Strollerderby : constitution

Responsible Parenting Law is Unconstitutional

JeanneSager — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 20:01:00 GMT

Can I hear an Amen from every writer of "Bad Parent" here on Babble?

Oh wait, I'm part of that contingent - so AAAAAMEN!

A law passed by Davenport, Iowa that would have made it illegal to be an "irresponsible parent" (close enough) was taken to the courts by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Iowa, and has now been deemed unconstitutional because it was "is overbroad and denies due process rights."

You think?

The law would have required parents to be sent a strict letter of admonishment the first time their child was caught committing a crime or even breaking the town curfew. The worse their kids got, the harder the penalties levied against the parents would be, including fines and mandatory parenting classes.

I was an all around pretty good kid with parents who did some pretty heavy supervision. But on occasion (very rare, of course!), I screwed up royally. Would you blame my parents? No - blame me, I was the idiot. It's no wonder kids take little responsibility for their actions - first their parents hire lawyers to fight the big mean teacher that gave them a B and now the government is willing to pass the buck on to mom and dad.

I'm glad to see this one knocked down, but Lisa Belkin of the Motherlode pointed out in a recent column that there are a fair amount of attempts still in the works to bully parents into being good at their "jobs" with legal threats. North Dakota parents face fines if their kids skip school, Minnesota parents can't smoke in cars with kids.

Do you think the laws can ever really change bad parents into good ones? Or will more laws simply mean more bad parents sitting in jails?

Image: Zazzle

Education for All? Not in New Hampshire

JeanneSager — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 13:32:00 GMT

Would you send your kids to kindergarten if it was going to cost you money? It's the only choice provided to parents in Hudson, NH, the last city in the contiguous U.S. not to offer free kindergarten to its children.

The city of twenty-five thousand has been ordered to comply with a 2007 New Hampshire law calling for universal kindergarten by this fall, but district officials are bucking the order. They need more money to make it happen, they say.

I'm honestly surprised there are place left in the U.S. where school wouldn't be offered free of charge to families. It's not just Hudson. There are nine other school districts in the Live Free or Die State that will have to add universal kindergarten this fall (the other districts have already started making provisions to do so). There's also one school district in Alaska that does not provide kindergarten to its kids (gee, think Gov. Sarah Palin might want to take a look at that one now that she has some extra time on her hands?).

. What ever happened to the right to an education (yes, I know, it's not in the Constitution - but it should be)? I was equally surprised several years ago when I first learned that kindergarten wasn't mandatory. Having been enrolled at five, having had my brother follow me at five, having heard about my parents' kindergarten classrooms, I mistakenly thought this was a given. Not so. My husband is one of millions of Americans who didn't attend kindergarten (he's the one who first told me about it).

But keeping your child home for the year, or opting for a private institution rather than public is one thing. Not being offered the service at all? It sounds like another case of someone putting the priorities on money instead of on kids.

Study results have varied on the benefit of full-day kindergarten for kids, the most recent report surmising that the good it does disappears by the time the kids are in eighth grade. But if ninety-nine point nine percent of American kids are given free kindergarten, it stands to reason that the Hudson kids are being discriminated against by not being afforded the same opportunities.

For the same services provided for other kids, Hudson parents are expected to pay as much as $4,000 to $8,000 at a private institution. More than ninety percent of the parents pay up, but not everyone can afford the fees. The economic downturn is only making it harder. Ironically that's just why the city of Hudson says they can't make the change.

Despite offers of state aid, Hudson wants more. Considering the taxpayers are already being burdened (via the demand of private tuition costs), wouldn't it be more appropriate to levy a tax on the citizens that would go across the board and make education available to every kid?

A little reminder to the city of Hudson - parents aren't the only one who benefit from their children getting an education. So how about stepping up for the sake of all citizens - even those under four feet tall?

Image: Mary Mail

Georgia Sex Offenders Must Turn Over Passwords "For the Kids"

JeanneSager — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 18:26:00 GMT

Ever notice the words "for the children" make you feel really guilty? Vote "yes" on a ludicrous school budget; it's for the kids. Get a dog even though daddy's allergic - it's for the kids.

I guess I'm supposed to feel good that the State of Georgia has told every registered sex offender to turn over their internet passwords, e-mail addresses and screennames.

The law that went into affect with the new year was written by State Senator Cecil Staton, who says it will "keep the internet safe for children." With sixteen thousand sex offenders in the state, I can't see how the move will do much more than tax the already over-worked cops now charged with plugging random passwords into the 'net to track people who might or might not be committing a crime.

Don't get me wrong; pedophiles deserve to be strung up by their toenails in my eyes. Touch a kid, and you're worth less than pond scum. But how does requring a sex offender to pass over the information he uses to get into his online banking account making the internet safer for kids?

