Daily Archives: May 21, 2022

The leaked Supreme Court memo suggesting that Roe v. Wade and the constitutional right to abortion might be overturned has been received with the anticipated deep division and controversy.

But might it actually be the beginning of an end to the abortion wars that have roiled American politics since the 1973 court ruling? The history of another issue that once deeply divided the nation the religious versus the secular, Catholics versus Protestants, urban versus rural suggests just that possibility, thanks to the safety valve provided by American federalism and localism.

The parallel worth considering is Prohibition, the 18th Amendment to the Constitution, which authorized Congress to prohibit the sale and manufacture of alcoholic beverages. Today, the idea that what was known as the temperance movement would be politically potent and dramatically successful seems hard to believe. But so it was as compellingly described in Daniel Okrents history, Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition. What had been a matter of states rights and local discretion became, with a change in the Constitution, a uniform policy for the nation.

That one-size-fits-all policy capped decades of political activism by now-obscure groups such as the Womens Christian Temperance Union and, especially, the Anti-Saloon League. But, just as with Roe, a uniform policy set off a long struggle to permit states and localities to make their own rules regulating alcohol. The 21st Amendment, repealing national Prohibition, restored that discretion. The result was the departure of the wet vs. dry wars from national politics.

It's instructive to compare the abortion rights and Prohibition movements as they were before, and might be following, an end to a national policy. Prior to national Prohibition, nine states were altogether dry, and 31 others had local option laws that permitted localities to go dry. Indeed, an estimated 50% of the countrys population was subject to alcohol prohibition. It was the ambition of the Anti-Saloon League to impose that preference on the rest of the population that made Prohibition such a potent political issue.

Similarly, legalized abortion was becoming increasingly common prior to Roe New York legalized the practice in 1970 but advocates looked to the court to hasten and universalize legalization. It may be hard to think abortion and Prohibition are comparable politically, but there is little doubt that the fact that New York Gov. Al Smith, the 1928 Democratic presidential candidate, hailed from a wet state contributed to his defeat (along with his Catholicism).

A uniform national policy that ignored regional cultural and religious differences proved unsustainable to the point that the next New York governor to run for president, Democrat Franklin Roosevelt, would endorse an end to Prohibition but nonetheless win a resounding victory.

It is crucial today to note that the change in the Constitution did not lead to the legal sale of alcohol all across the country. Seven states, including long-dry Texas, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Kansas, remained dry, while many others permitted local option laws that allowed smaller jurisdictions such as counties to choose to be dry. This patchwork continues to the present day: 33 states allow localities to limit the sale of alcohol, and in three (Kansas, Tennessee, and Mississippi), dry is the default, absent a law authorizing alcohol sale. But, following the passage of the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition, the issue essentially disappeared from national politics.

It may seem impossible to believe that such an issue divided the country in ways comparable to abortion. But, as Dan Okrent writes, the Anti-Saloon League was the mightiest pressure group in the history of the country and, upon passage of its constitutional amendment, asserted that upon its taking effect, at one midnight past midnight a new nation will be born. At the same time, the anti-Prohibition New York World editorialized, After 12 oclock tonight, the Government of the United States as established by the Constitution and maintained for nearly 131 years will cease to exist. Yet just 15 years later, Prohibition made a hasty exit from national politics.

One can envision a similar course for the abortion issue. In 1970, three years prior to Roe, 20 states had already legalized abortion, most notably New York. It was arguably that steady movement toward debate and legalization that was cut short by Roe. And it seems inevitable that, were Roe overturned, we would see, as with the post-Prohibition era, a patchwork of state and local regulation.

Some will see that as select suppression of a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution. And, without a doubt, there were court decisions that overrode local practices that had positive results. One thinks here of Brown v. Board of Education, which put an end to de jure school segregation. Others, perhaps including the majority of Supreme Court members, will see it was the American federalist system finding a way to defuse political dynamite. As Justice Samuel Alito writes in the leaked opinion draft, It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the peoples elected representatives.

Its worth noting that today, there remains 10% of the U.S. population that lives in a dry county. But no state is entirely dry, and dry localities typically border those where alcohol is for sale. There are no entirely dry states, and though the National Prohibition Party continues, it has not, since 1976, received more than 10,000 votes. One can only wonder, and hope, that the abortion debate will reach a comparable equanimity with a post-Roe America.

