posted
You're not reading, any of you. Let me make this so clear a Rhesus monkey could get it:
Children have rights.
Those rights should be protected on a state level ONLY, because the states can handle it better than the federal government.
Simple.
As for Jeff's question, which is really the only intelligent one there amazingly enough, yes, strictly speaking it would be legal, BUT no state would ever pass such a law. The people wouldn't stand for it, and why would they want to in the first place?
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
posted
One last point I would like to make regarding "Children's 'Rights:'" Omega, you said that children's rights need to be limited (through an amendment) on the federal level because the 14th Amendment effectively gives equal rights to children and adults. Furthermore, you argue that such rights should be determined by the states. The 14th Amendment was passed what, almost 150 years ago? Amazingly, the family unit has survived all this time, even with some interpreting the amendment to mean adults have no legal power over their own children. What is the motivation or need for limiting children's rights on the federal level, then? The only one I can see is that if, under your standard, a state passed a law giving more, or even equal (with adults) rights to children, some pro-corporal punishment hack would sue, saying the law violates federal law. You said that, theoretically, a state could pass a law allowing parents to hit their children with hammers. Are you also willing to allow a state to pass a law stating children are never to be physically punished, or is your proposed amendment really nothing more than a tool to limit state's rights, such as in the example described above?
I must now bow out of the "Children's 'Rights'" portion of this debate (though I suppose I should answer any direct response to this post). I have tried to argue my point politely and objectively, but I feel so strongly about this subject I fear I will degrade into a rude and polarized debater. Life is a precious gift from God. I do my best to not knowlingly harm other lives, and I cannot fathom wanting to harm a life I created. This being my position, I am too enraged and exasperated to continue to debate this point in a polite manner.
posted
"The 14th Amendment was passed what, almost 150 years ago? Amazingly, the family unit has survived all this time, even with some interpreting the amendment to mean adults have no legal power over their own children. What is the motivation or need for limiting children's rights on the federal level, then?"
Oh yes. Because society has also functioned for all that time, that means we never need to pass any new laws ever! Yay!
The argument that children should have less rights than adults is a non-issue. Children already have less rights than adults. And unless you want 10 year olds voting, then they will continue to have less rights. In a society which divides it's people up into "adults" and "children", there will always be an age where a child takes responsibility for him or herself, and therefore gets more rights.
And there's also a clear example of the American tendancy to go way overboard here (such as with drink and drugs). Saying a parent can smack a child on the bottom is no-where near the same as saying that a parent can beat their child with a large hammer every single night.
-------------------- 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
"Children already have less rights than adults."
That was the point of the part of my post that you quoted. Ask almost any American if children have the same rights as adults, or if they are equal to adults, and he/she will respond in the negative, even though some (Omega, at least) interpret the 14th Amendment as technically putting adults and children on equal footing. Perhaps such an interpretation is possible, but culture, society, and state law operate on the notion that adults and children are not equal. The notion may not be technically "constitutional," but it certainly is "common law," if you will, and precedent setting. Thus, my point was, and you said, children have less rights than adults. That is why I find a new amendment that says as much unneccessary and probably just a tool to trump states that wish to give children more rights.
Lastly, I would appreciate not being patronized. I posted that the family unit has survived nearly 150 years even though some believe the 14th Amendment does not allow parents to choose what rights and responsibilities their children have, though they have been doing so during that time. Thus, my comments that a law is not needed obviously pertained to that statement, and were not an assertation that no new laws are ever needed as long as society survives.
[ November 16, 2001: Message edited by: Raw Cadet ]
posted
The notion may not be technically "constitutional," but it certainly is "common law," if you will, and precedent setting.
See, that's just the thing: we're not England. We HAVE a Constitution, and aren't just ruled by tradition. If common law could override the Constitution, then why have a Consitution at all? See, we did that on purpose.
Thus, my point was, and you said, children have less rights than adults. That is why I find a new amendment that says as much unneccessary and probably just a tool to trump states that wish to give children more rights.
It's two things:
a) Legal nitpicking; solving a small loophole that hasn't posed a problem AS YET, but could in the future b) Decentralization; it gets the federal government out of something it doesn't need to worry about
It does two things of acceptable, if relatively minor, uselessness, and it has no negative side effects. Sounds good to me.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
posted
At least he spelt "England" right. Although he probably meant "Britain".
Still, Britain is just ruled by tradition? Huh?
-------------------- 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
Ultimately, yes. Tell me: what's preventing your Parliment from declaring, say, Meg Thatcher to be dictator?
-------------------- "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
Meg Thatcher? She look like Meg Ryan, by any chance?
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
-------------------- "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
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
quote:what's preventing your Parliment from declaring, say, Meg Thatcher to be dictator?
quote:Decentralization; it gets the federal government out of something it doesn't need to worry about
That's just wrong. The government of the United States of America needs to and has a Constitutional duty to worry about every single one of its citizens be they 8 months or 108.
So again, (as if it really matters to your ideology) you have to eliminate whole or part of sections of the Constitution that would conflict with your elimination of rights guaranteed to every citizen of the United States.
[ November 18, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
-------------------- 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
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
The government of the United States of America needs to and has a Constitutional duty to worry about every single one of its citizens be they 8 months or 108.
It has the duties specifically laid out for it in the Constitution, and no more. The rest is up to the states.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
posted
And among those duties spelled out in the Constitution is to make sure that the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States are not abridged. To make sure that no person is deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. To ensure that every person within the jurisdiction of the several states the equal protection of the laws.
These are Constitutional guarantees, along with others, extend to every single American citizen. Even considering that people under certain ages already have Constitutional limitations.
Your reason for even writing this sort of amendment is flawed.
quote:Because as it is, children can't legally be punished, or controlled in ANY way, by their parents.
...
The federal government doesn't have to deal with EVERYTHING, and it's far better if it doesn't.
Your first observation is wrong. Nothing more need to be said about it.
Your second assertion in conjunction with your proposed amendment is also has shortcomings. While I'm not entirely certain where you made the leap in logic that all such things child related fall under the perview of federal jurisdiction, I think you will find, were you to do the research, that such matters are already taken care of by the several states.
[ November 18, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
-------------------- 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
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
You missed my other reason: legal nitpicking. It's still legal for a three-year-old to own a gun. This is bad.
-------------------- "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
Printer-friendly view of this topic
