national constitution day essay in english

Essay on National Constitution Day for Students and Children

500+ words essay on national constitution day.

We celebrate National Constitution Day or Samvidhan Divas on 26 th November every year. The significance of this day is that on this day in the year 1949, the Constituent Assembly of India adopted the Constitution of India . However, the Constitution of India came into force on 26 th January 1950. We celebrate 26 th January as Republic Day every year.

Declaration of National Constitution Day

On 11 th October 2015, while laying the foundation stone of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar’s Statue of Equality memorial at Indu Mills compound, in Mumbai, the Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi made a declaration. On 19 th November 2015, the Government of India officially declared 26 th November as the National Constitution Day by notification in the Gazette.

The year 2015 marks the 125 th birth anniversary of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar . Baba Saheb was the chairman of the drafting committee of the Constituent Assembly. He played a very significant role in the drafting of the Indian Constitution. The idea behind choosing this day to celebrate is to spread the importance of the Constitution as well as the ideas and thoughts of Baba Saheb Ambedkar. It is noteworthy here that previously we celebrated this day as National Law Day.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Celebrations on National Constitution Day

Since the year of 2015 was the 125 th birth anniversary of Baba Saheb Ambedkar, the Government of India decided to celebrate this year in a massive way. For this purpose, a special committee was formed under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi . Various ministries and departments organized various programs throughout the year with a view to spreading the thoughts and ideas of Baba Saheb. However, National Constitution Day is not a public holiday.

The first National Constitution Day was celebrated by the various government departments. According to the instructions of the Department of Education and Literacy , all the students of all the schools, read the preamble of the constitution. The students were also given information about the salient features of the Indian Constitution through lectures in each school.

Also, quiz and essay competitions both online and offline on the constitution of India were organized. As per the instructions of the Department of Higher Education, various universities were asked to arrange mock parliamentary debates in colleges. The University Grants Commission (UGC) also organized an all-India quiz competition at Ambedkar University, Lucknow.

The Ministry of External Affairs also instructed all overseas Indian schools to celebrate 26 th November as National Constitution Day. It asked the embassies to translate the Indian constitution into the local language of that nation and thereafter distribute it to various academies, libraries, and faculties of Indology. The Department of Sport also organized a symbolic run named “Run for Equality”. On 26 th November 2015, there was also held a special session of Parliament in order to give tribute to the constitution and Baba Saheb Ambedkar. Also, on this occasion, the Parliament House was decorated and illuminated.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

Travelling Essay
Picnic Essay
Our Country Essay
My Parents Essay
Essay on Favourite Personality
Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
Essay on Knowledge is Power
Essay on Gurpurab
Essay on My Favourite Season
Essay on Types of Sports

Download the App

National Constitution Day Essay

The Constitution of India was adopted by the Constituent Assembly on 26 th November 1949; though it came into effect only on 26 th January 1950. Hence, the day on which the Constitution was adopted, that is 26 th January, is celebrated as the Constitution Day in India. The day was declared by the Government of India by a gazetted notification issued on 19 th November 2015. Prior to the notification the day was observed as the Law Day. It was implemented to raise the awareness of people on Indian Constitution and its significance. National Constitution Day isn’t a public holiday and various events are organized in schools, colleges and offices to make people familiar with their Constitution.

Long and Short Essay on Constitution Day of India in English

We have provided below short and long essay on constitution Day of India in English. The essays have been written in simple English language, making them easily memorable and presentable on need.

After going through the essays you will have useful information not only on National constitution Day but also on the constitution of India along with questions like – why is national constitution day celebrated, when is the day celebrated, how is it celebrated and its significance etc.

These constitution Day of India essay will be helpful for you during your school assignments on National Constitution Day.

Essay on National Constitution Day – Essay 1 (200 words)

National Constitution Day is a day of pride for every Indian as it is a day to celebrate the adoption of our constitution.

The need to write and incorporate constitution of our own was felt after India got independence from the British rule in August 1947. Everything seemed hay wire back then and there was a dire need to make it all systematic. The Constituent Assembly of India set up a Drafting Committee which was assigned the responsibility of drafting the constitution of the country. The drafting committee worked under the chairmanship of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar.

They drafted the constitution of India after considering the country’s socio economic conditions and various other aspects. The constitution of India came into effect on the 26 th of January 1950; though, it was adopted by the Constituent Assembly on 26 th November 1949.

It was in the year 2015 that it was decided to celebrate November 26 as the constitution Day and commemorate the efforts of our leaders who worked hard to bring our constitution to form. The declaration for the same was made by Prime Minister Narendra Modi on 11 th October 2015 while laying the foundation stone of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Memorial in Mumbai. 26 th November thus became our National Constitution Day.

The day is celebrated in government offices. Speeches are delivered and people congratulate each other for the adoption and implementation of the constitution of the country. Speeches are also delivered in schools to acquaint the young generation with the features of the Indian constitution of our country.

It is indeed a day of national pride.

Essay on Constitution Day of India – Essay 2 (300 words)

Introduction

The constitution of India was drafted on 26 th November 1949 after almost three years (two years and eleven months) of rigorous hard work by the drafting committee. The committee was headed by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar who played a key role in drafting our constitution. The constitution came into effect on 26 th January 1950 which is celebrated as the Republic Day. National Constitution Day is celebrated on 26 th November each year since 2015.

Father of the Indian Constitution and Constitution Drafting Committee Members

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar is known as the Father of the Indian Constitution. A Drafting Committee was set up by the Constituent Assembly to draft the Indian Constitution. This committee comprised of seven members. These were Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, Kanaiyalal Maneklal Munshi, N. Gopalaswami Ayengar, B.L. Mitter, Alladi Krishnaswamy Iyer, Mohammad Saadullah and DP Khaitan. They took various things into account to come up with a constitution that preached to treat everyone equally and set goals for a better nation.

The Constituent Assembly comprised of many prominent leaders who played a key role in the Indian struggle for independence. There were a total of 389 members in the Constituent Assembly. These were reduced to 299 after the partition of India. Rajendra Prasad, Jawaharlal Nehru, Kanaiyalal Maneklal Munshi, Abul Kalam Azad, Nalini Ranjan Ghosh, B.R. Ambedkar, Shyama Prasad Mukherjee and C. Rajagopalachari were among few esteemed members of the Constituent Assembly. They played a major role in building our nation.

A Day Dedicated to Our Constitution

Since the constitution of our country came into form on 26 th November 1949, this date was chosen to celebrate the National Constitution Day. This day is being celebrated since the year 2015 after Prime Minister Narendra Modi came up with the suggestion to dedicate a special day to our constitution.

It is a day of celebration for every Indian citizen. It is celebrated in schools, colleges and government offices.

The Indian constitution gave our country a direction and a sense of responsibility to our leaders. National Constitution Day is a mark of respect to the constitution.

Essay on National Constitution Day – Essay 3 (400 words)

National Constitution Day, also known as Samvidhan Divas, is a day to rejoice the adoption of Constitution of India. It is celebrated on 26 th November every year. While the constitution of our country was implemented back in 1950, it was only recently that it was decided to dedicate a special day to celebrate this big achievement.

National Constitution Day Declaration

The decision to dedicate a special day to our constitution was taken by Prime Minister, Narendra Modi. It was on 11 th October 2015 that PM Modi made this declaration as he laid the foundation stone of the B.R. Ambedkar Memorial in Mumbai. On 19 th November the same year, the Indian Government declared 26 th November as the National Constitution Day via a gazette notification.

2015 was the year when we celebrated Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s 125 th birth anniversary. Ambedkar headed the Drafting Committee for the Indian Constitution. He played a key role in drafting the constitution of our country.

The decision to dedicate a day for the constitution of our country is an attempt to emphasize its importance and the need to follow it. The constitution was laid to ensure a systematic approach to run the country. It gave a sense of direction to the leaders and ensured a fair play. Some of the clauses in the constitution have been amended since then to keep it relevant as per the time. The procedure to amend the constitution has been shared in the constitution of India.

National Constitution Day Celebrations

National constitution day is celebrated in various government offices and schools across India. It is the day to celebrate the adoption of our national constitution. It is not a national holiday. It is a working day for schools as well as offices. However, people in government offices take a break from their routine tasks to celebrate this day.

Speeches are delivered and words of praise are sung in the honour of the Indian constitution. People often get into discussion about the Indian politics on such an occasion. Such discussions and celebrations are a good way to connect with each other.

Many schools also make efforts to organize special event to celebrate this day. Speeches, debates and quiz competitions form a part of National Constitution Day in schools.

A country’s constitution is its pillar of strength. It is the basis of a strong and peaceful society. National Constitution Day is a way to remind us of its importance and celebrate its existence.

Essay on Indian Constitution Day – Essay 4 (500 words)

National Constitution Day came into being in the year 2015. Since then, 26 th November is being celebrated as National Constitution Day. It was Prime Minister Narendra Modi who came up with the idea of celebrating this day as National Constitution Day every year. The idea was welcomed by everyone. The constitution of India was adopted on 26 th November 1949 and hence this date was chosen to celebrate this accomplishment.

The Constitution of India

The Constitution of India was written by a drafting committee that was formed by the Constituent Assembly of India. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar headed this committee. Here are few interesting facts about the Indian Constitution:

The Constitution of India was adopted on 26 th November 1949. It came into effect two months later that is on 26 th January 1950 which is celebrated as the Republic Day.
B.R. Ambedkar is considered as the Father of the Indian Constitution.
It is referred to as a bag of borrowings as different concepts and clauses included in our constitution were directly inspired and taken from the constitutions of various countries including Ireland, France, Japan, South Africa, Australia, Germany, USA, Britain and Russia.
After the drafting committee presented the final draft, more than 2000 amendments were made before it was finally approved. These amendments were made after a lot of discussion.
The Constitution of India was handwritten and carefully calligraphed. It was written in both English and Hindi languages.
The Constitution of India comprises of 448 articles. It has 5 appendices, 12 schedules and 25 parts.
The Constitution was signed by 284 members of the Constituent Assembly on 24 th January 1950. This was just two days before it was enforced.
Indian constitution has undergone 101 amendments since its inception.

Significance of National Constitution Day

National Constitution Day is a day of national importance. It is a day to celebrate the adoption of the constitution of our country. It is also a day to honour and appreciate the committee that worked hard to come up with it. As he declared 26 th November as the Constitution Day of India, PM Modi mentioned that this initiative has been taken to spread awareness about the Indian Constitution. He also said that the schools shall impart knowledge about the constitution of India to the students on this day.

Since, this special day has come into being just around three years ago people are still trying to understand its relevance and importance. While this day is as important as the Republic Day and Independence Day, its significance hasn’t been emphasized as much and it is not celebrated on such a grand scale. However, the fondness for this day is likely to increase over the years as the awareness about this special day grows and as people get to understand the significance of our Constitution.

National Constitution Day is a day of pride for every Indian. It should not just be celebrated in schools and government offices. Events should be organized to celebrate this day at other places as well. After all, it is a day of national importance.

Long Essay on Constitution Day of India – Essay 5 (600 words)

The Constitution of India came into being on 26 th November 1949 and after almost 66 years it was decided to celebrate the day of its adoption. On the suggestion of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, 26 th November was declared as National Constitution Day on 19 th November 2015.

The day is celebrated in various schools, colleges and offices across India since 2015.

National Constitution Day Celebration in My School

National Constitution Day has been celebrated with great enthusiasm in our school since the last three years. This year also a lot of activities were organized to commemorate this day. Everyone took active participation in these activities. The celebrations were as grand as those organized on Republic Day and Independence Day.

Our school was all decked up to celebrate this event. Students were asked to prepare posters of different members of the Drafting Committee of the Indian constitution as well as the Constituent Assembly. Many posters of Indian freedom fighters were also made. All these were pinned up at different places in the school. Famous slogans given by some of our prominent leaders were also written on posters and pasted all around the school. Our teachers made us write the fundamental rights and duties of the Indian citizens and these were hung in our classes.

The idea behind all this was to generate our interest in the Indian Constitution and acquaint us with what it is all about. We have not had a chance to learn much about our constitution as we had not been celebrating this day since long and also because we have not been taught much about it in the school. The concept is new and thus it seems more interesting.

As a part of the celebration, we all assembled in the school auditorium and read the ‘Preamble of Constitution of India’. It was a good start. This was followed by a speech by our principal. She spoke at length about how a special drafting committee consisting of seven members worked hard and came up with the final draft of the Indian constitution after almost three years of rigorous research and efforts.

We learned many new and interesting facts about our constitution through her speech. Many other teachers also stepped forward to talk about the significance of the constitution. This gave us a deep insight into our country’s constitution and made us aware about our fundamental rights and duties as well as various constitutional laws.

After this, it was time for debate competition. The topic for this was the Constitution of India. Many students from the senior classes prepared for this competition. After a heavy dose of debates by several students, it was time for the quiz competition. This was an inter-house competition. I also participated in it along with various other students from different classes. Each team comprised of students from the junior as well as senior classes. We learned a lot about the Constitution of our country in order to do our best in the quiz as all the questions were based on it.

Some students also performed a skit which was very entertaining as well as informative. This was the best part of the event. It was a fun-filled day. We thoroughly enjoyed the celebrations.

National Constitution Day Calls for Grand Celebration

National Constitution Day is an important day as the constitution of our country holds immense importance for us. The celebrations for this day must not be restricted just to schools and government institutions. The Government of India must spread more awareness about this day and its significance and it should be celebrated with enthusiasm across the country.

National Constitution Day has certainly generated the youth’s interest in the constitution of the country. It has also helped them understand its importance and role in building the nation.

Related Information:

Constitution Day

Ambedkar Jayanti

Speech on National Constitution Day

Speech on Constitution of India

Essay on Constitution of India

Slogans on Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar

Dr. Ambedkar Mahaparinirvan Diwas

Essay on Article 370 of Indian Constitution

Speech on Article 370 of Constitution of India

Essay on Article 35A of Indian Constitution

Money essay, music essay, importance of education essay, education essay, newspaper essay, my hobby essay.

Essay on Constitution Day

Students are often asked to write an essay on Constitution Day in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Constitution Day

Introduction.

Constitution Day, also known as Samvidhan Divas, is celebrated every year on November 26th. It is a day of great importance in India’s history.

Significance

On this day in 1949, the Constituent Assembly of India adopted the Constitution. It is the supreme law that governs the country.

Celebrations

Various activities and programs are organized to raise awareness about the Constitution. It helps us understand our rights and duties as citizens.

Constitution Day reminds us of our commitment to uphold the values of our Constitution, promoting unity, integrity, and harmony in the country.

Also check:

Speech on Constitution Day

250 Words Essay on Constitution Day

Constitution Day, also known as National Law Day, is celebrated annually on the 26th of November. This day commemorates the adoption of the Constitution in India. It is a day of great significance, as it acknowledges the efforts taken by our forefathers to establish a democratic republic.

Historical Significance

On November 26, 1949, the Constituent Assembly of India adopted the Constitution, which came into effect on January 26, 1950. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the chairman of the drafting committee, played a pivotal role in its creation. The day emphasizes the value of democracy and the rule of law.

Objective of Constitution Day

The objective of Constitution Day is to promote constitutional values among citizens. It is a day to remember the architects of our Constitution and to reiterate our commitment to uphold its ideals. It also serves to spread awareness about the fundamental rights and duties enshrined in the Constitution.

Observance of Constitution Day

Constitution Day is observed with great fervor across the nation. Activities such as reading the Preamble in schools and colleges, organizing lectures, and debates on constitutional topics are common. These events aim to instill respect for the Constitution and promote democratic values.

Constitution Day is not just a celebration; it is a reminder of our duty to uphold the principles of our Constitution. It is a day to reaffirm our commitment to democracy, justice, equality, and fraternity. As we observe this day, let us pledge to work together to uphold the values enshrined in our Constitution, to ensure a better future for all citizens.

500 Words Essay on Constitution Day

Introduction to constitution day.

Constitution Day, also known as National Law Day, is celebrated annually on the 26th of November in India. This day commemorates the adoption of the Constitution of India, which replaced the Government of India Act (1935) as the governing document of India. The Constitution of India, drafted by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar and his team, came into effect on 26th January 1950. However, it was adopted by the Constituent Assembly on 26th November 1949.

Significance of Constitution Day

The day holds immense significance as it marks the culmination of the hard work of the drafting committee who meticulously crafted the Constitution over a period of 2 years, 11 months, and 18 days. The Constitution of India is not merely a document but the embodiment of the values, hopes, and aspirations of the people of India. It is a beacon of democracy, securing to all its citizens justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity. It is the supreme law of the land, providing the framework for the political, legal, and social systems in India.

Constitution Day was first observed in 2015 as part of a year-long celebration of the 125th birth anniversary of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, the Chairman of the Drafting Committee. The day is observed by reading the Preamble of the Constitution in schools, colleges, and other public institutions. It is a day to reflect on the journey of India as a democratic republic and to reiterate our commitment to upholding the values enshrined in the Constitution.

The Constitution: A Living Document

The Constitution of India is often referred to as a ‘living document’ because of its ability to adapt and evolve with changing times. It has been amended 104 times since its inception, demonstrating its flexibility to meet the changing needs of a diverse and dynamic society. It guarantees fundamental rights to all citizens and outlines the duties and responsibilities of the government and its citizens.

Constitution Day is a reminder of our duty to uphold and protect the principles of our Constitution. It is a day to celebrate our democratic heritage and to acknowledge the role of the Constitution in shaping the destiny of the nation. It is a day to pay tribute to the visionaries who drafted this magnificent document and to reaffirm our faith in the values it embodies. As we celebrate Constitution Day, let us pledge to uphold the constitutional ideals and values and strive to build an inclusive and just society.

In the words of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, “Constitution is not a mere lawyers document, it is a vehicle of Life, and its spirit is always the spirit of Age.” On this day, let us remember these words and strive to live by them.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

Essay on Tiger Conservation
Essay on Soil Conservation
Essay on Importance of Water Conservation

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Meet top uk universities from the comfort of your home, here’s your new year gift, one app for all your, study abroad needs, start your journey, track your progress, grow with the community and so much more.

national constitution day essay in english

Verification Code

An OTP has been sent to your registered mobile no. Please verify

Thanks for your comment !

Our team will review it before it's shown to our readers.

Trending Events /

National Constitution Day: Date, History, and Significance

Updated on
Nov 21, 2023

National Constitution Day popularly known as Samvidhan Diwas is celebrated on 26 November annually to commemorate the adoption of the Constitution of India. Dr Bhimroa Ramji Amdebkar, who was the Minister of Law and Justice, presented the draft of the Constitution of India on 4 November 1948 in the Constituent Assembly. The Constitution of India came into effect on 26 January 1950. The Indian constitution serves as the law of the country and consists of fundamental rights and duties as well as an official structure of the government. Continue reading to learn more about National Constitution Day, its date, history, and significance!

Also Read: The Making of the Indian Constitution

This Blog Includes:

When is constitution day celebrated in india, why is 26 november celebrated as constitution day in india, what is the significance of the constitution day, preamble of the constitution of india.

Source: StudyIQ IAS

The National Constitution Day is celebrated on 26 November every year to commemorate the adoption of the Constitution of India drafted by Dr BR Ambedkar. In 2015, the Government of India declared 26 November officially as the Constitution Day.

At that time, the Government was led by the BJP party and the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi. He announced that 26 November would be celebrated as National Constitution Day while he laid the foundation stone of the statue of Dr BR Ambedkar in Mumbai. The Gazette released the official notification regarding this special day on 19 November.

The First Constitution Day of India was celebrated on 26 November 2015, after its declaration on 19 November 2015.

Kajal Thareja

Hi, I am Kajal, a pharmacy graduate, currently pursuing management and is an experienced content writer. I have 2-years of writing experience in Ed-tech (digital marketing) company. I am passionate towards writing blogs and am on the path of discovering true potential professionally in the field of content marketing. I am engaged in writing creative content for students which is simple yet creative and engaging and leaves an impact on the reader's mind.

Connect With Us

25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today.

Resend OTP in

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

January 2024

September 2024

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

Have something on your mind?

Make your study abroad dream a reality in January 2022 with

India's Biggest Virtual University Fair

Essex Direct Admission Day

Why attend .

Don't Miss Out

Essay on National Constitution Day | Essays for Class 8 PDF Download

Top Courses for Class 8

Mock tests for examination, semester notes, past year papers, extra questions, important questions, viva questions, practice quizzes, shortcuts and tricks, sample paper, objective type questions, essay on national constitution day | essays for class 8, previous year questions with solutions, video lectures, study material.

Essay on National Constitution Day Free PDF Download

Importance of essay on national constitution day, essay on national constitution day notes, essay on national constitution day class 8 questions, study essay on national constitution day on the app, welcome back, create your account for free.

Forgot Password

Unattempted tests, change country.

Essay on National Constitution Day for Students & Children in English

National constitution day essay.

National Constitution Day, also known as National Law Day or Samvidhan Diwas, is observed annually on November 26th to commemorate the promulgation of the Indian Constitution. Republic Day is observed on 26 January 1950, the date on which India’s constitution was formally implemented in practise.

Our constitution dates all the way back to before 1947, when we declared independence from the British. When the Quit India Movement and India’s freedom war began, lawyers and other intellectuals in the country, led by Dr BR Ambedkar, began preparing the Indian constitution.

There is a two-month gap between National Constitution Day and Republic Day, and during this time period, India’s massive constitution was thoroughly reviewed and translated from English to Hindi and other languages. At the time, the legislature met for around 11 months before adopting the constitution on national constitution day. The constitution was fully approved in 1950, following its passage and acceptance by India’s constituent parliament. When the constitution was enacted on January 26th, many critics expressed reservations, and problems concerning language, rights, minorities, and the entire political system were debated in Parliament and throughout the country.

Please enable JavaScript

In 2015, the 26th November was designated as Constitution Day to commemorate the 125th birth anniversary of Dr BR Ambedkar, the father of the Indian Constitution. This day honours BR Ambedkar as well as the values embodied in the Indian Constitution. Ambedkar was a well-known politician, jurist, and reformer who served as a sort of gladiator for India’s underprivileged sections and is thus rightfully referred to as the “father of the Indian constitution” because he headed the constitution’s drafting committee on August 29th, 1947, just days after India gained independence.

The Indian Constitution is one of the largest in the world, as its creator drew inspiration from the American, British, and Japanese constitutions. One may argue that the Indian Constitution is a synthesis of the world’s best constitutions. The Indian Constitution provides and guarantees a limited number of fundamental rights to citizens, which the state and federal governments are responsible for implementing in practise and spirit. Any attack on the nation’s democratic and secular fabric should be opposed, because undermining India’s democracy undermines the country’s constitution.

To end, I would like to mention that the constitution is the soul of the country and the only book that Indian institutions such as the Supreme Court, the assembly, and the various state and district administrations should consult. There is no substitute for India’s constitution, and it is the supreme authority under which the Indian government should operate. When the Indian constitution is not implemented in spirit and in practise, a government or a country crosses the line into fascism and authoritarianism.

Discover more from Smart English Notes

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Type your email…

Essay On National Constitution Day In English For Student And Children

Essay On National Constitution Day In English The Constituent Assembly of India adopted the Indian Constitution on November 26, 1949, but it wasn’t until January 26, 1950 that it actually took effect. As a result, India celebrates January 26, the day the Constitution was adopted, as Constitution Day. The day was established by the Indian government in a gazetted notification published on November 19, 2015. The day had previously been recognised as Law Day. It was put into place to increase public understanding of the Indian Constitution and its importance. No national holiday is observed on National Constitution Day, but a number of activities are planned in classrooms, institutions, and workplaces to help people become more familiar with their Constitution.

Essay On National Constitution Day In English

Essay on national constitution day in english (100 words).

Celebration of National Constitution Day at My School

Since the past three years, our school has enthusiastically observed National Constitution Day. A number of events were planned to honour this day this year as well. Everyone engaged in these activities actively. The events planned for the celebrations were on par with those for Republic Day and Independence Day.

Essay On Female Foeticide In English

For this celebration, our school was decked out in its finest. Students were invited to create posters depicting various Constituent Assembly and Drafting Committee members of the Indian Constitution. Also created were numerous posters honouring Indian freedom heroes. These were all posted at various locations throughout the school. Famous quotes from some of our well-known leaders were also put down on posters and stuck all over the school.

Essay On National Constitution Day In English (200 Words)

Every Indian should be proud of themselves on National Constitution Day because it commemorates the adoption of our constitution.

After India gained independence from British rule in August 1947, we felt the need to draught and enact our own constitution. Back then, everything appeared out of control, therefore it was imperative to organise everything. A Drafting Committee was established by the Indian Constituent Assembly, and it was tasked with writing the nation’s constitution. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar served as the chairman of the drafting committee.

They took into account the socioeconomic situation of the nation as well as a number of other factors when drafting the Indian constitution. Despite being adopted by the Constituent Assembly on November 26, 1949, the Indian Constitution took effect on January 26, 1950.

In order to honour the sacrifices of our leaders who laboured arduously to bring our constitution into being, it was agreed to observe November 26 as Constitution Day in 2015. The declaration was delivered by Prime Minister Narendra Modi on October 11, 2015, in Mumbai, during the laying of the cornerstone for the Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Memorial. As a result, November 26 was designated as National Constitution Day.

The holiday is observed in government buildings. People give speeches and congratulate one another on the country’s constitution’s adoption and implementation. Additionally, speeches are given in classrooms to introduce the Indian constitution to the younger generation.

