Idea For New Constitutional Amendment: "The Child Consideration Amendment"

[Silhouette]

If the GOP proposed this Amendment today, it would at the very least be entertaining to see how democratic Senators would do verbal gymnastics trying to look child-friendly while they argued how adult wants should always outweigh children's needs. They're going to look like assholes if they turn their backs on kids. And when they do, they can kiss their party's chances for 2016 goodbye. That will be the final blow...lol.

The GOP just has to be careful not to allow their zealot far right crowd start weaving abortion into the topic. An adult's needs can be on par or dominant to children if their life is in danger. Also, a child's best interest might be to not let it be born to suffer a lifetime with some horrible birth defect, disease or disfigurement. Like a two-headed baby or down's syndrome. So GOP, "don't go there". Make this Amendment sensible and about live children already born and it will pass...eventually...

 

[Ravi]

Skylar, please try to stick to the subject.

What do you think about nudists? Will they meet your gold standard and be allowed to raise children?

 

[Skylar]

If the GOP proposed this Amendment today, it would at the very least be entertaining to see how democratic Senators would do verbal gymnastics trying to look child-friendly while they argued how adult wants should always outweigh children's needs. They're going to look like assholes if they turn their backs on kids. And when they do, they can kiss their party's chances for 2016 goodbye. That will be the final blow...lol.

There is going to be no such amendment. A children are already protected under our laws.

Your proposed amendment is just you in the bargaining phase of loss. Where you are trying to craft a deal where you didn't lose on gay marriage. There is no such deal. You lost.

Your imaginary ammendment isn't happening. Its poorly written and utterly subjective. For example, who determines what rulings 'affects the potential wellbeing of children'? If its the litigants than you'd have every disgruntled divorce settlement up for a vote every year. Everything from environmental law to food safety standards would be up for a vote. And would come up for a vote again every time a ruling on any such matter was issued.

Its just stupid.

Your 'amendment' fixes nothing. It merely creates all new, completely unnecessary problems. And exists solely for the purpose of attacking gay marriage.

No thank you.

 

[bodecea]

If spanking a child teaches him not to burn himself on a stove, the gold standard has not been violated. If spanking a child is to vent anger at a glass of spilled milk, then the gold standard is violated. It isn't rocket science.

Wonderful....Big Brother government telling you how to raise your children.

 

[Skylar]

Skylar, please try to stick to the subject.

What do you think about nudists? Will they meet your gold standard and be allowed to raise children?

What about free speech? What about gun ownership? A gun in the house dramatically increases suicide rates and accidents for children. Is any ruling that would affect guns in the home now open to a vote? What about school funding? Speeding laws? Our space program?

The law is ridiculously vague and has absolutely no mechanism for determining its own threshold. It would throw our entire legal system into perpetual chaos, as any time the same issue was part of any court ruling, its a brand new vote.

All this so Sil can work out his issues on gay marriage? Um, no. There will be no such amendment.

 

[Ravi]

If spanking a child teaches him not to burn himself on a stove, the gold standard has not been violated. If spanking a child is to vent anger at a glass of spilled milk, then the gold standard is violated. It isn't rocket science.

Wonderful....Big Brother government telling you how to raise your children.

Keep reading. She burned a child for committing a thought crime.

 

[Skylar]

If spanking a child teaches him not to burn himself on a stove, the gold standard has not been violated. If spanking a child is to vent anger at a glass of spilled milk, then the gold standard is violated. It isn't rocket science.

Wonderful....Big Brother government telling you how to raise your children.

The 'gold standard' being that Sil gets to make every decision. Not the individual.

There's a reason Sil ignores any mention of constitutional guarantees or individual rights when reading court decisions. But only recognizes the authority of the State.

 

[Silhouette]

Skylar, please try to stick to the subject.

What do you think about nudists? Will they meet your gold standard and be allowed to raise children?

That would be up to a society to define for themselves.