HowardHusockis a senior fellow in domestic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, where he focuses on municipal government, urban housing policy, civil society, and philanthropy.

Continued here:

Could overturning Roe end the abortion wars? Yes, thanks to federalism - Washington Examiner

Federalism is the concept that is an integral part of our form of government. There are state governments, and there is the federal government.

The Constitution specifies powers and duties that the state governments have, and those that the national government has. Among the potential benefits of this arrangement is that the states can be essentially laboratories that experiment with concepts that if successful, other states and even the national government can then utilize.

For example, before there was an Affordable Care Act, the state of Massachusetts had a similar program for health insurance access and affordability. Who was the governor of the state at that time? Republican Mitt Romney. He ran for president and lost to ... Barack Obama. You know, the Obamacare guy.

In a similar way, there has been a multi-state experiment regarding the approach to controlling Covid-19.

Some states were aggressive in encouraging the employment of mitigation measures to reduce the spread of the virus. Other states were somewhat more passive, and still others were actually resistant to measures such as social distancing, mask wearing, and encouragement of its citizens to get vaccinated against the Coronavirus.

The data is in and the data show that those states that were less aggressive in instituting these commonsense mitigation measures did and continue to do worse than those states that more thoroughly instituted these measures.

On an international scale, Sweden was a classic example of how not to respond to a pandemic. The Swedish government basically decided on a plan of attaining herd immunity naturally acquired infections with no mitigation strategy.

When the infection and death rates soared way above those of neighboring European countries, Sweden changed course. When questioned about the initial strategy, the Swedish health minister said Vell, eet realllly vos a doomb idea (OK, I made up that last sentence for a little comic relief.)

Despite the overwhelming evidence that the less aggressive, laissez-faire approach has failed, have attitudes or approaches changed?Hardly.

When one looks at mortality rates among white individuals between the ages of 25 to 64 in 2020, there was a difference of 225% between the states with the lowest mortality rates and those with the highest. In 1999 that difference was 166% (which is still a significant degree of disparity).

The states with the lower mortality rates were the ones thatused and encouraged mitigation measures. And that trend is very likely to remain unchanged or to worsen given the politicization of the pandemic response.

This is exemplified in a Washington Post story about a health department worker, who has basically given up trying to convince people to get vaccinated because the effort is futile. Simply put, those who are eligible and have not been vaccinated simply are not going to do so, come hell or high water, irrespective of the data that shows that being vaccinated reduces infections, hospitalizations, intensive care, and death.

Much of this is due to disinformation, misinformation and politics. This is why a coordinated uniform national pandemic plan, adhered to by all the states,is needed for an adequate response.

A couple of years ago, I wrote an article that basically stated that finding fault and assessing blame was far less important than finding out how to contain the virus.

Well, as we are entering into what is hoped to be the endemic phase of the pandemic, now would seen to bean appropriate time to objectively assess what went wrong.

There are people who need to be held accountable and their errors, deliberate and otherwise, publicized so that we can learn from the mistakes that were made. We, as a nation, need a coordinated plan to deal with the next pandemic (this one isnt even over and yes, there will be more coming).

We need a national pandemic plan, not 50 state strategies, many of which were woefully inadequate. We know whats worked, we know what hasnt.

Not only is a national plan needed; a worldwide plan is also needed. Despite herculean efforts with multiple lockdowns which helped for a long time, New Zealand finally gave up trying to isolate from the rest of the world as it just couldnt keep the virus out.

One of the most isolated nations in the world, North Korea, is now reckoning with outbreaks of Covid. As long as there are countries that are not getting adequate vaccinations due to supply or logistics, new variants will keep cropping up and will eventually break through borders and barriers.

The writer practices Internal Medicine in Hampshire County. Opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the writer.

Continue reading here:

Federalism and the failed pandemic response | Columnists | hampshirereview.com - Hampshire Review

Why not leave abortion to the states?