Essay On National Constitution Day In English (300 Words)

The drafting committee worked tirelessly for nearly three years (two years and eleven months), finishing the Indian Constitution on November 26, 1949. The committee was led by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, who was a significant contributor to the creation of our constitution. The Republic Day holiday is observed on January 26, 1950, the day the constitution went into effect. Since 2015, National Constitution Day has been observed on November 26.

Essay On Issues and Problems faced by Women In India In English

Father of the Indian Constitution, as well as members of the Constitutional Drafting Committee

The Indian Constitution is credited to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, who holds this title. The Constituent Assembly established a Drafting Committee to write the Indian Constitution. This committee had seven people on it. These were Mohammad Saadullah, DP Khaitan, Alladi Krishnaswamy Iyer, Kanaiyalal Maneklal Munshi, N. Gopalaswami Ayengar, and Dr. B. R. Ambedkar. They took several factors into consideration to draught a constitution that emphasised treating everyone equally and establishing goals for a better country.

There were many well-known figures in the Constituent Assembly who were instrumental in the independence movement in India. The Constituent Assembly had 389 members in total. Following the partition of India, these were lowered to 299 instead. Among the distinguished members of the Constituent Assembly were Rajendra Prasad, Jawaharlal Nehru, Kanaiyalal Maneklal Munshi, Abul Kalam Azad, Nalini Ranjan Ghosh, B.R. Ambedkar, Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, and C. Rajagopalachari. They were crucial in the development of our country.

Day Honoring Our Constitution

Since our nation’s constitution was created on November 26, 1949, this day has been designated as National Constitution Day. Since Prime Minister Narendra Modi proposed designating a special day to honour our constitution in 2015, this day has been observed.

Every Indian citizen should celebrate today. Schools, colleges, and government buildings all celebrate it.

Its nation now has a direction and a sense of duty toward our leaders thanks to the Indian constitution. The celebration of National Constitution Day honours the document.

Essay On Violence against Women in India In English

Essay On National Constitution Day In English (400 Words)

Samvidhan Divas, sometimes referred to as National Constitution Day, is a celebration of the Indian Constitution’s adoption. Every year on November 26th, people commemorate it. Although our nation’s constitution was put into effect in 1950, it wasn’t until recently that the decision was made to designate a particular day to commemorate this significant accomplishment.

Declaration of National Constitution Day

Prime Minister Narendra Modi made the choice to honour our constitution on a particular day. On October 11, 2015, Prime Minister Modi made this proclamation while laying the cornerstone for the B.R. Ambedkar Memorial in Mumbai. The same year, the Indian government published a gazette notification designating November 26 as National Constitution Day.

The 125th anniversary of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s birth was commemorated in 2015. The Indian Constitution’s Drafting Committee was led by Ambedkar. He was a crucial contributor to the creation of our nation’s constitution.

The choice to designate a day to honour our nation’s constitution is an effort to highlight its significance and the necessity of upholding it. The constitution was established to provide a methodical approach to managing the nation. It ensured fair play and gave the leaders a sense of direction. Since then, some of the constitution’s provisions have been changed to keep it current. The Indian Constitution outlines the process for amending a constitution.

Celebrations on National Constitution Day

In India, national constitution day is observed in a number of government buildings and educational institutions. It is a day to honour the passing of our country’s constitution. This day is not a federal holiday. Both offices and schools are open for business today. To celebrate this day, however, employees in government buildings take a break from their regular duties.

In honour of the Indian constitution, speeches and songs of adoration are made. On such an occasion, discussions about Indian politics are common. These gatherings for conversations and festivities let people get to know one another.

Additionally, many schools make an effort to plan unique events to honour this day. On National Constitution Day, speeches, discussions, and quizzes are held in schools.

The constitution is the cornerstone of a nation. It serves as the cornerstone of a stable society. The celebration of National Constitution Day serves to underscore its significance and highlight its presence. Youth interest in the nation’s constitution has undoubtedly increased as a result of National Constitution Day. They now comprehend its significance and contribution to the formation of the nation.

Essay On National Constitution Day In English (500 Words)

In 2015, National Constitution Day was established. Since that time, National Constitution Day is observed on November 26. Narendra Modi, the prime minister, proposed designating this day as National Constitution Day each year. Everyone approved of the concept. The 26th of November 1949 saw the adoption of India’s constitution, hence it was chosen as the day to honour this achievement.

Essay On Hindi Diwas In English

The Indian Constitution was adopted on November 26, 1949, and over 66 years later it was chosen to commemorate the occasion. On November 19, 2015, the 26th of November was proclaimed National Constitution Day at the initiative of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

The Indian Constitution

The Constituent Assembly of India established a drafting committee, which wrote the Indian Constitution. This committee was chaired by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. A few intriguing details of the Indian Constitution are as follows:

The 26th of November 1949 saw the adoption of the Indian Constitution. It became effective two months later, on January 26, 1950, which is recognised as Republic Day. The Indian Constitution is credited to B.R. Ambedkar as its founder. The phrase “bag of borrowings” refers to the fact that numerous ideas and provisions in our constitution were directly derived from those of other nations, including Ireland, France, Japan, South Africa, Australia, Germany, the United States, Britain, and Russia. More than 2000 changes were made after the drafting committee delivered the final text before it was finally accepted. These changes were made following lengthy discussion. The Indian Constitution was meticulously calligraphed by hand. It was written in both Hindi and English. India’s Constitution consists of 448 articles. It comprises 25 parts, 12 schedules, and 5 appendices. On January 24, 1950, 284 members of the Constituent Assembly ratified the Constitution. Just two days later, it was put into effect. Since it was first enacted, the Indian Constitution has undergone 101 modifications. National Constitution Day’s importance

A day of national significance is National Constitution Day. Today is a day to commemorate the ratification of our nation’s constitution. It is also a day to recognise and give thanks to the committee that put a lot of effort into coming up with it. As he proclaimed November 26 as India’s Constitution Day, Prime Minister Modi said that the goal of this endeavour is to raise awareness of the Indian Constitution. Additionally, he stated that on this day, pupils would learn about the Indian Constitution in their schools.

Since this particular day was created only around three years ago, people are still attempting to comprehend its significance. Although this day is just as significant as Republic Day and Independence Day, it hasn’t received as much attention or isn’t as widely observed. However, as people become more aware of this important day and as they come to appreciate the importance of our Constitution, the appreciation for this day is sure to grow with time.

Every Indian celebrates National Constitution Day as a day of pride. Not just at schools and government buildings should it be observed. There should be celebrations on this day planned elsewhere as well. It is after all a day of national significance.

Essay on National Constitution Day in English for Children and Students

Table of Contents

Essay on National Constitution Day: The Constitution of India was adopted by the Constituent Assembly on 26 th November 1949; though it came into effect only on 26 th January 1950. Hence, the day on which the Constitution was adopted, that is 26 th January, is celebrated as the Constitution Day in India. The day was declared by the Government of India by a gazetted notification issued on 19 th November 2015. Prior to the notification the day was observed as the Law Day. It was implemented to raise the awareness of people on Indian Constitution and its significance. National Constitution Day isn’t a public holiday and various events are organized in schools, colleges and offices to make people familiar with their Constitution.

Fill Out the Form for Expert Academic Guidance!

Please indicate your interest Live Classes Books Test Series Self Learning

Verify OTP Code (required)

I agree to the terms and conditions and privacy policy .

Fill complete details

Target Exam ---

On November 26, 2015, Constitution Day was observed in honor of Dr. BR Ambedkar, the architect of the Indian Constitution, on his 125th birth anniversary. This special day pays tribute to Dr. Ambedkar and the principles that underpin the foundation of India.

Long and Short Essay on National Constitution Day of India in English

We have provided below short and long essay on constitution Day of India in English. The essays have been written in simple English language, making them easily memorable and presentable on need.

These constitution Day of India essay will be helpful for you during your school assignments on National Constitution Day.

Essay on National Constitution Day in 200 words

National Constitution Day is a day of pride for every Indian as it is a day to celebrate the adoption of our constitution.

It is indeed a day of national pride.

Essay on National Constitution Day of India in 300 words

Father of the Indian Constitution and Constitution Drafting Committee Members

A Day Dedicated to Our Constitution

It is a day of celebration for every Indian citizen. It is celebrated in schools, colleges and government offices.

The Indian constitution gave our country a direction and a sense of responsibility to our leaders. National Constitution Day is a mark of respect to the constitution.

Essay on National Constitution Day 400 words

National Constitution Day Declaration

National Constitution Day Celebrations

Many schools also make efforts to organize special event to celebrate this day. Speeches, debates and quiz competitions form a part of National Constitution Day in schools.

A country’s constitution is its pillar of strength. It is the basis of a strong and peaceful society. National Constitution Day is a way to remind us of its importance and celebrate its existence.

Essay on National Constitution Day in 500 words

The Constitution of India

The Constitution of India was adopted on 26 th November 1949. It came into effect two months later that is on 26 th January 1950 which is celebrated as the Republic Day.
B.R. Ambedkar is considered as the Father of the Indian Constitution.
It is referred to as a bag of borrowings as different concepts and clauses included in our constitution were directly inspired and taken from the constitutions of various countries including Ireland, France, Japan, South Africa, Australia, Germany, USA, Britain and Russia.
After the drafting committee presented the final draft, more than 2000 amendments were made before it was finally approved. These amendments were made after a lot of discussion.
The Constitution of India was handwritten and carefully calligraphed. It was written in both English and Hindi languages.
The Constitution of India comprises of 448 articles. It has 5 appendices, 12 schedules and 25 parts.
The Constitution was signed by 284 members of the Constituent Assembly on 24 th January 1950. This was just two days before it was enforced.
Indian constitution has undergone 101 amendments since its inception.

Significance of National Constitution Day

Long Essay on National Constitution Day in 600 words

The day is celebrated in various schools, colleges and offices across India since 2015.

National Constitution Day Celebration in My School

Some students also performed a skit which was very entertaining as well as informative. This was the best part of the event. It was a fun-filled day. We thoroughly enjoyed the celebrations.

National Constitution Day Calls for Grand Celebration

National Constitution Day has certainly generated the youth’s interest in the constitution of the country. It has also helped them understand its importance and role in building the nation.

Frequently Asked Questions on National Constitution Day

Why do we celebrate national constitution day.

We celebrate National Constitution Day to honor the adoption of India's constitution on November 26, 1949.

What is constitution in 150 words?

A constitution is a set of fundamental rules and principles that guide how a country is governed and protects the rights of its citizens.

What is constitution 10 lines?

A constitution is a document that outlines the basic laws and principles of a country's government, providing a framework for its functioning.

What is constitution in 15 lines?

A constitution is a crucial legal document that establishes the rules and principles for governing a country, protecting the rights and freedoms of its people.

What is 20 Constitution of India?

The 20 Constitution of India doesn't exist; there's one Constitution for India, which is the supreme law of the land.

Why do we need 10 lines of constitution?

We need a 10-line constitution to clearly define the fundamental rules and rights of a nation, ensuring fair and just governance.

National Constitution Day

Every year, the 26 th of November is National Constitution Day or Samvidhan Divas. This day marks the adoption of the Indian Constitution by the Constituent Assembly in 1949. However, the Indian Constitution became effective on 26 th January 1950. Every year, we celebrate Republic Day on 26 th January.

Long Speech

Greetings to all. This is my opportunity to speak a few words about our nation's National Constitutional Day.

I am grateful to all of you for allowing me this wonderful opportunity to speak on Constitution Day, which is an extremely important subject. On 26 November 1949, the Indian constitution was adopted, which was a major milestone on the country's path to becoming an independent, sovereign republic. After coming into force on 26 January 1950, the Indian constitution was a legal document in India.

Representatives from across the spectrum of communities make up the constituent assembly, which reflects the diversity of our country. Our constitution makers took about two years to draft a comprehensive document that would reflect the current state of our country. India has been a successful democracy since its constitution was ratified more than a century ago, unlike many other countries that became independent at the same time.

Rather than being a collection of articles and schedules, the Indian Constitution goes far beyond that. In addition to establishing and empowering India's institutions of governance, it has other benefits. As a matter of fact, studies have referred to the constitution as a "Transformative Constitution," which means it is embedded with vision and reflection of the future. Until now, it has not been required to alter an article completely; rather, the law merely amends the article, so our constitution has been drafted after proper analysis and examination. For the constitution's drafting, complete credit belongs to an outstanding leader, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, who is also known as the father of the Indian Constitution. There are provisions in the bill that concern not just India as it now exists, but also social justice and economic justice for each citizen of India.

A fascinating fact about the Indian constitution is that it was enacted at the time of independence, when India faced enormous challenges, including safeguarding the lives and welfare of millions of people who had been displaced by the partition. In the face of violence and uncertainty, the Constituent Assembly drafted a Constitution that reflects the nation's exceptional diversity, spanning languages, races, castes, and classes. Several other nations contributed encouragement and inspiration to the Constituent Assembly during this challenging time.

There is an important lesson to be learned from our constitution-makers which is taking decisions with a lot of patience among people from diverse communities. I found it difficult to reach a consensus that supported all communities within our country. Our Prime Minister, Mr. Narendra Modi, emphasized this very fact in his "Mann Ki Baat" motivational speech this very year, i.e. in 2018.

Because of these reasons, I am delighted to be able to speak today about our Constitution and how it is unique because of its openness to diversity, acceptance, and exploitation of intellectual traditions and lessons from around the world, and commitment to social welfare and uplift. It is important in today's times that we all respect our constitution religiously.

Short speech

Good morning to all of you. Having the pleasure of speaking about National Constitution Day is an honour and a privilege for me. National Constitution Day had never been celebrated prior to 2015. Dr. BR Ambedkar celebrated his 125 th birthday on November 26 th , 2015, which is the constitution day in India. Our Prime Minister Narendra Modi made this day a national holiday.

The 15 th of August 1947 marks the date of India's independence. We celebrate Republic Day on 26th January because that is when the Indian constitution came into effect. Did you know that the constitution of India was a product of Indian history? Representatives from several fields were voted into the constitutional assembly. There were four notable members: Dr. B.R Ambedkar, Jawaharlal Nehru, B.N Rau, and Sardar Vallabhai Patel.

The constitution was adopted after 166 days of meetings by the constitutional assembly. On January 24, 1950, the members of the constitutional assembly signed two copies in Hindi and English. The Indian constitution took effect on January 26, 1950, and became the supreme law of the land. India celebrates Constitution Day every year to commemorate this momentous occasion. Dr. B R Ambedkar is also commemorated on this day.

Constitutionally, India is a democratic, socialist, secular, sovereign republic. In addition to the guarantees of justice, equality, and liberty, this Constitution also promotes fraternity among Indians. Besides establishing the guidelines for the government structure, procedures, and powers, the constitution of India stipulates the fundamental rights, central principles, and duties of citizens towards their country.

Students celebrate the constitutional day in schools and colleges to raise awareness regarding the constitutional importance of our daily lives.

Thank you.

10 Lines About Indian Constitution Day Speech

The constitutional day is celebrated every year on 26th November to honor the adaptation of the constitution of India.

The constitutional day is also called National law day or Samvidhan Diwas.

Dr BR Ambedkar is also known as the Father of the constitution.

In the year 2015, our Prime Minister, Narendra Modi marked November 26 as the constitution day in India to celebrate the 125th birthday of Dr. BR Ambedkar.

Constitution day aims to celebrate the significance of the Indian constitution.

It is the day that celebrates the life of Dr. B R Ambedtkar was is considered to be the architect of our constitution.

The constitution declares India a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic, republic. It guarantees the Indian citizens justice, equality, and liberty and endeavors to promote fraternity.

The constitution of India lays down the framework for the political code, structure, procedure, powers, and duties of the government bodies.

The constitution of India is the longest written constitution of any country.

The constitution of India provides the fundamental rights, core principles, and duties of the citizens towards the country.

FAQs on Speech on National Constitution Day

1. When is Constitution Day celebrated?

Every year, on 26th November, we celebrate Constitution Day or Samvidhan Divas, the day on which the Indian Constitution was adopted. As of 26th January 1950, the Constitution of India came into effect after the Constituent Assembly of India adopted it on 26th November 1949.

2. How do We celebrate the Constitution?

Constitution Day will be celebrated in Parliament. Parliament and Vigyan Bhawan will also host celebrations honouring Prime Minister Narendra Modi. On Friday, PM Modi will launch the two-day celebrations of Constitution Day, which will take place at Vigyan Bhawan at 5:30 pm.

3. What is the Significance of the Indian Constitution?

India's Constitution (IAST: Bharatiya Samvidhana) is its supreme law. In the document, a framework is outlined, which describes the fundamental tenets of government, its scope, procedures, powers, and responsibilities, as well as the fundamental rights, directive principles, and responsibilities of citizens.

4. What are the Three Purposes of a Constitution?

First, it establishes a national government with three branches: a legislative branch, an executive branch, and a judicial branch, all of which have checks and balances among them. The second purpose of the Constitution is to divide power between the states and the federal government. The third purpose is to guarantee individual liberties.

EssayBanyan.com – Collections of Essay for Students of all Class in English

Essay on National Constitution Day

Constitution Day is observed on 26 th November every year. It is observed to commemorate the adoption of the constitution by the Constituent Assembly of India on 26th November 1949.

Short and Long Essay on Indian Constitution Day in English

I am giving below three essays of varying lengths such as 120 words, 250 words, 400 words and 600 words on the Constitution Day of India.

Indian Constitution Day Essay 10 Lines (100 – 150 Words)

1) In India 26 November is celebrated as National Constitution Day.

2) This day marks the adoption of the Indian Constitution.

3) On 26 November 2015, the first National Constitution Day was observed in India.

4) On the 25 th birth anniversary of B.R Ambedkar, the observance of this day was announced.

5) This day highlights the importance of the constitution in India.

6) This day also honors great personalities like B.R Ambedkar, who drafted the constitution.

7) The constitution of India was accepted officially on 26 November 1949.

8) The idea of celebrating National Constitution Day was given by PM Narendra Modi.

9) Many government departments celebrate this day by organizing different events.

10) Schools also highlight this day by conducting various competitions among students.

Constitution Day of India: History – Essay 1 (250 Words)

Introduction

Constitution Day in India is widely known on the 26 th of November every year to commemorate the adoption of the Constitution of India on the same date in 1949. It was first observed in the year 2015 and since then is regularly celebrated each year.

Constitution Day of India – History

The Constitution Day of India was first observed in the year 2015 which also marked the 125th birth anniversary of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. The contribution of Dr. Ambedkar in drafting the constitution of India was unparalleled to anyone else. He was also the Chairman of the Constitution Drafting Committee. His tremendous hard work in the drafting of the constitution has also earned him the sobriquet ‘Father of the Constitution’.

Hence the government of India took a historic decision in November 2015 to celebrate Constitution Day every year on 26th November. An official gazette notification in this regard was released on 19th November 2015.

Importance of Constitution Day

Constitution Day is celebrated to commemorate the adoption of the Indian constitution by the Constituent Assembly. The constitution is the supreme governing document for the people of India; hence, it holds much significance.

Also by celebrating the constitution day, the people and children, not only realize the importance of the constitution but also remember stalwarts like B.R. Ambedkar and others.

The decision to celebrate Constitution Day was a welcoming decision by the Government of India. It not only commemorates the adoption of the constitution but also honors those who were involved in the laborious task of drafting it.

Why is Constitution Day Celebrated – Essay 2 (400 Words)

India commemorates constitution Day on 26th November annually. It commemorates the adoption of the Constitution of India post-independence, by the Constituent Assembly. The Constitution of India is the fundamental governing document for the people of India.

Why is Constitution Day Celebrated?

On 26th November 1949, the Constituent Assembly officially adopted the Constitution of India. It was presented by the Chairman of drafting Committee Mr. B.R. Ambedkar to President Dr. Rajendra Prasad on 25th November 1949 but the same was adopted on 26th November 1949. Though the constitution came into effect on 26th January 1950 (Republic Day); it is to celebrate its adoption that Constitution Day is observed on 26th November.

Constitution Day of India – Background

The thought of observing a Constitution Day in India was the brainchild of Prime Minister, Narendra Modi. The year 2015 marked the 125th birth anniversary of the father of the constitution – Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. The then NDA (National Democratic Alliance) Government, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, wanted to celebrate the occasion in a big way. Subsequently, several events were held throughout the country as a part of the year-long observance.

It was during one of such events in Mumbai while laying stone for Ambedkar memorial in October, which the Prime Minister announced that 26th November will be observed as the Constitution Day. Hence an official gazette was released by the government on 19th November, declaring 26th November as the Constitution Day.

First National Constitution Day Celebration

The first constitution day of India was celebrated widely by many government departments and schools. Department of Education had issued directives to the schools mandating the reading of preamble of the constitution, by the children.

Essay competitions were held on the subjects of the constitution of India. These competitions were held in both online and offline platforms. Many universities across the country had organized mock parliamentary debates.

Even the Indian schools operating abroad were issued directives by the Ministry of External Affairs for observing Constitution Day on 26th November. Embassies were also given the responsibility of translating the copy of the Constitution in local languages and distributing them in libraries and other relevant places.

Celebrating Constitution Day connects us to our very fundamental roots and let us realize the value of the Constitution that governs the country. It must be celebrated with unparalleled zeal and enthusiasm from all sections of the society, not just only by the government departments.

Indian Constitution Day: Observance and Si g nificance – Essay 3 (500 – 600 Words)

Constitution Day of India is observed on 26 th November every year to commemorate the adoption of the Constitution on 26 th November 1947 by the Constituent Assembly of India.

Constitution of India

The Constitution of India is the final governing document for the Republic of India. It defines the powers vested in the government institutions and also the fundamental rights and duties of the citizens.

When the British left India on 15 th August 1947, there was formed a Constituent Assembly with the responsibility of drafting a Constitution for the Dominion of India.

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar was the appointed Chairman of the Constitution Drafting Committee. It took three years after independence to draft the Constitution, which was presented to the President, Dr. Rajendra Prasad on 26 th November 1949. It is to commemorate the same day i.e. 26 th November 1949, when the Constitution was adopted by the Constituent Assembly, we celebrate the Constitution Day.

Institution of the Indian Constitution Day

The official gazette declaring 26th November to be observed as the Constitution Day was released on 19th November 2015. The declaration for the same had been made by the Prime Minister, Mr. Narendra Modi while was laying the foundation stone for Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s Statue of Equality in Mumbai in October, the same year.

2015 was the year of 125th birth anniversary of Dr. Ambedkar, whose contribution to drafting the constitution was unparalleled. Mr. Modi thought that announcing an annual celebration of Constitution Day will not only honor Dr. Ambedkar but also let people know his work and the importance of the Constitution.

Though it is widely observed in government offices throughout the country; Constitution Day is not observed as a holiday. The first Constitution Day was also extensively observed in schools and offices.

Children are told about the constitution and what does it contain. They are also briefed about the importance of the constitution for establishing India as an independent, socialist, and democratic Republic. Several essays and drawing competitions are held to involve children and enhance knowledge about the country and its history.

In offices, commemoratory events are held in which Dr. Ambedkar is felicitated for his exceptional role in drafting the constitution. Officials pledge their allegiance with the Constitution and vow to follow it in word and spirit.

Significance

The Constitution of India is the longest written constitution of the world and functions as the ultimate governing document for the Republic of India. It lays the guidelines for the functioning of three pillars of the democracy – Legislature, Judiciary, and the Executive.

It also enshrines the fundamental rights and privileges of the citizens of India. When people of India celebrate Constitution Day, they better understand the constitution and its importance. They also get to know the people who were in the drafting committee that drafted the constitution.

The efforts of the leaders, drafting committee members, and freedom fighters are more recognized and the people of India develop more respect for them as well as the institutions of India.

It brings an opportunity to brief the children about the principle governing document of the country, which is the constitution. It is after all in the hands of the children of today to uphold the dignity of the constitution and hence the nation when they grow up. As long as the people of India know and follow the constitution, the country will progress and prosper.

Constitution Day must be celebrated with complete involvement from all the sections of the society. The observance must not only be restricted to government offices and schools but also must be celebrated by common citizens from all walks of life as well.

FAQs: Frequently Asked Questions on National Constitution Day

Ans . Sachchidananda Sinha presided over the first meeting of the Indian constitution assembly.

Ans . The constituent assembly of India started working in 1946.

Ans . Prem Behari Narain Raizada wrote the original constitution of India.

Ans . The first amendment was made in the Indian constitution in 1951.

Ans . Dr. B.R. Ambedkar.

Related Information:

Essay on Independence day

Essay on digital india, cashless india essay, essay on child is father of the man, essay on causes, effects and prevention of corona virus, essay on dr. sarvepalli radhakrishnan, durga puja essay, essay on summer vacation, essay on my plans for summer vacation, essay on holiday, leave a comment cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Indian Constitution Day Essay

Indian Constitution Day Essay In English - 1300 in words

Constitution Day is celebrated every year on 26 November. It is celebrated to commemorate the adoption of the Constitution by the Constituent Assembly of India on 26 November 1949. Today I am providing some essay for you on Constitution Day of India in different word limit so that you too can understand the importance of National Constitution Day.

Short and Long Essay on Indian Constitution Day in English

Essay 1 (250 words).

introduction

Constitution Day in India is widely celebrated on 26 November to mark the adoption of the Constitution of India in 1949. It was first celebrated in the year 2015 and has been regularly observed every year since then.

