{"id":100097,"date":"2024-07-05T12:01:20","date_gmt":"2024-07-05T06:31:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.practicemock.com\/blog\/?p=100097"},"modified":"2024-07-05T12:01:21","modified_gmt":"2024-07-05T06:31:21","slug":"the-hindu-editorial-vocabulary-5th-july-2024","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.practicemock.com\/blog\/the-hindu-editorial-vocabulary-5th-july-2024\/","title":{"rendered":"The Hindu Editorial Vocabulary 5th July 2024"},"content":{"rendered":"
Home<\/a><\/span> \u00bb Vocabulary<\/a><\/span> \u00bb The Hindu Editorial Vocabulary 5th July 2024<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n\n\n

The Hindu Editorial Vocabulary 5th July 2024 is an effective tool for learning new words and their contextual meanings regularly. Candidates can get this resource for free to improve their vocabulary knowledge preparing for government exams.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
Signup & Get a Free Mock Test To Test Your Performance<\/strong><\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hindu Vocab On US President & Majority Ruling in USA Politics <\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The majority ruling by the United States Supreme Court that the\u00a0President has either absolute or presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution (the act of taking part in a planned set of activities, especially a war<\/strong>)\u00a0<\/strong>raises disconcerting questions about the supremacy of the rule of law in the country. In a ruling based mainly on the doctrine of separation of powers and the need to insulate the Presidency from the fear of future prosecutions, and not the text of the U.S. Constitution, the court, dominated by conservative justices, by 6:3 majority has ruled in favour of presidential immunity. The verdict (an opinion or decision made after judging the facts that are given, especially one made at the end of a trial<\/strong>) <\/strong>does not decide whether former President Donald J. Trump will enjoy immunity from prosecution for allegedly (say that someone has done something illegal or wrong without giving proof<\/strong>) <\/strong>trying to interfere with or alter the outcome (a result or effect of an action, situation, etc<\/strong>) <\/strong>of the November 2020 presidential elections that he lost to Joe Biden. Instead, it lays down a threshold test for any intended prosecution of a President to see whether the act complained of involved the exercise of a core constitutional duty, or was an official or unofficial act. In respect of a President\u2019s core constitutional duties, the immunity is absolute; for other official acts, he enjoys presumptive immunity, that is, he is presumed to be immune unless rebutted by facts; and for unofficial or private acts, there is no immunity at all. For official acts, any prosecution is permissible (allowed<\/strong>) <\/strong>only if it does not intrude into the power and authority of the executive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The majority has remanded issues that arise in the prosecution of Mr. Trump for his attempts to influence the electoral outcome, culminating in the\u00a0January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol, to the trial court for analysis based on this ruling. The dissenting views speak with moral clarity when they question the claim that only immunity (a situation in which you are protected against disease or from legal action<\/strong>) <\/strong>from criminal prosecution can enable a President to function in an unhesitating and bold manner. While it is valid to argue that the President should be free from intrusive (affecting someone in a way that annoys them and makes them feel uncomfortable<\/strong>) <\/strong>probes and fear of trivial prosecution, it is inconceivable that such a powerful office should come with little accountability and the freedom to violate criminal law. Critics of the verdict see great peril for democracy in its implications. As the dissent asks, can a President take a bribe in lieu of a pardon, or authorise a rival\u2019s assassination? The majority wants to protect the Presidency from any intrusion in the name of criminal prosecution, but what it fails to see is that Mr. Trump\u2019s actions may have been destructive (the act of destroying something, or the fact of being destroyed<\/strong>) <\/strong>of his successor\u2019s Presidency. While there is a passing mention of the possibility that he may have been acting in his capacity as a candidate or a party leader in some instances<\/strong> (a particular situation, event, or fact, especially an example of something that happens generally<\/strong>), it is astonishing that the verdict allows the use of the presidency as a shield (something or someone used as protection or providing protection<\/strong>) <\/strong>even in matters that solely concern the election process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
Signup & Get a Free Mock Test To Assess Your Performance<\/strong><\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hindu Vocab Wordlist 5th July 2024<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Upskill yourself and enhance your vocabulary knowledge. Candidates should begin learning new words daily with Hindu Editorial Vocabulary 5th July 2024.<\/p>\n\n\n\n