One of the most common arguments made by those who want to downplay the significance of Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.s leaked draft opinion in Dobbs vs. Jackson Womens Health is that it would not make abortion illegal. Rather, it would merely return the abortion debate to the legislative sphere, where it belongs. Individual states would pass their own abortion laws, as restrictive or nonrestrictive as their electorate wants them to be.

There is a certain soothing quality to that argument. But issues of individual rights bearing such heavy moral weight cannot be contained within state boundaries. Lets leave it up to the states will quickly become we expect other states to comply with our laws and will demand federal action to guarantee it and one only needs to look at the Fugitive Slave Act to highlight the very real constitutional challenge before us.

Slavery remains a moral stain on the history of the republic. It demonstrated the weaknesses of American federalism when faced with fundamental issues of human rights. Even as individual states chose different paths on slavery, the question of how to manage relations between slave and free states, and what to do about people who traveled across state lines, became a persistent problem. The Fugitive Slave Act, a revision of a 1793 statute enacted as part of the Compromise of 1850, aimed to offer a legal solution. It allowed California to enter the Union as a free state, but required all states, even those that did not allow slavery within their boundaries, to cooperate with the forcible return of escaped enslaved people.

Moral and legal complexities multiplied. There was the internal warfare of bleeding Kansas where pro- and antislavery militias fought for control of the territory, and the barbarity of the Dred Scott decision, which denied enslaved people human rights even if they lived in free states. Allowing slavery anywhere required protecting it everywhere. Subsequent compromises that favored popular sovereignty, allowing local majorities to endorse or reject slavery, never satisfied pro-slavery factions if they lost out, and antislavery states proved reluctant to help slave catchers.

Federalism did more to exacerbate regional divisions on slavery than solve them. This is the context for Abraham Lincolns proclamation that the nation could not continue half slave and half free. Indeed, when South Carolina announced its decision to secede in December 1860, its grievances included the charge that the federal government had not done enough to ensure that all states enforced the Fugitive Slave Act. Denouncing an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the Institution of Slavery, which led to a disregard of their obligations, South Carolinians claimed the northern states had essentially canceled the Constitution. By this logic, there could be no guarantee of any states rights unless other states respected and supported them. Enforcement of state laws could not end at the state line.

State legislation of abortion could easily create similar paradoxes, especially considering the mobility of people, ideas and goods in our globally linked world. Citizens in a state that bans abortion could travel to other states for the procedure, if they have the means. Gov. Gavin Newsom has made it clear that California will welcome out-of-state patients and Connecticut has already passed a new law protecting medical providers who treat patients from other states. Some large employers, such as Tesla, have recently signaled their willingness to support employees who need to travel to another state for medical care.

Yet the drafters of Mississippis abortion law did not go to all this trouble to overturn Roe vs. Wade just see it persist elsewhere. Texas antiabortion law already criminalizes aid to women who want an abortion does that include those who provide travel assistance to a more permissive state? What if a resident of a state that allows abortion has a medical emergency while visiting a restrictive state and cannot travel home?

Floridas recent struggle with Walt Disney Co. after its leadership spoke out against the so-called Dont Say Gay bill indicates how states might deal with businesses that challenge their abortion legislation. Furthermore, in an era when medication abortions already make up more than half of the U.S. total, what happens when a state forbids its citizens from ordering such drugs by mail or seeking consultations by telemedicine with a practitioner in a permissive state?

The paradox of states eventually demanding federal recognition and support for their particular laws applies to more than just abortion. In the 20th century, locale-by-locale alcohol prohibition led to a constitutional amendment (and then to its repeal); marijuana laws and gun rights raise similar problems today. States struggle to manage different local laws on issues with which people deeply disagree, as do citizens, especially if they regularly travel from one jurisdiction to another.

Federalism, which allows individual states to become laboratories of democracy by experimenting with different approaches to public problems, is one of the great strengths of our constitutional order. But the republic has to guarantee some baseline rights shared by all citizens, which imposes limitations on how widely states can diverge.

There are few options for resolving conflicts among state laws. The Constitution can be amended, which takes time and requires a great deal of consensus. Or Congress can pass national legislation. If neither happens the issue lands at the Supreme Court.