Constitution Day of India - History

Constitution Day of India was celebrated for the first time in the year 2015 which was celebrated by Dr. B. R. It was also the 125th birth anniversary of Ambedkar. Dr. Ambedkar's contribution to the making of the Constitution of India is more unique than anyone else's. He was also the chairman of the Constitution Drafting Committee. His tremendous hard work in drafting the Constitution has also made him the 'Father of the Constitution'.

Therefore, in November 2015, the Government of India took the historic decision to celebrate Constitution Day on 26 November every year. An official gazette notification in this regard was issued on November 19, 2015.

importance of constitution day

Constitution Day is celebrated to commemorate the adoption of the Indian Constitution by the Constituent Assembly. The Constitution is the supreme governing document for the people of India; Therefore, it is of great importance.

Apart from this, by celebrating Constitution Day, people and children not only realize the importance of the Constitution, but also B. R. Along with Ambedkar, other arhtiyas also get a chance to remember.

The decision to celebrate Constitution Day was a welcome decision by the Government of India. It not only commemorates the adoption of the Constitution but also honors those who were involved in the painstaking work of preparing it.

Essay 2 (400 words)

India celebrates Constitution Day every year on 26 November. It commemorates the adoption of the Constitution of India by the Constituent Assembly after independence. The Constitution of India is the fundamental governing document for the people of India.

Why is Constitution Day celebrated ?

You might also like:

A Friend in Need is a Friend Indeed Essay
Acid Rain Essay
Adult Education Essay
Essay On Adventure

On November 26, 1949, the Constituent Assembly officially adopted the Constitution of India. The Chairman of the Drafting Committee, Shri B. R. Ambedkar before the President Dr. Rajendra Prasad on 25 November 1949, although it was adopted on 26 November 1949. The Constitution came into force on January 26, 1950 (Republic Day); And this is how Constitution Day is celebrated on 26 November.

Constitution Day of India - Background

The idea of celebrating Constitution Day in India was the brainchild of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. In the year 2015, the father of the constitution, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar's 125th birth anniversary was marked. The then NDA (National Democratic Alliance) government, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, wanted to celebrate the occasion in a big way. After this, many programs were organized under it throughout the year across the country.

The stone-laying work for the Ambedkar memorial in October was also involved during one of such events in Mumbai, following which the prime minister announced that November 26 would be celebrated as Constitution Day. For this, on November 19, an official gazette was issued by the government declaring '26 November' as Constitution Day.

First National Constitution Day Celebrations

The first Constitution Day of India was widely celebrated by many government departments and schools. The Education Department had also issued instructions to the schools to read the Preamble of the Constitution to the children.

Essay competitions were organized on the subjects of the Constitution of India. These competitions were conducted in both online and offline platforms. Several universities across the country had organized parliamentary debates.

Even instructions were issued to Indian schools operating abroad by the Ministry of External Affairs to observe Constitution Day on 26 November. Embassies were also given the responsibility of translating the copy of the Constitution into local languages and distributing them in libraries and other relevant places.

Celebrating Constitution Day connects us to our fundamental roots and makes us realize the value of the Constitution governing the country. It should be celebrated with zeal and enthusiasm not only by government departments but by all sections of the society.

Essay 3 (600 words)

Constitution Day of India is celebrated on 26 November every year to commemorate the adoption of the Constitution on 26 November 1947 by the Constituent Assembly of India.

The constitution of India

The Constitution of India is the final governing document for the Republic of India. It also defines the powers vested in government institutions and the fundamental rights and duties of citizens.

When the British left India on August 15, 1947, a Constituent Assembly was formed with the responsibility of drafting a constitution for the Dominion of India.

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar was the appointed chairman of the Constitution Drafting Committee. After independence, it took three years to prepare the draft constitution, which was presented to the President Dr. Rajendra Prasad on November 26, 1949. Constitution Day is celebrated on 26 November, commemorating 26th November, 1949, when the Constitution was adopted by the Constituent Assembly.

Air Pollution Essay
Animals Essay
Abdul Kalam Essay
Bal Swachhta Abhiyan Essay

institution of indian constitution day

The Official Gazette to observe 26 November 2015 as Constitution Day was released on 19 November 2015. In October the same year in Mumbai, Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi met Dr. B. At the same moment, the Constitution Day was also announced while laying the foundation stone for the statue of R Ambedkar.

2015 was the year of 125th birth anniversary of Dr. Ambedkar, who had a unique contribution in the making of the Constitution. Shri Modi ji thought that announcing the annual celebration of Constitution Day would not only honor Dr. Ambedkar, but would also give an opportunity to the people to know about his work and the importance of the Constitution.

Observation

Although it is widely celebrated in government offices across the country; However, you should also know that it is not declared a government holiday, nor is Constitution Day celebrated as a holiday. The first Constitution Day was also celebrated on a large scale in schools and offices.

The children were made aware of the constitution and what is included in it. He was also told about the importance of the Constitution to establish India as an independent, socialist and democratic republic. Many essay and drawing competitions are organized to engage the children and increase their knowledge about the country and its history.

In the offices, commemoration programs are held in which Dr. Ambedkar is honored for his exceptional role in drafting the Constitution. The officers pledge their allegiance to the Constitution and take an undertaking that they will abide by it with their words and spirit.

The Constitution of India is the longest written constitution in the world and serves as the final governing document for the Republic of India. It gives guidelines for the functioning of the three pillars of democracy - Legislature, Judiciary and Executive.

It also ensures the fundamental rights and privileges of the citizens of India. When the people of India celebrate Constitution Day, they should know better about the Constitution and its importance. They should also know about the people who were involved in the drafting committee of the constitution.

The efforts of the leaders, members of the drafting committee, and freedom fighters should get more priority and develop more respect for them as well as the people of India and the institutions of India.

It is the constitution that gives children the opportunity to be informed about the principle governing document of the country. It is in the hands of today's children to uphold the dignity of the Constitution and thus maintain the dignity of the nation as they grow up. As long as more number of people of India will know and follow the Constitution, the country will progress and prosper faster.

Constitution Day should be celebrated with full participation by all sections of the society. Its observance should not be limited to government offices and schools only, but it should be celebrated in all areas by common citizens as well.

Beti Bachao Beti Padhao Essay
Bio-Diversity Essay
Black Money Essay
Cashless India Essay

Indian Constitution Day Essay In English

Self Study Mantra

Essay for IBPS PO Mains
Essay for State PSC
Essay for Banking Exam
Important Essays
Letter Writing
हिन्दी निबंध
One Word Substitution
Computer Knowledge
Important Days
जीवन परिचय
Government Schemes List

Essay on Constitution Day | Constitution Day essay in English

Essay on constitution day, constitution day celebration.

While laying the foundation stone of the Dr. B. R. Ambedkar's Statue of Equality memorial in Mumbai on 11 October 2015, Prime Minister of India, Shri Narendra Modi made a declaration to celebrate 26th November as Constitution Day or Samvidhan Divas every year. Following this, the Government of India declared 26th November as Constitution Day on 19th November 2015 to promote the constitutional values among citizens. Earlier this day was celebrated as Law Day .

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar is known as the Architect of Indian Constitution or Father of Indian Constitution. Celebrating the 125th Birth Anniversary of B. R. Ambedkar in a big way in 2015 the Government decided to celebrate Constitution Day . Since then Constitution Day is celebrated every year and various programmes are being organised on this occasion which creates awareness about various constitution-makers and significance of Indian Constitution. Various photo and digital exhibitions, quiz competitions, logo making, awareness rallies are organised on this occasion.

The Longest Written Constitution

The Indian Constitution is the longest written constitution of any sovereign nation in the world. It provides a comprehensive framework to guide and govern the country, keeping in view political, social, cultural and religious diversity of India.

Original features of Constitution

Making of indian constitution.

The Constitution was drafted by the Constituent Assembly of India, which was established by the members of the provincial assemblies elected by the people of India. Dr Sachidanand Sinha was the first president of the Constituent Assembly later Dr. Rajendra Prasad was elected its president. Dr B. R. Ambedkar was the chairman of Drafting Committee of Indian Constitution which provides a comprehensive and dynamic framework to guide and govern the country.

Important Question based on National Constitution Day Essay.

Q. when was first constitution day celebrated in india .

A. First Constitution Day was celebrated on 26th November 2015.

Q. National Constitution Day is celebrated on which Day?

A. National Constitution Day is celebrated on 26 November every year.

Q. Earlier 26th November was celebrated as ?

A. Earlier 26th November was celebrated as Law Day.

Q. Who is called father of Indian Constitution?

A. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar is called father of Indian Constitution. He is also called Architect of Indian Constitution.

Essay on Republic Day

Essay on World Environment Day

Essay on International Yoga Day

Keys: essay on constitution day, constitution day essay, constitution day essay in english, national constitution day essay, essay on 26 November, Essay on 26th November

Popular this Month

Trending Essay Topics | Important Essay Topics for Competitive Exams

20 Most Important Formal Letter Topics for Class 10 | Formal Letter Topics for Class 10

My School Essay in English 10 Lines, Essay on My School

Essay on Electric Vehicles: The Future of Transport, Benefits of Electric Vehicles uses, Electric Vehicles

Essay on One Nation One Election for Competitive Exams

My Family Essay in English 10 Lines, Essay on My Family

Essay Topics for Class 6 Students | Essay Topics for Grade 6

Essay Topics for Class 12 | Essay Topics for Grade 12 Intermediate

20 Most Important Essay Topics for GIC Scale 1 Exam 2024 | General Insurance Corporation of India GIC Essay Topics

One word substitution (download here👇👇).

Essay Writing in English

Important Topics

Essay in English
Essay in Hindi
20 Essays for IBPS PO Descriptive Paper
Trending Essay Topics
IBPS PO Previous Year Descriptive Paper
Important Essays for UPSC
Essay Topics for UPSC CAPF AC Exam
How To Crack SSC CGL In First Attempt?
100 Most Important One Word Substitution
Essay on Artificial Intelligence
Latest Jobs | Admit Card | Result
Essay on Global Warming
पर्यावरण प्रदूषण: नियंत्रण के उपाय
Essay on Women Empowerment
Daily Homework for Class 1 to 5

Blog Archive

Quick links.

Paragraph in English
Join Self Study Mantra through WhatsApp, Facebook, Telegram
Advertise With Us
Career with Us
Privacy Policy
Disclaimer, Terms and Condition
10 Lines 13
Best Books for SSC CGL 2
Biography 6
Education System 6
English Grammar 1
Essay in Hindi 18
Essay Topics 32
essay writing 150
Farmer Welfare Schemes 1
Important National and International Days 31
Mathematics 5
One Word Substitution 2
Online Classes 3
Paragraph Writing 19
Political Science 1
Pollution 7
Republic Day 1
Speech in Hindi 1
SSC Exams 5
Study Tips 7
जीवन परिचय 6

Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav Essay in English

Essay on Advantages and Disadvantages of Online Classes

Important Days in 2024 | Important National and International Days | Important Days and Dates

Explore the Constitution

The Constitution
Read the Full Text

Dive Deeper

Constitution 101 course.

The Drafting Table
Supreme Court Cases Library
Founders' Library
Constitutional Rights: Origins & Travels

Start your constitutional learning journey

News & Debate Overview
Constitution Daily Blog
America's Town Hall Programs
Special Projects

Media Library

America’s Town Hall

Watch videos of recent programs.

Education Overview

Constitution 101 Curriculum

Classroom Resources by Topic
Classroom Resources Library
Live Online Events
Professional Learning Opportunities
Constitution Day Resources

Explore our new 15-unit high school curriculum.

Explore the Museum
Plan Your Visit
Exhibits & Programs
Field Trips & Group Visits
Host Your Event
Buy Tickets

First Amendment Exhibit Historic Graphic

New exhibit

The first amendment, reading the constitution: a book talk with justice stephen breyer.

March 28, 2024

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer (Ret.) unveils his new book at the National Constitution Center in conversation with NCC President Jeffrey Rosen . In Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism, Justice Breyer deconstructs the textualist philosophy of the current Supreme Court's majority and makes the case for a better way to interpret the Constitution.

Participants

Stephen G. Breyer is a former associate justice of the Supreme Court who served there for 28 years until retiring in 2022. He also serves as honorary co-chair of the National Constitution Center’s Board of Trustees. He is the author of several books, including The Court and the World: American Law and the New Global Realities and The Authority of the Court and the Peril of Politics . His most recent book is Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism .

Jeffrey Rosen is the president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization devoted to educating the public about the U.S. Constitution. Rosen is also professor of law at The George Washington University Law School and a contributing editor of The Atlantic .

Stay Connected and Learn More

Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected] . 

Continue today’s conversation on social media @ConstitutionCtr and #AmericasTownHall

Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly , our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly . 

Please subscribe to Live at the National Constitution Center and our companion podcast We the People on Apple Podcasts , Spotify , or your favorite podcast app.

Explore Further

Justice stephen breyer on reading the constitution.

Why Justice Breyer chose pragmatism, not textualism

Democracy Checkup: Preparing for the 2024 Election

Legal experts Richard Hasen, Sarah Isgur, and Lawrence Lessig provide a health check on the state of American democracy in the…

Once again, Supreme Court dives into abortion fray

The only people who may have actually believed the Supreme Court was getting out of the abortion issue by eliminating the…

Article III and Supreme Court Term Review Featuring Ali Velshi (All Levels)

For our final Fun Friday Session of the 2022-2023 school year, MSNBC’s Ali Velshi returns, joining National Constitution Center…

More from the National Constitution Center

Constitution 101

Explore our new 15-unit core curriculum with educational videos, primary texts, and more.

Search and browse videos, podcasts, and blog posts on constitutional topics.

Founders’ Library

Discover primary texts and historical documents that span American history and have shaped the American constitutional tradition.

News & Debate

Modal title.

Modal body text goes here.

Share with Students

CBSE Library

Essay on National Constitution Day | National Constitution Day Essay for Students and Children in English

Essay on National Constitution Day: The national constitution day is usually celebrated on the 26th of November every year to commemorate the Indian constitution. The national constitution day is also known as Samvidhan Divas in India which means National Law Day. The constituent assembly formally adopted the constitution of India on this day and it came into existence and usage on the Republic Day of India that is 26th January 1950.

In this National Constitution Day essay, we shall be talking about the importance of the constitution and how it has helped shape the Indian society since independence.

You can read more Essay Writing about articles, events, people, sports, technology many more.

Long and Short Essays on National Constitution Day for Students and Kids in English

If you are searching for a well written and informative National constitution Day essay, then we have provided to different essays with quality content below. A long essay on national constitution day with the word limit of 600 and short National Constitution Day essay with the word limit of 200 is given below which can be used by students of class 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 for test, exam, essay writing and assignment purposes.

Long Essay on National Constitution Day Essay 600 Words

The national constitution day which is also celebrated as National Law Day or the Samvidhan Diwas is celebrated on the 26th of November every year to commemorate the adoption of the Constitution of India. The Republic Day is celebrated on 26 January 1950, which was the day when the constitution of India was formally adopted in practice.

The history of our constitution starts way back before 1947 when we attained Independence from the British. When the Quit India Movement and the freedom struggle for India began and the lawyers and different intellectual in the country headed by Dr BR Ambedkar, started writing the constitution of India.

There is a gap of 2 months between the national constitution day and Republic Day and in these 2 months, the huge constitution of India was thoroughly read and translated from English to Hindi and different languages. The assembly, at that point of time, met for around 11 months before the constitution was actually adopted on the national constitution day. The constitution was formally adopted in the year 1950 after it was passed and accepted by the constituent assembly of India. The constitution, when it was adopted on January 26th, was not perceived well by many critics and the issues of language, rights, minorities and the entire government structures were debated in the Parliament and around the country.

26th November was celebrated as the constitution day in the year 2015 in line with the 125th birth anniversary of Dr BR Ambedkar, who is the father of the Indian Constitution. This day celebrates BR Ambedkar as well as the values of the Constitution upon which India is formed. Ambedkar was a famous politician, jurist and a reformer and he was a kind of a gladiator for the underprivileged sections of Indian population and hence rightfully is known as the father of Indian constitution because he headed the drafting committee of the constitution on August 29th, 1947, a few days after India attained independence.

Constitution of India declares a socialist, secular, democratic and sovereign republic that gives the citizens of the country with equality, justice and liberty and promotes the values of the fraternity. The constitution is the sole backbone of the country that has kept the country together, with so many diverse cultures, languages and ethnicities, since 70 years. Any institution or a citizen not following the values of the constitution can lead to anarchy in the country.

The Indian Constitution is one of the biggest constitutions in the world because the creator of the constitution took the essence from the American, British and Japanese constitution. It can be said that the Indian Constitution is an amalgamation of the best of the constitutions in the world. The Indian Constitution offers and guarantees few fundamental rights to citizens that the state and the central governments should implement in practice and in spirit. Any harm to the democratic and secular fabric of the nation should be condemned because harm to the democracy of India is harming the constitution of India.

I would like to conclude by saying that constitution is the soul and the only book that the institutions in India such as the Supreme Court, the assembly and the different state and district level governments should use. There is no alternative for the constitution of India and it is the ultimate authority over which the Indian government should run. In a case where the constitution of India is not followed in spirit and in practice, then that is the line where a government or a country will become a fascist and an authoritarian regime.

Short Essay on National Constitution Day 200 Words

The national constitution day is celebrated on the 26th of November every year to commemorate the introduction of our constitution. On the Republic Day that is 26th January, the constitution of India was formally adopted in the Indian Union. Dr. BR Ambedkar is known as the father of the Indian constitution and it is his birth anniversary on which the national constitution day is celebrated.

National constitution day is celebrated across schools, colleges and various governmental institutes to inculcate the values of the constitution of India. The constitution of India based on the values of liberty equality and fraternity. In fact, the constitution of India is a pure amalgamation of various constitutions around the world such as the French constitution, the American constitution and the Russian constitution. The concept of equality, liberty and fraternity was taken from France, the concept of the five-year plan was taken from Russia, which was known as USSR back then and the concept of the independent functioning of the Judiciary was taken from the constitution of Japan. Indian Constitution is one of the biggest constitutions in the world and also one of the best constitutions on the planet.

If every clause of the Indian Constitution is followed in practice and in spirit, India will become a true democracy but it is easier said than done. India is a diverse country with many languages, religions, ethnicities, diversities and cultural identities that it would become difficult to follow the constitution religiously. Nevertheless, the state has to obey the clauses of the Constitution else the democracy and the secular fabric of India will be in tantrums.

10 Lines on National Constitution Day Essay

The constitution day is celebrated on 26 November of every year since 2015.
Constitution day is the day that India adopted its constitution.
Indian Constitution was formally adopted on 26th January, 2 months after the National constitution day
The national constitution day is the 125th birth anniversary of the father of the Indian constitution. Dr BR Ambedkar
The Indian Constitution is a pure amalgamation of the best parts of various constitutions around the world such as France, Russia, Japan and America
The significance of constitution day is to celebrate the values of the constitution which are liberty, equality and fraternity
The constitution is the only backbone of the country upon which every institution and every government should function
The directive principles of the Constitution was taken from the constitution of Ireland
The Preamble of the Constitution is read by all students in all schools in India on national constitution day and Republic Day
The national constitution day stands as a day for the celebration of India’s success as the biggest democratic and secular nation around the world.

FAQ’s on National Constitution Day Essay

Question 1. When is national constitution Day celebrated?

Answer: National constitution day is celebrated on 26th November every year

Question 2. What is the significance of the national constitution day?

Answer: The significance of national constitution day is to celebrate the values of Indian constitution and national constitution day was adopted on 2015 as a part of the 125th birth anniversary of the father of Indian constitution, Dr B.R Ambedkar

Question 3. Which is the world’s largest constitution?

Answer: India has the world’s largest constitution that contains 465 articles, 12 schedules, 122 amendments and 14 6385 words in English

Question 4. Who is the father of the Indian Constitution?

Answer: The father of the Indian constitution is Dr. BR Ambedkar.

National Constitution Day Speech, Essay in English & Hindi for Students 2022

Are you searching for – Constitution Day Speech, Essay in English & Hindi for Students 2022

Then you are at Right Place.

The Complete and Official Information of Constitution Day Speech, Essay in English & Hindi for Students 2022 .

National Constitution Day Speech, Essay in English for Students 2022

Speech on National Constitution Day 2022

Student Speech – 1

Good Morning to the Respected Principal, Teachers and all my dear friends. My Name is Chetan and today we all have gathered here to celebrated National Constitution Day. As we know that National Constitution Day is celebrated every on 26th November in India.

It is celebrated to remember the day of adoption of the Constitution of India. The Constitution of India was adopted on 26th November 1949.

This day is also celebrated to pay a tribute to Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar. He is known as the “Father of the Indian Constitution’.

This day is celebrated to spread awareness about the importance of the Constitution,

Student Speech OR Essay – 2

Respected Principal, Teachers and students. A Warm good morning to all.

I am very excited to get a chance to share a few words about the importance of National Constitution day of out country. Our Constitution day is celebrated every year on 26th November to honor the adaption of the constitution of India. It is also called Samvidhan Diwas of National Law Day .

This day is also celebrated to pay a tribute to Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar , who was the first law minister of India. He is also known as the father of the Indian Constitution.

The Constitution day is celebrated in schools and colleges to spread awareness about the importance of the constitution in our daily lives. Dears, the constitutional assembly was formed which consisted of elected representatives from various fields. A Few of the Prominent Members were Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, Jawaharlal Nehru, B. N Rau and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel.

Dr. Ambedkar was appointed as the chairman of the drafting committee. We celebrate constitution day of India to remember their outstanding efforts towards our nation and constitution. A Constitution is the foundation of a democracy. Indian Constitution is carrying a remarkable history. It is one of the biggest constitutions in the world because the creator of the constitution took the essence form the American, British and Japanese Constitution. Yes, the Indian Constitution is an amalgamation of the best of the constitution of the world.

You know, our constitution offers and guarantees six fundamental rights :

Right to Equality
Right to Freedom
Right against exploitation
Right to freedom of religion
Right to Education
Right to Constitutional Remedies

The Constitutional assembly met for 166 days before the constitution was adopted. When the draft was prepared and put for debate and discussion, over 2000 amendments were made, before it was finalized.

The Constitution declared India to be sovereign, socialist, secular and democratic republic. It aims at securing justice, liberty, equality to all citizens and promote fraternity to maintain unity and integrity of the nation.

My Dear Student, we should hold the Constitution to out heart. Our Constitution is not a mere Lawyer’s document, it is a vehicle of life, and its spirit is always the spirit of Age. Yes, Our Constitution is heart beats of every Indians.

Quiz Competition with Certificate on National Constitution Day 26 November 2022

Student Speech OR Essay – 3

Good Morning to the Principal, Respected Teachers and My Dear Friends. Today we all have gathered here to celebrate National Constitution Day or Samvidhan Diwas is Celebrated in India on November 26, the day when the constitution of India was adopted by the Constituent Assembly in 1949.

November 26 Constitution Day : After India became an Independent Nation, the Constituent Assembly entrusted the job of drafting the Constitution to a Committee chaired by Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar

In the Beginning of 1948, Dr. Ambedkar completed the draft of the Indian Constitution and Presented it in the Constituent Assembly. On November 26, 1949, this draft was adopted with very few amendments. The Indian Constitution came into force on January 26,1950.

The Constitution of India has borrowed features from another countries, including Britain, Ireland, Japan, USA, South Africa, Germany, Australia, and Canada. The Constituent Assembly of India was established in 1946. It met for 166 days spread over 2 years, 11 months and 18 days.

The Constitution of India is a hand written document. it is one of the longest hand written documents in the world. There are a total of 1,17,369 words in the English Version.

The Original hand-written copies of the Constitution are preserved in Helium – Filled cases in the Library of Parliament house.

National Constitution Day Speech, Essay in Hindi for Students 2022

आदरणीय प्रधानाचार्य, शिक्षकों और मेरे सभी प्यारे दोस्तों को सुप्रभात। माई नेम इज चेतन और आज हम सभी यहां राष्ट्रीय संविधान दिवस मनाने के लिए एकत्रित हुए हैं। जैसा कि हम जानते हैं कि भारत में प्रत्येक 26 नवंबर को राष्ट्रीय संविधान दिवस मनाया जाता है।

यह भारत के संविधान को अपनाने के दिन को याद करने के लिए मनाया जाता है। भारत का संविधान 26 नवंबर 1949 को अपनाया गया था।

यह दिन डॉ. भीमराव अंबेडकर को श्रद्धांजलि देने के लिए भी मनाया जाता है। उन्हें “भारतीय संविधान के पिता” के रूप में जाना जाता है।

यह दिवस संविधान के महत्व के बारे में जागरूकता फैलाने के लिए मनाया जाता है,

Speech 2 In Hindi

प्रधानाचार्य, आदरणीय शिक्षकों और मेरे प्रिय मित्रों को सुप्रभात। आज हम सभी यहां राष्ट्रीय संविधान दिवस मनाने के लिए एकत्रित हुए हैं या भारत में संविधान दिवस 26 नवंबर को मनाया जाता है, जिस दिन 1949 में संविधान सभा द्वारा भारत के संविधान को अपनाया गया था।

26 नवंबर संविधान दिवस: भारत के स्वतंत्र राष्ट्र बनने के बाद संविधान सभा ने डॉ. भीमराव अंबेडकर की अध्यक्षता वाली समिति को संविधान का मसौदा तैयार करने का काम सौंपा

1948 की शुरुआत में, डॉ. अम्बेडकर ने भारतीय संविधान के प्रारूप को पूरा किया और इसे संविधान सभा में पेश किया। 26 नवंबर, 1949 को इस मसौदे को बहुत कम संशोधनों के साथ अपनाया गया था। 26 जनवरी, 1950 को भारतीय संविधान लागू हुआ।

भारत के संविधान में ब्रिटेन, आयरलैंड, जापान, संयुक्त राज्य अमेरिका, दक्षिण अफ्रीका, जर्मनी, ऑस्ट्रेलिया और कनाडा सहित अन्य देशों से विशेषताएं उधार ली गई हैं। भारत की संविधान सभा की स्थापना 1946 में हुई थी। इसकी बैठक 166 दिनों तक चली जो 2 साल, 11 महीने और 18 दिनों तक चली।

भारत का संविधान हस्तलिखित दस्तावेज है। यह दुनिया के सबसे लंबे हस्तलिखित दस्तावेजों में से एक है। अंग्रेजी संस्करण में कुल 1,17,369 शब्द हैं।

संविधान की मूल हस्तलिखित प्रतियां संसद भवन के पुस्तकालय में हीलियम – भरे हुए डिब्बों में संरक्षित हैं।

Daily School Assembly News Headlines for 03 April 2024

Daily School Assembly News Headlines for 02 April 2024

About the author.

