlasting Gobstopper. Violet becomes a large blueberry after chewing an experimental gum containing a three-course meal, over Wonka's warnings. The group reaches the Fizzy Lifting Drinks Room, where Charlie and Joe ignore Wonka's warning and sample the drinks. They float and have a near-fatal encounter with an exhaust fan before burping back to the ground. In the Chocolate Eggs Room, Veruca demands a golden goose for herself before falling into a garbage chute leading to the furnace, with her father falling in trying to rescue her. The group tests out Wonka's Wonkavision, only for Mike to teleport himself and become a few inches tall.

text: With Charlie and Joe remaining, Wonka says they are not getting anything because they violated the contract by stealing the Fizzy Lifting Drinks. Infuriated by this, Joe suggests to Charlie that he should give Slugworth the Gobstopper in revenge, but Charlie returns the candy back to Wonka. With this selfless act, Wonka declares Charlie as the winner. He reveals that Slugworth is actually Mr. Wilkinson, an employee of Wonka, and the offer to buy the Gobstopper was a morality test which only Charlie passed. The trio enter the "Wonkavator", a multi-directional glass elevator that flies out of the factory. Soaring over the city, Wonka reveals that his actual prize is the factory; Wonka created the contest to find an heir worthy enough, and so Charlie and his family can immediately move in. Wonka then reminds Charlie not to forget about the man who suddenly received everything he ever wanted. Charlie asks, "What happened?" to which Wonka replies, "He lived happily ever after."

text: Cast[edit]

text:
Gene Wilder as Willy Wonka
Jack Albertson as Grandpa Joe
Peter Ostrum as Charlie Bucket
Roy Kinnear as Henry Salt
Julie Dawn Cole as Veruca Salt
Leonard Stone as Sam Beauregarde
Denise Nickerson as Violet Beauregarde
Dodo Denney as Mrs. Teevee
Paris Themmen as Mike Teevee
Ursula Reit as Mrs. Gloop
Michael Bollner as Augustus Gloop
Diana Sowle as Mrs. Bucket
Aubrey Woods as Bill, the Candy Shop owner
David Battley as Mr. Turkentine
Günter Meisner as Arthur Slugworth/Mr. Wilkinson
Peter Capell as The Tinker
Werner Heyking as Mr. Jopeck
Peter Stuart as Winkelmann

text: Oompa Loompas[edit]

text:
Rusty Goffe
Rudy Borgstaller
George Claydon
Malcolm Dixon
Ismed Hassan
Norman McGlen
Angelo Muscat
Pepe Poupee
Marcus Powell
Albert Wilkinson

text: Production[edit]

text: Development[edit]

text: The idea for adapting the book into a film came about when director Mel Stuart's ten-year-old daughter read the book and asked her father to make a film out of it, with "Uncle Dave" (producer David L. Wolper) producing it. Stuart showed the book to Wolper, who happened to be in the midst of talks with the Quaker Oats Company regarding a vehicle to introduce a new candy bar from its Chicago-based Breaker Confections subsidiary (since renamed the Willy Wonka Candy Company and sold to Nestlé). Wolper persuaded the company, which had no previous experience in the film industry, to buy the rights to the book and finance the picture for the purpose of promoting a new Quaker Oats Wonka Bar.[7]

text: It was agreed that the film would be a children's musical, and that Dahl himself would write the screenplay.[7] However, the title was changed to Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.

text: Screenwriter David Seltzer conceived a gimmick exclusively for the film that had Wonka quoting numerous literary sources, such as Arthur O'Shaughnessy's Ode, Oscar Wilde's The Importance of Being Earnest, Samuel Taylor Coleridge's The Rime of the Ancient Mariner and William Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice. Seltzer also worked Slugworth (only mentioned as a rival candy maker in the book) into the plot as an actual character (only to be revealed to be Wilkinson, one of Wonka's agents, at the end of the film).[7]

text: Casting[edit]

text: All six members of Monty Python: Graham Chapman, John Cleese, Eric Idle, Terry Gilliam, Terry Jones and Michael Palin, expressed interest in playing Wonka, but at the time they were deemed not big enough names for an international audience. Three of the members, Cleese, Idle and Palin, were later seriously considered for the same role in Tim Burton's version.[8][9]