That was the reality that led to Roe in the first place, and it has not changed. Tossing the issue back to the states, as the Alito draft proposes, will not bring the country any closer to a resolution on abortion rights it will just open up 50 new fronts in the fight. The formal decision on Dobbs will not be the last federal word on abortion. This isnt the end of the controversy; were barely at the start.

Ronald J. Granieri is a history professor at the U.S. Army War College and a fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute. His personal opinion does not necessarily reflect that of the U.S. Army or the Department of Defense.

Continue reading here:

Op-Ed: Leave abortion law to the states? Just look at the Fugitive Slave Act to see how that will go - Los Angeles Times

In reaction to the volatile events of the last few weeks, both the stock and cryptocurrency markets have taken a deep dive. While this downturn is distressing to many, it has emboldened progressive politicians and activists whose motto is never let a crisis go to waste.

Critics of cryptocurrency have doubled down on their calls for heavy-handed regulation. They have seized on the struggles of stablecoin TerraUSD UST (UST), which has fallen from its $1 peg to its current price of around 8 cents. TerraUSDs instability is yet another reason we must closely regulate stablecoins and other cryptocurrencies, proclaimed Senate Banking Committee Chairman Sherrod Brown in a statement quoted by Politico.

Yet there are some important facts to keep in mind before we rush into panic-driven regulation. One is that TerraUSD appears to be an outlier among stablecoins cryptocurrencies pegged to hard assets such as the dollar and nearly all of the leading stablecoins have so far held their value.

As listed on CoinMarketCap as of this writing, the top stablecoins by volume and market cap including USD Coin USDC (USDC) and Pax Dollar (USDP) are staying at their price peg of $1 per unit. Paul Jossey, cryptocurrency attorney and adjunct fellow at my organization, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, notes that it is remarkable that so many stablecoins have proved resilient despite the dives in prices for stocks and ordinary cryptocurrencies.

Further, regulation that is arbitrary and overly burdensome actually adds volatility to the cryptocurrency and stablecoin markets. As I wrote in a 2019 paper on cryptocurrency, Protecting entrepreneurs from government overreach is important not only to ensure that society gains from beneficial innovation, but also to moderate the kind of volatility that arises from government intervention.

For instance, when China banned certain cryptocurrency exchanges in 2018, the price of Bitcoin BTC (BTC) dropped 10 percent in one day. When China declared virtually all private cryptocurrency activity illegal last September, Bitcoin dropped 5 percent and Ether (ETH) dropped 7 percent.

Arbitrary regulatory crackdowns in the U.S. have had similar negative effects on the cryptocurrency market. When the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) threatened various punitive actions against cryptocurrencies as an asset class in January and February of 2018, Bitcoins price plummeted by 36 percent.

Currently, the arbitrary regulation by enforcement in which the SEC deems cryptocurrencies as securities without authority from Congress or even formal rulemaking also creates uncertainty that weighs down the markets. As does the stifling regulatory framework for stablecoins proposed last fall in the report of the Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets (PWG) that would effectively limit stablecoin issuance to large banks.

The volatility in the crypto and stablecoin markets should indeed get the proverbial ball moving forward on regulatory policy, but with a focus on the right type of regulation. Policymakers should start designing a regulatory framework that focuses on disclosure and the prevention and punishment of fraud but otherwise leaves consumers, entrepreneurs, and investors free to make their own choices and take their own risks. They should also utilize the concepts of competitive federalism and competitive regulation to give stablecoin buyers and issuers the choice of a primary regulator.

Draft legislation from Senate Banking Committee Chairman Pat Toomey (R-PA) is a big step in the right direction. Toomeys Stablecoin Transparency of Reserves and Uniform Safe Transactions (Stablecoin TRUST) Act creates a regulatory framework that zooms in on disclosure and preventing fraud yet preserves and enhances competition and choice in the stablecoin market.

Under Toomeys bill, most stablecoin issuers would be required to disclose the precise assets that back the stablecoin and how the redemptions work. In return, the issuers could operate with their choice of primary regulator and with limits on the authority of other regulatory agencies over their businesses.

The bill allows stablecoin issuers to either choose a federal license from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency or a money transmitting or other stablecoin-issuing license from a state. The bill also allows banks to issue stablecoins that meet the disclosure requirements if they create legal entities for the stablecoins separated from depositor funds.