With the move, Georgia becomes only the second state in the nation to require pedophiles turn over their passwords (Utah was first); although there are about fifteen that require usernames and e-mail addresses be reported. If they don't do it, they'll face probation violations and possible jailtime.

Providing usernames to the police seems feasible; it allows for a Google Alert anytime "likessexygirls" shows up in a kids chat room. But what does a password provide? Free access to their private e-mails with family that haven't the hint of criminality, a look-see at their bank accounts when nary a crime has been committed. Sounds like the Patriot Act at work here folks, the state searching for a reason to charge someone with a crime. I think they call those witch hunts.

The law actually stretches to all sex offenders - not just those convicted of acts on children. So sickos who raped someone who is over age (and is less likely to have an interest in child porn or contacting kids) are being forced to give up their privacy "for the children."

The law also requires they turn over everything. Everything. So the state is now going to be responsible for keeping safe financial information that, if leaked, could potentially make these sixteen hundred people easy prey for identity thieves. Do they have the security measures to protect that? Do they have the money to put them in place?

Then there's this tricky thing called the Constitution. Like I said, pedophile = pondscum. But what ever happened to "I did the crime, I did the time"? The sex offender registry is in place already to protect people - kids - from sex offenders. Their addresses, pictures, type of vehicle, distinguishing characteristics - are already available. It's a price they're paying for their heinous acts. Should they now pay with their right to privacy?

Image: WRAL

New to Birth Certificate: Does Mom Have Chlamydia?

Aussie Firewall: Stepping into Parents' Shoes?

Breastfeeding Moms Fighting Facebook Ban

Man Is Aquitted of Sex Assault Charges - His Excuse?

Ethnic Unity 101: Coming to China's Schools

JeanneSager — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 13:28:00 GMT

The country that's spent years playing its xenophbic reputation to the fullest is about to cut ethnic intolerance off at the knees. Yes, China, a place not exactly celebrated for its views on human rights, is introducing "ethnic unity" classes in its primary schools.

It will depend on its execution, but promoting the melting pot theory to the youngest members of a society is really the best way to guarantee future generations will have a more tolerant viewpoint than their elders (my generation included).

A Reuters report, quoting a translation of the Chinese government's announcement, says school kids will get up to fourteen hours of school-based education to promote the "basic awareness of the vital nature of 'encouraging ethnic unity, protecting national unity and opposing ethnic separatism'."

Technically, China's constitution guarantees religious freedom and equal treatment for all minorities, including the country's 56 different recognized minority groups. Where have we heard that before? Oh yeah, the United States Constitution - you know, the one that people conveniently forget when they put into place regulations like the atrocity that is Prop 8.

Would something like this fly in U.S. schools?

Image: TWR

Will Our Kids Be Allowed to Say Merry Christmas or Happy Hanukkah?

Parents Must Give Adopted Son Back to Native American Mother

Parents Upset: Transgender Kids Use Different School Bathrooms

Mom Gets Hate Mail for Ending Kids Thanksgiving Party

Breaking News: CA Supreme Court Will Hear Prop. 8 Challenges

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:40:00 GMT

In case your post-election elation is starting to wear off, here's some good news in the fight for constitutional protections. The California Supreme Court agreed today to hear the case against Proposition 8 brought by the ACLU, the City of San Francisco, and gay rights organizations. This is the same court that unwittingly brought about the Prop. 8 firestorm after they ruled that banning gay marriage violates both the fundamental right to marry and the equal protection clause of the California Constitution.

The lawsuits against Prop. 8 hinge on two main arguments, namely (according to the San Francisco Chronicle) that "the measure exceeds the legal scope of a ballot initiative by allowing a majority to restrict a minority group's rights, and that it violates the constitutional separation of powers by limiting judicial authority."

The court's decision to review challenges to Prop. 8 is great news, but the fight is far from over. The court also ruled that same-sex marriages will remain illegal until it has considered the constitutionality of Prop. 8. And if it does find the measure to be constitutionally sound, the court will have to decide whether to apply Prop. 8 retroactively, nullifying the 18,000 marriages that took place between the court's legalization of same-sex marriage and the passage of Prop. 8. We'll keep you posted.

Photo: Los Angeles Times

Prop. 8 Protests Spawn Hope and Great Photos

Mom Kicked out of PTA for Prop. 8 Stance

Strollerderby : constitution

Responsible Parenting Law is Unconstitutional

Four Creepiest Animals Turned Adorable Kids Characters

Children's Laughter Bugs Pre-School's Neighbors

Judge: Home-Schooled Kids Must Go to Public School

The Newest Form of Discipline: Licking

Education for All? Not in New Hampshire

Pardon Me, I Think you Dropped an Apostrophe

Are Pick-Up and Drop-Off Moms Killing the Environment?

Your Kids' Good Manners Could be a Crimebuster

Kindergartner Gets Best Birthday Present EVER