Chetan Darji

Hi, My name is Chetan Darji , and I am the owner and Founder of this website. I am 24 years old, Gujarat-based (India) blogger. I started this blog on 20th January 2019.

Discover more from Stud Mentor - Where Learning Begins

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Type your email…

Skip to main content
Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Cash-strapped Trump is now selling $60 Bibles, U.S. Constitution included

Rachel Treisman

Then-President Donald Trump holds up a Bible outside St. John's Episcopal Church in Washington, D.C., during a controversial 2020 photo-op. Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images hide caption

Then-President Donald Trump holds up a Bible outside St. John's Episcopal Church in Washington, D.C., during a controversial 2020 photo-op.

Former President Donald Trump is bringing together church and state in a gilded package for his latest venture, a $60 "God Bless The USA" Bible complete with copies of the nation's founding documents.

Trump announced the launch of the leather-bound, large-print, King James Bible in a post on Truth Social on Tuesday — a day after the social media company surged in its trading debut and two days after a New York appeals court extended his bond deadline to comply with a ruling in a civil fraud case and slashed the bond amount by 61%.

"Happy Holy Week! Let's Make America Pray Again," Trump wrote. "As we lead into Good Friday and Easter, I encourage you to get a copy of the God Bless The USA Bible."

Consider This from NPR

Why trump's persecution narrative resonates with christian supporters.

The Bible is inspired by "God Bless the USA," the patriotic Lee Greenwood anthem that has been a fixture at many a Trump rally (and has a long political history dating back to Ronald Reagan). It is the only Bible endorsed by Trump as well as Greenwood, according to its promotional website .

The Bible is only available online and sells for $59.99 (considerably more expensive than the traditional Bibles sold at major retailers, or those available for free at many churches and hotels). It includes Greenwood's handwritten chorus of its titular song as well as copies of historical documents including the U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence and Pledge of Allegiance.

"Many of you have never read them and don't know the liberties and rights you have as Americans, and how you are being threatened to lose those rights," Trump said in a three-minute video advertisement.

"Religion and Christianity are the biggest things missing from this country, and I truly believe that we need to bring them back and we have to bring them back fast."

'You gotta be tough': White evangelicals remain enthusiastic about Donald Trump

Trump critics on both sides of the aisle quickly criticized the product, characterizing it as self-serving and hypocritical.

Conservative political commentator Charlie Sykes slammed him for "commodifying the Bible during Holy Week," while Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota critiqued him for "literally taking a holy book and selling it, and putting it out there in order to make money for his campaign."

Trump says the money isn't going to his campaign, but more on that below.

Klobuchar added that Trump's public attacks on others are "not consistent with the teachings of the Bible," calling this "one more moment of hypocrisy." Tara Setmayer, a senior adviser for anti-Trump Republican PAC the Lincoln Project, called it "blasphemous ."

And former Rep. Liz Cheney, a Republican from Wyoming, trolled Trump with a social media post alluding to his alleged extramarital affairs.

"Happy Holy Week, Donald," she wrote. "Instead of selling Bibles, you should probably buy one. And read it, including Exodus 20:14 ."

Christianity is an increasingly prominent part of his campaign

Trump has made a point of cultivating Christian supporters since his 2016 presidential campaign and remains popular with white evangelicals despite his multiple divorces, insults toward marginalized groups and allegations of extramarital affairs and sexual assault.

And his narrative of being persecuted — including in the courts — appears to resonate with his many Christian supporters.

Trump has increasingly embraced Christian nationalist ideas in public. He promised a convention of religious broadcasters last month that he would use a second term to defend Christian values from the "radical left," swearing that "no one will be touching the cross of Christ under the Trump administration."

He made similar comments in the Bible promotional video, in which he warned that "Christians are under siege" and the country is "going haywire" because it lost religion.

What to know about the debut of Trump's $399 golden, high-top sneakers

"We must defend God in the public square and not allow the media or the left-wing groups to silence, censor or discriminate against us," he said. "We have to bring Christianity back into our lives and back into what will be again a great nation."

Trump himself is not known to be particularly religious or a regular churchgoer. He long identified as Presbyterian but announced in 2020 that he identified as nondenominational .

A Pew Research Center survey released earlier this month found that most people with positive views of Trump don't see him as especially religious, but think he stands up for people with religious beliefs like their own.

Trump said in the promotional video that he has many Bibles at home.

"It's my favorite book," he said, echoing a comment he's made in previous years. "It's a lot of people's favorite book."

The Impact Of Christian Nationalism On American Democracy

Trump's relationship to the Bible has been a point of discussion and sometimes controversy over the years.

In 2020, amid protests over George Floyd's murder, he posed with a Bible outside a Washington, D.C., church, for which he was widely criticized. U.S. Park Police and National Guard troops had tear-gassed peaceful protesters in the area beforehand, seemingly to make way for the photo-op, though a watchdog report the following year determined otherwise .

That same year, a clip of a 2015 Bloomberg interview, in which Trump declines to name his favorite — or any — Bible verse resurfaced on social media and went viral.

Bible sales are unlikely to solve Trump's financial problems

An FAQ section on the Bible website says no profits will go to Trump's reelection campaign.

"GodBlessTheUSABible.com is not political and has nothing to do with any political campaign," it says.

However, the site adds that it uses Trump's name, likeness and image "under paid license from CIC Ventures LLC."

Trump is listed as the manager, president, secretary and treasurer of CIC Ventures LLC in a financial disclosure from last year.

Here's what happens if Trump can't pay his $454 million bond

Trump's sales pitch focuses on bringing religion back to America.

"I want to have a lot of people have it," he said at one point in the video. "You have to have it for your heart and for your soul."

But many are wondering whether Trump has something else to gain from Bible sales while facing under mounting financial pressure.

There's his presidential reelection campaign, which has raised only about half of what Biden's has so far this cycle. Trump acknowledged Monday that he "might" spend his own money on his campaign, something he hasn't done since 2016.

There's also his mounting legal expenses, as he faces four criminal indictments and numerous civil cases. Trump posted bond to support a $83.3 million jury award granted to writer E. Jean Carroll in a defamation case earlier this month, and was due to put up another $454 million in a civil fraud case this past Monday.

Trump is on the verge of a windfall of billions of dollars. Here are 3 things to know

His lawyers had said last week that they had approached 30 companies for help making bond, but doing so was a "practical impossibility" — prompting New York's attorney general to confirm that if Trump did not pay, she would move to seize his assets . On Monday, the appeals court reduced the bond amount to $175 million and gave Trump another 10 days to post it.

Trump has evidently been trying to raise money in other ways.

The day after the civil fraud judgment was announced, he debuted a line of $399 golden, high-top sneakers , which sold out in hours . The company behind his social media app, Truth Social, started trading on the Nasdaq exchange on Tuesday, which could deliver him a windfall of more than $3 billion — though he can't sell his shares for another six months.

Donald J. Trump
sales pitch
Christianity

Read the Florida Supreme Court’s Ruling on the Abortion Ban

Share full article

The Florida Supreme Court overturned decades of legal precedent in ruling that the State Constitution’s privacy protections do not extend to abortion, effectively allowing Florida to ban the procedure after six weeks of pregnancy.

A PDF version of this document with embedded text is available at the link below:

Download the original document (pdf)

Supreme Court of Florida No. SC2022-1050 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHWEST AND CENTRAL FLORIDA, et al., Petitioners, VS. STATE OF FLORIDA, et al., Respondents. No. SC2022-1127 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHWEST AND CENTRAL FLORIDA, et al., Petitioners, VS. STATE OF FLORIDA, et al., Respondents. April 1, 2024 GROSSHANS, J. The Florida Constitution guarantees "the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into . . . private life.” Art. I,

§ 23, Fla. Const. In this case, we are asked to determine if there is a conflict between the rights secured by this provision and a recently amended statute that shortens the window of time in which a physician may perform an abortion. See ch. 2022-69, § 4, Laws of Fla. (codified at section 390.0111(1), Florida Statutes (2022)). The parties have presented thoughtful arguments as to the scope of this provision, which has traditionally been referred to as the “Privacy Clause." Those legal arguments on the Privacy Clause's meaning are, in our view, distinct from the serious moral, ethical, and policy issues that are implicated in the subject matter of this case. Our analysis focuses on the Privacy Clause’s text, its context, and the historical evidence surrounding its adoption. After considering each of these sources and consistent with longstanding principles of judicial deference to legislative enactments, we conclude there is no basis under the Privacy Clause to invalidate the statute. In doing so, we recede from our prior decisions in which-relying on reasoning the U.S. Supreme Court has rejectedwe held that the Privacy Clause guaranteed the right to receive an abortion through the end of the second trimester. See generally In re T.W., 551 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 1989); N. Fla. Women's Health & - 2

Counseling Servs., Inc. v. State, 866 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 2003); Gainesville Woman Care, LLC v. State, 210 So. 3d 1243 (Fla. 2017). For this reason, petitioners are not entitled to the temporary injunction granted by the trial court, and we approve the outcome reached by the First District Court of Appeal below.1 I This case involves a constitutional challenge to an amended Florida statute prohibiting abortions “if the physician determines the gestational age of the fetus is more than 15 weeks." § 390.0111(1), Fla. Stat. (2022); ch. 2022-69, § 8, Laws of Fla. (providing effective date of July 1, 2022). This prohibition does not apply if any of the following occurs: (a) Two physicians certify in writing that, in reasonable medical judgment, the termination of the pregnancy is necessary to save the pregnant woman's life or avert a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman other than a psychological condition. (b) The physician certifies in writing that, in reasonable medical judgment, there is a medical necessity for legitimate emergency medical procedures for termination of the pregnancy to save the pregnant woman's life or avert a serious risk of imminent substantial and 1. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. (express-and-direct conflict). - 3

irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman other than a psychological condition, and another physician is not available for consultation. (c) The fetus has not achieved viability under s. 390.01112 and two physicians certify in writing that, in reasonable medical judgment, the fetus has a fatal fetal abnormality. § 390.0111(1)(a)-(c). Prior to this change, the statute had restricted only late-term abortions. ² After this new law took effect, seven abortion clinics and one medical doctor (collectively Planned Parenthood)³ sued the State and others. Planned Parenthood alleged that the statute violated the Privacy Clause, which was added to the Florida Constitution in 1980. Located within the Declaration of Rights, the clause provides in full: 2. Specifically, the statute said, "No termination of pregnancy shall be performed on any human being in the third trimester of pregnancy unless one of [two] conditions is met." § 390.0111(1), Fla. Stat. (2021) (emphasis added). 3. The eight plaintiffs are Planned Parenthood of Southwest and Central Florida; Planned Parenthood of South, East, and North Florida; Gainesville Woman Care, LLC; A Woman's Choice of Jacksonville, Inc.; Indian Rocks Woman's Center, Inc.; St. Petersburg Woman's Health Center, Inc.; Tampa Woman's Health Center, Inc.; and Dr. Shelly Hsiao-Ying Tien. - 4

SECTION 23. Right of privacy.-Every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into the person's private life except as otherwise provided herein. This section shall not be construed to limit the public's right of access to public records and meetings as provided by law. With the complaint, Planned Parenthood filed a motion for temporary injunction, asking the trial court to block enforcement of the statute until it could rule on the merits of the constitutional challenge. In part, Planned Parenthood claimed that it was substantially likely to prevail in the lawsuit because it could demonstrate that the statute violates the Privacy Clause. In addition, Planned Parenthood argued that pregnant Floridians would be irreparably harmed absent a temporary injunction because the statute "would prohibit [them] from obtaining essential medical care and force them to remain pregnant and continue enduring the risks of pregnancy against their will." The statute, Planned Parenthood said, would also cause irreparable harm to itself and its staff by subjecting them to potential punitive consequences and interfering with the doctor-patient relationship. The State opposed Planned Parenthood's request for a temporary injunction. It argued that Planned Parenthood lacked - 5

standing to assert the privacy rights of its patients and, on the merits, could not establish any of the four requirements for a temporary injunction, let alone all four.4 After the State submitted its response, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision on abortion in a case involving a Mississippi statute. See Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Org., 597 U.S. 215 (2022). In that decision, the Court ruled that the federal constitution does not guarantee a right to abortion. Id. at 231, 235-63, 292, 295. Based on this holding, the Court overturned Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)—cases which had recognized a broad right to abortion under federal law. Dobbs, 597 U.S. at 292, 302 (expressly overruling Roe and Casey). In overruling those decisions, Dobbs "returned to the people and their elected representatives" "the authority to regulate abortion." Id. at 292. 4. Under Florida law, a party seeking a temporary injunction must prove four things: “(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (2) the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law, (3) irreparable harm absent entry of an injunction, and (4) that the injunction would serve the public interest." Fla. Dep't of Health v. Florigrown, LLC, 317 So. 3d 1101, 1110 (Fla. 2021). - 6

Several days after Dobbs issued, the trial court in this case held an evidentiary hearing on Planned Parenthood's motion for temporary injunction. Planned Parenthood called one witness and offered several exhibits. The State also presented witness testimony and documentary evidence. Deeming Planned Parenthood's evidence persuasive, the trial court entered a temporary injunction. It found that Planned Parenthood had third-party standing and satisfied all four temporary-injunction elements. In finding a likelihood of success on the merits, the court relied on our abortion jurisprudence. See generally T.W., 551 So. 2d at 1191-94 (Privacy Clause encompasses abortion); N. Fla. Women's Health, 866 So. 2d at 639 (reaffirming T.W.); Gainesville Woman Care, 210 So. 3d at 1246, 1253-55 (relying on T.W.). The court concluded that the statute was subject to strict scrutiny under that case law and determined that it either did not serve compelling interests or, in the alternative, was not the least restrictive means of achieving those interests. For the harm factor, the court ruled that both Planned Parenthood and its patients would suffer sufficient harm to support the requested relief. Rounding out its analysis, the court found no -7

adequate remedy at law and that an injunction would serve the public interests. The State appealed to the First District, triggering an automatic stay of the temporary injunction.5 Planned Parenthood asked the trial court and later the district court to vacate the automatic stay. Both courts, however, denied relief. State v. Planned Parenthood of Sw. & Cent. Fla., 342 So. 3d 863, 865-66 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022). As relevant here, in denying Planned Parenthood's motion to vacate, a divided panel of the First District held that Planned Parenthood could not establish irreparable harm as a result of the stay. Id. at 868-69. A few weeks later, the district court relied on essentially that same reasoning in reversing the temporary injunction—again, one judge dissented. State v. Planned Parenthood of Sw. & Cent. Fla., 344 So. 3d 637, 638 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022) ("[T]he non-final order granting the temporary injunction is reversed as [Planned Parenthood] could not assert irreparable harm on behalf of persons not appearing below."); id. (Kelsey, J., dissenting). 5. Fla. R. App. P. 9.310(b)(2) (automatic-stay provision triggered by filing of timely notice of appeal in certain situations). -8

Following these adverse rulings, Planned Parenthood asked us to review the First District's decisions, arguing that they conflict with our precedent. Accepting this jurisdictional argument, we granted review. II Planned Parenthood asks that we quash the district court's decisions and reinstate the temporary injunction. Relying on our precedent, it argues that the right to an abortion is secured by our constitution’s Privacy Clause. The State disputes Planned Parenthood's interpretation of the provision's text and asks us to reconsider our Privacy Clause jurisprudence or, at the very least, the abortion-related decisions. It argues that T.W.—our first case recognizing a right to abortion under the Privacy Clause-is flawed 6. In its brief, the State argues that Planned Parenthood lacks standing to challenge the new law. However, at oral argument, the Solicitor General urged us to decide this case on the merits. Oral Arg. at 50:52-51:06 (“We do think that the Court can assume for the sake of argument that the Plaintiffs have standing here and instead reach the merits. . . . That, I think, is what the Court should do.”). We view these statements as an abandonment of the State's standing argument. Thus, we proceed directly to the merits without passing upon any theory of standing articulated by the parties. - 9

in numerous respects, including that it failed to meaningfully consider the actual text of the provision at issue, failed to consider the history of the provision, and failed to give deference to the statute challenged in that case. Mindful of these fundamental concerns, we agree that our holding in T. W. should be reexamined.7 In T. W., this Court assessed a Privacy Clause challenge to a law that required unmarried minors to obtain parental consent or a substitute for consent to have an abortion. We held the challenged law to be incompatible with the protections afforded by the Privacy Clause, concluding that the right to abortion was embodied within the provision. T.W., 551 So. 2d at 1188, 1192-96; id. at 1197, 1201 7. As our discussion will show, we also emphasize the uniqueness of the competing interests implicated in abortion and the fact that the Supreme Court repudiated Roe and its underlying understanding of privacy. Because these factors relate to T. W. in a particularized way, we do not take up the State's invitation now to revisit the question of whether the Privacy Clause protects only "informational privacy" interests. Our jurisprudence before and after T. W. has understood the Privacy Clause to encompass certain decisional or autonomy rights, and today we do not revisit our precedents outside the abortion context. - 10

(Ehrlich, C.J., concurring specially).8 In the majority opinion, we discussed Roe v. Wade at length and ultimately adopted its definition of privacy along with its trimester and viability rules. See id. at 1190-94. Integral to the majority's analysis, T. W. emphasized recent Florida cases (primarily from the district courts) equating privacy with the right of personal decision-making in the specific context of refusing unwanted medical treatment. Id. at 1192. We also relied on Winfield v. Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, 477 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 1985)-a case involving privacy in financial institution records—to conclude that the provision “embraces more privacy interests" and "extends more protection to the individual in those interests, than does the federal Constitution." T.W., 551 So. 2d at 1192. Building on that, this Court made the following broad pronouncement: 8. Three justices, however, concluded that the challenged statute could be given a constitutional construction, though they accepted or assumed that the Privacy Clause conferred a right to abortion. T.W., 551 So. 2d at 1201-02 (Overton, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); id. at 1202-04 (Grimes, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); id. at 1204-05 (McDonald, J., dissenting). - 11 -

Florida's privacy provision is clearly implicated in a woman's decision of whether or not to continue her pregnancy. We can conceive of few more personal or private decisions concerning one's body that one can make in the course of a lifetime, except perhaps the decision of the terminally ill in their choice of whether to discontinue necessary medical treatment. Of all decisions a person makes about his or her body, the most profound and intimate relate to two sets of ultimate questions: first, whether, when, and how one's body is to become the vehicle for another human being's creation; second, when and how-this time there is no question of "whether"-one's body is to terminate its organic life. [Laurence H.] Tribe, American Constitutional Law 133738 (2d ed. 1988). The decision whether to obtain an abortion is fraught with specific physical, psychological, and economic implications of a uniquely personal nature for each woman. See Roe, 410 U.S. at 153. The Florida Constitution embodies the principle that “[f]ew decisions are more personal and intimate, more properly private, or more basic to individual dignity and autonomy, than a woman's decision . . . whether to end her pregnancy. A woman's right to make that choice freely is fundamental.” T.W., 551 So. 2d at 1192-93 (second alteration in original) (some citations omitted). This pronouncement was flawed in several respects. T. W. associated the language of the Privacy Clause with Roe's understanding of privacy; but it did not justify how that concept of privacy aligned with our constitution's text—i.e., “the right to be let alone and free from government intrusion into private life." T. W. - 12 -

also did not ask how Florida voters would have understood the text of the provision and how that understanding would be informed by Florida's long history of proscribing abortion. As a result of its analytical path, T. W. did not look to dictionaries, contextual clues, or historical sources bearing on the text's meaning. Instead, overlooking all these probative sources, it adopted Roe's notions of privacy and its trimester framework as matters of Florida constitutional law.9 Compounding these errors, the T.W. majority failed to apply longstanding principles of judicial deference to legislative enactments and failed to analyze whether the statute should be given the benefit of a presumption of constitutionality. Since Roe featured prominently in T. W., we think it fair to also point out that the T. W. majority did not examine or offer a reasoned response to the existing criticism of that decision or consider 9. In his dissent, Justice Labarga emphasizes "that T. W. was decided on state law grounds." Dissenting op. at 90. We agree that T.W. was not applying federal law to the challenged statute. However, T.W. relied heavily on Roe in interpreting the meaning of our constitution's Privacy Clause. Indeed, T. W. cited Roe over twenty times, it accepted Roe's concept of privacy without analysis, and it enacted a viability-trimester system that closely paralleled Roe's, without citing to any Florida precedent supporting that framework. - 13 -

whether it was doctrinally coherent. This was a significant misstep because Roe did not provide a settled definition of privacy rights. Controversial from the moment it was released, “Roe's constitutional analysis was far outside the bounds of any reasonable interpretation of the various constitutional provisions to which it vaguely pointed." Dobbs, 597 U.S. at 268. What's more, Roe "failed to ground its decision in text, history, or precedent.” Id. at 270. This left even progressive legal scholars baffled at how such a right could be gleaned from the constitution's text. Akhil R. Amar, Intratextualism, 112 Harv. L. Rev. 747, 778 (1999) ("As a precedent-follower, Roe simply stringcites a series of privacy cases involving marriage, procreation, contraception, bedroom reading, education, and other assorted topics, and then abruptly announces with no doctrinal analysis that this privacy right is broad enough to encompass' abortion. . . . But as the Court itself admits a few pages later [in the opinion], the existence of the living fetus makes the case at hand ‘inherently different’ . . . from every single one of these earlier-invoked cases. And as a precedent-setter, the Court creates an elaborate trimester framework that has struck many critics as visibly (indeed, nakedly) . . . more legislative than - 14 -

judicial." (footnotes omitted)); see also Laurence H. Tribe, Foreword: Toward a Model of Roles in the Due Process of Life and Law, 87 Harv. L. Rev. 1, 4 (1973) (noting that "[o]ne reads the Court's explanation [of the viability line] several times before becoming convinced that nothing has inadvertently been omitted”). Indeed, just three years after T.W. (and well before Dobbs), the U.S. Supreme Court abandoned Roe's position that the right to abortion was grounded in any sort of privacy right. See Casey, 505 U.S. at 846 (joint opinion) (“Constitutional protection of the woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy derives from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."); cf. Dobbs, 597 U.S. at 279 ("The Court [in Casey] abandoned any reliance on a privacy right and instead grounded the abortion right entirely on the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause."). This demonstrates the tenuous connection between “privacy” and abortion an issue that, unlike other privacy matters, directly implicates the interests of both developing human life and the pregnant woman. In light of T. W.'s analytical deficiencies and subsequent U.S. Supreme Court decisions rejecting the Roe framework on which - 15 -

T.W.'s reasoning depended, our assessment of the challenged statute requires us to examine the Privacy Clause and, for the first time in the abortion context, consider the original public meaning of the text as it was understood by Florida voters in 1980.10 III A We begin by recognizing the standard that governs our review. Because this case requires us to review both “the constitutionality of a statute and the interpretation of a provision of the Florida Constitution," our review is de novo. Lewis v. Leon Cnty., 73 So. 3d 151, 153 (Fla. 2011) (citing Crist v. Fla. Ass’n of Crim. Def. Laws., Inc., 978 So. 2d 134, 139 (Fla. 2008)); see also Florigrown, LLC, 317 So. 3d at 1110. We have long recognized that “statutes come clothed with a presumption of constitutionality and must be construed whenever possible to effect a constitutional outcome." Lewis, 73 So. 3d at 10. We decided two other significant cases involving abortion after T. W., but in those cases, we did not provide additional doctrinal justifications for T.W.'s adoption of Roe's privacy framework. - 16

