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

[Skylar]

Oh, and your standard is 'any court ruling'. So that would put the outcome of any child custody hearing where a parent disputes it to a majority vote.

And this you call 'easy'?

 

[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?

We most certainly do decide questions of behaviors and all manner of nuances of law by a majority vote.

Within the bounds of rights. You *always*, always omit any mention of individual rights, always cut out any mention of constitutional guarantees. Despite the will of the majority being subject to them.

You ignoring constitutional guarantees doesn't mean that the courts will.

Gay behaviors do not have dominant rights to children's needs. And if they do, a New Amendment is called for.

And now we get to the crux of the matter. The reason your ENTIRE amendment exists: attacking gay people. Ravi didn't even mention gays. Yet you went right to it.

We're not passing an amendment because you don't like gay people, Sil. Its not happening.

 

[Silhouette]

For something that is "not happening" you sure are posting in opposition a lot. People who do not fear a thing don't line up to beat it into submission with such vigor. They just laugh and move on. That's not what you're doing though..the "moving on" part. You're pretty proactive being resistant to these "ideas you don't fear". Your actions betray you Skylar.

 

[Skylar]

For something that is "not happening" you sure are posting in opposition a lot. People who do not fear a thing don't line up to beat it into submission with such vigor. They just laugh and move on. That's not what you're doing though..the "moving on" part. You're pretty proactive being resistant to these "ideas you don't fear". Your actions betray you Skylar.

If you really think that my posting defines the likelihood of a constitutional amendment, then your tenuous grasp of reality has truly snapped.

And notice you don't answer any of my questions, nor address the points I've raised about how horribly written your 'amendment' is, how arbitrary, and why it would endanger virtually every right we have if enacted as you envision it.

As it would put every right up for a majority vote.

You always tell us where you know your argument is weakest by what you fastidiously avoid.

 

[Dragonlady]

The first "Children First" vote would require parents to marry and the second would ban divorce.

Then we can have amendments that say that wages have to be increased so both parents don't have to work to support families. Then free healthcare for all.

Better schools, properly equipped to provide children with a competitive education. Cut military spending and put those tax dollars into providing sport and recreational centres so kids can grow up strong and healthy.

Ban sugar sweeten cereals and fast food restaurants.

That is what "Children First" would look like. And of course ban handguns.

 

[Silhouette]

The first "Children First" vote would require parents to marry and the second would ban divorce.
.

No, it wouldn't. If a home is too hostile, children would fare better under divorce. Gold standard met. Children fare better when their parents can protect them with guns, as long as they're stored safely with regards to the kids. A military is necessary for adults to protect the children. Gold standard met again.

Any others?

You don't ban sweets. Sweets as rare treats are rather nice. This system lends a lot of leeway on freedoms but sets a very hard standard when they are challenged in courts as to the welfare of a child. For instance, if a parent fed their child nothing but Captain Cruch cereal, donuts and soda, the parent would be found negligent. The Captain Crunch, donuts and soda wouldn't be found negligent. On the other hand, if the parent occasionally rewarded the child with a donut or a soda for a job well done, then the child learns "adjusting well to standards and expectations works out well for me"...and indeed it would..and the gold standard is met yet again..

Capitalism preserved. Freedoms preserved. None of the other Amendments hampered or harmed. Children's needs protected...win win win win...

...unless you hate children?

 

[Dune]

The motherless/fatherless marriage question may very likely be returned to the People of the sovereign states to decide upon, on behalf of children that we all are guardians of collectively. You can't remove society's voice on something that affects the wellbeing of children. That can't be done. In fact, I'd have that written into the US Constitution as a new Amendment: "Any court decision on appeal that affects the potential wellbeing of children must be put back to voters of the separate states... There can be no ruling found that favors adult wants over a child's needs".

ie, in any question where an adult's wants can be predicted to deprive, set ill at ease, harm, torment, harass, disparage, suppress or any other tort against a child's wellbeing, that case must be decided within the boundaries of a state by a referendum or a mandate to all judges to weigh heavily upon the child's needs before the adult's wants. This application of law would be the gold standard.

It isn't an "anti-gay" Amendment, though the usual crowd will scream foul that it is. It is a pro-child amendment which is long long long overdue. Children cannot vote and as such their considerations and rights are more downtrodden than any other class of people in the US.

And if put to a vote in Congress today, or next year.. I would dare any democrat to come out against a pro-child Amendment. The protections aren't limited just to marriage and how it affects their formative years. It also would protect them from neglect, abuse and exploitation and save them from any slick lawyer arguing on behalf of adults at their expense. The Amendment could actually have wording that "every child is best served by having a mother and a father present in their life on a regular basis", while acknowledging that doesn't always happen.. the striving would be towards that goal in their best interest.