Remember, the OP suggest either a referendum or a judge having to meet that gold standard. That might be up to a referendum. Ballot measure 14 "The parent nudist initiative" "Do you approve of parents running around naked rasing their kids that way in a nudist colony?" The majority says "yes" or "no". Case closed. THAT is how democracy will work in conjunction with this Amendment. The Amendment's main focus would be to destroy any lawyer or judicial activism that fails to take into account that the majority sets standards for children's needs, not some activist judge or panel of 5 on the US Supreme Court...even to excluding children's needs ENTIRELY from the conversation about an institution that was started FOR THE BENEFIT OF CHILDREN! Like they did this year..

That BS will stop as of the date of ratification of "The Children's Consideration Amendment". ie; it removes custodial control and discretion away from activist judges and places it more directly and firmly in the hands of the 300 million as the de facto custodians of "all things child welfare".. It keeps weird minorities from claiming "rights" that might otherwise harm children...like polygamy colonies...child trafficking under the guise of surrogacy...child labor...all the little dangers that activist judges can usher in if there are no clear cut and defined rights of protection for this last class of American citizens who cannot vote to affect their destiny.

 

[Ravi]

Skylar, please try to stick to the subject.

What do you think about nudists? Will they meet your gold standard and be allowed to raise children?

That would be up to a society to define for themselves.

Remember, the OP suggest either a referendum or a judge having to meet that gold standard. That might be up to a referendum. Ballot measure 14 "The parent nudist initiative" "Do you approve of parents running around naked rasing their kids that way in a nudist colony?" The majority says "yes" or "no". Case closed. THAT is how democracy will work in conjunction with this Amendment. The Amendment's main focus would be to destroy any lawyer or judicial activism that fails to take into account that the majority sets standards for children's needs, not some activist judge or panel of 5 on the US Supreme Court...even to excluding children's needs ENTIRELY from the conversation about an institution that was started FOR THE BENEFIT OF CHILDREN! Like they did this year..

That BS will stop as of the date of ratification of "The Children's Consideration Amendment".

We aren't a democracy. We don't decide by majority vote. What country do you live in?

 

[Ravi]

Skylar, please try to stick to the subject.

What do you think about nudists? Will they meet your gold standard and be allowed to raise children?

What about free speech? What about gun ownership? A gun in the house dramatically increases suicide rates and accidents for children. Is any ruling that would affect guns in the home now open to a vote? What about school funding? Speeding laws? Our space program?

The law is ridiculously vague and has absolutely no mechanism for determining its own threshold. It would throw our entire legal system into perpetual chaos, as any time the same issue was part of any court ruling, its a brand new vote.

All this so Sil can work out his issues on gay marriage? Um, no. There will be no such amendment.

Of course there will be no such amendment. Sil is a fruit loop that took it upon herself to burn her sibling's child.

 

[Skylar]

Skylar, please try to stick to the subject.

What do you think about nudists? Will they meet your gold standard and be allowed to raise children?

That would be up to a society to define for themselves.

Remember, the OP suggest either a referendum or a judge having to meet that gold standard. That might be up to a referendum. Ballot measure 14 "The parent nudist initiative" "Do you approve of parents running around naked rasing their kids that way in a nudist colony?" The majority says "yes" or "no". Case closed. THAT is how democracy will work in conjunction with this Amendment. The Amendment's main focus would be to destroy any lawyer or judicial activism that fails to take into account that the majority sets standards for children's needs, not some activist judge or panel of 5 on the US Supreme Court...even to excluding children's needs ENTIRELY from the conversation about an institution that was started FOR THE BENEFIT OF CHILDREN! Like they did this year..

That BS will stop as of the date of ratification of "The Children's Consideration Amendment".

And what of guns in the home?

Do we have a referrendum " Do you approve of parents being allowed to keep guns in their home? The majority says yes or no.....case closed?

"Do you approve of parents being allowed to practice Islam?" The majority says 'yes or no' and 'case closed'?

If not, why not? What right couldn't be stripped from entire societies with a simple majority vote?

 

[Silhouette]

We aren't a democracy. We don't decide by majority vote. What country do you live in?