153 (citing Fla. Dep't of Revenue v. City of Gainesville, 918 So. 2d 250, 256 (Fla. 2005)). Indeed, nearly a century ago, we said: (1) On its face every act of the Legislature is presumed to be constitutional; (2) every doubt as to its constitutionality must be resolved in its favor; [and] (3) if the act admits of two interpretations, one of which would lead to its constitutionality and the other to its unconstitutionality, the former rather than the latter must be adopted . . . Gray v. Cent. Fla. Lumber Co., 140 So. 320, 323 (Fla. 1932); see also Savage v. Bd. of Pub. Instruction for Hillsborough Cnty., 133 So. 341, 344 (Fla. 1931); Chatlos v. Overstreet, 124 So. 2d 1, 2 (Fla. 1960); In re Caldwell's Estate, 247 So. 2d 1, 3 (Fla. 1971); Franklin v. State, 887 So. 2d 1063, 1073 (Fla. 2004); Florigrown, LLC, 317 So. 3d at 1111; Statler v. State, 349 So. 3d 873, 884 (Fla. 2022). And to overcome the presumption of constitutionality, “the invalidity must appear beyond reasonable doubt." Franklin, 887 So. 2d at 1073 (quoting State ex rel. Flink v. Canova, 94 So. 2d 181, 184 (Fla. 1957)); see also Waybright v. Duval Cnty., 196 So. 430, 432 (Fla. 1940) ("[W]e will . . . determine if, beyond a reasonable doubt, violence was done [to] any provisions of the organic law in the passage of the challenged act, and in doing so will not deal with the - 17 -

merits of the measure, that being the exclusive concern of the Legislature."). B Our approach to interpreting the constitution reflects a commitment to the supremacy-of-text principle, “recognizing that '[t]he words of a governing text are of paramount concern, and what they convey, in their context, is what the text means. Coates v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 365 So. 3d 353, 354 (Fla. 2023) (alteration in original) (quoting Levy v. Levy, 326 So. 3d 678, 681 (Fla. 2021)) (interpreting statutory text); see also Advisory Op. to Governor re Implementation of Amend. 4, The Voting Restoration Amend. (Amendment 4), 288 So. 3d 1070, 1081 (Fla. 2020) (interpreting constitutional text). The goal of this approach is to ascertain the original, public meaning of a constitutional provision-in other words, the meaning as understood by its ratifiers at the time of its adoption. See City of Tallahassee v. Fla. Police Benevolent Ass'n, Inc., 375 So. 3d 178, 183 (Fla. 2023) ("[W]e give the words of the constitution their plain, usual, ordinary, and commonly accepted meanings at the time they were written.”). In construing the meaning of a constitutional provision, we do not - 18 - 999

seek the original intent of the voters or the framers. Instead, we ask how the public would have understood the meaning of the text in its full context when the voters ratified it. See Amendment 4, 288 So. 3d at 1081-82. To answer this question of public meaning, we consider the text, see Alachua Cnty. v. Watson, 333 So. 3d 162, 169-70 (Fla. 2022), contextual clues, see id., dictionaries, see Somers v. United States, 355 So. 3d 887, 891 (Fla. 2022), canons of construction, see Conage v. United States, 346 So. 3d 594, 598-99 (Fla. 2022), and historical sources, including evidence related to public discussion, see Tomlinson v. State, 369 So. 3d 1142, 1147-51 (Fla. 2023); Dist. of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 614 (2008). IV With these background principles fixed, we now focus our attention on the Privacy Clause itself. Article I, section 23 is entitled: "Right of privacy." Our constitution, though, tells us that in construing the meaning of constitutional text, we are not to use titles and subtitles. See art. X, § 12(h), Fla. Const. Accordingly, we look at the operative text, which guarantees the right “to be let - 19 -

alone and free from governmental intrusion into the person's private life." Art. I, § 23. As is apparent at first glance, the provision does not explicitly reference abortion at all. Thus, if Planned Parenthood is to prevail, we must find that the public would have understood the principle embodied in the operative text to encompass abortion, even though the clause itself says nothing about it. To this end, the parties have marshaled era-appropriate dictionary definitions of key terms in the Privacy Clause. Based on the dictionaries we consulted, we know that in 1980 the right to be "let alone" could be defined as the right to be left "in solitude," free from outside "interfer[ence]” or “attention." See Let Alone, Oxford English Dictionary 213 (1st ed. 1933) (reprinted in 1978). And the latter phrase "free from governmental intrusion” into “private life”—can convey a similar meaning. “Intrusion” meant “[i]llegal entry upon or appropriation." Intrusion, American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 688 (1st ed. 1969); see also Intrusion, American Heritage Dictionary 674 (2d Coll. ed. 1982) (same); Intrude, American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 687 (1st ed. 1969) ("To interpose (oneself or something) - 20 -

without invitation, fitness, or leave."); Intrude, American Heritage Dictionary 674 (2d Coll. ed. 1982) (similar). And the word "private" carried the idea of being "[s]ecluded from the sight, presence, or intrusion of others," the chief example being “a private bathroom." Private, American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 1042 (1st ed. 1969); Private, American Heritage Dictionary 986 (2d Coll. ed. 1982) (same). These accepted definitions do not seem to us to be natural ways of describing the abortion procedures of 1980. The decision to have an abortion may have been made in solitude, but the procedure itself included medical intervention and required both the presence and intrusion of others. See, e.g., Roe, 410 U.S. at 172 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting) (“A transaction resulting in an operation such as [abortion] is not 'private' in the ordinary usage of that word."); Thornburgh v. Am. Coll. of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747, 792 (1986) (White, J., dissenting) (noting that even the Roe majority recognized a "pregnant woman cannot be isolated in her privacy” because “the termination of a - 21

pregnancy typically involves the destruction of another entity: the fetus" (quoting Roe, 410 U.S. at 159)).11 Next, we see if contextual clues could offer guidance. Looking at the complete text of the provision allows us to consider the physical and logical relation of its parts, as they might have been viewed by a voter. See Lab'y Corp. of Am. v. Davis, 339 So. 3d 318, 324 (Fla. 2022). 11. The dissent cites Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) (invalidating on privacy grounds a state law criminalizing the use of contraception in the marital context), to support the assertion that the involvement of others does not prevent an activity or procedure from being a private matter. Dissenting op. at 67-68 (stressing that the law at issue in Griswold “operate[d] directly on an intimate relation of husband and wife and their physician's role in one aspect of that relation" (quoting Griswold, 381 U.S. at 482)). But the Court in Griswold "only invalidated the section of the state law which prohibited the use of contraception, rather than outlawing the manufacture, distribution, or sale of contraceptives." Alyson M. Cox & O. Carter Snead, “Grievously and Egregiously Wrong": American Abortion Jurisprudence, 26 Tex. Rev. L. & Pol. 1, 16-17 (2022). Indeed, as we noted above, Roe itself acknowledged that abortion was "inherently different" from the situations involved in cases like Griswold. Roe, 410 U.S. at 159. Thus, we do not share the dissent's concern "that parties will rely on the majority's reasoning that the involvement of 'others' in an abortion procedure defeats privacy—in attempts to undermine the broad privacy protections that are extended in the medical context.” Dissenting op. at 68. - 22

The first sentence sets forth the protected right, i.e., "to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into . . . private life." The second sentence then provides that “[t]his section shall not be construed to limit the public's right of access to public records and meetings as provided by law." Art. I, § 23. By its terms, this latter sentence covers “public records and meetings.” That phrase which relates only to accessing public informationdoes not implicate or apply to the subject of abortion. We do not give great weight to this observation, but we note it here to emphasize that contextual clues do not lend support to a claim that voters clearly understood abortion to be part and parcel of the rights recognized in the Privacy Clause. V Dictionary definitions and immediate context, although informative, do not provide a full picture of the text's meaning. We also consider the historical background of the phrases contained within the operative text. See Tomlinson, 369 So. 3d at 1146 ("[W]hen (as often happens) a word had more than one accepted meaning at that time, we decide which one is the law by looking to the context in which it appears, and what history tells us about - 23 -

how it got there."); Antonin Scalia & Bryan Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 33 (2012) ("[C]ontext embraces not just textual purpose but also . . . a word's historical associations acquired from recurrent patterns of past usage . ."); see also Heller, 554 U.S. at 605 (noting the critical importance in constitutional interpretation of examining “a variety of legal and other sources to determine the public understanding of a legal text in the period after its enactment or ratification"); TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413, 424 (2021) (relying on historical sources in determining constitutional text's meaning); N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 26-27 (2022) (historical sources integral to Court's holding). A Before examining the Privacy Clause's specific history and public debate, we explore the settled use of the "right to be let alone" in the context of Florida law, cognizant that technical meanings might bear upon the public understanding of the constitutional text. 12 12. In construing constitutional provisions that have an acquired meaning, “[w]e cannot understand these provisions unless - 24

The phrase "to be let alone" carries with it a rich legal tradition. In Cason v. Baskin, we discussed the common-law right to privacy and explained that in substance it was "the right to be let alone, the right to live in a community without being held up to the public gaze if you don't want to be held up to the public gaze." 20 So. 2d 243, 248 (Fla. 1944) (quoting Laurence H. Eldredge, Modern Tort Problems 77 (1941)).¹3 This right “to be let alone,” which was we understand their history; and when we find them expressed in technical words, and words of art, we must suppose these words to be employed in their technical sense." Thomas M. Cooley, A Treatise on the Constitutional Limitations which Rest upon the Legislative Power of the States of the American Union 93-94 (7th ed. 1903). Indeed, “[t]he technical sense in these cases is the sense popularly understood, because that is the sense fixed upon the words in legal and constitutional history where they have been employed for the protection of popular rights." Id. at 94 (emphasis added). 13. We recognize that this phrase “the right to be let alone” is likely sourced from the seminal 1890 law-review article, The Right to Privacy. Samuel D. Warren & Louis D. Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, 4 Harv. L. Rev. 193 (1890); cf. Stall v. State, 570 So. 2d 257, 265 (Fla. 1990) (Kogan, J., dissenting) (recognizing significance of this article). The authors of that article elaborated on the "right to be let alone" and free from “intrusion upon the domestic circle." Warren & Brandeis, supra, at 195-96 (borrowing label for this right from a tort treatise by Judge Thomas Cooley). The right, however, “had little to do with the autonomy of an individual to make decisions . . . free from government control." Jeffrey M. Shaman, The Right of Privacy in State Constitutional Law, 37 Rutgers L.J. 971, 990 (2006). It described a "different sort of privacy"-one - 25 -

often used interchangeably with the "right to privacy," was a prominent feature in Florida tort law. See, e.g., Battaglia v. Adams, 164 So. 2d 195, 197 (Fla. 1964) (“An unauthorized use of a person's name in this respect is recognized as a violation of his right of privacy."); Jacova v. S. Radio & Television Co., 83 So. 2d 34, 36 (Fla. 1955) (reiterating that Florida recognized a common-law claim for invasion of privacy and noting that "[when] one, whether willingly or not, becomes an actor in an occurrence of public or general interest,” “he emerges from his seclusion, and it is not an invasion of his right of privacy' to publish his photograph with an account of such occurrence" (quoting Metter v. L.A. Exam'r, 95 P.2d 491, 494 (Cal. Ct. App. 1939))); Harms v. Mia. Daily News, Inc., 127 So. 2d 715, 717 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961) (noting in the tort context that "[t]he "directed to keeping personal information from being exposed to the public, rather than to keeping decision-making within the control of an individual." Id. To Warren and Brandeis, the “right to be let alone" and free from “intrusion" safe-guarded against the publication of private facts. Warren & Brandeis, supra, at 195-96, 207-12. - 26

right of privacy is defined as the right of an individual to be let alone and to live a life free from unwarranted publicity"). 14 Significantly, throughout the decades in which the "right to be let alone" was developed and applied in Florida, two distinct propositions were true in the law and harmonious: first, the right "to be let alone” existed and had a discernable and enforceable meaning; and second, the Legislature had the authority to comprehensively regulate abortion before and after viability. Indeed, from at least 1868 to 1972, abortion was for the most part prohibited in our state. 15 And although litigants, prior to the 14. Florida law in this respect appears consistent with that of other jurisdictions. See W.E. Shipley, Annotation, Right of Privacy, 14 A.L.R.2d 750 (1950) (noting acts of intrusion into one's private affairs may also constitute violations of the right of privacy, such as eavesdropping, examination of private records or papers, or publications of personal material identified with the complainant as would using the complainant's name or likeness in almost any form of distributive publication). 15. See ch. 1637, subc. 3, § 11, subc. 8, § 9, Laws of Fla. (1868) (outlawing most abortions); Rev. St. 1892, §§ 2387, 2618 (same); §§ 782.10, 797.01, Fla. Stat. (1941) (repealed 1972) (same); §§ 782.10, 797.01, Fla. Stat. (1971) (repealed 1972) (same). In 1972, this Court determined that the abortion statute in effect at that time was unconstitutionally vague. State v. Barquet, 262 So. 2d 431, 438 (Fla. 1972). Immediately following that decision, the Legislature passed a more specific law, still banning abortion at all times during pregnancy except in certain limited circumstances. - 27 -

adoption of the Privacy Clause, sought to curtail government action by arguing they had the "right to be let alone," we are not aware of litigants invoking that particular right to challenge abortion restrictions in Florida. We also stress that this “right to be let alone” was modified by a limiting principle: the right did not permit an individual to inflict harm on herself or others. See State v. Eitel, 227 So. 2d 489, 491 (Fla. 1969) (rejecting a challenge to helmet laws based on a right "to be let alone," stressing that "no person is an entirely isolated being" and that “it is impossible for a person to do anything seriously or permanently hurtful to himself, without mischief reaching at least to his near connections, and often far beyond them") (cleaned up). Indeed, our Privacy Clause jurisprudence outside the abortion context recognizes that the right does not authorize harm to third parties. See, e.g., Beagle v. Beagle, 678 So. 2d 1271, 1276 (Fla. 1996) (parents' privacy right to raise their children yields to need to protect children from harm). Because the "right to be let alone" was limited in this way, it is not surprising that when litigants Ch. 72-196, § 2, Laws of Fla. (codified at section 458.22 of the Florida Statutes (Supp. 1972)) (repealed 1976). - 28

challenged the 1972 abortion statute in this Court, they did not do so based on the "right to be let alone." Instead, they argued a right to privacy grounded in substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. See Barquet, 262 So. 2d at 434. B We also acknowledge that the public understanding of the term "privacy" was, to some extent, informed by the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade. Following that decision, the phrase “right to privacy” gained new connotations that, for the first time, included the choice to have an abortion. See Roe, 410 U.S. at 154 ("We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision .”). In Planned Parenthood's view, this aspect of federal privacy jurisprudence should control our analysis here. Specifically, Planned Parenthood argues that Florida voters would have internalized Roe's definition of privacy when they voted for the privacy amendment. Indeed, Planned Parenthood has repeatedly asserted that the public understanding of this privacy definition was so engrained by 1980 that even without a specific mention of the term abortion, the Privacy Clause unequivocally - 29 -

included such a right by implication. Agreeing with this argument, the dissent cites case law, newspaper articles, a news clip, and more to support the contention that Americans, and Floridians in particular, would have naturally understood privacy to encompass abortion. 16 Though this argument has some force, we cannot agree with Planned Parenthood or the dissent that the backdrop of Roe conclusively establishes how a voter would have understood the provision. In Roe, the Supreme Court did not consider language comparable to the operative text of Florida's Privacy Clause-that is, the “right to be let alone.” That phrase is found only once in Roe, and that single mention is in Justice Stewart's concurrence quoting Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), in support of the proposition that there is no federal right to privacy. Roe, 410 U.S. 16. This evidence consists primarily of media coverage surrounding the Roe decision and subsequent evidence that discussed the abortion debate and associated a right of privacy with abortion. We accept that Roe had some bearing on the public's understanding of privacy rights in 1980. But, unlike the dissent, we do not find that it is dispositive. We are unwilling to disregard other probative evidence of public meaning, much of which is focused specifically on the amendment itself. The dissent, in our view, gives little attention to such evidence. - 30

at 167 n.2 (Stewart, J., concurring). So, while the Roe majority may have deemed abortion to be part of a “right to privacy," it would require an analytical leap to say that the public would have instinctively associated “the right to be let alone and free from governmental interference into one's private life" with abortion. E.g., Louis Henkin, Privacy and Autonomy, 74 Colum. L. Rev. 1410, 1424 (1974) (decisional autonomy “is not at all what most people mean by privacy,” which instead concerns “my freedom from official intrusion into my home, my person, my papers, my telephone”). This point is reinforced by the fact that the specific phrase used in the Privacy Clause had a consistent meaning in Florida law and had never once been interpreted to cover abortion rights. And as a final point here, we reiterate that Roe did not settle the scope of privacy rights as Planned Parenthood insists. As we discussed earlier, Roe's privacy-based reasoning was questioned soon after the opinion issued and was eventually rejected in a decision that completely detached abortion rights from the concept of privacy. See Casey, 505 U.S. at 846 (joint opinion). Thus, even if it is possible that voters would have understood the Privacy Clause to protect certain individual autonomy interests, it is by no means - 31

clear that those interests would have included the controversial subject of abortion, which uniquely involves the interests of prenatal life. Consequently, while Roe is relevant to our analysis of public meaning, it is not dispositive. Having considered dictionary definitions, context, and technical meanings that could have informed the original public meaning, we now turn to a critical piece of our historical analysis where we answer the following relevant questions: How did this provision make its way to the ballot, what was the focus of the debate surrounding its adoption, and how were the issues framed for the voters? C The origin of our Privacy Clause traces back to the work of a constitution revision commission in the late 1970s. As part of its work, the commission held public meetings throughout Florida and listened to the public's views and concerns. See Daniel R. Gordon, Upside Down Intentions: Weakening the State Constitutional Right to Privacy, a Florida Story of Intrigue and a Lack of Historical Integrity, 71 Temp. L. Rev. 579, 588 (1998); Transcript of Fla. C.R.C. proceedings at D:003272-73 (Jan. 9, 1978) (discussion of - 32 -

committee's work regarding privacy proposal). Eventually, the commission agreed upon the following language: Every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into his private life except as otherwise provided herein. Patricia A. Dore, Of Rights Lost and Gained, 6 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 609, 650 n.248 (1978) (quoting Fla. C.R.C., Rev. Fla. Const. art. I, § 23 (May 11, 1978)). That proposed amendment, along with roughly 80 others, was submitted to the public as a package deal in the 1978 election. Gordon, supra, at 588. This package, in addition to containing the privacy proposal, also included amendments ensuring access to (1) public records, (2) meetings of non-judicial public bodies, (3) judicial hearings and records, and (4) proceedings and records of the judicial nominating commissions. Gerald B. Cope, Jr., To Be Let Alone: Florida's Proposed Right of Privacy, 6 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 671, 675-77 (1978). Of note, proposals specifically addressing state abortion rights were rejected by the commissioners and never made it to the ballot. See Fla. Const. Revision Comm'n, Summary of Proposed Revisions to the Florida Constitution 1-2 (Sept. 27, 1977) (available in the Florida State University College of Law Research - 33 -

Center); cf. Mary Ann Lindley, A New Constitution Takes Shape, Palm Beach Post-Times, Apr. 9, 1978, at D1. For our purposes, though, we focus on statements made by commissioners in describing the reason or need for the proposal.17 On this subject, Justice Overton said: [W]ho, ten years ago, really understood that personal and financial data on a substantial part of our population could be collected by government or business and held for easy distribution by computer operated information systems? There is a public concern about how personal information concerning an individual citizen is used, whether it be collected by government or by business. The subject of individual privacy and privacy law is in a developing stage. . . . It is a new problem that should probably be addressed. Transcript of Fla. C.R.C. proceedings D:000020-21 (July 6, 1977). 17. See McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 828-29 (2010) (Thomas, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment) (“When interpreting constitutional text, the goal is to discern the most likely public understanding of a particular provision at the time it was adopted. Statements by legislators can assist in this process to the extent they demonstrate the manner in which the public used or understood a particular word or phrase. They can further assist to the extent there is evidence that these statements were disseminated to the public. In other words, this evidence is useful not because it demonstrates what the draftsmen of the text may have been thinking, but only insofar as it illuminates what the public understood the words chosen by the draftsmen to mean.”). - 34 -

Justice Overton was not alone in this respect. Commissioner Jon Moyle (sponsor of the privacy proposal) spoke of government surveillance, technological advances, and society's dependence on such technology—characterizing them as threats to an individual's privacy. Transcript of Fla. C.R.C. proceedings at D:003273, 327678 (Jan. 9, 1978). He also noted that records about private life were becoming more common. Id. at D:003277-81. According to him, states were “very much involved in the business of keeping records about their residents.” Id. at D:003276. But the states, in his view, had not done “their part” in protecting such records. Id. at D:003277. In line with Commissioner Moyle's sentiments, Commissioners Lew Brantley and Dexter Douglass both noted specific government-surveillance efforts as sources of privacy concerns. Id. at D:003325 (remarks of Lew Brantley); id. at D:003336 (remarks of Dexter Douglass). This historical survey is illustrative of the commission's focus in terms of privacy. Various commissioners publicly expressed concern for informational privacy. However, as best as we can tell from their statements, that pressing concern did not extend to abortion. - 35

The proposals failed, and less than two years later, we held that there was no state constitutional right of privacy that would prevent public disclosure of confidential papers prepared by a consultant for an electric authority. Shevin v. Byron, Harless, Schaffer, Reid & Assocs., Inc., 379 So. 2d 633, 639 (Fla. 1980); cf. Laird v. State, 342 So. 2d 962, 963 (Fla. 1977) (no constitutional right of privacy to smoke marijuana in confines of home). Months after Shevin was decided, the Legislature revived the idea of a privacy clause and ultimately agreed on a proposal that said: Every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into [the person's] private life except as otherwise provided herein. This section shall not be construed to limit the public's right of access to public records and meetings as provided by law. Editorial, Guaranteeing Our Privacy, Boca Raton News, Oct. 29, 1980, at 6A (setting forth language to appear on 1980 ballot); Patrick McMahon, State Constitutional Amendments, St. Petersburg Times, Oct. 30, 1980, at 22 (noting ballot title). In overwhelming numbers, legislators from both political parties voted to approve it for placement on the ballot. Out of the - 36

138 legislators who voted on it, only 6 did not support the proposal. See Lorraine Cichowski, House Votes to Propose Guaranteeing Right to Privacy, Fort Myers News-Press, May 7, 1980, at 8B; Jim Walker, Senators Clash over Privacy Amendment, Tampa Tribune, May 15, 1980, at 6-A. Of additional note, during the floor debate, there was virtually no discussion of abortion. And when abortion was brought up, the Senate sponsor assured other senators that the proposal would have no effect on that subject. Audio Tape: Proceedings of the Fla. S., Tape 2 at 17:40 (May 14, 1980) (available at Fla. Dep't of State, Fla. State Archives, Tallahassee, Fla., Series S1238, Box 57). As best as we can tell, no commissioner or legislator ever claimed (at least publicly between 1977-80) that abortion was part of the rights guaranteed by the Privacy Clause.¹8 See, e.g., Gordon, 18. To the extent that Planned Parenthood relies on Representative Jon Mills's later statement in the 1990s that he subjectively hoped that the privacy proposal would cover abortion, such reliance is misplaced. See Heller, 554 U.S. at 577 (proper approach to interpretation does not consider hidden or secret meaning "that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation”). Similarly, Planned Parenthood and one amicus misplace reliance on how voters handled two later proposed amendments—one in 2004 and the other in 2012. The understanding of voters over 20 years after the privacy amendment offers little value in determining what the voters in 1980 would have understood the privacy proposal to mean. Indeed, at oral - 37 -

supra, at 590 n.148 ("Nowhere did revision commissioners in 1978 refer to abortion . ."). Indeed, Planned Parenthood does not claim otherwise. D Like the history of the privacy proposal, the public debate surrounding the amendment also did not focus on abortion. Once the privacy proposal was approved for placement on the ballot in 1980, the public engaged in significant and robust debate over whether that proposal should be approved. Advocates for homosexual rights, proponents of legalized marijuana use, and various editorial boards advocated in favor of the amendment. Mary Hladky, Commissioners Table Vote on State Privacy Amendment, Fort Lauderdale News, Oct. 1, 1980, at 8B; Mary Lavers, Privacy Amendment Advocated by Kunst, Tampa Times, Oct. 23, 1980, at 10-A; Associated Press, Privacy Amendment Caught in Swirl of Controversy, Sentinel Star (Orlando), Oct. 24, 1980, at 2-C; Editorial, Amendment 2-Vote Yes, argument, Planned Parenthood conceded as much. See Oral Arg. at 22:59-23:02 (“2012 isn't evidence of what [the privacy amendment] meant in 1980.”). - 38 -

Bradenton Herald, Nov. 1, 1980, at A-4; Craig Matsuda, State Questions Are a Mix of Roads, Water, Privacy, Miami Herald, Nov. 2, 1980, at 8E; Amendments, St. Petersburg Times, Nov. 1, 1980, at 12B. These groups presented sweeping views of what the amendment would accomplish. Some, for instance, claimed that the amendment would decriminalize marijuana as well as certain intimate sexual conduct occurring inside the confines of a home. Julius Karash, Psychologist Stumps for Amendment, News-Press Local, Oct. 3, 1980, at B1; Steve Piacente, Gay Rights Activist Speaks for Privacy Act, Tampa Tribune, Oct. 24, 1980, at 2-B. Opponents of the measure included some political conservatives, various law enforcement officers, an association of prosecutors, and the then-serving governor. Prosecutors Condemn Privacy Amendment, Florida Today, Oct. 28, 1980, at 4B; Attorneys' Group Fights Privacy Amendment, Palm Beach Post, Oct. 28, 1980, at B26; Amendments under Attack as Vote Nears, Bradenton Herald, Oct. 29, 1980, at B-5; Graham Hit on Privacy, Florida Today, Oct. 29, 1980, at 6B; Amendment Opposition by Graham Criticized, Palm Beach Post, Oct. 29, 1980, at A11; Lawyer Raps Constitution Revision Plan, Fort Lauderdale News, Oct. 29, 1980, at 17A; Michael - 39 -