text: Before Wilder was officially cast for the role, producers considered Fred Astaire, Joel Grey, Ron Moody and Jon Pertwee.[9][10] Spike Milligan was Roald Dahl's original choice to play Willy Wonka.[9] Peter Sellers even begged Dahl for the role.[11]

text: When Wilder was cast for the role, he accepted it on one condition:

text: When I make my first entrance, I'd like to come out of the door carrying a cane and then walk toward the crowd with a limp. After the crowd sees Willy Wonka is a cripple, they all whisper to themselves and then become deathly quiet. As I walk toward them, my cane sinks into one of the cobblestones I'm walking on and stands straight up, by itself; but I keep on walking, until I realize that I no longer have my cane. I start to fall forward, and just before I hit the ground, I do a beautiful forward somersault and bounce back up, to great applause.

text: The reason why Wilder wanted this in the film was that "from that time on, no one will know if I'm lying or telling the truth."[12]

text: Jean Stapleton turned down the role of Mrs. Teevee.[13][14] Jim Backus was considered for the role of Sam Beauregarde.[15] Sammy Davis, Jr. wanted to play Bill, the candy store owner, but Stuart did not like the idea because he felt that the presence of a big star in the candy store scene would break the reality.[8] Nevertheless, Davis' recording of the film's opening musical number, "The Candy Man," would top the Billboard magazine record charts in 1972, despite the fact that Davis initially hated the song. Anthony Newley also wanted to play Bill, but Stuart also objected to this for the same reason.[15]

text: Filming[edit]

text: Principal photography commenced on August 31, 1970, and ended on November 19, 1970. The primary shooting location was Munich, Bavaria, West Germany, because it was significantly cheaper than filming in the United States and the setting was conducive to Wonka's factory; Stuart also liked the ambiguity and unfamiliarity of the location. External shots of the factory were filmed at the gasworks of Stadtwerke München (Emmy-Noether-Straße 10); the entrance and side buildings still exist. The exterior of Charlie Bucket's house, which was only a set constructed for the film, was filmed at Quellenstraße in Munich, Bavaria. Charlie's school was filmed at Katholisches Pfarramt St. Sylvester, Biedersteiner Straße 1 in Munich. Bill's Candy Shop was filmed at Lilienstraße, Munich. The closing sequence when the Wonkavator is flying above the factory is footage of Nördlingen in Bavaria.

text:
Munich Gasworks as it appears today (building on the left)

Munich Gasworks as it appears today

Nördlingen, the town seen from above at the end of the film

text: Production designer Harper Goff centered the factory on the massive Chocolate Room. According to Paris Themmen, who played Mike Teevee, "The river was made of water with food coloring. At one point, they poured some cocoa powder into it to try to thicken it but it didn't really work. When asked this question, Michael Böllner, who played Augustus Gloop, answers, 'It vas dirty, stinking vater.'"[16]

text: When interviewed for the 30th anniversary special edition, Gene Wilder stated that he enjoyed working with most of the child actors, but said that he and the crew had some problems with Paris Themmen, claiming that he was "a handful".[17]

text: Promotion[edit]

text: Before its release, the film received advance publicity though TV commercials offering a "Willy Wonka candy factory kit" for sending $1.00 and two seals from boxes of Quaker cereals such as King Vitaman, Life and any of the Cap'n Crunch brands.[18]

text: Reception[edit]

text: Willy Wonka was released on June 30, 1971. The film was not a big success, being the 53rd highest-grossing film of the year in the U.S., earning just over $2.1 million on its opening weekend.[19] It received positive reviews from critics such as Roger Ebert who gave the film a four out of four stars, while comparing it to The Wizard of Oz. Ebert said, "All of this is preface to a simple statement: Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory is probably the best film of its sort since The Wizard of Oz. It is everything that family movies usually claim to be, but aren't: Delightful, funny, scary, exciting, and, most of all, a genuine work of imagination. “Willy Wonka” is such a surely and wonderfully spun fantasy that it works on all kinds of minds, and it is fascinating because, like all classic fantasy, it is fascinated with itself."[20]

text: By the mid-1980s, Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory had experienced a spike in popularity thanks in large part to repeated television broadcasts and home video sales. Following a 25th anniversary theatrical re-release in 1996, it was released on DVD the next year, allowing it to reach a new generation of viewers. The film was released as a remastered special edition on DVD and VHS in 2001 to commemorate the film's 30th anniversary. In 2003, Entertainment Weekly ranked it 25th in the "Top 50 Cult Movies" of all time.