And if democrats reject the proposal on the grounds that "it would affect gay marriage"...then so be it. Advertise loud and clear that they preferred the "rights" to a deviant lifestyle over the wellbeing of children. They would also be "coming out" either anti-mother or anti-father. Not good on any front really if you think about it.. Name each and every democratic Congressperson who so rejected the bill. Any rejection of the bill will make them look machiavellian and into child abuse....and it would be a cake-walk to say it just like that.

Congresspeople?

How about passing (ratifying) the Equal Rights Amendment first?

 

[Silhouette]

How about passing (ratifying) the Equal Rights Amendment first?

You mean for static things like gender, race or country of origin and not actions like behaviors, right?

Meanwhile between adults and children, only adults can vote, so children are the class in a "state of emergency" regarding their rights/oppression. And if the fatherless/motherless "new standard" for their subsidized/enticed formative environments ratified (by the Court, completely excluding consideration of importance of both fathers and mothers to children) this Summer doesn't drive that point home, nothing will.... Adults would have to wait their turn.

 

[Dune]

How about passing (ratifying) the Equal Rights Amendment first?

You mean for static things like gender, race or country of origin and not actions like behaviors, right?

Meanwhile between adults and children, only adults can vote, so children are the class in a "state of emergency" regarding their rights/oppression. And if the fatherless/motherless "new standard" for their subsidized/enticed formative environments ratified (by the Court, completely excluding consideration of importance of both fathers and mothers to children) this Summer doesn't drive that point home, nothing will.... Adults would have to wait their turn.

Sorry but a society which doesn't grant equal rights to both sexes is hardly about to grant extraordinary rights to children.
First things first.

Equal Rights Amendment - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Silhouette]

Children are first.

 

[Silhouette]

How about passing (ratifying) the Equal Rights Amendment first?

You mean for static things like gender, race or country of origin and not actions like behaviors, right?
Meanwhile between adults and children, only adults can vote, so children are the class in a "state of emergency" regarding their rights/oppression. And if the fatherless/motherless "new standard" for their subsidized/enticed formative environments ratified (by the Court, completely excluding consideration of importance of both fathers and mothers to children) this Summer doesn't drive that point home, nothing will.... Adults would have to wait their turn.

Sorry but a society which doesn't grant equal rights to both sexes is hardly about to grant extraordinary rights to children.
First things first.
Equal Rights Amendment - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The problem is in what you just said. Where we place our priorities. Traditionally and legally..I might add..weight is given to the most oppressed class of people. Do you not consider children people? You do? Well then good, because they are THE ONLY CLASS OF PEOPLE LEFT IN THE US WHO CANNOT VOTE TO AFFECT THEIR DESTINY. Ergo, they are legally a priority. Sorry to burst your bubble.

 

[mdk]

I am sure the GOP is just scrambling to waste their political capital on this "It Takes a Village Idiot" amendment.

 

[Dune]

How about passing (ratifying) the Equal Rights Amendment first?

You mean for static things like gender, race or country of origin and not actions like behaviors, right?
Meanwhile between adults and children, only adults can vote, so children are the class in a "state of emergency" regarding their rights/oppression. And if the fatherless/motherless "new standard" for their subsidized/enticed formative environments ratified (by the Court, completely excluding consideration of importance of both fathers and mothers to children) this Summer doesn't drive that point home, nothing will.... Adults would have to wait their turn.

Sorry but a society which doesn't grant equal rights to both sexes is hardly about to grant extraordinary rights to children.
First things first.
Equal Rights Amendment - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The problem is in what you just said. Where we place our priorities. Traditionally and legally..I might add..weight is given to the most oppressed class of people. Do you not consider children people? You do? Well then good, because they are THE ONLY CLASS OF PEOPLE LEFT IN THE US WHO CANNOT VOTE TO AFFECT THEIR DESTINY. Ergo, they are legally a priority. Sorry to burst your bubble.

I am well aware of the lack of rights of children.
I will say once more that a society which will not even grant both sexes equal rights is hardly about to concern itself with the rights of children This doesn't mean I don't support children's rights. It just means I am realistic about the odds of such an amendment passing (at this time).
The ERA has been a proposed amendment for 90 years. At least 1 amendment took 200 years to be ratified.
If you are truly concerned, choose a possible path, stop tilting at windmills.

 

[Silhouette]

I am well aware of the lack of rights of children.
I will say once more that a society which will not even grant both sexes equal rights is hardly about to concern itself with the rights of children This doesn't mean I don't support children's rights. It just means I am realistic about the odds of such an amendment passing (at this time).
The ERA has been a proposed amendment for 90 years. At least 1 amendment took 200 years to be ratified.
If you are truly concerned, choose a possible path, stop tilting at windmills.

I'm no Don Quixote. If the GOP pushed this Bill right now, the dems would have to come out anti-child if they refused to vote "aye" on it. That would screw them in the election. And it would bring up the conversation of what was done by the democratic influence to kids this June by the Leftist Court ratifying motherless/fatherless "marriages" as an enticed/subsidized institution, knowing children fare better with both a mother and father in their life.

