A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.parenting » Spanking
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

OT (xposted) - US Constitution discussion



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old July 5th 03, 05:52 AM
Scout
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT (xposted) - US Constitution discussion


"tötö©" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 15:03:42 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:


"tötö©" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 23:57:01 -0500, "David J. Hughes"
wrote:

Just addressing your questions, I personally favor an absolute right
to keep and bear arms, with no weasely justifications or purposes.
"Sir, why are you lugging around a manpack mini gun?"
"Because I damn well feel like it, not that it's any of your damn
business, nosey!"

David Hughes

LOL Don't take this wrong (it's a quote from a friend who is
in Switzerland)

"Why would anybody in our civilized countries need to bear and keep
weapons for security?


Answer: Because civilized countries don't always remain civilized nor

free
from attack by those less civilized whether on a national or individual
level.

Aren't we all cozily protected by our wonderful
governments?


Who protects you from your wonderful government?

And what would recreational mean? The idiots disturbing
my Sunday peace at the nearby shooting range? I pray to whoever is
responsible the ****s shoot there respective heads off, asap.
Yours must be one of very few countries cementing penis envy in the
constitution."


No offense, not this doesn't sound like anyone from Switzerland to me.
Sounds more like an American anti-gun troll.

Nah. He's a radical left-winger though.


Figures. Same empty headed emotionalism.


  #22  
Old July 5th 03, 10:15 PM
Beth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT (xposted) - US Constitution discussion

Dorothy,


I am interested in your discussion, but the ideas I have are too vague
and ill-formed for posting publicly. I recently lost my address book
due to a hard-drive failure combined with my own proscrationation
tendencies towards back-ups. Could you email me your current address
and I'll correspond with you privately.

Beth Clarkson


(Two Bears) wrote in message . com...
toto wrote in message . ..
If aps and asadd would like to participate, I invite people to
come over to aac to continue since this may be annoying to
regs in aps or asadd who are not interested. I wanted to invite
those who had participated in the What is Terrorism thread
that was xposted to misc.kids into the discussion and I don't
know which groups most of them post to by their nics.

Marcie, Jake, Chris, Kane, Mark Probert? Any of you up
for this kind of discussion? I really would like some ideas
about this. My own are only half-formed really.

US Constitution is hopelessly outdated according to some people
I speak to from various other countries of the world.


What a laugh! In other countries huh? Screw them and I don't like
their hats. They are not worth the words which prove them contemptuous
and jealous of the fact that some of us US citizens HAVE a
constitution WITH a Bill of Rights and were and are willing to fight
to get and keep them ~!!

There is some sentiment for this in the US as well. And there is
some sentiment that our present constitution is a problem mainly
because the powers that be have not really adhered to its original
tenets and protections for citizens.


Yep, and they should be in one of those "other countries"

So....

What kinds of things should a modern constitution contain?


None. It is fine the way it is. The controversy it causes is healthy,
reminding patriots to be ever vigilant.


Which provisions that are currently in the US Constitution
should be eliminated, if any? (No, I am not for eliminating
the BOR, though updated language might make a few things
more clear).


One of the beauties of the document is that those who are good for the
country understand it and those who are cancerous to the country try
to missinterpret it.

Any ideas would be appreciated. No legal language please.
Let's keep it on a level that those of us who are not lawyers,
can understand.


The first good thing you've said.

  #23  
Old July 10th 03, 10:21 AM
David J. Hughes
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT (xposted) - US Constitution discussion



tötö© wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 21:43:31 -0500, "David J. Hughes"
wrote:

Thanks David. You have a lot of interesting ideas about this.


Follow up to address several points:

"The people shall have the right to keep and bear arms."

"The people" same usage as all other portions of the Constitution, an
individual right.


I agree about the non-ambiguous phrasing here.


A person, duly convicted in a court of law, may have any and all
rights restricted, but such restrictions are removed upon completion
of sentence.



Do you think this might lead to harsher and longer sentences for
crimes of violence though?


A definite possibility. Which would you rather see confined, a
violent sociopath, a generally useful and law abiding citizen who
would benefit from anger management therapy, or a shoplifter?


In many cases, as soon as a person completed their full sentence, they
would immediately be able to vote, run for elected office, keep and
bear arms, perform jury duties. After all, if they can't be trusted,
why have they been released?



There is a certain amount of recidivism for many crimes. And they
are released often because it costs so much to keep them in jail
that we cannot do so.