text: Willy Wonka was ranked No. 74 on Bravo's 100 Scariest Movie Moments[21] for the "scary tunnel" scene.

text: As of 2017, the film holds a 91% "Fresh" rating on Rotten Tomatoes with an average rating of 7.7/10 based on 42 reviews. The site's critical consensus states: "Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory is strange yet comforting, full of narrative detours that don't always work but express the film's uniqueness".[22]

text: Dahl's reaction[edit]

text: Dahl disowned the film, the script of which was partially rewritten by David Seltzer after Dahl failed to meet deadlines. Dahl said he was "disappointed" because "he thought it placed too much emphasis on Willy Wonka and not enough on Charlie", as well as the casting of Gene Wilder instead of Spike Milligan.[23] Dahl was also "infuriated" by the deviations in the plot Seltzer devised in his draft of the screenplay, including the conversion of Slugworth, a minor character in the book, into a spy (so that the film could have a villain) and the "fizzy lifting drinks" scene along with music other than the original Oompa Loompa compositions (including "Pure Imagination" and "The Candy Man"), and the ending dialogue for the movie.[24] In 1996, Dahl's second wife Felicity commented on her husband's objections towards the film saying "they always want to change a book's storyline. What makes Hollywood think children want the endings changed for a film, when they accept it in a book?"[23]

text: Animated adaptation[edit]

text: In 2017, an animated adaptation of the film with Tom and Jerry was released. Tom and Jerry: Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory stars JP Karliak as Willy Wonka and is dedicated to Gene Wilder, who died less than a year before the release.

text: Home media[edit]

text: The film was first released on DVD in 1997/1999 in a "25th anniversary edition"[25] as a double sided disc containing a widescreen and "standard" version. The "standard" version is an open matte print, where the mattes used to make the image widescreen are removed, revealing information originally intended to be hidden from viewers.[26] VHS and Betamax copies were also available, but only containing the "standard" version.

text: A special edition DVD was released, celebrating the film's 30th anniversary, on August 28, 2001, but in fullscreen only. Due to the lack of a letterboxed release, fan petitioning eventually led Warner Home Video to issue a widescreen version on November 13, 2001. It was also released on VHS, with only one of the special features (a making-of feature). Several original cast members reunited to film documentary footage for this special edition DVD release. The two editions featured restored sound, and better picture quality. In addition to the documentary, the DVD included a trailer, a gallery, and audio commentary by the cast.

text: In 2007, Warner Home Video released the film on HD DVD with all the bonus features from the 2001 DVD.[27] The film was released on Blu-ray on October 20, 2009.[28] It includes all the bonus features from the 2001 DVD and 2007 HD-DVD as well as a 38-page book.

text: In 2011, a new deluxe-40th-anniversary edition Blu-ray/DVD set was released on November 1, consisting of the film on Blu-ray Disc and DVD as well as a bonus features disc. The set also included a variety of rarities such as a Wonka Bar-designed tin, four scented pencils, a scented eraser, a book detailing the making of the film, original production papers and a Golden Ticket to win a trip to Los Angeles. The set is now out of print.[29]

text: Music[edit]

text: The Academy Award-nominated original score and songs were composed by Leslie Bricusse and Anthony Newley, and musical direction was by Walter Scharf. The soundtrack was first released by Paramount Records in 1971. On October 8, 1996, Hip-O Records (in conjunction with MCA Records, which by then owned the Paramount catalog), released the soundtrack on CD as a "25th Anniversary Edition".

text: The music and songs, in order of appearance, are:

text:
"Main Title" – Instrumental medley of "(I've Got A) Golden Ticket" and "Pure Imagination"
"The Candy Man" – Aubrey Woods
"Cheer Up, Charlie" – Diana Lee (dubbing over Diana Sowle)
"(I've Got A) Golden Ticket" – Jack Albertson and Peter Ostrum
"Pure Imagination" – Gene Wilder
"Oompa Loompa (Augustus)" – The Oompa Loompas
"The Wondrous Boat Ride"/"The Rowing Song" – Gene Wilder
"Oompa Loompa (Violet)" – The Oompa Loompas
"I Want It Now!" – Julie Dawn Cole
"Oompa Loompa (Veruca)" – The Oompa Loompas
"Ach, so fromm" (alternately titled "M'appari", from Martha) – Gene Wilder
"Oompa Loompa (Mike)" – The Oompa Loompas
"End Credits" – "Pure Imagination"