It would really drive home how friggin' batshit crazy the far left is and, it would be quite a vote-harvest for the GOP. Hardly fighting with windmills dear. The equal rights thing is far less charged than danger to kids. In fact, I can't think of a more inflammatory subject that causes an instant visceral reaction in people more than children coming to harm. Can you?

 

[Dune]

I am well aware of the lack of rights of children.
I will say once more that a society which will not even grant both sexes equal rights is hardly about to concern itself with the rights of children This doesn't mean I don't support children's rights. It just means I am realistic about the odds of such an amendment passing (at this time).
The ERA has been a proposed amendment for 90 years. At least 1 amendment took 200 years to be ratified.
If you are truly concerned, choose a possible path, stop tilting at windmills.

I'm no Don Quixote. If the GOP pushed this Bill right now, the dems would have to come out anti-child if they refused to vote "aye" on it. That would screw them in the election. And it would bring up the conversation of what was done by the democratic influence to kids this June by the Leftist Court ratifying motherless/fatherless "marriages" as an enticed/subsidized institution, knowing children fare better with both a mother and father in their life.

It would really drive home how friggin' batshit crazy the far left is and, it would be quite a vote-harvest for the GOP. Hardly fighting with windmills dear. The equal rights thing is far less charged than danger to kids. In fact, I can't think of a more inflammatory subject that causes an instant visceral reaction in people more than children coming to harm. Can you?

No, you are indeed tilting at windmills.
The GOP is NEVER going to come down on the side of the oppressed. You are delusional if you think otherwise.
Not only do children not vote, they don't have any money either.
Starting to sense I am arguing with a fool.

 

[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?

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.

Can I sue my parents for never buying me a pony? It ruined my life.

 

[Ravi]

The first "Children First" vote would require parents to marry and the second would ban divorce.
.

No, it wouldn't. If a home is too hostile, children would fare better under divorce. Gold standard met. Children fare better when their parents can protect them with guns, as long as they're stored safely with regards to the kids. A military is necessary for adults to protect the children. Gold standard met again.

Any others?

You don't ban sweets. Sweets as rare treats are rather nice. This system lends a lot of leeway on freedoms but sets a very hard standard when they are challenged in courts as to the welfare of a child. For instance, if a parent fed their child nothing but Captain Cruch cereal, donuts and soda, the parent would be found negligent. The Captain Crunch, donuts and soda wouldn't be found negligent. On the other hand, if the parent occasionally rewarded the child with a donut or a soda for a job well done, then the child learns "adjusting well to standards and expectations works out well for me"...and indeed it would..and the gold standard is met yet again..

Capitalism preserved. Freedoms preserved. None of the other Amendments hampered or harmed. Children's needs protected...win win win win...

...unless you hate children?

Who is going to care for the children that get taken away from their parents? And how will you compensate for the childrens loss of their parents?

 

[mdk]

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.

Can I sue my parents for never buying me a pony? It ruined my life.

Sure can. Your 'needs' far outweigh the 'wants' of your parents. Of course the people of the state will have to vote on that matte first.. The people must have a voice in this pressing pony issue!

 

[Ravi]

I am well aware of the lack of rights of children.
I will say once more that a society which will not even grant both sexes equal rights is hardly about to concern itself with the rights of children This doesn't mean I don't support children's rights. It just means I am realistic about the odds of such an amendment passing (at this time).
The ERA has been a proposed amendment for 90 years. At least 1 amendment took 200 years to be ratified.
If you are truly concerned, choose a possible path, stop tilting at windmills.

I'm no Don Quixote. If the GOP pushed this Bill right now, the dems would have to come out anti-child if they refused to vote "aye" on it. That would screw them in the election. And it would bring up the conversation of what was done by the democratic influence to kids this June by the Leftist Court ratifying motherless/fatherless "marriages" as an enticed/subsidized institution, knowing children fare better with both a mother and father in their life.

It would really drive home how friggin' batshit crazy the far left is and, it would be quite a vote-harvest for the GOP. Hardly fighting with windmills dear. The equal rights thing is far less charged than danger to kids. In fact, I can't think of a more inflammatory subject that causes an instant visceral reaction in people more than children coming to harm. Can you?

If they GOP proposed a bill that allowed the government, i.e. Your voting juries, to dictate parents method of child rearing, it would be the end of the GOP.

Hmmmm, I think I will pass your excellent idea along to the Republican candidates.

 

[WorldWatcher]

>

Sil, is this amendment going to be done before or after the 1st priority of the GOP after swearing in the new Congress in January 2015 of impeaching the appeals court Judges that ruled on same-sex marriage.

How did those impeachment proceedings that you predicted go by the way?


>>>>