skip to content »

Updating the fourteenth amendment

updating the fourteenth amendment-61

Provided that no order under this section shall be made bythe State Government on its own motion unless an opportunity of being heard is given to the occupier. Power to exempt during public emergency.- In any case of a public emergency the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, exempt any factory or class or description of factories from all or any of the provisions of this Act except section 67 for such period and subject to such conditions as it may think fit: Provided that no such notification shall be made for a period exceeding three months at a time.- For the purposes of this section 'public emergency' means a grave emergency whereby the security of India or of any part of the territory thereof is threatened, whether by war or external aggression or internal disturbance. Approval, licensing and registration of factories.- (1) The State Government may make rules- (a) requiring for the purposes of this Act, the submission of plans of any class or description of factories to the Chief Inspector or the State Government ; (2) If on an application for permission referred to in clause (aa) of sub-section (1) accompanied by the plans and specifications required by the rules made under clause (b) of that sub-section, sent to the State Government or Chief Inspector by registered post, no order is communicated to the applicant within three months from the date on which it is so sent, the permission applied for in the said application shall be deemed to have been granted.

updating the fourteenth amendment-42

One distributor of chips has reported that it has already implanted over six million.Reference to time of day.- In this Act references to time of day are references to Indian Standard Time being five and a half hours, ahead of Greenwich Mean Time: Provided that for any area in which Indian Standard Time is not ordinarily observed the State Government may make rules- Section 4.Power to declare different departments to be separate factories or two or more factories to be a single factory.- The State Government may, on its own or on an application made in this behalf by an occupier, direct by an order in writing and subject to such conditions as it may deem fit, that for all or any of the purposes of this Act different departments or branches of a factory of the occupier specified in the application shall be treated as separate factories or that two or more factories of the occupier specified in the application shall be treated as a single factory.Is it not then conceivable that this technology might be applied to humans? For example, Alan Westin discussed the possibility of "permanent implacements of 'tagging' devices on or in the body" as early as 1967.If the technology were extended to humans, a myriad of identification-related applications could be envisaged such as the capability to find lost children or confused Alzheimer's patients, or to determine if job applicants are illegal immigrants or criminals.(3) Before a factory engaged in a manufacturing process which is ordinarily carried out for less than one hundred and eighty working days in the year, resumes working, thc occupier shall send a written notice to the Chief Inspector containing the particulars specified in sub-section (1) that least thirty days before the date of the commencement of work.

(4) Whenever a new manager is appointed, the cccupies shall send to the Inspector a written notice and to the Chief Inspector a copy thereof within seven days from the date on which such person takes over charge.

A pet owner can be assured that the chances of recovering a lost animal are greatly increased.

At the pound, a stray can quickly be scanned, and, if it has a microchip, the animal's owner can be identified.

For example, the Supreme Court first recognized that the various Bill of Rights guarantees creates a "zone of privacy" in , a 1965 ruling that upheld marital privacy and struck down bans on contraception.

The court ruled in 1969 that the right to privacy protected a person's right to possess and view pornography in his own home.

Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote in that, " If the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch." The controversial case the court ruled that the state's compelling interest in preventing abortion and protecting the life of the mother outweighs a mother's personal autonomy only after viability.