text: Soundtrack[edit]

text: The track listing for the soundtrack is as follows:

text:
"Main Title" ("Golden Ticket"/"Pure Imagination")
"The Candy Man"
"Charlie's Paper Run"
"Cheer Up Charlie"
"Lucky Charlie"
"(I've Got A) Golden Ticket"
"Pure Imagination"
"Oompa Loompa"
"The Wondrous Boat Ride"
"Everlasting Gobstoppers/Oompa Loompa"
"The Bubble Machine"
"I Want It Now/Oompa Loompa"
"Wonkamobile, Wonkavision/Oompa Loompa"
"Wonkavator/End Title" ("Pure Imagination")


document_title: Article Five of the United States Constitution

question_text: what are the two methods in article 5 of proposing constitutional amendments

text: Text[edit]

text: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.[3]

text: Procedures for amending the Constitution[edit]

text: Thirty-three amendments to the United States Constitution have been approved by the Congress and sent to the states for ratification. Twenty-seven of these amendments have been ratified and are now part of the Constitution. The first ten amendments were adopted and ratified simultaneously and are known collectively as the Bill of Rights. Six amendments adopted by Congress and sent to the states have not been ratified by the required number of states and are not part of the Constitution. Four of these amendments are still technically open and pending, one is closed and has failed by its own terms, and one is closed and has failed by the terms of the resolution proposing it. All totaled, approximately 11,539 measures to amend the Constitution have been proposed in Congress since 1789 (through December 16, 2014).[4]

text: Proposing amendments[edit]

text: Article V provides two methods for amending the nation's frame of government. The first method authorizes Congress, "whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary" (a two-thirds of those members present—assuming that a quorum exists at the time that the vote is cast—and not necessarily a two-thirds vote of the entire membership elected and serving in the two houses of Congress), to propose Constitutional amendments. The second method requires Congress, "on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states" (presently 34), to "call a convention for proposing amendments".[5]

text: When the 1st Congress considered a series of constitutional amendments, it was suggested that the two houses first adopt a resolution indicating that they deemed amendments necessary. This procedure was not used. Instead, both the House and the Senate proceeded directly to consideration of a joint resolution, thereby implying that both bodies deemed amendments to be necessary. Also, when initially proposed by James Madison, the amendments were designed to be interwoven into the relevant sections of the original document.[6] Instead, they were approved by Congress and sent to the states for ratification as supplemental additions (codicils) appended to it. Both these precedents have been followed ever since.[7]

text: Regarding the amendment process crafted during the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Madison, in The Federalist No. 43, wrote:

text: It guards equally against that extreme facility which would render the Constitution too mutable; and that extreme difficulty which might perpetuate its discovered faults. It moreover equally enables the General and the State Governments to originate the amendment of errors, as they may be pointed out by the experience on one side, or on the other.[6][8]

text: Each time the amendment process has been initiated since 1789, the first method has been used. All 33 amendments submitted to the states for ratification originated in the Congress. The second method, the convention option, which Alexander Hamilton (writing in The Federalist No. 85) believed would serve as a barrier "against the encroachments of the national authority",[8] has yet to be successfully invoked, although not for lack of activity in the states.

text: Three times in the 20th century, concerted efforts were undertaken by proponents of particular amendments to secure the number of applications necessary to summon an Article V Convention. These included conventions to consider amendments to (1) provide for popular election of U.S. Senators; (2) permit the states to include factors other than equality of population in drawing state legislative district boundaries; and (3) to propose an amendment requiring the U.S. budget to be balanced under most circumstances. The campaign for a popularly elected Senate is frequently credited with "prodding" the Senate to join the House of Representatives in proposing what became the Seventeenth Amendment to the states in 1912, while the latter two campaigns came very close to meeting the two-thirds threshold in the 1960s and 1980s, respectively.[5][9]

text: Once approved by Congress, the joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment does not require Presidential approval before it goes out to the states. While Article I Section 7 provides that all federal legislation must, before becoming Law, be presented to the President for his or her signature or veto, Article V provides no such requirement for constitutional amendments approved by Congress, or by a federal convention. Thus the president has no official function in the process.[a][b] In Hollingsworth v. Virginia (1798), the Supreme Court affirmed that it is not necessary to place constitutional amendments before the President for approval or veto.[7]