Harrell, Advertisement, Fort Lauderdale News, Oct. 29, 1980, at 16A; Amendments, St. Petersburg Times, Nov. 1, 1980, at 12B. Some opponents expressed concern that the open-ended language would permit courts to expansively interpret the amendment. Sensing that growing concern, House sponsors of the privacy proposal weighed in on the public debate. Taking to the newspapers, they reassured the public that concerns about whether the amendment would accomplish sweeping policy changes were unfounded. For instance, sponsors said that the proposed amendment arose from concerns “about technological advances that could enable the government to compile extensive computer files on citizens." Privacy Amendment Caught in Swirl of Controversy, supra, at 2-C; see also Associated Press, Privacy Measure Stirs Controversy, Pensacola News-Journal, Nov. 2, 1980, at 14C. Indeed, one sponsor said that the proposal was "necessary to ward off a growing government whose curiosity about people's private lives also is increasing." R. Michael Anderson, Amendment Guaranteeing Right to Privacy Debated, Florida Times-Union Jacksonville Journal, Oct. 26, 1980, at B-1. That same sponsor characterized the proposal as "quite conservative," predicting that - 40 -

"Florida judges wouldn't use it to overturn many existing laws." Privacy Amendment Caught in Swirl of Controversy, supra, at 2-C. And the other sponsor called expansive views of the proposed amendment “garbage.” See id. Of note, in looking at the extensive discussion surrounding the privacy amendment, little to nothing was said about abortion in print or in public comment. The debate-as framed to the publicoverwhelmingly associated the Privacy Clause's terms with concerns related to government surveillance and disclosure of private information to the public. Consistent with this observation, prolife and prochoice groups did not join in the fray. These groups are not politically bashfulnot now, and not in 1980. If the public understanding of the privacy proposal was that it included a silent-but almost unfettered-right to abortion, we would expect such groups to have engaged in the robust public debate. But based on all sources brought to our attention, we simply see no evidence of that. See James W. Fox, Jr., A Historical and Originalist Defense of Abortion in Florida, 75 Rutgers U. L. Rev. 393, 443-44 (2023) (acknowledging that these groups were silent on this topic; but - 41 -

discounting significance of such fact); cf. Oral Arg. at 13:02-13:39 (counsel for Planned Parenthood acknowledging that silence in the historical record). The dissent downplays the significance of this scope-of-debate evidence. Dissenting op. at 86. Accepting the logic of a law review article, the dissent claims that “[a]bortion would only have been debated if its coverage within the right to privacy were in dispute or were not yet established in law." Dissenting op. at 86 (quoting Fox, supra, at 442-43). We, however, cannot agree with this speculation. A person's understanding of the amendment's purpose would certainly inform whether he or she supported the adoption of the amendment. And, critically, it would inform how that person would persuade others to adopt their position. The debate over the privacy amendment was vigorous, yet there is virtually no evidence that anyone publicly connected the privacy amendment proposal with abortion rights. And as referenced by the dissent, newspapers during this same period were still discussing the controversy surrounding abortion, so it was far from a settled issue. Dissenting op. at 81-82 (noting that "Florida newspapers" in 1980 "covered statements by pro-choice activists and by pro-life activists" - 42 -

involving the abortion debate). We are unwilling to presume, as the dissent does, that abortion was so intertwined with the term "privacy" and so unquestionably accepted by society that its complete absence from the public debate surrounding this amendment should be expected. In sum, the scope of the privacy-proposal debate, both in terms of topics and participants, underscores that the public would not have understood, or assumed, the language of the Privacy Clause to encompass abortion. E Finally, we consider two additional sources of historical evidence, both of which show a contemporaneous understanding that the Privacy Clause did not enshrine abortion rights in our constitution. The first is concurrent legislative action. There were several Florida statutes passed between 1978 and 1980 regulating or restricting access to abortion in substantial ways. See ch. 78382, §§ 2, 4-10, Laws of Fla. (empowering Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services to create rules regulating abortion clinics; setting forth licensing requirement and framework; prohibiting abortion by unlicensed clinics); ch. 79-302, § 1, Laws of - 43 -

Fla. (requiring parental consent for unmarried minors); ch. 80-208, § 1, Laws of Fla. (fetal remains to be disposed of in "sanitary and appropriate manner"; establishing crime for violations of this standard); ch. 80-413, § 1, Laws of Fla. (additional regulations on abortion clinics; imposing standard governing disposal of fetal remains); cf. Amicus Brief of Former State Representative John Grant at 25-28 (noting concurrent legislation on abortionparticularly the abortion law passed during the same session as the privacy proposal). Based on this significant body of abortion regulation—some of which would be struck down as violative of Roe¹⁹ it seems unlikely to us that the Legislature in 1980 would put to the people a proposal crafted to imperil that recent work. The second source of evidence is what legislators of the time expressed with respect to adding a right-to-life amendment to the U.S. Constitution. See Fla. S. Comm. on HRS SM 737 (1978) Staff Analysis 1 (Fla. May 9, 1978) (available at Fla. Dep’t of State, Fla. State Archives, Tallahassee, Fla.); Fla. H.R., H.M. 388, 11th Sess. (Fla. 1979) (available at Dep't of State, Fla. State Archives, 19. See, e.g., Fla. Women's Med. Clinic, Inc. v. Smith, 536 F. Supp. 1048, 1059 (S.D. Fla. 1982). - 44 -

Tallahassee, Fla.); Fla. S., S.M. 118, 11th Sess. (Fla. 1979) (available at Fla. Dep't of State, Fla. State Archives, Tallahassee, Fla.). Of significance here, twenty-seven legislators who voted for the privacy proposal had, within the prior two years, openly supported the adoption of a federal amendment to "protect unborn human[s]” in response to Roe v. Wade. Compare H.R. Journal, 12th Sess., at 318 (Fla. 1980), with H.R. Journal, 11th Sess., at 48 (Fla. 1979); compare S. Journal, 11th Sess., at 21 (Fla. 1979), with S. Journal, 12th Sess., at 313 (Fla. 1980). To us, it seems quite unlikely that so many legislators would have tried to remove abortion rights as a matter of federal constitutional law only to restrict legislative power on abortion just two years later by way of a state constitutional amendment. F We pause to summarize the textual, contextual, and historical evidence we have discussed so far. The Privacy Clause of the Florida Constitution does not mention abortion or include a word or phrase that clearly incorporates it. Era-appropriate dictionary definitions and contextual clues suggest that abortion does not naturally fit within the rights at issue. Reliable historical sources, - 45 -

like the technical meaning of the terms contained in the provision, the origin of the amendment, and the framing of the public debate, similarly do not support a conclusion that abortion should be read into the provision's text. Roe is also relevant to our analysis of the public meaning of the Privacy Clause. But speculation as to Roe's effect on voter understanding does not overcome the combined force of the substantial evidence we have examined above. Thus, we cannot conclude that in 1980 a voter would have assumed the text encompassed a polarizing definition of privacy that included broad protections for abortion. VI We have established the background legal principles that govern our review and analyzed the original public meaning of the Privacy Clause as it relates to the subject of abortion. Now, we must address how those considerations apply here-namely, can Planned Parenthood demonstrate conflict between the challenged statute and the constitutional protections secured by the Privacy Clause? The statute we review prohibits abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, subject to certain exceptions. This statute "come[s] - 46 -

clothed with a presumption of constitutionality and must be construed" if possible "to effect a constitutional outcome." Crist, 978 So. 2d at 139. To overcome this presumption, the challenger must establish invalidity (or conflict) "beyond reasonable doubt." Id. Based on our analysis finding no clear right to abortion embodied within the Privacy Clause, Planned Parenthood cannot overcome the presumption of constitutionality and is unable to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the 15-week ban is unconstitutional. 20 This conclusion brings us into tension with our precedent, primarily T. W. in which we derived a right to abortion from the Privacy Clause's text and invalidated a statute on that basis. 551 So. 2d at 1188; see also N. Fla. Women's Health, 866 So. 2d at 639 (reaffirming T.W.); Gainesville Woman Care, 210 So. 3d at 1253-56, 20. Even if we gave significantly greater weight to Roe's effect on the original public meaning of the Privacy Clause (as urged by the dissent) and gave less weight to the other meaningful sources of evidence discussed above, we would still be left without a definition of privacy and considerable ambiguity as to the breadth of the provision. In that instance, we would reach the same conclusion, because a statute is presumed constitutional unless shown to be invalid beyond a reasonable doubt. Franklin, 887 So. 2d at 1073. The dissent fails to address what effect, if any, this longstanding principle of law should have here. - 47 -

1260 (relying on T.W.). In deciding how to resolve that tension, we again emphasize that T. W. failed to acknowledge the longstanding principle that statutes are presumed to be constitutional. This error led the Court to read additional rights into the constitution based on Roe's dubious and immediately contested reasoning, rather than evaluate what the text of the provision actually said or what the people of Florida understood those words to mean. The decision to extend the protections of the Privacy Clause beyond what the text could reasonably bear was not ours to make. As a result, we removed substantial authority from the people's elected representatives to regulate abortion-a profoundly unique and complicated issue that affects society in many significant ways. Accordingly, for the reasons given above, we find T.W. to be clearly erroneous. Based on our established test for assessing stare-decisis issues, we now ask whether there is a valid reason not to recede from T.W. See State v. Poole, 297 So. 3d 487, 506-07 (Fla. 2020) (outlining a two-part framework on stare-decisis issues). We have said that reliance is a critical consideration. Id. But as noted by the State, the Supreme Court's reasoning in Dobbs shows why reliance does not justify keeping T.W. In conducting a - 48 -

stare-decisis analysis in that case, the Supreme Court stressed that "[t]raditional reliance interests arise where advance planning of great precision is most obviously a necessity.'” Dobbs, 597 U.S. at 287 (first quoting Casey, 505 U.S. at 856 (joint opinion); and then citing Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 828 (1991)). The Court went on to state that “those traditional reliance interests [a]re not implicated because getting an abortion is generally ‘unplanned activity,' and ‘reproductive planning could take virtually immediate account of any sudden restoration of state authority to ban abortions."" Id. at 288 (quoting Casey, 505 U.S. at 856). Finally, the Court rejected application of a more malleable and undefined form of reliance that focused on the relative social and economic effects of abortion. Id. at 288-89. In its view, this type of reliance was irrelevant to a proper stare-decisis framework. Id. We think that this analysis from Dobbs is in keeping with Poole. Indeed, in Poole, we expressed wariness for tests that are "malleable and do not lend themselves to objective, consistent, and predictable application." 297 So. 3d at 507 (criticizing North Florida Women's Health's multi-factor stare-decisis framework). And in the years since Poole issued, we have not employed the more malleable - 49 -

form of reliance that Dobbs declined to apply—the same sort of societal reliance interests now being advanced by Planned Parenthood. Apart from arguing reliance, Planned Parenthood does not offer any other valid reasons for keeping T.W. Accordingly, because Planned Parenthood has failed to demonstrate a valid reason for retaining T. W., we recede from it. We also recede from Gainesville Woman Care and North Florida Women's Health, which both applied T.W.'s flawed reasoning and offered no additional doctrinal justification for locating a right to abortion in the Privacy Clause. VII We now return to the specific facts of this case. Below, the trial court granted a temporary injunction, finding that Planned Parenthood would likely succeed in its constitutional challenge. Our holding, however, displaces the doctrinal justification for the trial court's decision. Planned Parenthood cannot demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of its claim, which alleged that the newly enacted statute was facially invalid under the Privacy Clause of the Florida Constitution. And since Planned Parenthood fails on this prong, it is not entitled to a temporary injunction. - 50 -

Although we do not adopt the reasoning of the First District, we approve the result it reached below. It is so ordered. MUÑIZ, C.J., and CANADY, COURIEL, and FRANCIS, JJ., concur. SASSO, J., concurs with an opinion. LABARGA, J., dissents with an opinion. NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED. SASSO, J., concurring. I join the majority opinion because it correctly holds that the Florida Constitution does not contain a right to elective abortion. I write separately to explain why I believe it is appropriate to reach that decision considering the standing arguments raised by the State in the lower court proceedings and on appeal and as highlighted by Amici in this Court. In doing so, I will start with some observations regarding this Court's standing jurisprudence. I will then explain why I agree with the majority's decision to accept the State's waiver of any standing arguments here. Finally, I will explain why I believe, in the proper case, this Court should reconsider its standing precedent. - 51 -

I. Standing is the legal doctrine that defines when a litigant has a stake in a controversy sufficient to obtain judicial resolution of that controversy. The doctrine keeps us in our constitutional lane by ensuring we do not become “roving commissions assigned to pass judgment on the validity of the [State's] laws." See Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 611 (1973). At the federal level, standing requirements are derived from Article III of the United States Constitution's Case or Controversy Clause. Constitutional in origin, standing is therefore a jurisdictional prerequisite to a plaintiff's right to sue in federal court. See Indus. Servs. Grp., Inc. v. Dobson, 68 F.4th 155, 167 (4th Cir. 2023) ("It is axiomatic that standing is a threshold jurisdictional issue that must be determined before a court can consider the merits of a case." (citing Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 88 (1998))). For that reason, federal courts have the ability, and indeed the obligation, to address standing sua sponte even if a defendant has not raised the issue. See United States v. Hays, 515 U.S. 737, 742 (1995) ("[W]e are required to address [standing] even if the courts - 52 -

below have not passed on it, and even if the parties fail to raise the issue before us." (first alteration in original) (quoting FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 230-31 (1990))); Cent. States Se. & Sw. Areas Health & Welfare Fund v. Merck-Medco Managed Care, L.L.C., 433 F.3d 181, 198 (2d Cir. 2005) ("Because the standing issue goes to this Court's subject matter jurisdiction, it can be raised sua sponte."). Likewise, the question of standing is not subject to waiver. Hays, 515 U.S. at 742. At the state level, it is different. As it relates to standing, the Florida Constitution is textually distinct from the Federal Constitution because it does not contain an explicit cases and controversies clause. It should go without saying, then, that federal law does not control standing requirements in state courts. See ASARCO Inc. v. Kadish, 490 U.S. 605, 617 (1989) (noting that the constraints of Article III do not apply to state courts, and accordingly state courts are not bound by the limitations of a case or controversy). Even so, this Court has at times reflexively adopted federal standing tests without examining whether the Florida Constitution demands similar requirements. See, e.g., State v. J.P., 907 So. 2d 1101, 1113 n.4 (Fla. 2004) (adopting three-part standing - 53 -

test established by the United States Supreme Court in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992)); Alterra Healthcare Corp. v. Est. of Shelley, 827 So. 2d 936, 941 (Fla. 2002) (adopting thirdparty standing test recognized by the United States Supreme Court). We have not done so consistently, though. At times, we have concluded that standing in Florida is less restrictive than at the federal level. For example, in Department of Revenue v. Kuhnlein, 646 So. 2d 717, 720 (Fla. 1994), we said that the doctrine of standing does not exist in Florida "in the rigid sense employed in the federal system." See also Coal. for Adequacy & Fairness in Sch. Funding, Inc. v. Chiles, 680 So. 2d 400, 403 (Fla. 1996) (noting that in Florida, unlike the federal system, the doctrine of standing has not been rigidly followed). Consistent with this observation, we have sometimes applied state-specific standing rules. See, e.g., Johnson v. State, 78 So. 3d 1305, 1314 (Fla. 2012) (holding a litigant has standing if "he or she reasonably expects to be affected by the outcome of the proceedings, either directly or indirectly” (quoting Hayes v. Guardianship of Thompson, 952 So. 2d 498, 505 (Fla. 2006))). Other times we have, either explicitly or implicitly, - 54 -

bypassed a standing analysis altogether. See, e.g., J.P., 907 So. 2d at 1113 ("Because the Second District never determined whether these juveniles have standing to assert the constitutional rights of their parents, we decline to rule on these claims." (footnote omitted)).21 Our inconsistent approach is especially evident in the context of third-party standing. Traditionally, this Court considered as well-settled the rule that one who is not himself denied some constitutional right or privilege cannot be heard to raise constitutional questions on behalf of some other person who may at some future time be affected. See, e.g., Steele v. Freel, 25 So. 2d 501, 503 (Fla. 1946). Eventually, though, we carved out exceptions. For example, in Jones v. State, 640 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 1994), we determined that criminal defendants could raise the privacy rights 21. Despite the inconsistent application of various tests to determine whether a party has standing to pursue its claims, our standing precedent has been steady in one respect. We have always held that standing can be waived. See, e.g., Krivanek v. Take Back Tampa Pol. Comm., 625 So. 2d 840, 842 (Fla. 1993); Cowart v. City of West Palm Beach, 255 So. 2d 673, 675 (Fla. 1971). However, this is somewhat logically inconsistent, because we oftentimes have adopted federal standards ostensibly derived from the Federal Constitution without adopting the corresponding rule that standing is jurisdictional in nature and therefore not subject to waiver. - 55 -

of the female minors with whom they had sexual relations because the criminal defendants "st[oo]d to lose from the outcome of this case and yet they ha[d] no other effective avenue for preserving their rights." Id. at 1085 (referencing Stall v. State, 570 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 1990), for "vicarious standing" requirements). Later, in Alterra, we applied a federal test to determine when parties can sue on behalf of rights belonging to others. 827 So. 2d at 941-42. The test, as laid out in Alterra, goes like this: a litigant may bring an action on behalf of a third party if 1) the litigant suffered an “injury in fact,” thus giving him or her a "sufficiently concrete interest" in the outcome of the issue in dispute; 2) the litigant has a close relation to the third party; and 3) there is some hindrance to the third party's ability to protect his or her own interests. Id. (quoting Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 410-11 (1991)). But we applied this test in Alterra without explicitly adopting it as doctrine and without addressing our previous application of the Stall standard in Jones. Only a year after Alterra was decided, we again backed away from applying federal standing tests at all in Allstate Insurance Co. v. Kaklamanos, 843 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 2003). There, we reiterated - 56

that the doctrine of standing does not exist in Florida "in the rigid sense employed in the federal system." Id. at 895 (quoting Kuhnlein, 646 So. 2d at 720). This made room for our conclusion that an insured could maintain an action against the insurer for nonpayment of personal injury protection automotive insurance benefits even though the insured had not paid the medical bills in question and the medical provider had not instituted legal action against the insured for nonpayment. Id. at 897. And later, we appeared to cabin Alterra to the employment context in Weaver v. Myers, 229 So. 3d 1118, 1129 (Fla. 2017). In that same case, we also cited favorably the “vicarious standing" test from Jones, a case that preceded Alterra.2² Id. 22. Our doctrinal inconsistency in third-party standing cases is not the only aspect of our standing jurisprudence that has been unclear. For example, as noted above we adopted the three-part standing test established by the United States Supreme Court in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, in J.P. But a few years later in Johnson, we stated broadly that “standing ‘requires a would-be litigant to demonstrate that he or she reasonably expects to be affected by the outcome of the proceedings, either directly or indirectly.'" 78 So. 3d at 1314 (quoting Hayes, 952 So. 2d at 505). We did so without any reference to our previous adoption of the Lujan test and over the dissenting justices' observation that the moving party would have met that standing requirement. And although we have, with more consistency, adhered to the Rickman v. Whitehurst, 74 So. 205 (Fla. 1917), rule when litigants have - 57 -

II. With that background in mind, I now return to this case. It serves as a prime example of the challenges our doctrinal inconsistencies create for litigants and lower courts. In the trial court, the State argued Planned Parenthood lacked standing to challenge HB 5 because none of the plaintiffs could assert a personal right to privacy—instead, the plaintiffs sought to assert the privacy rights of their patients and/or customers. Working off the Alterra test, the State then argued Planned Parenthood could not meet the requirements for overcoming the general bar to third-party standing. In doing so, though, the State conceded that the second prong of the Alterra test (the close relationship requirement) was satisfied. In response, Planned Parenthood accepted the State's framing of the issue, arguing it could satisfy the Alterra test. This framework carried over to the trial court's order granting the challenged government action, we continue to carve out exceptions without a textual explanation justifying a new exception. See, e.g., Dep't of Admin. v. Horne, 269 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 1972) (citing federal precedent to carve out exception for "ordinary citizens and taxpayers" to pursue constitutional claims in certain circumstances even absent a showing of special injury to themselves). - 58 -

temporary injunction, where it applied the Alterra test and concluded that Planned Parenthood has "third-party standing to bring this suit on behalf of their actual and potential patients." Planned Parenthood of Sw. & Cent. Fla. v. State, No. 2022-CA-912, 2022 WL 2436704, at *17 (Fla. 2d Cir. Ct. July 5, 2022). But, in the First District, the court concluded that it did not need to address Petitioners' standing argument. Instead, the First District decided that Petitioners had not suffered irreparable harm sufficient to support the issuance of a temporary injunction. State v. Planned Parenthood of Sw. & Cent. Fla., 342 So. 3d 863, 867-68 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022). That takes us to the parties' briefing filed in this Court. The State reasserted its argument as to Planned Parenthood's standing to pursue its claims. But as the majority opinion notes, the State essentially conceded the issue of standing at oral argument, urging this Court to reach the merits. So why do we accept that concession? First, as the majority notes, this case has been litigated under the umbrella of this Court's abortion jurisprudence. See, e.g., Gainesville Woman Care, LLC v. State, 210 So. 3d 1243, 1253-54 (Fla. 2017); N. Fla. Women's - 59 -

Health & Counseling Servs., Inc. v. State, 866 So. 2d 612, 620 (Fla. 2003); In re T. W., 551 So. 2d 1186, 1188-89 (Fla. 1989). And our abortion jurisprudence falls into the category of cases where we have, without explaining why, skipped over a standing analysis altogether. As a result, we have neither directly addressed standing nor applied the Alterra test in any of our abortion cases. Instead, to the extent standing was considered, we seem to have collapsed the analysis into the grounds for obtaining a temporary injunction without considering which standing test to apply or whether an abortion provider can meet that test. See Gainesville Woman Care, 210 So. 3d at 1247 (“Petitioners have established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, one of the requirements of granting a temporary injunction, as well as all other grounds for the entry of a temporary injunction.” (emphasis added)). For that reason, addressing standing alone here would have only added to the inconsistencies in our cases. Second, both parties have asked us to apply the federal thirdparty standing test as applied in Alterra. But as explained above, we have applied that test once. And, for many reasons, I question the wisdom of perpetuating the standard here. For one, I do not - 60

think we should apply federal standards to textually distinct provisions of the Florida Constitution without considering whether that standard is independently justified on state law grounds. For another, reflexively adopting the federal third-party standing test is particularly troublesome because, in federal courts, it has been inconsistently applied and widely criticized. See, e.g., June Med. Servs. L. L. C. v. Russo, 140 S. Ct. 2103, 2142-46 (2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting) (noting the test's inconsistent application, criticizing the characterization of third-party standing as prudential in nature, and concluding that third-party standing is inconsistent with the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III). Finally, and critically, neither party has challenged our characterization of standing as waivable rather than jurisdictional. Similarly, no party has offered an alternative standard to apply in the absence of Alterra or an argument as to whether Planned Parenthood fails to meet any alternative standard. As a result, I believe this Court properly reaches the merits of this case. III. While the State's concession takes care of this case, in future cases we should reconsider our standing precedents. Most - 61

fundamentally, we should consider from where our standing requirements are derived (spoiler alert-it is not the Federal Constitution). For example, is standing in Florida derived only from article V's conception of "judicial power"? See, e.g., Sons of Confederate Veterans v. Henry Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs, 880 S.E.2d 168, 185-86 (Ga. 2022) (concluding that standing requirement arises from the Georgia Constitution's judicial power provision). Or does the access to courts provision of article I, section 21 have anything to say as to standing? Once decided, we will need to clarify the scope of any standing requirements, such as whether parties may assert both legal and factual injuries or whether only a legal injury will suffice. See, e.g., F. Andrew Hessick, Standing, Injury in Fact, and Private Rights, 93 Cornell L. Rev. 275, 280-81 (2008) (noting that at common law "factual harm without a legal injury was damnum absque injuria and provided no basis for relief"). We will also need to examine whether standing requirements are truly subject to waiver, or instead whether they are jurisdictional in nature. And finally, we will need to provide a principled methodology to help litigants understand which tests to apply when. - 62 -

To decide these and other issues related to standing, we will need the benefit of the adversarial process and thorough briefing. For that reason, and in the proper case, I encourage parties to critically assess these and other standing issues and present argument to this Court should the opportunity arise. LABARGA, J., dissenting. When the United States Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs23 “returned to the people and their elected representatives” “the authority to regulate abortion,” the decision did not force the state of Florida into uncharted territory. Instead, as history reveals and the majority acknowledges, the right to an abortion as a matter of Florida law was decided decades ago following two significant postRoe24 developments: (1) Florida voters' 1980 approval of an amendment to the Florida Constitution expressly providing a right of privacy, and (2) this Court's 1989 decision in In re T. W., 551 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 1989), holding that Florida's express right of privacy 23. Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Org., 597 U.S. 215, 292 (2022). 24. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). - 63

encompasses the right to an abortion. Nonetheless, today's majority decision recedes from decades of this Court's precedent and holds that "there is no basis under [Florida's express right of privacy] to invalidate” “a recently amended statute that shortens the window of time in which a physician may perform an abortion." Majority op. at 2. I strongly dissent. The Right of Privacy Adopted by Florida voters in 1980, article I, section 23 of the Florida Constitution provides: “Every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into the person's private life except as otherwise provided herein. This section shall not be construed to limit the public's right of access to public records and meetings as provided by law." Contrary to the majority, I am convinced that in 1980, a Florida voter would have understood that the proposed privacy amendment “included broad protections for abortion." Id. at 46. The right of privacy is no novel concept. More than 100 years ago, former Michigan Supreme Court Justice and noted legal scholar Thomas Cooley described “[t]he right to one's person" as the right "to be let alone." Thomas M. Cooley, A Treatise on the Law of - 64 -

