Constitutional Amendment (The Children's Rights Amendment)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

As introduced by Senator Al (on behalf of a concerned citizen)...

The Children's Rights Amendment

Section 1: The term "child" shall be defined as a minor under the age of 16.

Section 2: The term "education" shall be defined as the full-time systematic instruction of basic life skills and knowledge by a child, and mentored by an adult.

Section 3: No person, government or organization shall abridge the right of a child to receive an education.

Section 4: The Senate shall have power to limit, regulate, and prohibit the labor of children.

Section 5: The power of the several Regional Governments are unimpaired by this article except that the operation of regional laws shall be suspended to the extent necessary to give effect to legislation enacted by the Senate.

I hereby open debate on this Amendment

[Gabu]

Is it just me, or has this Senate set a record number of constitutional amendments considered?  It seems like there has been a large deficit of simple bills.

Anyway, I'm currently ambivalent on this one.

[MasterJedi]

I'll be supporting this unless any major flaws are seen during the debate.

And yes Gabu, I belive this is the "Senate of Amendments".

[CheeseWhiz]

As introduced by Senator Al (on behalf of a concerned citizen)...

The Children's Rights Amendment

Section 1: The term "child" shall be defined as a minor under the age of 16.

Section 2: The term "education" shall be defined as the full-time systematic instruction of basic life skills and knowledge by a child, and mentored by an adult.

Section 3: No person, government or organization shall abridge the right of a child to receive an education.

Section 4: The Senate shall have power to limit, regulate, and prohibit the labor of children.

Section 5: The power of the several Regional Governments are unimpaired by this article except that the operation of regional laws shall be suspended to the extent necessary to give effect to legislation enacted by the Senate.

I hereby open debate on this Amendment

One question, why?  My proposition to allow children to work didn't even get one signature, so why do we "need" this?  I strongly oppose this, labor laws should be left up to the Regions.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

One question, why?

A citizen asked me to introduce it. Several constituents said that I should introduce it, so I did.
Could be a good debate as well.

---
Yes; for some reason we've been doing a hell of a lot of Amendments... see we *do* have a legacy after all

[Platypus]

I haven't proposed one bill or amendment this session...you guys owe me when I decide to do so. The problem i've had is that everything I wanted to do we can't afford

[MasterJedi]

As introduced by Senator Al (on behalf of a concerned citizen)...

The Children's Rights Amendment

Section 1: The term "child" shall be defined as a minor under the age of 16.

Section 2: The term "education" shall be defined as the full-time systematic instruction of basic life skills and knowledge by a child, and mentored by an adult.

Section 3: No person, government or organization shall abridge the right of a child to receive an education.

Section 4: The Senate shall have power to limit, regulate, and prohibit the labor of children.

Section 5: The power of the several Regional Governments are unimpaired by this article except that the operation of regional laws shall be suspended to the extent necessary to give effect to legislation enacted by the Senate.

I hereby open debate on this Amendment

One question, why?  My proposition to allow children to work didn't even get one signature, so why do we "need" this?  I strongly oppose this, labor laws should be left up to the Regions.

I believe the purpose of that phrase is to keep it as it is now so the Senate would never change it.

[CheeseWhiz]

As introduced by Senator Al (on behalf of a concerned citizen)...

The Children's Rights Amendment

Section 1: The term "child" shall be defined as a minor under the age of 16.

Section 2: The term "education" shall be defined as the full-time systematic instruction of basic life skills and knowledge by a child, and mentored by an adult.

Section 3: No person, government or organization shall abridge the right of a child to receive an education.

Section 4: The Senate shall have power to limit, regulate, and prohibit the labor of children.

Section 5: The power of the several Regional Governments are unimpaired by this article except that the operation of regional laws shall be suspended to the extent necessary to give effect to legislation enacted by the Senate.

I hereby open debate on this Amendment

One question, why?  My proposition to allow children to work didn't even get one signature, so why do we "need" this?  I strongly oppose this, labor laws should be left up to the Regions.

I believe the purpose of that phrase is to keep it as it is now so the Senate would never change it.

So we're all for Regional rights until they attempt to do something we don't like, and then we give it to the Feds, right?

[Platypus]

As introduced by Senator Al (on behalf of a concerned citizen)...

The Children's Rights Amendment

Section 1: The term "child" shall be defined as a minor under the age of 16.

Section 2: The term "education" shall be defined as the full-time systematic instruction of basic life skills and knowledge by a child, and mentored by an adult.

Section 3: No person, government or organization shall abridge the right of a child to receive an education.

Section 4: The Senate shall have power to limit, regulate, and prohibit the labor of children.

Section 5: The power of the several Regional Governments are unimpaired by this article except that the operation of regional laws shall be suspended to the extent necessary to give effect to legislation enacted by the Senate.

I hereby open debate on this Amendment

One question, why?  My proposition to allow children to work didn't even get one signature, so why do we "need" this?  I strongly oppose this, labor laws should be left up to the Regions.

I believe the purpose of that phrase is to keep it as it is now so the Senate would never change it.