text: Ratification of amendments[edit]

text: After being officially proposed, either by Congress or a national convention of the states, a constitutional amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the states. Congress is authorized to choose whether a proposed amendment is sent to the state legislatures or to state ratifying conventions for ratification. Amendments ratified by the states under either procedure are indistinguishable and have equal force as part of the Constitution. Of the 33 amendments submitted to the states for ratification, the state convention method has been used for only one, the Twenty-first Amendment, which became part of the Constitution in 1933.[5] This was also one of only four times that Congress has placed the mode of ratification in the body of an amendment rather than in accompanying legislation; the others being the Eighteenth, Twentieth, and Twenty-second Amendments.[12] In United States v. Sprague (1931), the Supreme Court affirmed the authority of Congress to decide how each individual constitutional amendment is ratified, in accordance with the options provided in Article V and the equal validity of amendments properly ratified in either fashion. The Court had earlier, in Hawke v. Smith (1920), ruled the ratification of the proposed Nineteenth Amendment (which Congress had sent to the state legislatures for ratification) by the Legislature of Ohio could not be referred to the electors (voters) of the state, and that the Ohio Constitution, in requiring such a referendum, was inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution.

text: An amendment becomes an operative part of the Constitution when it is ratified by the necessary number of states, rather than on the later date when its ratification is certified.[13] No further action by Congress or anyone is required. On three occasions, Congress has, after being informed that an amendment has reached the ratification threshold, adopted a resolution declaring the process successfully completed.[c][14] Such actions, while perhaps important for political reasons, are, constitutionally speaking, unnecessary.

text: Presently, the Archivist of the United States is charged with responsibility for administering the ratification process under the provisions of 1 U.S. Code § 106b. The Archivist officially notifies the states, by a registered letter to each state's Governor, that an amendment has been proposed.[15] Each Governor then formally submits the amendment to their state's legislature (or ratifying convention). When a state ratifies a proposed amendment, it sends the Archivist an original or certified copy of the state's action. Upon receiving the necessary number of state ratifications, it is the duty of the Archivist to issue a certificate proclaiming a particular amendment duly ratified and part of the Constitution.[d] The amendment and its certificate of ratification are then published in the Federal Register and United States Statutes at Large. This serves as official notice to Congress and to the nation that the ratification process has been successfully completed.[1]

text: Ratification deadline and extension[edit]

text: The Constitution is silent on the issue of whether or not Congress may limit the length of time that the states have to ratify constitutional amendments sent for their consideration. It is also silent on the issue of whether or not Congress, once it has sent an amendment that includes a ratification deadline to the states for their consideration, can extend that deadline.

text: Deadlines[edit]

text: The practice of limiting the time available to the states to ratify proposed amendments began in 1917 with the Eighteenth Amendment. All amendments proposed since then, with the exception of the Nineteenth Amendment and the (still pending) Child Labor Amendment, have included a deadline, either in the body of the proposed amendment, or in the joint resolution transmitting it to the states.[e] The ratification deadline "clock" begins running on the day final action is completed in Congress. An amendment may be ratified at any time after final congressional action, even if the states have not yet been officially notified.[15]

text: In Dillon v. Gloss (1921), the Supreme Court upheld Congress's power to prescribe time limitations for state ratifications and intimated that clearly out of date proposals were no longer open for ratification. Granting that it found nothing express in Article V relating to time constraints, the Court yet allowed that it found intimated in the amending process a "strongly suggest[ive]" argument that proposed amendments are not open to ratification for all time or by States acting at widely separate times.[17] The court subsequently, in Coleman v. Miller (1939), modified its opinion considerably. In that case, related to the proposed Child Labor Amendment, it held that the question of timeliness of ratification is a political and non-justiciable one, leaving the issue to Congress's discretion. It would appear that the length of time elapsing between proposal and ratification is irrelevant to the validity of the amendment. Based upon this precedent, the Archivist of the United States proclaimed the Twenty-seventh Amendment as having been ratified when it surpassed the "three fourths of the several states" plateau for becoming a part of the Constitution. Declared ratified on May 7, 1992, it had been submitted to the states for ratification on September 25, 1789, an unprecedented time period of 202 years, 7 months and 12 days.[15]

text: Extensions[edit]

text: Whether once it has prescribed a ratification period Congress may extend the period without necessitating action by already-ratified States embroiled Congress, the states, and the courts in argument with respect to the proposed Equal Rights Amendment (Sent to the states on March 22, 1972 with a seven-year ratification time limit attached). In 1978 Congress, by simple majority vote in both houses, extended the original deadline by 3 years, 3 months and 8 days (through June 30, 1982).