Release all the simple drug possession offenders, and we have plenty
of space and resources.



On a case by case basis, a court may impose extended restriction on
rights (someone with a history of violence may have the right to keep
and bear arms restricted, someone convicted of election fraud may have
their right to run for elected office or vote restricted, etc.), but
any individual, upon completing the regular terms of sentence, may
petition the court for release from these restrictions.


I like this. It would probably make sex-offender registry
unconstitutional too, though. How do you feel about that
issue?


Break it down into categories:
Violent, abusive sexual predators? Bury them under the jail, as far
as I'm concerned.

People who made some bad choices, and are unlikely to be repeat
offenders? Why mess up the rest of their lives?

Other? Take on a case by case basis.



Note that the right to keep and bear arms doesn't remove the
responsibility of the individual for public safety and personal
responsibility.

If you want to pack around a LAW rocket, be prepared to pay for any
damages you might cause with it.


On the Constitutionality question:
Between the time a bill is signed into law and it goes into effect,
the appropriate level of the judiciary must review it for
Constitutionality. (A city law goes to state and federal court, a
national law goes to the Supreme Court.)
Such review does not limit later challenges to the law on
Constitutional grounds.

Any elected official found to have violated the Constitutional rights
of any individual, including by passing or enforcing a law later found
to be unconstitutional, may be subject to a fine of up to $10,000 per
violation, and may be subject to up to one year of penal servitude.

And a new item:
"An individual owns and is sole responsible for their own person."

If someone wants to smoke tobacco, drink alcohol, get a tattoo,
indulge in recreational pharmaceuticals, commit suicide, etc., it is
their right. If they damage themselves, they get to pay for repairs
themselves. If they damage anyone else, they get to pay for the
damages first, before paying off their own problems.


I like that too. OTOH, would this preclude parents piercing their
children's ears or c*rcumscising them? Since the child also
would own and be responsible for his own person. Would you
limit this by age? (playing devil's advocate here a bit).


Yeah, that's a major point. Ideally, rights should go back to
conception, but that's impractical.
Could use a graduated maturity scale. Parents or guardians have
absolute rights up to roughly age seven, or when the child can
understand and explain what their rights are.
Limited control granted in steps, possibly after tests for maturity
and recognition of the consequences of choices.
Full rights granted only upon demonstrated financial and social
independence from parents.

Some kids might exercise full rights, including voting and holding
public office at 12, others might never make it.

Possibly allow for the child to sue for divorce from the family,
making themselves wards of the court.

Then again, sometimes I think the Roman Republic had the right idea.
Children were chattel property of the father, subject to retro active
abortion, until 19 for females, and 23 for males.


David Hughes






  #24  
Old July 10th 03, 06:15 PM
David J. Hughes
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT (xposted) - US Constitution discussion



tötö© wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 04:21:54 -0500, "David J. Hughes"
wrote:



tötö© wrote:

On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 21:43:31 -0500, "David J. Hughes"
wrote:

Thanks David. You have a lot of interesting ideas about this.


Follow up to address several points:

"The people shall have the right to keep and bear arms."

"The people" same usage as all other portions of the Constitution, an
individual right.


I agree about the non-ambiguous phrasing here.



A person, duly convicted in a court of law, may have any and all
rights restricted, but such restrictions are removed upon completion
of sentence.


Do you think this might lead to harsher and longer sentences for
crimes of violence though?


A definite possibility. Which would you rather see confined, a
violent sociopath, a generally useful and law abiding citizen who
would benefit from anger management therapy, or a shoplifter?


I think that we should confine the least number of people possible.
There are other alternatives to curtail criminal behavior than locking
people up (other than those who are violent sociopaths, who must
be locked away from us while they are being treated - some of these
will not be amenable to treatment at all, but some will once we have
more knowledge about the disease they suffer from).


Agreed.


In many cases, as soon as a person completed their full sentence, they
would immediately be able to vote, run for elected office, keep and
bear arms, perform jury duties. After all, if they can't be trusted,
why have they been released?


There is a certain amount of recidivism for many crimes. And they
are released often because it costs so much to keep them in jail
that we cannot do so.


Release all the simple drug possession offenders, and we have plenty
of space and resources.


Frankly I would legalize most drugs. I think that the crimes
committed to get the money to buy them are worse than the
drugs. And I think that alcohol is worse than most drugs when
abused.

