Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
> Opinion Polls
Party Ratings
Test: 50%
Current Government: National Party
National Issues
Health: 50% Education: 50% Economy: 50% Law & Order: 50%
Transport: 50% Social Affairs: 50% Environment: 50% Foreign Affairs: 50%
Government Reputation
Strength: 50%
Popularity: 50%
Trust: 50%

Welcome to Mock Parliament. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
The Children's Amendment
Topic Started: Aug 12 2009, 01:14 PM (305 Views)
Commoncold0
Member Avatar
Elder Statesman
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Under this bill, the following clause shall be added to the constitution as Article IX.a.1
Quote:
 
The rights granted to the citizens of Ostentia by this constitution shall also be considered as granted to the children of Ostentian citizens, limited in so far as they are able to competently exercise their rights. Furthermore, the government shall have a constitutional right to intervene to ensure the welfare of all children in Ostentia, a right which is to be given constitutional status equal to that of the constitutional rights of any individual citizen.


As this bill amends the constitution, it shall require a two-thirds majority vote.

[/bill]

Ok, basicly this means that the bill of rights also applies to children, except in cases where they can't be considered capable of exercising the right (for example, the right to vote). Also, it means that the government is allowed to override an individual's rights to protect the welfare of the child (for example, preventing a parent who's child has been taken by social services from citing freedom of asembly in order to get her child back, even if she would be at risk of hurting the child).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lord Wallace Buttersworth
Member Avatar
Right Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Side point before I read this, and it bothers me for some reason. Can we please start spelling amendment correctly? Ta.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Commoncold0
Member Avatar
Elder Statesman
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Sir William Buttersworth
Aug 12 2009, 02:16 PM
Side point before I read this, and it bothers me for some reason. Can we please start spelling amendment correctly? Ta.

Sorry, it's one of those words that I can never get right. Cieran, can you correct the title?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lord Wallace Buttersworth
Member Avatar
Right Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
No problems, it's all through the Legislation records too, I've refrained from saying anything but I get a twitch in my right eye when I see it.

After reading your proposal, it sounds sane and makes sense. There is little people could oppose this, especially because it has little to no budget overhead (except to a slight, but I'd imagine unnoticeable increase of costs to Social Affairs), and it only does a good thing.

What we need to do though is ensure we're not infringing on the rights of citizens that are not infringing on the rights of others, something that perhaps has to be carefully worded?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Commoncold0
Member Avatar
Elder Statesman
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Well, that should go without saying. Except when explicitly stated that they are restricted, the rights granted by the constitution are unrestricted.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cieran
Member Avatar
Should-like-totally-be-the Prime Minister
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Define children. Are we considering them as children from the moment of conception or birth? What about when they become viable? This isn't some ploy to outlaw abortion is it :P ?

Am I allowed to raise questions like this? I dunno. I can't vote on them, but does anything say I can't discuss them?...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Commoncold0
Member Avatar
Elder Statesman
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
*sigh*

I'm not that sneaky...


For the purposes of this law, a child should be considered as a human being between birth and adulthood.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DMHowe
Member Avatar
Under Investigation
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Legally an adult being, I assume, 18?

Quote:
 
to ensure the welfare of all children in Ostentia, a responsibility which should be acted upon even if this conflicts with the rights of any individual citizen.


I do have a minor qualm with wording and how this can be legally argued.

Welfare being the state of well-being of the child, I assume? Well in this case, the state would be obliged to ensure that a child's mental, physical, emotional (etc), well-being is kept in check. On that basis, we may go as far to make the claim a child may commit murder on the basis that their welfare was in danger, on the basis that the "right to life" of the individual citizen was overruled by their protected welfare.

Furthermore, how does this phrase of the bill work if the individual citizen is another child? Are their individual rights overruled or is their welfare protected by the preceeding statement? Alternately, could it be argued that welfare is not being protected if a child is sent to a young offender's institute?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Commoncold0
Member Avatar
Elder Statesman
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Ok, let's see...

1. Yes, it would be 18 - although I haven't included that in the wording of the constitution, because I don't think any future changes in the age of adulthood should require a constitutional amendment.

2. That's a very tortured reading of the constitution, and I'm sure that if a child did commit murder it could be argued that it's in the interest of their welfare to be locked up in a young offenders institute. But anyways, to remove the issues, the government's responsibility has been altered and is now termed as a right: the government doesn't have to intervene in every case where it could possibly be argued that the welfare of a child is at risk, but can choose which situations require intervention.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DMHowe
Member Avatar
Under Investigation
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Satisfied.

[/support]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lord Wallace Buttersworth
Member Avatar
Right Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I'm satisfied, this seems like an 'early' bill, as in one that should've been here forever.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DynamoJax
Member Avatar
17th and 20th PM of Ostentia.
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I'll go for this bill.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lord Wallace Buttersworth
Member Avatar
Right Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Clarification, you mention freedom of assembly? So they can assemble, to get their child back? Sorry I don't understand.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Commoncold0
Member Avatar
Elder Statesman
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Sir William Buttersworth
Aug 13 2009, 09:15 AM
Clarification, you mention freedom of assembly? So they can assemble, to get their child back? Sorry I don't understand.

Often when a child is seperated from their parent, the child opposes the move and wants to be with the parent, even if the parent poses a risk to them. The child welfare clause would prevent the parent and the child from citing freedom of assembly in order to circumvent a restraining order on the parent placed by social services.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Learn More · Register for Free
« Previous Topic · Legislation · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Mock Parliament Wiki

Looking for the posts about Democratia, Ostentia or Brian Blessed? Click here.