Torts or the Wrongs Which Arise Independent of Contract 29 (2d ed. 1888). When the right "to be let alone" was discussed by Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis in their Harvard Law Review article The Right to Privacy, the article primarily discussed the tort of invasion of privacy. See Samuel D. Warren & Louis D. Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, 4 Harv. L. Rev. 193 (1890). However, the authors also made the following salient observation: THAT the individual shall have full protection in person and in property is a principle as old as the common law; but it has been found necessary from time to time to define anew the exact nature and extent of such protection. Political, social, and economic changes entail the recognition of new rights, and the common law, in its eternal youth, grows to meet the demands of society. Id. at 193. Thus, even in early considerations of the right of privacy, scholars recognized that the right would be one that would evolve over time and it did. During the twentieth century, political, social, and economic changes led to a host of changes in the legal landscape, resulting in an expansion of the right of privacy far beyond a right to be free from unwanted public exposure. Without question, one of the most significant legal developments was the United States Supreme Court's recognition in Roe of an implicit right of privacy - 65 -

guaranteeing the right to an abortion as a matter of federal law. However, the right of privacy in the context of decisional autonomy took hold several years earlier in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) (holding that a state statute prohibiting the use of contraceptives violated the right to marital privacy). It is relevant to the analysis of the public understanding of the right of privacy that Griswold's expansion of privacy to reach decisional autonomy occurred more than seven years before Roe and fifteen years before Florida voters' adoption of the right of privacy as a matter of state constitutional law. The State's argument, that the sole context for Florida's right of privacy is informational privacy, seems to have been a step too far even for the majority. Nonetheless, the majority concludes that the language of "shall not be construed to limit the public's right of access to public records and meetings as provided by law" provides context that "do[es] not lend support to a claim that voters clearly understood abortion to be part and parcel of the rights recognized" under the right of privacy. Majority op. at 23. What is more, it reaches this conclusion despite substantial evidence that - 66 -

overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that the public understood the right of privacy to encompass the right to an abortion. Abortion as a Private Matter Before turning to the public understanding of the right of privacy, I write to address the majority's suggestion that abortion is ultimately not a private matter because “the procedure itself include[s] medical intervention and require[s] both the presence and intrusion of others.” Id. at 21 (citing Roe, 410 U.S. at 172 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting)). The majority acknowledges that an abortion "include[s] medical intervention,” see id., but beyond merely “includ[ing] medical intervention,” Florida’s statutes regulating abortion—then and now-require that the procedure be performed by a physician. See § 390.0111(2), Fla. Stat. (2023) (requiring that a termination of pregnancy be performed by a physician); Wright v. State, 351 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 1977) (pre-1980 decision from this Court upholding the conviction of a registered nurse who performed an abortion in violation of statute requiring that the procedure be performed by a physician). The “others” required to be present and involved in the procedure are physicians and medical personnel. In the interest of - 67 -

patient privacy, medical matters, including countless forms of medical procedures, are broadly afforded confidentiality protections with narrowly tailored exceptions. And notably, the involvement of a physician was not fatal to the privacy issue in Griswold, where the United States Supreme Court said: "This law [prohibiting the use of contraceptives], however, operates directly on an intimate relation of husband and wife and their physician's role in one aspect of that relation.” 381 U.S. at 482 (emphasis added). As a matter of necessity, physicians and medical personnel are routinely involved in a wide range of medical procedures, decisions, and other medical matters. The majority attempts to limit today's decision to the issue of abortion. See majority op. at 10 note 7 ("[T]oday we do not revisit our precedents outside the abortion context."). However, I fear that parties will rely on the majority's reasoning that the involvement of "others" in an abortion procedure defeats privacy-in attempts to undermine the broad privacy protections that are extended in the medical context. - 68

The Public Understanding of Roe v. Wade and the Right of Privacy The majority "acknowledge[s] that the public understanding of the term 'privacy' was, to some extent, informed by the United States Supreme Court's 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade," observing that "[following that decision, the phrase ‘right to privacy' gained new connotations that, for the first time, included the choice to have an abortion." Majority op. at 29 (emphasis added). The majority continues: In Planned Parenthood's view, this aspect of federal privacy jurisprudence should control our analysis here. Specifically, Planned Parenthood argues that Florida voters would have internalized Roe's definition of privacy when they voted for the privacy amendment. Indeed, Planned Parenthood has repeatedly asserted that the public understanding of this privacy definition was so engrained by 1980 that even without a specific mention of the term abortion, the Privacy Clause unequivocally included such a right by implication. Though this argument has some force, we cannot agree with Planned Parenthood that the backdrop of Roe conclusively establishes how a voter would have understood the provision. Id. at 29-30 (emphasis added). The majority concludes that "[c]onsequently, while Roe is relevant to our analysis of public meaning, it is not dispositive.” Id. at 32. I could not disagree more. - 69 -

The majority correctly recognizes the significant impact of Roe but stops short of the reality that Roe, having fundamentally changed the landscape of abortion rights on a national scale by redefining the scope of the right of privacy, was key to the public understanding of the right of privacy. During the seven-year interval between Roe and Florida voters' adoption of the right of privacy, I find it inconceivable that Americans and more specifically, Floridians were not aware that the right of privacy encompassed the right to an abortion. I agree with the petitioners that "the public understanding of [Roe's] privacy definition was so engrained by 1980 that even without a specific mention of the term abortion, the Privacy Clause unequivocally included such a right by implication." Id. at 29-30. In fact, the majority notes the controversial impact of Roe's reasoning, which reinforces that the public would have understood the right of privacy encompassed the right to an abortion. See id. at 14 (stating that Roe "left even progressive legal scholars baffled at how such a right could be gleaned from the constitution's text," and quoting Dobbs, 597 U.S. at 268 (“Roe's constitutional analysis was far outside the bounds of any reasonable interpretation of the - 70 -

various constitutional provisions to which it vaguely pointed.")). Contrary to the majority's position, evidence of the discussion surrounding Roe's reasoning is probative that the public understood the right of privacy to encompass the right to an abortion, and to so conclude does not require the "analytical leap" that the majority suggests it does. See id. at 31. Roe's opponents strenuously disapproved of basing the right to an abortion on the right of privacy; just as strenuously, Roe's supporters agreed with the Supreme Court's analysis. The common denominator is the understanding that the right to an abortion was tied to the right of privacy. The Nationwide Understanding of Roe and the Right of Privacy A decision that triggered pervasive national coverage, Roe was publicly discussed and debated in a way that most judicial decisions-even those decided by the United States Supreme Court are not. Media outlets across the nation reported on the landmark decision. On the day that Roe was decided, Associated Press articles announcing the seminal decision were published on the front pages of newspapers nationwide, many explaining that the decision "was - 71 -

based predominantly on what [Justice] Blackmun called a right of privacy."25 The nightly news programs on the major television networks also reported on Roe to an audience of tens of millions of viewers. The CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite-a news program with, at that time, a consistent audience of twenty million or more viewers-covered the decision in a segment lasting more than three minutes, noting that “[t]he nine justices made abortion 25. See, e.g., Associated Press, Abortion Law Out, Mexico Ledger, Jan. 22, 1973, at 1; Associated Press, Barry Schweid, Abortion Law Struck by Court, The Courier News (Blytheville), Jan. 22, 1973, at 1; Associated Press, Abortions Allowed During 1st 6 Months, The Daily Chronicle (Centralia), Jan. 22, 1973, at 1; Associated Press, Barry Schweid, Blackmun Cites 'Right of Privacy' Court Bars Restricting Three-Month Abortions, The Index-Journal (Greenwood), Jan. 22, 1973, at 1; Associated Press, Court Strikes Down Abortion Law, The Neosho Daily News, Jan. 22, 1973, at 1; Associated Press, Court Strikes Down Abortion Law, Aiken Standard, Jan. 22, 1973, at 1; Associated Press, Court Strikes Down Texas Abortion Law, The Daily Times-News (Burlington), Jan. 22, 1973, at 1; Associated Press, Barry Schweid, Decision Will Affect 44 States, Del Rio News-Herald, Jan. 22, 1973, at 1; Associated Press, High Court Upholds Medical Abortions, Waukesha Daily Freeman, Jan. 22, 1973, at 1; Associated Press, Key Abortion Ruling by Supreme Court, Santa Cruz Sentinel, Jan. 22, 1973, at 1; Associated Press, Rule on Abortions, The Sedalia Democrat, Jan. 22, 1973, at 1; Associated Press, States Can't Block Early Abortions, The Bismarck Tribune, Jan. 22, 1973, at 1; Associated Press, Supreme Court Upholds Women's Abortion Rights, Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, Jan. 22, 1973, at 1; Associated Press, Texas Law Struck Down, 7-2, The Vernon Daily Record, Jan. 22, 1973, at 1-2. - 72 -

largely a private matter." CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite, featuring George Herman in Washington (CBS television broadcast Jan. 22, 1973), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dccagy905yk (available on the CBS News YouTube channel). Throughout the nation, local journalists also published articles announcing and explaining Roe, as did opinion writers in making their arguments.26 In some articles, even the titles emphasized that the right to an abortion was based on the right of privacy. See, e.g., Supreme Court: Right of Privacy Includes Abortion, The Georgia Bulletin, Feb. 22, 1973, at 2 (calling Roe "one of the biggest news stories of the year"); Chicago Daily News Services, 'Privacy' is Reason for Abortion Ruling, Omaha World-Herald, 26. See, e.g., Bonni McKeown, Abortion's Status in West Virginia: Legal Question Affects Availability, Beckley Post-Herald, June 21, 1976, at 5 (explaining that Roe invalidated most states' abortion laws based on the balancing of the state's interests versus a woman's right of privacy); Washington Post, Editorial, Abortion: 19th Century, The Evening Times (Sayre), Feb. 3, 1973, at 4 (same); Joseph Kraft, Opinion, The High Court Speaks Up for Privacy, The Greensboro Record, Jan. 29, 1973, at 20 (same); Joseph Kraft, Opinion, Ruling Revealed Conservative Court, The Montana Standard, Jan. 28, 1973, at 6 (same); Joseph Kraft, Opinion, The Abortion Ruling, The Roanoke Times, Jan. 27, 1973, at 6 (same); Mary Smith, Abortion Ruling Draws Varied Reactions Here, The Lawton Constitution, Jan. 23, 1973, at 4 (same). - 73 -

Jan. 23, 1973, at 18; Associated Press, 'Right of Privacy' Cited in Action Against States, Reno Gazette-Journal, Jan. 22, 1973, at 1. Roe and its extensive coverage informed legislators and their constituents that the right of privacy under the U.S. Constitution protected the right to an abortion. Far from an issue that faded after one or two news cycles, abortion remained a prevalent issue during the seven years between Roe and the 1980 adoption of Florida's privacy amendment. The three-trimester framework laid out in Roe balanced the state's interests against the mother's right of privacy, and based on that balancing test, abortion laws in multiple states, including Florida, were struck down on federal privacy grounds. See Fla. Women's Med. Clinic, Inc. v. Smith, 478 F. Supp. 233 (S.D. Fla. 1979) (holding unconstitutional, on federal privacy grounds, administrative rules implementing Florida abortion statute); Jones v. Smith, 474 F. Supp. 1160 (S.D. Fla. 1979) (granting, on federal privacy grounds, a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of Florida abortion statute); Coe v. Gerstein, 376 F. Supp. 695 (S.D. Fla. 1973) (holding Florida abortion statute unconstitutional on federal privacy grounds). - 74 -

As courts, legislatures, and the public continued to confront the topic of abortion, the media continued to cover Roe, noting the historical and legal context: “In the famous 1973 Roe vs. Wade case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that choosing abortion was part of a woman's right to privacy";27 "The Supreme Court legalized abortions in 1973, basing its landmark ruling on a woman's right to privacy."28 In 1980, only two months before Florida's privacy amendment vote, a United States district court judge struck down North Dakota's new abortion law regulating first trimester abortions, applying Roe and stating that "[t]he decision to obtain an abortion free from governmental interference is a fundamental right founded 27. Kevin M. Russell, Letter to the Editor, Does The Bill Regulating Abortions Deny Women Their Rights?, The Record (Hackensack), June 17, 1979, at 105. 28. Associated Press, Top Court to Decide Abortion Law Rule, Gettysburg Times, Nov. 28, 1979, at 6; Associated Press, Abortion Issue Back Before Supreme Court, The Index-Journal (Greenwood), Nov. 27, 1979, at 8; Associated Press, Abortion Issue Goes Back to High Court, News-Journal (Mansfield), Nov. 27, 1979, at 7; Associated Press, Abortion Issue is Back Before the Supreme Court, Poughkeepsie Journal, Nov. 27, 1979, at 6; Associated Press, High Court to Rule on Abortion Issue, Daily Sitka Sentinel, Nov. 27, 1979, at 2. - 75 -

in the right of privacy implicit in the Constitution." Leigh v. Olson, 497 F. Supp. 1340, 1343 (D.N.D. 1980); Associated Press, Most of Abortion Law Tossed Out, The Bismarck Tribune, Sept. 30, 1980, at 1 (front-page newspaper article in North Dakota quoting the court's decision). Following Roe, pro-choice advocates praised the decision for recognizing a woman's right of privacy, while Catholic bishops and other pro-life advocates spoke out against Roe, asserting that the decision let the right of privacy outweigh the right to life: “In effect, the Court is saying that the right of privacy takes precedence over the right to life." U.S. Bishops Issue Message on Abortion, Panama City News-Herald, Mar. 4, 1973, at 40; Bishops Reject High Court's Abortion Ruling, Issue Pastoral Applications for Catholics, The True Voice (Omaha), Feb. 16, 1973, at 1.29 at 29. See also Katherine Lunine, Letter to the Editor, Preserve Constitutional Rights, The Journal News (Hamilton), Feb. 1, 1977, 4 (showing that pro-choice actors argue that government interference with abortion is limited by a woman's right of privacy); Associated Press, Abortion Ban Voted by House, The Corbin TimesTribune, Sept. 17, 1976, at 12 (same); Associated Press, Betty Anne Williams, Anti-Abortionists Stage Ban Rally in Washington, The Robesonian (Lumberton), Jan. 22, 1976, at 2 (same); Associated Press, 'March for Life' Again Seeks Amendment to Ban Abortion, The Index-Journal (Greenwood), Jan. 22, 1976, at 3 (same); Associated - 76

Ultimately, whether they supported the Supreme Court's decision in Roe or not, Americans in 1980 would have understood that the right of privacy encompassed the right to an abortion. The Public Understanding of Florida Voters in 1980 More specifically, and especially relevant to the present case, Florida media coverage after Roe illustrates that in 1980 Florida voters would have understood the privacy amendment to encompass the right to an abortion. The wealth of primary sources from Florida strongly indicates what voters would have known. Newspapers across Florida began reporting on Roe the day it was decided: January 22, 1973. In explaining the decision, these articles discussed the federal right of privacy as the basis for the right to an abortion. Adam Richardson, The Originalist Case for Why the Florida Constitution's Right of Privacy Protects the Right to an Abortion, 53 Stetson L. Rev. 101, 125 (2023). Like newspapers throughout the nation, Florida newspapers published an Associated Press, Washington Rally Marks Abortion Anniversary, The Times Record (Troy), Jan. 22, 1976, at 3 (same); United Press International, High Court 7-2 Ruling on Abortion Praised, Condemned, Traverse City Record-Eagle, Jan. 23, 1973, at 24 (same). - 77 -

Press article quoting Roe's pronouncement that the right of privacy "is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." See, e.g., Associated Press, Court Strikes Down Abortion Laws, The Pensacola News, Jan. 22, 1973, at 1; Associated Press, High Court KOs Ban on Abortion, Tallahassee Democrat, Jan. 22, 1973, at 1. Coverage of Roe and of this broad privacy right also made the front pages of newspapers in Orlando and Fort Myers. See Washington Post Dispatch, High Court Nullifies Abortion Laws, Sentinel Star (Orlando), Jan. 23, 1973, at 1; Associated Press, Six-Month Abortions Upheld, Fort Myers NewsPress, Jan. 23, 1973, at 1. In 1980, the right of privacy and its inextricable connection to the right to an abortion continued to permeate Florida news. When Justice Douglas died in January 1980, Florida newspapers reported his legacy with mention of his majority opinion in Griswold as a precursor to Roe. Richardson, supra, at 131; James W. Fox Jr., A Historical and Originalist Defense of Abortion in Florida, 75 Rutgers U. L. Rev. 393, 427-28 (2023). For example, a Miami Herald article noted that after Griswold, "the [United States Supreme] court moved to rule, in 1973, that a woman in early pregnancy has a - 78 -

constitutional right of privacy to choose abortion without government interference." Aaron Epstein, William O. Douglas: Champion of Underdogs, Unpopular Ideas, The Miami Herald, Jan. 27, 1980, at 5-E. Florida news coverage of the United States Supreme Court continued with reports of abortion cases―and their right of privacy issues. In discussing the Supreme Court's 1980 oral arguments in H. L. v. Matheson, 450 U.S. 398 (1981), which involved parental notification of abortion, the Miami Herald reported that “[o]ut of this conflict between a minor's right to privacy and her parents' obligation to care for her has emerged a constitutional issue that was accepted Monday for review by the U.S. Supreme Court." Aaron Epstein, Court Will Examine Parents' Notification for Minor's Abortion, The Miami Herald, Feb. 26, 1980, at 10-A. And explaining the Court's decision in Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980), which upheld the Hyde Amendment's restrictions on the use of federal funds to pay for an abortion, the Pensacola News reported that the decision "had nothing to do with the legality of abortion itself" because “[t]he Supreme Court legalized abortion in its landmark 1973 decision” in which "the court said a woman's right to privacy - 79 -

makes her decision to have an abortion a matter only for her and her doctor during the first three months of her pregnancy." Associated Press, High Court Rules on Abortions, The Pensacola News, June 30, 1980, at 1. Florida newspapers covered major party platforms, including their stances on abortion. These articles linked the abortion issue with the right of privacy. The Fort Lauderdale News and other Florida newspapers published a syndicated column indicating that although the Republican platform did not yet have a consensus on abortion, the Supreme Court had made its determination in 1973 by, in the author's view, “forging from a ‘privacy right' a scythe to mow down state laws that expressed various community judgments about abortion." See George Will, Opinion, Bridges to Cross; Bridges to Burn, Fort Lauderdale News, July 17, 1980, at 18A; Richardson, supra, at 132 n. 177 (observing that the column ran in Florida Today, Fort Myers News-Press, Palm Beach Post, Pensacola News, Sentinel Star (Orlando), St. Lucie News Tribune, St. Petersburg Times, Stuart News, and Tallahassee Democrat). Covering the Democratic platform, the St. Petersburg Times reported that delegates had voted for a platform statement opposing "government - 80 -

interference in the reproductive decisions of Americans" and "restrictions on funding for health services for the poor that deny poor women especially the right to exercise a constitutionallyguaranteed right to privacy." Charles Stafford, Kennedy Stirs Democrats with Rousing Call to Arms, St. Petersburg Times, Aug. 13, 1980, at 1-A (quoting the statement under the label “ABORTION”). Florida newspapers also covered statements by pro-choice activists and by pro-life activists that demonstrate both groups' understanding of abortion as part of the right of privacy. See Associated Press, Planned Parenthood Waving the Flag, The Tampa Tribune, Oct. 4, 1980, at 7-D (“In recent years we have faced an increasingly vocal and at times violent minority which seeks to deny all of us our fundamental rights of privacy and individual decisionmaking."); Carol Jeffares, Her Love of Life Makes Her Stand, Fight for It, The Tampa Tribune, Sept. 20, 1980, at 5-Pasco ("The abortion law is based on the woman's right to privacy. It says ‘a woman's right to privacy supersedes the fetus's life." "); Richardson, supra, at 132. With inflammatory language, both pro-choice and pro-life letters to the editor in Florida newspapers further demonstrate this understanding. See Joyce Tarnow, Letter to the Editor, Vote Out - 81

Anti-Abortionists, Fort Lauderdale News, Jan. 29, 1980, at 26-A ("The U.S. Constitution guarantees each of us the right of privacy, the right of religious freedom and the right to pursue happiness however we define it. Compulsory pregnancy is a denial of each of these rights."); Hugh Pope, Letter to the Editor, The Tampa TribuneTimes, Nov. 2, 1980, at 2-C (“There cannot be a more compelling reason for intelligent and patriotic Americans to vote Republican than to save lives! Stripped of all its sugarcoated slogans-freedom of choice[,]' [] 'woman's right to privacy[,]' [] etc., etc., abortion is legalized murder.”). The foregoing primary sources from Florida and from across the United States are examples of many. These sources should not be overlooked, and their impact should not be undervalued. In a quest to uncover the original public meaning of the Florida Constitution's Privacy Clause, they reveal that Roe was widely known for its holding and for its reasoning. Thus, in 1980, Florida voters would have understood the right of privacy as encompassing the right to an abortion. I hasten to add that the coverage discussed above, specifically connecting Roe and the right to an abortion to the right of privacy, - 82 -

occurred at a time when Americans relied heavily on print media and national news broadcasts. Florida Courts Acknowledge Right of Privacy Under Roe By the time Florida voters adopted the privacy amendment in 1980, Florida court decisions had repeatedly acknowledged the right of privacy expanded under federal law by Roe. While these decisions did not conclude that a right of privacy existed on state law grounds, they do provide further support that the public would have understood the link between the right to an abortion and the right of privacy. In 1977, this Court stated that “Justice Blackmun's articulation in Roe v. Wade of the limited scope of the right to privacy remains the current state of the law." Laird v. State, 342 So. 2d 962, 965 (Fla. 1977) (emphasis added) (rejecting argument that a right of privacy protected the possession of marijuana in the home). Even the dissenting opinion in Laird observed: "A constitutional right to privacy has been clearly established by the United States Supreme Court in . . . Roe . . . .” Id. at 966 (Adkins, J., dissenting) (emphasis added). - 83 -

In Jones v. Smith, 278 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973), cert. denied, Jones v. Smith, 415 U.S. 958 (1974), a case involving the abortion context, the Fourth District Court of Appeal rejected the claim of a putative father that he was entitled to prevent the mother from obtaining an abortion. The district court rejected that argument, saying: The recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade . . . and Doe v. Bolton [410 U.S. 179 (1973)], while dealing with the constitutionality of statutes, set forth what we perceive to be the essential and underlying factor in the determination of this appeal. That factor is the "right of privacy” of the mother. Id. at 341 (emphasis added). Additionally, in discussing the right of privacy, the district court noted an observation made by the United States Supreme Court in Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891): “As well said by Judge Cooley, The right to one's person may be said to be a right of complete immunity to be let alone."" 278 So. 2d at 342 (quoting Babbitz v. McCann, 310 F. Supp. 293, 299 (E.D. Wisc. 1970)). Moreover, in Wright, the statute at issue required that an abortion be performed by a physician and at an approved facility. The petitioner, a registered nurse, challenged the approved facility - 84 -

requirement on the basis that under Roe and other federal decisions, the requirement violated the right of privacy. 351 So. 2d at 710. This Court ultimately upheld the petitioner's conviction on the ground that the statute constitutionally prohibited nonphysicians from performing an abortion. Despite concluding that the approved facility requirement was unconstitutional, this Court rejected the petitioner's privacy argument, stating: “The right to privacy in the abortion decision, recognized in Roe . . . as belonging to the pregnant woman in consultation with her physician, gives way to state power to regulate as the embryo or fetus develops." Id. at 710.30 30. Other decisions not involving abortion-related issues also recognized the right of privacy established in Roe. See, e.g., Rodriguez v. State, 378 So. 2d 7, 8 n.2 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979) (“In Roe, the court balanced the fundamental right to privacy of a woman's decision whether or not to terminate pregnancy against state interest to limit that right to safeguard health and potential life.”); Franklin v. White Egret Condo., Inc., 358 So. 2d 1084, 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) (observing on motion for rehearing that “[t]he right to be free of unwarranted interference with the decision to have children has been identified on numerous occasions by the United States Supreme Court as one of the matters protected by the right of privacy"); Day v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 328 So. 2d 560, 562 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976) (“The decision to have an abortion during the first trimester has been held to be private and personal to the individual woman. The primary interest, at least in the early stages of pregnancy, is that of the woman and her right to privacy." (citations - 85