I would however have a more Swedish view about driving under
the influence. A person who drives when drunk on alcohol or
under the influence of drugs should lose his license for a lengthy
period ot fime for the *first* offense and permanently for the
second offense. If you do drugs, fine, you only harm yourself,
but if you drive and do drugs, you have the potential to kill other
innocent people.

This, however, doesn't have to be spelled out in the constitution,
but it should be federal law, imo.


I concur.



On a case by case basis, a court may impose extended restriction on
rights (someone with a history of violence may have the right to keep
and bear arms restricted, someone convicted of election fraud may have
their right to run for elected office or vote restricted, etc.), but
any individual, upon completing the regular terms of sentence, may
petition the court for release from these restrictions.


I like this. It would probably make sex-offender registry
unconstitutional too, though. How do you feel about that
issue?


Break it down into categories:
Violent, abusive sexual predators? Bury them under the jail, as far
as I'm concerned.

People who made some bad choices, and are unlikely to be repeat
offenders? Why mess up the rest of their lives?

Other? Take on a case by case basis.


We are more in agreement than not here. I think that such a registry
gives people a false sense of security actually. I do think that the
most violent need to be confined away from society. Still I don't
believe we need to treat them harshly in such a prison situation. It
seems to me that society should not descend to the level of the
criminal in its treatment of them.



Note that the right to keep and bear arms doesn't remove the
responsibility of the individual for public safety and personal
responsibility.

If you want to pack around a LAW rocket, be prepared to pay for any
damages you might cause with it.


On the Constitutionality question:
Between the time a bill is signed into law and it goes into effect,
the appropriate level of the judiciary must review it for
Constitutionality. (A city law goes to state and federal court, a
national law goes to the Supreme Court.)
Such review does not limit later challenges to the law on
Constitutional grounds.

Any elected official found to have violated the Constitutional rights
of any individual, including by passing or enforcing a law later found
to be unconstitutional, may be subject to a fine of up to $10,000 per
violation, and may be subject to up to one year of penal servitude.

And a new item:
"An individual owns and is sole responsible for their own person."

If someone wants to smoke tobacco, drink alcohol, get a tattoo,
indulge in recreational pharmaceuticals, commit suicide, etc., it is
their right. If they damage themselves, they get to pay for repairs
themselves. If they damage anyone else, they get to pay for the
damages first, before paying off their own problems.


I like that too. OTOH, would this preclude parents piercing their
children's ears or c*rcumscising them? Since the child also
would own and be responsible for his own person. Would you
limit this by age? (playing devil's advocate here a bit).


Yeah, that's a major point. Ideally, rights should go back to
conception, but that's impractical.



Agreed.


Could use a graduated maturity scale. Parents or guardians have
absolute rights up to roughly age seven, or when the child can
understand and explain what their rights are.



Not bad, would you have a test of some kind for the full exercise
of a child's rights?


Perhaps, but I have no valid idea how to design or administer such a
test.



Limited control granted in steps, possibly after tests for maturity
and recognition of the consequences of choices.
Full rights granted only upon demonstrated financial and social
independence from parents.

Some kids might exercise full rights, including voting and holding
public office at 12, others might never make it.

Possibly allow for the child to sue for divorce from the family,
making themselves wards of the court.

Then again, sometimes I think the Roman Republic had the right idea.
Children were chattel property of the father, subject to retro active
abortion, until 19 for females, and 23 for males.


Interesting that you think males should be killed for longer than
females here. You must dislike your own sex.. g


Well, in the Republic, girls were generally married by 19, and became
their husbands' chattel and no longer a concern to their father.
Boys only option get out from under daddy's thumb was to join the
Legion. Join at 15, first enlistment runs 20 years.

Let's be honest, human males aged 14 to 25 do a lot of really stupid
things. g




 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Breastfeeding discussion aml Pregnancy 1 March 26th 04 11:19 AM
infant first aid box (xposted) ted Kids Health 13 February 18th 04 01:57 AM
'Africa is hopeless'? (also: The tiniest citizens) (also: 'I pledge allegiance to the US CONSTITUTION" (?!) Todd Gastaldo Pregnancy 0 October 28th 03 12:03 AM
Child and Adolescent Mental Health - New website for discussion and information resource, for parents, young people and professionals Mike Kids Health 0 September 12th 03 02:18 AM
Us at 3 months! (Xposted) Laurie Pregnancy 11 July 18th 03 08:46 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.