posted
But surely, Omega, you can realize that there is a line between punishment and child abuse. When that line is crossed, the government (be it local, state, or Federal) needs to step in and correct the situation.
posted
Of course. That's what the state laws against child abuse are for. But I don't think it's the fed's job. The individual states doing the job, each in their own way, would be far more efficient, more likely to hit upon a working solution, and keep the Congress from wasting its time on a matter that's not in its mandate.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
As long as there are organizations to step in and make sure abusive parents don't get away with what they're doing, I don't care which system of government is doing it. On the other hand, if all the states are doing the same things, why not make Federal regulations on the minimum enforcement ... that way, states can prosecute abusive parents on Federal charges as well as boast that they're "tougher then Federal mandates!"
posted
On the other hand, if all the states are doing the same things, why not make Federal regulations on the minimum enforcement ... that way, states can prosecute abusive parents on Federal charges as well as boast that they're "tougher then Federal mandates!"
Because that's exactly what I want to avoid. I don't want the federal government involved in ANY way. Say Congress passes legislation making the minimal allowable enforcement the maximum reasonable enforcement. What then? They'd just have eusurped the power of the states again, and it would have defeated the entire purpose of the ammendment. I don't want Congress to even THINK about things not in its mandate, because it's a waste of their time.
Story: we could have killed or captured Osama bin Laden seven years ago, shortly after the first WTC bombing. We knew exactly where he was, and I mean exactly, for almost a month. But because Congress was too busy with garbage and not paying enough attention to its one real job of national defense, he got away.
We have a division of powers among the different levels of government for a reason.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
posted
As far as Bin Laden goes, the CIA has never seemed to know where he is. They're the ones who said he was in an aspirin factory in the Sudan, remember?
posted
Someone needs to clarify what "physically controlling their child" actually means. Does it mean picking them up if they're trowing a tantrum? Dragging them out of a cinema? Pulling down their pants and smacking them on the bum? Attacking them with a leap pipe?
Smacking still legal in this country, I believe. But only to children over 3, and only on the bottom, or something strange like that.
Oh, and I made a hilarious quote about breeding? When?
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
posted
Uh, you don't remember? It was awhile ago -- we talked about it (briefly) on ICQ a short ways away. And someone had it as their quote for the longest time.
posted
No. I demand we hunt down this instance of me being funny!
Was it better than the time you thought that energy was created when babies were conceived Jeff?
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
posted
Your quote was edited into my original post on the matter so as not to attract too much attention to it. Liam, even though you were 'away', I sent it to you via ICQ. Enjoy.
[ November 15, 2001: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
posted
To clarify, though I think only one person misinterpreted me: I do not think children should be "drugged." If a child is "difficult," there is a chance a chemical imbalance, or an emotional difficulty, is the root cause of the "difficulty." Thus, treating the imbalance with drugs (to "make the child normal"), or counseling the child, could very well eliminate the "difficulty." Likewise, if the root cause is biological, chemical, or emotional, probably no amount of "discipline" will improve the child's behavior. If the discipline is physical, a parent might extract obedience for a while, since the child would be fearful, but, in the end, the "difficulty" would probably be exacerbated.
Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
People of all ages are citizens of the United States and of the several states, specifically the state in which they live. Unless you are planning to take citizenship away from people under the age of...what was that randomly selected age again...and repeal the 14th amendment while you are at it, then this is a moot and rather point "giving" the several states power.
Citizens of all ages have and should continue to have redress in cases where due process in cases involving federal and state governments. Which is what the 14 Amendment is about. It is not about interpersonal relationships. Again, as I see it you are misreading the Amendment.
quote:All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This was written to prevent slavery and to insure that African Americans were citizens with the same right as the whites that had enslaved them.
Slavery might be viewed as a personal and private relationship between a master and a slave, but it could not exist without state sanction and law allowing it. As a result, the amendment was worded to:
State specifically that every citizen was a citizen of not just the several states but of the United States states as a whole. As such an Texan had the same national rights and immunities as a Californian.
And to insure that if a person was held to involuntary servitude (i.e. prison work gangs), that there was legal and due process to buttress the sentence.
Your only real option is to enumerate, as you see them, the rights of children.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
...His personal vision on those rights seems to be lifted directly from the Middle Ages. Maybe he wasn't beaten (he is, after all, a proponent of physical violence towards children) often enough to realize this.
[ November 16, 2001: Message edited by: Mojo Jojo ]
Printer-friendly view of this topic