Roe and the Privacy Amendment Debate According to the majority, the relative absence of the topic of abortion from the debate over Florida's proposed privacy amendment is evidence that the public did not understand that the right to an abortion was included in the scope of the proposed right of privacy. See majority op. at 41-42 (citing Fox, supra, at 443-44). However, Professor Fox explains why the topic of abortion was not a part of the amendment debate: Abortion would only have been debated if its coverage within the right to privacy were in dispute or were not yet established in law. But as of 1980 the protection of abortion through the right to privacy was the established law. It would hardly make sense for debates about section 23 to invest time and effort re-arguing the reasoning of Roe, let alone arguing that the terms “right to privacy," "right to be let alone," and "free from governmental intrusion" would plainly mean what they already meant in federal law. Fox, supra, at 442-43 (emphasis omitted). Indeed, Roe's extension of the right of privacy to the abortion context so dominated the abortion discussion that it would have been well understood that omitted)). Again, these cases are relevant to demonstrate that after Roe, and before voters adopted Florida's privacy amendment, the right to an abortion as a matter of a right of privacy would have been well understood. - 86 -

the right of privacy adopted by Florida voters included the right to an abortion. In re T.W. [S]tate courts cannot rest when they have afforded their citizens the full protections of the federal Constitution. State constitutions, too, are a font of individual liberties, their protections often extending beyond those required by the Supreme Court's interpretation of federal law. The legal revolution which has brought federal law to the fore must not be allowed to inhibit the independent protective force of state law-for without it, the full realization of our liberties cannot be guaranteed. William J. Brennan, Jr., State Constitutions and the Protection of Individual Rights, 90 Harv. L. Rev. 489, 491 (1977). Indeed, "[t]he citizens of Florida opted for more protection from governmental intrusion when they approved article I, section 23 of the Florida Constitution. This amendment is an independent, freestanding constitutional provision which declares the fundamental right to privacy." Winfield v. Div. of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, 477 So. 2d 544, 548 (Fla. 1985). The amendment "was intentionally phrased in strong terms . in order to make the privacy right as strong as possible." Id. It was in the context of Florida's broad right of privacy that almost thirty-five years ago, this Court held as a matter of state - 87 -

constitutional law that "Florida's privacy provision is clearly implicated in a woman's decision of whether or not to continue her pregnancy." T. W., 551 So. 2d at 1192. T.W. explained: “[W]e have said that the [privacy] amendment provides ‘an explicit textual foundation for those privacy interests inherent in the concept of liberty which may not otherwise be protected by specific constitutional provisions."" Id. (quoting Rasmussen v. S. Fla. Blood Serv., 500 So. 2d 533, 536 (Fla. 1987)). Unfortunately, the majority's decision to recede from T. W. and its progeny constitutes the rejection of a “decades-long line of cases hold[ing] that the Privacy Clause ‘embraces more privacy interests, and extends more protection to the individual in those interests, than [does] the federal Constitution."" Petitioners' Opening Brief at 41 (emphases omitted) (quoting T.W., 551 So. 2d at 1192). The decision is an affront to this state's tradition of embracing a broad scope of the right of privacy.31 31. In 2012, Florida reaffirmed this tradition when voters rejected a state constitutional amendment that would have narrowed protections for abortion rights in Florida by requiring that the protections be no greater than those provided under federal law. Additionally, the amendment would have overruled T. W. and other decisions concluding that Florida protections for abortion rights - 88 -

In deciding to reexamine T. W. and ultimately to recede from T.W. and its progeny, the majority states: "Since Roe featured prominently in T.W., we think it fair to also point out that the T. W. majority did not examine or offer a reasoned response to the existing criticism of that decision or consider whether it was doctrinally coherent. This was a significant misstep because Roe did not provide a settled definition of privacy rights." Majority op. at 13-14. I disagree. T. W. did acknowledge that "the workability of the trimester system and the soundness of Roe itself have been seriously questioned in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490 (1989).” T.W., 551 So. 2d at 1190. However, this Court correctly exceed those provided under federal law. In a decisive vote, more than fifty-five percent of Florida voters rejected the amendment. See Initiative Information: Prohibition on Public Funding of Abortions; Construction of Abortion Rights, Fla. Dep't of State, Division of Elections, https://dos.elections.myflorida.com/initiatives/initdetail.asp?accou nt=10&seqnum=82 (last visited Mar. 19, 2024). While the petitioners conceded during the oral argument in this case that Florida voters' rejection of the abortion amendment in 2012 was not relevant to the public understanding of the right of privacy adopted in 1980, the 2012 amendment rejection is still relevant to an understanding of Florida's tradition with respect to the right of privacy. - 89 -

observed that “[Roe] for now remains the federal law." See id. As such, this Court was not obligated in T.W. to “examine or offer a reasoned response to the existing criticism of [Roe] or consider whether it was doctrinally coherent." Majority op. at 13-14. It was "three years after T. W." and almost twelve years after Florida voters' 1980 adoption of the right of privacy that “the U.S. Supreme Court abandoned Roe's position that the right to abortion was grounded in any sort of [federal] privacy right." See id. at 15 (emphasis added) (citing Planned Parenthood of Se. Penn. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 846 (1992)). Even then, the United States Supreme Court did not abandon Roe's “essential holding." Casey, 505 U.S. at 846. I reemphasize that T. W. was decided on state law grounds and with a clear understanding of the breadth of Florida's right of privacy as discussed in Winfield. To be certain, Roe was fundamental to the public understanding of the right of privacy as encompassing the right to an abortion. However, T. W. did not rely on Roe or the federal constitution to determine that Florida's right of privacy included the right to an abortion. See T.W., 551 So. 2d at 1196 ("We expressly decide this case on state law grounds and cite federal precedent only to the extent that it illuminates Florida - 90 -

law."). Because this Court based its decision squarely on Florida law, there is no basis for upending decades of precedent that give effect to Florida's broad right of privacy. Beyond Today's Decision The impact of today's decision extends far beyond the fifteenweek ban at issue in this case. By operation of state statute, the majority's decision will result in even more stringent abortion restrictions in this state. While not before this Court in the present case, it is an irrefutable effect of today's decision that chapter 202321, Laws of Florida, also known as the Heartbeat Protection Act, will take effect in short order. Chapter 2023-21 amends section 390.0111, Florida Statutes (among other statutes), and with limited exceptions, it bans abortions beyond the gestational age of six weeks. The Act provides that the ban will take effect thirty days after any of the following events: (1) a decision by this Court holding that Florida's constitutional right to privacy does not include a right to abortion; (2) a decision by this Court in the present case allowing the fifteen-week ban to remain in effect; (3) an amendment to the Florida Constitution clarifying that Florida's constitutional right of privacy - 91 -

does not include the right to an abortion; or (4) a decision from this Court after March 7, 2023, that recedes in whole or part from any of the following: T.W., North Florida Women's Health v. State, 866 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 2003), and Gainesville Woman Care, LLC v. State, 210 So. 3d 1243 (Fla. 2017). See ch. 2023-21, § 9, Laws of Fla. Today's decision implicates three of these four events, meaning that the Act's six-week ban will take effect in thirty days. “The document that the [majority] releases [today] is in the form of a judicial opinion interpreting a [provision of the Florida Constitution]. Bostock v. Clayton Co., 590 U.S. 644, 683 (2020) (Alito, J., dissenting). However, I lament that what the majority has done today supplants Florida voters' understandingthen and now that the right of privacy includes the right to an abortion. Conclusion "" The majority concludes that the public understanding of the right of privacy did not encompass the right to an abortion. However, the dominance of Roe in the public discourse makes it inconceivable that in 1980, Florida voters did not associate abortion with the right of privacy. - 92 -

Because of this, and with deep dismay at the action the majority takes today, I dissent. Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal Direct Conflict of Decisions First District - Case No. 1D22-2034 (Leon County) Whitney Leigh White, Jennifer Dalven, and Johanna Zacarias of American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York, New York, for Petitioners Gainesville Woman Care, LLC, Indian Rocks Woman's Center, Inc., St. Petersburg Woman's Health Center, Inc., and Tampa Woman's Health Center, Inc., Autumn Katz and Caroline Sacerdote of Center for Reproductive Rights, New York, New York, for Petitioner A Woman's Choice of Jacksonville, Inc. Jennifer Sandman of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, New York, New York, for Petitioners Planned Parenthood of Southwest and Central Florida, Planned Parenthood of South, East, and North Florida, and Shelly Hsiao-Ying Tien, M.D., M.P.H. April A. Otterberg and Shoba Pillay of Jenner & Block LLP, Chicago, Illinois; and Daniel Tilley of American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Florida, Miami, Florida; Benjamin James Stevenson, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Florida, Pensacola, Florida, and Nicholas L.V. Warren of American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Florida, Inc., Tallahassee, Florida, for Petitioners - 93 -

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Henry C. Whitaker, Solicitor General, Jeffrey Paul DeSousa, Chief Deputy Solicitor General, Daniel William Bell, Chief Deputy Solicitor General, Nathan A. Forrester, Senior Deputy Solicitor General, David M. Costello, Deputy Solicitor General, Darrick W. Monson, Assistant Solicitor General, Zachary Grouev, Solicitor General Fellow, John M. Guard, Chief Deputy Attorney General, James H. Percival, Chief of Staff, and Natalie P. Christmas, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General Tallahassee, Florida, for Respondent Brad F. Barrios of Turkel Cuva Barrios, P.A., Tampa, Florida, for Amici Curiae Law Professors Jonathan B. Miller and Hilary Burke Chan of Public Rights Project, Oakland, California; and Matthew A. Goldberger of Matthew A. Goldberger, P.A., West Palm Beach, Florida, for Amici Curiae Current and Former Elected Representatives for Reproductive Justice Kimberly A. Parker, Lesley F. McColl, and Aleksandr Sverdlik of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, District of Columbia, and Meghan G. Wingert of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, New York, New York; and Sean Shaw of Swope Rodante, Tampa, Florida, for Amici Curiae American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Medical Association, and Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Miranda Schiller, Sarah M. Sternlieb, Robert Niles-Weed, and Elizabeth McLean of Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, New York, New York, Charlotte McFaddin and Caroline Elvig of Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, Washington, District of Columbia, and Edward Soto of Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, Miami, Florida, - 94 -

for Amicus Curiae Floridians for Reproductive Freedom Angela C. Vigil, Robert H. Moore, and Paul Chander of Baker & McKenzie LLP, Miami, Florida; and Francisca D. Fajana of LatinoJustice PRLDEF, New York, New York, and Emily M. Galindo of LatinoJustice PRLDEF, Orlando, Florida, for Amici Curiae LatinoJustice PRLDEF, Florida Access Network, National Latina Institute for Reproductive Justice, Esperanza United, and A.L. Brian J. Stack and Robert Harris of Stack Fernandez & Harris, P.A., Miami, Florida; and Sarah B. Gutman, Lilianna Rembar, and Caroline Soussloff of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, New York, New York, and Jennifer Kennedy Park of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, San Francisco, California, for Amici Curiae Sanctuary for Families, Legal Momentum, The National Organization for Women Foundation, The Rapid Benefits Group Fund, Women for Abortion and Reproductive Rights, Margaret A. Baldwin, JD, Professor Cyra Choudhury, Professor Donna K. Coker, Professor Zanita E. Fenton, Doctor Kathryn M. Nowotny, PhD, and Jodi Russell Eugene M. Gelernter and Caitlin A. Ross of Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, New York, New York; and Courtney Brewer of The Mills Firm, P.A., Tallahassee, Florida, for Amici Curiae National Council of Jewish Women, Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, Catholics for Choice, Metropolitan Community Churches, National Council of Jewish Women - Greater Miami Section, National Council of Jewish Women - Palm Beach Section, National Council of Jewish Women - Sarasota Manatee Section, National Council of Jewish Women - Kendall Section, National Council of Jewish Women - Valencia Shores Section, Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association, Women's Rabbinic Network, Moving Traditions, Avodah, Bend the Arc: A Jewish Partnership for Justice, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, Jewish Orthodox - 95 -

Feminist Alliance, Union for Reform Judaism, Central Conference of American Rabbis, Men of Reform Judaism, Women of Reform Judaism, Rabbinical Assembly, Society for Humanistic Judaism, Muslim Women's Organization, Hindus for Human Rights, Sadhana: Coalition of Progressive Hindus, Women's Alliance for Theology, Ethics, and Ritual (WATER), SACRED (Spiritual Alliance of Communities for Reproductive Dignity), Faith in Public Life, and Florida Interfaith Coalition for Reproductive Health and Justice Jordan E. Pratt and Christine K. Pratt of First Liberty Institute, Washington, District of Columbia, for Amicus Curiae National Institute of Family and Life Advocates Alan Lawson, Paul C. Huck, Jr., Jason Gonzalez, Amber Stoner Nunnally, and Caroline May Poor of Lawson Huck Gonzalez, PLLC, Tallahassee, Florida, for Amicus Curiae Former State Representative John Grant Christopher Green, University, Mississippi; and Antony B. Kolenc, Naples, Florida, for Amici Curiae Scholars on original meaning in State Constitutional Law Lynn Fitch, Attorney General, Scott G. Stewart, Solicitor General, and Justin L. Matheny, Deputy Solicitor General, Mississippi Attorney General's Office, Jackson, Mississippi; and Samuel J. Salario, Jr. of Lawson Huck Gonzalez, PLLC, Tampa, Florida, for Amici Curiae Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia Stephen C. Emmanuel of Ausley McMullen, Tallahassee, Florida, - 96

for Amici Curiae Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Florida Baptist Convention Jay Alan Sekulow, Jordan Sekulow, and Olivia F. Summers of American Center for Law & Justice, Washington, District of Columbia; and Edward L. White III of American Center for Law & Justice, Ann Arbor, Michigan, for Amicus Curiae Charlotte Lozier Institute Christopher E. Mills of Spero Law LLC, Charleston, South Carolina; and Chad Mizelle, Tampa, Florida, for Amicus Curiae American College of Pediatricians Edward M. Wenger of Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak, PLLC, Washington, District of Columbia, for Amicus Curiae American Cornerstone Institute Carlos A. Rey, General Counsel, Kyle E. Gray, Deputy General Counsel, The Florida Senate, David Axelman, General Counsel, and J. Michael Maida, Deputy General Counsel, The Florida House of Representatives, Tallahassee, Florida, for Amicus Curiae The Florida Legislature Kenneth L. Connor of Connor & Connor, LLC, Aiken, South Carolina, for Amicus Curiae Liberty Counsel Action S. Dresden Brunner of S. Dresden Brunner, P.A., Naples, Florida, for Amicus Curiae The Prolife Center at the University of St. Thomas (MN) Patrick Leduc of Law Offices of Patrick Leduc, P.A., Tampa, Florida, - 97 -

for Amicus Curiae American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists Mathew D. Staver, Anita L. Staver, Horatio G. Mihet, and Hugh C. Phillips of Liberty Counsel, Orlando, Florida, for Amici Curiae Frederick Douglass Foundation, The National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, Fiona Jackson Center for Pregnancy, and Issues4life Foundation D. Kent Safriet of Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak, PLLC, Tallahassee, Florida, for Amicus Curiae Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America Denise M. Harle of Alliance Defending Freedom, Lawrenceville, Georgia, and Joshua L. Rogers of Alliance Defending Freedom, Scottsdale, Arizona, for Amicus Curiae Concerned Women for America - 98 -

IMAGES

Essay on National Constitution Day
Essay on National Constitution Day
10 Lines Essay On National Constitution Day In English l Essay On
Constitution Day Essay In English
Essay on National Constitution Day for Students and Children
Write an essay on National Constitution Day in english

VIDEO

National Constitution Day
National Constitution Day Of India Nov26
NATIONAL CONSTITUTION DAY |26 NOV 2023
National Constitution day With Rj Abhinav
National Constitution Day
National Constitution Day Drawing/Indian Constitution Day Poster/Constitution Day Poster Drawing

COMMENTS

Essay on National Constitution Day for Students
500+ Words Essay on National Constitution Day. We celebrate National Constitution Day or Samvidhan Divas on 26 th November every year. The significance of this day is that on this day in the year 1949, the Constituent Assembly of India adopted the Constitution of India.However, the Constitution of India came into force on 26 th January 1950. We celebrate 26 th January as Republic Day every year.
Long and Short Essay on National Constitution Day in English for
Essay on National Constitution Day - Essay 3 (400 words) Introduction. National Constitution Day, also known as Samvidhan Divas, is a day to rejoice the adoption of Constitution of India. It is celebrated on 26 th November every year. While the constitution of our country was implemented back in 1950, it was only recently that it was decided ...
Essay on National Constitution Day For Students in English
Essay on National Constitution Day. National Constitution Day is also known as the Samvidhan Divas on the 26th of November every year. This day gets its significance as on this day in the year 1949, the Constituent Assembly of India has adopted the Constitution of India. After which, the Constitution of India came into force on the 26th of ...
Essay on National Constitution Day
Essay on National Constitution Day: ... Long and Short Essays on National Constitution Day for Students and Kids in English. If you are searching for a well written and informative National constitution Day essay, then we have provided to different essays with quality content below. A long essay on national constitution day with the word limit ...
Constitution Day Resources
In September 1787, the Founders signed the most influential document in American history, the U.S. Constitution. On Constitution Day, the National Constitution Center presents a series of programs and events highlighting the history and meaning of the amendment.
Essay on Constitution Day
Constitution Day, also known as National Law Day, is celebrated annually on the 26th of November in India. This day commemorates the adoption of the Constitution of India, which replaced the Government of India Act (1935) as the governing document of India. The Constitution of India, drafted by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar and his team, came into effect ...
Essay on National Constitution Day for Students
Published: Saturday, November 25, 2023, 10:58 [IST] National Constitution Day is a day of honour for every Indian because it commemorates the adoption of our constitution. After India gained independence from British rule in August 1947, there was a strong desire to develop and integrate our own constitution.
National Constitution Day 2022 Speech and Essay Ideas for students
National Constitution Day 2022 will be celebrated tomorrow, November 26, 2022 as it marks the adoption of the Indian Constitution by the Constituent Assembly in the year 1949. Here are a few speech and essay ideas for students who wish to write upon the Indian Constitution. Anagha Ganesh. Updated Nov 25, 2022, 03:15 PM IST.
National Constitution Day: Date, History, and Significance
India celebrates Constitution Day on 26 November because, on 26 November 1949, Dr BR Ambedkar presented the final draft of the Constitution in the Constituent Assembly. The Constitution came into effect on Republic Day i.e. on 26 January 1950. Since then, every year Constitution Day is celebrated on 26 November.
Essay on National Constitution Day
The notes and questions for Essay on National Constitution Day have been prepared according to the Class 8 exam syllabus. Information about Essay on National Constitution Day covers topics like and Essay on National Constitution Day Example, for Class 8 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, notes, meanings, examples, exercises and ...
National Constitution Day Essay
National Constitution Day Essay. National Constitution Day, also known as National Law Day or Samvidhan Diwas, is observed annually on November 26th to commemorate the promulgation of the Indian Constitution. Republic Day is observed on 26 January 1950, the date on which India's constitution was formally implemented in practise.
Constitution Day (India)
B. R. Ambedkar, recognised as the "Father of the Constitution of India". Constitution Day (IAST: Samvidhāna Divasa), also known as "National Law Day", is celebrated in India on 26 November every year to commemorate the adoption of the Constitution of India.On 26 November 1949, the Constituent Assembly of India adopted to the Constitution of India, and it came into effect on 26 January 1950.
Essay On National Constitution Day In English For Student And Children
Essay On National Constitution Day In English The Constituent Assembly of India adopted the Indian Constitution on November 26, 1949, but it wasn't until January 26, 1950 that it actually took effect. As a result, India celebrates January 26, the day the Constitution was adopted, as Constitution Day. The day was established by the Indian ...
Essay on National Constitution Day in English for Children and Students
Essay on National Constitution Day: The Constitution of India was adopted by the Constituent Assembly on 26 th November 1949; though it came into effect only on 26 th January 1950. Hence, the day on which the Constitution was adopted, that is 26 th January, is celebrated as the Constitution Day in India. The day was declared by the Government of India by a gazetted notification issued on 19 th ...
Speech on National Constitution Day for Students in English
The constitutional day is also called National law day or Samvidhan Diwas. Dr BR Ambedkar is also known as the Father of the constitution. In the year 2015, our Prime Minister, Narendra Modi marked November 26 as the constitution day in India to celebrate the 125th birthday of Dr. BR Ambedkar.
About the Interactive Constitution
The National Constitution Center unites America's leading scholars from diverse legal and philosophical perspectives to explore the text, history, and meaning of the U.S. Constitution. ... Constitution Day Resources; Constitution 101 Curriculum ... Check out this essay first to see where our scholars agree. It's like a unanimous Supreme ...
Essay on National Constitution Day
Short and Long Essay on Indian Constitution Day in English. I am giving below three essays of varying lengths such as 120 words, 250 words, 400 words and 600 words on the Constitution Day of India. Indian Constitution Day Essay 10 Lines (100 - 150 Words) 1) In India 26 November is celebrated as National Constitution Day.
Indian Constitution Day Essay In English
Today I am providing some essay for you on Constitution Day of India in different word limit so that you too can understand the importance of National Constitution Day. Short and Long Essay on Indian Constitution Day in English Essay 1 (250 words) introduction. Constitution Day in India is widely celebrated on 26 November to mark the adoption ...
Essay on Constitution Day: Indian Constitution Day in Englis
National Constitution Day is not a public holiday, however, this day is celebrated with great josh. A special committee was formed under the Prime Minister in the year 2015. ... 10 Pointers to Write Essay on Indian Constitution Day in English. Writing an essay on Indian constitution day in English can be a tough task. We have come up with 10 ...
Essay on Constitution Day
Keys: essay on constitution day, constitution day essay, constitution day essay in english, national constitution day essay, essay on 26 November, Essay on 26th November. Tags: essay writing. Facebook; Twitter; You may like these posts. Post a Comment. 3 Comments. Anonymous November 17, 2021 at 12:35 PM. Dear parveen, Please check your mail box.
Reading the Constitution: A Book Talk with Justice Stephen Breyer
Participants. Stephen G. Breyer is a former associate justice of the Supreme Court who served there for 28 years until retiring in 2022. He also serves as honorary co-chair of the National Constitution Center's Board of Trustees. He is the author of several books, including The Court and the World: American Law and the New Global Realities and The Authority of the Court and the Peril of ...
Essay on National Constitution Day
Long and Short Essays on National Constitution Day for Students and Kids in English. If you are searching for a well written and informative National constitution Day essay, then we have provided to different essays with quality content below. A long essay on national constitution day with the word limit of 600 and short National Constitution ...
National Constitution Day Speech, Essay in English & Hindi for Students
Click Here to Give Quiz with Certificate on National Constitution Day 2022. Student Speech OR Essay - 3. Good Morning to the Principal, Respected Teachers and My Dear Friends. Today we all have gathered here to celebrate National Constitution Day or Samvidhan Diwas is Celebrated in India on November 26, the day when the constitution of India ...
National Constitution Day Essay in English
National law day is the day when our constitution was adopted.National law day is celeb... In this video, I have shared an essay on constitution day in English.
Donald Trump is selling a 'God Bless the USA' Bible for $60 : NPR
Cash-strapped Trump is now selling $60 Bibles, U.S. Constitution included. Then-President Donald Trump holds up a Bible outside St. John's Episcopal Church in Washington, D.C., during a ...
Read the Florida Supreme Court's Ruling on the Abortion Ban
April 1, 2024. Share full article. The Florida Supreme Court overturned decades of legal precedent in ruling that the State Constitution's privacy protections do not extend to abortion ...

Essay on National Constitution Day for Students and Children

Declaration of National Constitution Day

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Download the App

National Constitution Day Essay

Long and Short Essay on Constitution Day of India in English

Essay on National Constitution Day – Essay 1 (200 words)

Essay on Constitution Day of India – Essay 2 (300 words)

Essay on National Constitution Day – Essay 3 (400 words)

Essay on Indian Constitution Day – Essay 4 (500 words)

Long Essay on Constitution Day of India – Essay 5 (600 words)

Related Posts

Essay on Constitution Day

100 Words Essay on Constitution Day

Significance

Celebrations

250 Words Essay on Constitution Day

Historical Significance

Objective of Constitution Day

Observance of Constitution Day

500 Words Essay on Constitution Day

Significance of Constitution Day

The Constitution: A Living Document

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

National Constitution Day: Date, History, and Significance

This Blog Includes:

Kajal Thareja

Connect With Us

25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today.

Need help with?

Country Preference

Which English test are you planning to take?

When are you planning to take the exam?

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

What is your budget to study abroad?

Make your study abroad dream a reality in January 2022 with

Essex Direct Admission Day

Essay on National Constitution Day | Essays for Class 8 PDF Download

Top Courses for Class 8

Essay on National Constitution Day Free PDF Download

Forgot Password

Essay on National Constitution Day for Students & Children in English

Discover more from Smart English Notes

Essay On National Constitution Day In English For Student And Children

Essay On National Constitution Day In English

Essay On National Constitution Day In English (200 Words)

Essay On National Constitution Day In English (300 Words)

Essay On National Constitution Day In English (400 Words)

Essay On National Constitution Day In English (500 Words)

Essay on National Constitution Day in English for Children and Students

Long and Short Essay on National Constitution Day of India in English

Essay on National Constitution Day in 200 words

Essay on National Constitution Day of India in 300 words

Father of the Indian Constitution and Constitution Drafting Committee Members

A Day Dedicated to Our Constitution

Essay on National Constitution Day 400 words

National Constitution Day Declaration

National Constitution Day Celebrations

Essay on National Constitution Day in 500 words

The Constitution of India

Significance of National Constitution Day

Long Essay on National Constitution Day in 600 words

National Constitution Day Celebration in My School

National Constitution Day Calls for Grand Celebration

Frequently Asked Questions on National Constitution Day

What is constitution in 150 words?

What is constitution 10 lines?

What is constitution in 15 lines?

What is 20 Constitution of India?

Why do we need 10 lines of constitution?

Related content

National Constitution Day

Long Speech

Short speech

10 Lines About Indian Constitution Day Speech

FAQs on Speech on National Constitution Day

Essay on National Constitution Day

Short and Long Essay on Indian Constitution Day in English