Issuers who meet these requirements will be shielded from arbitrary actions by the SEC, as the bill explicitly bars the SEC from regulating these stablecoins as securities. This would greatly reduce regulatory uncertainty, as the SEC has taken the position that virtually any circulating cryptocurrency may be deemed a security and be subject to many of the regulations that have driven companies away from the stock market.

The bills giving stablecoin issuers the choice of receiving their licenses or charters from the federal government or the states is consistent with the system of competitive federalism envisioned by the Constitutions framers. As George Mason University Law Professor and CEI board member Michael Greve writes in his book Real Federalism, Real federalism aims to provide citizens with choices among different sovereigns [and] regulatory regimes.

My CEI colleagues and I have called for bolstering the optional federal chartering that exists for banking and utilizing it for small-dollar lending and insurance. Such a system would also be the best approach for regulation of the frontier industry of stablecoins.

It is especially important that the federal government not be the sole licensor for stablecoins given the dearth of its approval for new or de novo bank charters since the Obama administration. As I have written, the federal government only approved one new bank from 2010 to 2015, and only a handful since then. This type of bureaucratic backlog creates a risk of stagnation in an already troubled economy.

In uncertain and volatile times, created in significant part by government spending and shutdowns and lockdowns of businesses, its more important than ever to not add more chaos to cryptocurrency or any other sector with sweeping and unfocused regulation. Instead, policymakers must create regulatory frameworks that are stable applications of the rule of law.

John Berlau is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and author of the book George Washington, Entrepreneur: How Our Founding Fathers Private Business Pursuits Changed America and the Word

Former Competitive Enterprise Institute Research Associate Christian Johannessen contributed to this column.

Read the original:

Panic-Driven Crypto & Stablecoin Regulation Would Create Further Instability - Forbes

FRONT PAGE

SC: GST panel proposals not binding, can disrupt fiscal federalism

Syllabus:

Preliminary Examination: Economic and Social Development and Indian Polity and Governance

Mains Examination:

General Studies II: Functions and responsibilities of the Union and the States, issues and challenges pertaining to the federal structure, devolution of powers and finances up to local levels and challenges therein

General Studies III: Inclusive growth and issues arising from it.

Key Points to Ponder:

What is The Goods and Services Tax (GST)?

The Kelkar Task Force on the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management (FRBM) Act, 2003 and the Genesis of Goods and Services Tax (GST)

Goods and Services Tax (GST) and 101st Amendment Act, 2016-Know in detail

What are the different types of Goods and Services Tax (GST)?

Know the differences between Central GST (CGST), State GST (SGST), Union territory GST (UTGST) and Integrated GST (IGST)

How would a particular transaction of goods and services be taxed simultaneously under Central GST (CGST) and State GST (SGST)?

What are the benefits of Goods and Services Tax (GST) in India?

Goods and Services Tax (GST)-Issues and Challenges

GST Council and Article 279A of the Constitution-Key Provisions

GST Council and Members-Know in detail

What is the role of GST Council?

What is the nature of Federalism in India?

Important features of Indian federalism-Know in detail

The Constitution of India provides for a federal system of government, But the term federation has nowhere been used in the Constitution-True or False?

What Supreme Court of India said on Federalism in India in Union of India and Anr versus M/s Mohit Minerals Through Director case?

What observations did the Supreme Court made on the GST Council and on countrys federal structure? (Hint: Recommendations of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Council cannot be binding on the Centre and states and many more)

Another definition of Federalism given by Supreme Court in todays Verdict-Federalism In India is a dialogue in which the states and the Centre constantly engage in conversations, and though the Constitution confers the Union with a higher share of power in certain situations to prevent chaos and provide security, the states can still resist the mandates of the Union by using different forms of political contestation

The relationship between two constituent units that are not autonomous but rely on each other for their functioning is not in practice always collaborative or cooperative-Decode the quote

Remember this Statement-The federal system, the court said, is a means to accommodate the needs of a pluralistic society to function in a democratic manner. It attempts to reconcile the desire of unity and commonality along with the desire for diversity and autonomy.

Decode the quote- Democracy and federalism are interdependent on each other for their survival such that federalism would only be stable in well-functioning democracies.