So we're all for Regional rights until they attempt to do something we don't like, and then we give it to the Feds, right?

...suits me. As long as the Pacific's all right, my concern lies solely with the nation as a whole.

[CheeseWhiz]

So, you really don't support Regional Rights at all then, do you?

[CheeseWhiz]

Listen guys, not even a single Midwesterner support my proposition, so why give the power to the Federal Government?  Remember, if you give the Senate the power to make sure my proposition allowing children to work doesn't pass, then future Senators can pass something that will allow children to work, it goes both ways.

[Platypus]

So, you really don't support Regional Rights at all then, do you?

No, not really. I think the nature of Atlasia makes centralisation the best policy. Especially when you consider the midwest

I am elected as a Pacific Senator, so I do have to, and want to, advance my region. But I couldn't give a  about the rest of the regions as regions, only as part of the whole of Atlasia.

[DanielX]

Not what the Federal government should be involved with.

[Emsworth]

I don't see why an interesting aspect of the game--the powers of the regions--should be diminished in order to protect imaginary children. Theoretically, the Midwest could pass laws allowing child labor, but that's perfectly fine. These laws do not actually harm any real people, but they generate controversy and make the game more interesting.

[Peter]

I don't see why an interesting aspect of the game--the powers of the regions--should be diminished in order to protect imaginary children. Theoretically, the Midwest could pass laws allowing child labor, but that's perfectly fine. These laws do not actually harm any real people, but they generate controversy and make the game more interesting.

This Amendment seems to be generating more than enough controversy to compensate.

[CheeseWhiz]

I don't see why an interesting aspect of the game--the powers of the regions--should be diminished in order to protect imaginary children. Theoretically, the Midwest could pass laws allowing child labor, but that's perfectly fine. These laws do not actually harm any real people, but they generate controversy and make the game more interesting.

This Amendment seems to be generating more than enough controversy to compensate.

Nah, my proposition generated at least three times as much controversy.

[Emsworth]

I don't see why an interesting aspect of the game--the powers of the regions--should be diminished in order to protect imaginary children. Theoretically, the Midwest could pass laws allowing child labor, but that's perfectly fine. These laws do not actually harm any real people, but they generate controversy and make the game more interesting.

This Amendment seems to be generating more than enough controversy to compensate.

Nah, my proposition generated at least three times as much controversy.

Indeed. It is alright for the amendment to generate controversy, but as long as it fails, all is well.

[Colin]

I see no reason for this. The Regions have not done anything truely horrible towards children. Why does this need to be passed? Why does the federal government have to get involved with any of the things mentioned in this amendment? The part of this amendment guarenteeing education for each child is basically enshrined in current Atlasian law as well. There is not a single region which does not currently have some sort of compulsory education nor does not provide some sort of free, public education for all children.

I don't see why an interesting aspect of the game--the powers of the regions--should be diminished in order to protect imaginary children. Theoretically, the Midwest could pass laws allowing child labor, but that's perfectly fine. These laws do not actually harm any real people, but they generate controversy and make the game more interesting.

This Amendment seems to be generating more than enough controversy to compensate.

Nah, my proposition generated at least three times as much controversy.

Indeed. It is alright for the amendment to generate controversy, but as long as it fails, all is well.

I fully agree with Justice Emsworth and Senator CheeseWhiz. The powers of the regions do not need to be reduce by this body especially in the powers that are being brought forward in this amendment.

[Peter]

The part of this amendment guarenteeing education for each child is basically enshrined in current Atlasian law as well. There is not a single region which does not currently have some sort of compulsory education nor does not provide some sort of free, public education for all children.

The Midwest recently considered a Proposition that would abolish public education. It failed rather spectacularly, but it did incite this particular proposal.

[Colin]

The part of this amendment guarenteeing education for each child is basically enshrined in current Atlasian law as well. There is not a single region which does not currently have some sort of compulsory education nor does not provide some sort of free, public education for all children.

The Midwest recently considered a Proposition that would abolish public education. It failed rather spectacularly, but it did incite this particular proposal.

Well doesn't that give more evidence to my argument? People try to abolish the public education system that has been enshrined in Atlasian law but it failed miserably. Wouldn't that seem to tell the people of this nation and its leaders that the Atlasian people aren't going to take public education away? The cries of a few radicals mean nothing in the long run.

[CheeseWhiz]

To my defense, I wanted to give more money to the Library system

[The Dowager Mod]

At the moment i am opposed to this bill, we can not amend the constitution every time a region does something we don't like.

[PBrunsel]

I'd like to add an amendment between Sections 3 and 4:

Section 4: Children, from the point of conception, shall not have their right to life infringed upon.

[CheeseWhiz]

I'd like to add an amendment between Sections 3 and 4:

Section 4: Children, from the point of conception, shall not have their right to life infringed upon.

I support this amendment, it will ensure the bills failure

[MasterJedi]

I'd like to add an amendment between Sections 3 and 4:

Section 4: Children, from the point of conception, shall not have their right to life infringed upon.

I support this amendment, it will ensure the bills failure

And thus I will vote Nay because no matter how much I want it this isn't the right place.