| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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: |
| The Children's Amendment | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Aug 12 2009, 01:14 PM (305 Views) | |
| Commoncold0 | Aug 12 2009, 01:14 PM Post #1 |
|
Elder Statesman
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Under this bill, the following clause shall be added to the constitution as Article IX.a.1
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). |
![]() |
|
| Lord Wallace Buttersworth | Aug 12 2009, 01:16 PM Post #2 |
|
Right Honourable Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Side point before I read this, and it bothers me for some reason. Can we please start spelling amendment correctly? Ta. |
![]() |
|
| Commoncold0 | Aug 12 2009, 01:17 PM Post #3 |
|
Elder Statesman
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Sorry, it's one of those words that I can never get right. Cieran, can you correct the title? |
![]() |
|
| Lord Wallace Buttersworth | Aug 12 2009, 01:20 PM Post #4 |
|
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? |
![]() |
|
| Commoncold0 | Aug 12 2009, 01:24 PM Post #5 |
|
Elder Statesman
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well, that should go without saying. Except when explicitly stated that they are restricted, the rights granted by the constitution are unrestricted. |
![]() |
|
| Cieran | Aug 12 2009, 01:35 PM Post #6 |
![]()
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 ?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?... |
![]() |
|
| Commoncold0 | Aug 12 2009, 01:37 PM Post #7 |
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| DMHowe | Aug 12 2009, 02:35 PM Post #8 |
![]()
Under Investigation
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Legally an adult being, I assume, 18?
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? |
![]() |
|
| Commoncold0 | Aug 12 2009, 03:28 PM Post #9 |
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| DMHowe | Aug 12 2009, 04:17 PM Post #10 |
![]()
Under Investigation
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Satisfied. [/support] |
![]() |
|
| Lord Wallace Buttersworth | Aug 12 2009, 11:10 PM Post #11 |
|
Right Honourable Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'm satisfied, this seems like an 'early' bill, as in one that should've been here forever. |
![]() |
|
| DynamoJax | Aug 13 2009, 12:05 AM Post #12 |
![]()
17th and 20th PM of Ostentia.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'll go for this bill. |
![]() |
|
| Lord Wallace Buttersworth | Aug 13 2009, 08:15 AM Post #13 |
|
Right Honourable Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Clarification, you mention freedom of assembly? So they can assemble, to get their child back? Sorry I don't understand. |
![]() |
|
| Commoncold0 | Aug 13 2009, 10:48 AM Post #14 |
|
Elder Statesman
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Legislation · Next Topic » |





![]](http://z1.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)




?


12:58 AM Jul 11