text: The amendment's proponents argued that the fixing of a time limit and the extending of it were powers committed exclusively to Congress under the political question doctrine and that in any event Congress had power to extend. It was argued that inasmuch as the fixing of a reasonable time was within Congress' power and that Congress could fix the time either in advance or at some later point, based upon its evaluation of the social and other bases of the necessities of the amendment, Congress did not do violence to the Constitution when, once having fixed the time, it subsequently extended the time. Proponents recognized that if the time limit was fixed in the text of the amendment Congress could not alter it because the time limit as well as the substantive provisions of the proposal had been subject to ratification by a number of States, making it unalterable by Congress except through the amending process again. Opponents argued that Congress, having by a two-thirds vote sent the amendment and its authorizing resolution to the states, had put the matter beyond changing by passage of a simple resolution, that states had either acted upon the entire package or at least that they had or could have acted affirmatively upon the promise of Congress that if the amendment had not been ratified within the prescribed period it would expire and their assent would not be compelled for longer than they had intended.[17]

text: In 1981, the United States District Court for the District of Idaho, however, found that Congress did not have the authority to extend the deadline, even when only contained within the proposing joint resolution's resolving clause.[18] The Supreme Court had decided to take up the case, bypassing the Court of Appeals,[19] but before they could hear the case, the extended period granted by Congress had been exhausted without the necessary number of states, thus rendering the case moot.[20]

text: Exclusive means for amending the Constitution[edit]

text: According to constitutional theorist and scholar Lawrence G. Sager, some commentators have seriously questioned whether Article V is the exclusive means of amending the Constitution, or whether there are routes to amendment, including some routes in which the Constitution could be unconsciously or unwittingly amended in a period of sustained political activity on the part of a mobilized national constituency.[21] For example, Akhil Amar argues that the Constitution may be constitutionally amended outside of Article V. He rejects the notion that Article V excludes other modes of constitutional change, arguing instead that the procedure provided for in Article V is simply the exclusive method the government may use to amend the Constitution. He asserts that Article V nowhere prevents the People themselves, acting apart from ordinary Government, from exercising their legal right to alter or abolish Government via the proper legal procedures.[22] Bruce Ackerman argues that the Constitution can be amended by something he calls a "structural amendment" whereby the people alter their Constitutional order via succeeding elections.[23] Similarly, Sanford Levinson believes that Constitutional amendments have been made outside of Article V and as such it is not exclusive.[24]

text: Other scholars disagree with Amar, Ackerman, and Levinson. Some argue that the Constitution itself provides no mechanism for the American people to adopt constitutional amendments independently of Article V.[25] Darren Patrick Guerra has argued that Article V is a vital part of the American Constitutional tradition and he defends Article V against modern critiques that Article V is either too difficult, too undemocratic, or too formal. Instead he argues that Article V provides a clear and stable way of amending the document that is explicit, authentic, and the exclusive means of amendment; it promotes wisdom and justice through enhancing deliberation and prudence; and its process complements federalism and separation of powers that are key features of the Constitution. He argues that Article V remains the most clear and powerful way to register the sovereign desires of the American public with regard to alterations of their fundamental law. In the end, Article V is an essential bulwark to maintaining a written Constitution that secures the rights of the people against both elites and themselves.[26]

text: In his farewell address, President George Washington said:[27]

text: If in the opinion of the People the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.

text: This statement by Washington has become controversial, and scholars[which?] disagree about whether it still describes the proper constitutional order in the United States.[28] Scholars[which?] who dismiss Washington's position often argue that the Constitution itself was adopted without following the procedures in the Articles of Confederation,[29] while Constitutional attorney Michael Farris disagrees, saying the Convention was a product of the States' residual power, and the amendment in adoption process was legal, having received the unanimous assent of the States' legislatures.[30]