Then tell me why I keep going to the voting booth and watching the returns showing which things become law and which don't according to how people vote in a majority? Is that something I've been imagining all these decades?

You're a nutter. Suddenly we don't have a Constitution and majority rule anymore?

Again, the question is "Adult's wants vs Children's NEEDS". Children need to trump via a Constitutional Amendment. Or can't Congress Amend the Constitution anymore according to Ravi the historical revisionist?

 

[Skylar]

Skylar, please try to stick to the subject.

What do you think about nudists? Will they meet your gold standard and be allowed to raise children?

That would be up to a society to define for themselves.

Remember, the OP suggest either a referendum or a judge having to meet that gold standard. That might be up to a referendum. Ballot measure 14 "The parent nudist initiative" "Do you approve of parents running around naked rasing their kids that way in a nudist colony?" The majority says "yes" or "no". Case closed. THAT is how democracy will work in conjunction with this Amendment. The Amendment's main focus would be to destroy any lawyer or judicial activism that fails to take into account that the majority sets standards for children's needs, not some activist judge or panel of 5 on the US Supreme Court...even to excluding children's needs ENTIRELY from the conversation about an institution that was started FOR THE BENEFIT OF CHILDREN! Like they did this year..

That BS will stop as of the date of ratification of "The Children's Consideration Amendment".

We aren't a democracy. We don't decide by majority vote. What country do you live in?

Sil is describing the world he wants to live in, where any right can be stripped away from anyone with a simple majority vote.

There's a reason that when discussing the Windsor ruling he never once cited individual rights or constitutional guarantees, despite the WIndsor ruling doing so. He always cited the power of the state.

 

[mdk]

What will be the conspiracy when the GOP decides not to pursue this sloppy and foolish amendment?

 

[Skylar]

We aren't a democracy. We don't decide by majority vote. What country do you live in?

Then tell me why I keep going to the voting booth and watching the returns showing which things become law and which don't according to how people vote in a majority? Is that something I've been imagining all these decades?

The will of the majority is balanced by individual rights. The majority can't simply strip a right away because the majority said so. Nor do we put rights up for a vote.

The State lacks the authority to abrogate rights. Thus, any law that abrogates rights is invalid. That's the constitution.

Again, the question is "Adult's wants vs Children's NEEDS". Children need to trump via a Constitutional Amendment. Or can't Congress Amend the Constitution anymore according to Ravi the historical revisionist?

There will be no such amendment. As children are already protected. You're just angry about losing on the gay marriage debate....and so want to overturn the Obergfell ruling with an amendment.

Nope.

 

[Skylar]

What will be the conspiracy when the GOP decides not to pursue this sloppy and foolish amendment?

Same with Gallup I suppose: they've been infiltrated by homosexuals!

 

[Ravi]

We aren't a democracy. We don't decide by majority vote. What country do you live in?

Then tell me why I keep going to the voting booth and watching the returns showing which things become law and which don't according to how people vote in a majority? Is that something I've been imagining all these decades?

You're a nutter. Suddenly we don't have a Constitution and majority rule anymore?

Again, the question is "Adult's wants vs Children's NEEDS". Children need to trump via a Constitutional Amendment. Or can't Congress Amend the Constitution anymore according to Ravi the historical revisionist?

A lot of the crap you vote for turns out to be unconstitutional. Outlawing SSM for example. We do not vote on other peoples rights.

 

[Silhouette]

We most certainly do vote on people's behaviors (that you erroneously call "rights") I think what you need is a dictionary and a lesson on the difference between verbs and nouns. One is an action and the other is a state of being.

1. And what of guns in the home?

Do we have a referrendum " Do you approve of parents being allowed to keep guns in their home? The majority says yes or no.....case closed?

2. "Do you approve of parents being allowed to practice Islam?" The majority says 'yes or no' and 'case closed'?

If not, why not? What right couldn't be stripped from entire societies with a simple majority vote?