Competitive Federalism Cooperative Federalism and Fiscal Federalism are very much in news. What do you understand by these terms in Indian Scenario?

Other Important Articles Covering the same topic:

Explained: The SC ruling that GST Council decisions are not binding on Centre or states

12 Different Types of Federalism (with Examples and Pros & Cons)

The Paradox of Centralised Federalism: An Analysis of the Challenges to Indias Federal Design

After NGT notice, Govt forest panel seeks report on Arunachal projects

Syllabus:

Preliminary Examination: General issues on Environmental ecology, Bio-diversity and Climate Change

Main Examination: General Studies III: Conservation, environmental pollution and degradation, environmental impact assessment.

Key Points to Ponder:

Locate on Map: Dibang multipurpose project, Lower Subansiri hydel project, Etalin dam Project

Locate on Map: Dibang and Subansiri, Rivers (Source, Location etc.)

What do you understand by the term Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)?

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Environment Protection Act, 1986-How they are related with each other?

Why Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is Important?

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and India-connect the Dots

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Rules Amendment, 2006-Key features

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) notification 2020-Key Highlights

Environmental Impact Assessment-Achievements, Issues and Challenges

Supreme court of India on Environment Impact Assessment (ex-post facto environmental clearance)

Other Important Articles Covering the same topic:

Cabinet set deadline for Ken-Betwa link before it got clearances in place

Ignoring green commitments: Weak political will, lack of a monitoring system

For safety of Gaganyaan crew, ISRO will simulate failure with abort missions

Syllabus:

Preliminary Examination: Current events of national and international importance.

Mains Examination: General Studies III: Awareness in the fields of IT, Space, Computers, robotics, nano-technology, bio-technology and issues relating to intellectual property rights.

Key Points to Ponder:

Gaganyaan Mission-Know the key features

Gaganyaan Mission-What makes this Mission very Unique?

Indias Manned Mission to Space-Know in detail

Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO)-About the Organisation

Other Important Articles Covering the same topic:

Gaganyaan: Second unmanned mission planned in 2022-23 followed by human spaceflight, says govt

Pvt players in space sector can boost defence, manufacturing

THE CITY

MCD merger: No clarity on staff status, functioning yet, say officials

Syllabus:

Preliminary Examination: Indian Polity and Governance

Mains Examination: General Studies II: Devolution of powers and finances up to local levels and challenges therein.

Key Points to Ponder:

Delhi Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 2022-Key Highlights

The Municipal Corporation of Delhi Trifurcation in 2012

North Delhi Municipal Corporation, the South Delhi Municipal Corporation and the East Delhi Municipal Corporation-Know their role and functions

Unification or merger of the three Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCDs)-Opportunities, Issues and Challenges

What is the difference between Municipal corporation, Municipality, Notified area committee, Cantonment board, Township and Special purpose Agency?

Know in Detail-74th amendment act (Municipalities) and Articles 243-P to 243-ZG.

Other Important Articles Covering the same topic:

Explained: What the BJP hopes to gain by merging Delhis three MCD

Explained: What will change with the reunification of the MCDs in Delhi?

GOVT & POLITICS

Commitments on territorial integrity must be met: EAM

Syllabus:

Preliminary Examination: Current events of national and international importance.

Mains Examination: General Studies II: Bilateral, regional and global groupings and agreements involving India and/or affecting Indias Interest

Key Points to Ponder:

Ukraine-Russia War and its impact on BRICS?

India maintained its balancing act on Ukraine and Highlighted certain key points as it attended the BRICS meeting recently. what were they?

Evolution of BRICS from Russia-China (RC) to Russia-India-China (RIC) to Brazil- Russia-India-China (BRIC) to Brazil-Russia-India-China-South Africa (BRICS)

What is Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS)?

BRICS Development Bank-Key Features

Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS) Economy-Key Features

RIC (Russia-India-China) out of BRICS-Significance and Stature in World Politics?

Why BRICS Matters?

Other Important Articles Covering the same topic:

Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS)

Why BRICS Still Matters

EXPRESS NETWORK

Rlys, IIT-Madras to develop Hyperloop

Link:

UPSC CSE Key May 20, 2022: What you need to read today - The Indian Express