1. Yes, in a gun safe, locked and out of reach of a child.

2. Yes, as long as it does not result in physical harm to a child. That's the gold standard. Before you get started, passively refusing to participate in gay marriage does nobody any harm.

See how easy this is? Judges will have such an easy job once children's needs become clearly dominant in law to adult's wants. In fact, I dare say their lives will be easier all around. Imagine just one filter before you where children are involved and always being able to ask just one question "does this activity proposed before me benefit the child's needs ultimately?". If the answer is "yes", it's case closed. If the answer is questionable, then a trial is held for a jury to decide. Maybe that's also something to include: any case involving children's interest must ALWAYS be held by a jury panel.

 

[Silhouette]

Skylar, please try to stick to the subject.

What do you think about nudists? Will they meet your gold standard and be allowed to raise children?

That would be up to a society to define for themselves....Remember, the OP suggest either a referendum or a judge having to meet that gold standard. That might be up to a referendum. Ballot measure 14 "The parent nudist initiative" "Do you approve of parents running around naked rasing their kids that way in a nudist colony?" The majority says "yes" or "no". Case closed. THAT is how democracy will work in conjunction with this Amendment. The Amendment's main focus would be to destroy any lawyer or judicial activism that fails to take into account that the majority sets standards for children's needs, not some activist judge or panel of 5 on the US Supreme Court...even to excluding children's needs ENTIRELY from the conversation about an institution that was started FOR THE BENEFIT OF CHILDREN! Like they did this year..

That BS will stop as of the date of ratification of "The Children's Consideration Amendment".

We aren't a democracy. We don't decide by majority vote. What country do you live in?

We most certainly do decide questions of behaviors and all manner of nuances of law by a majority vote. Gay behaviors do not have dominant rights to children's needs. And if they do, a New Amendment is called for. Children must not have their needs subjegated to adult wants. A new Amendment would force judges everywhere to have a new filter before them when deciding any question of law.

 

[Skylar]

We most certainly do vote on people's behaviors (that you erroneously call "rights") I think what you need is a dictionary and a lesson on the difference between verbs and nouns. One is an action and the other is a state of being.

1. And what of guns in the home?

Do we have a referrendum " Do you approve of parents being allowed to keep guns in their home? The majority says yes or no.....case closed?

2. "Do you approve of parents being allowed to practice Islam?" The majority says 'yes or no' and 'case closed'?

If not, why not? What right couldn't be stripped from entire societies with a simple majority vote?

1. Yes, in a gun safe, locked and out of reach of a child.

Says who? A ruling on the effecitveness of gun safes would involve the welfare of children. Thus, the issue must be put up to a vote.

And if the majority votes no.......no more guns in the home? If not, why not?

2. Yes, as long as it does not result in physical harm to a child. That's the gold standard. Before you get started, passively refusing to participate in gay marriage does nobody any harm.

Physical harm to a child....according to who? Remember, your standard is 'well being of a child'. Which could mean anything. Emotional, physical, moral, metaphysical. Well being encompasses far more than simple physical harm.

So if someone argues that Christianity or Islam hurts kids, wouldn't it be up to the people to decide if they should be allowed?

At least using your logic.

See how easy this is? Judges will have such an easy job once children's needs become clearly dominant in law to adult's wants. In fact, I dare say their lives will be easier all around. Imagine just one filter before you where children are involved and always being able to ask just one question "does this activity proposed before me benefit the child's needs ultimately?". If the answer is "yes", it's case closed. If the answer is questionable, then a trial is held for a jury to decide. Maybe that's also something to include: any case involving children's interest must ALWAYS be held by a jury panel.

Would eliminating guns lower the chances of children being killed by them? Yes or no? If yes, then per you we must eliminate all guns. Would eliminating all religion lower the chances of children being killed in religious wars? Yes or no? If yes, then per you, must eliminate all religion.

If the media hurts the well being of kids....can we eliminate the press? If the freedom to assemble can result in riots that hurt kids.....can we eliminate that right too?

What right couldn't be eliminated by a simple vote?