I agree that it is the job of the parent, but believe they need government's help. Who says it is not the job of the government? What support do you have for your assertion?
please point me to the section of the constitution that gives the federal government the authority to do this.
Maybe you have a different version that I do.
The Tenth Amendment.
What support do you have for your assertion?
The Tenth Amendment.
That should be the headline banner over the Democratic Underground home page, if it isn't already.
Excuse me for butting in dinoparty BUT...Okay, your turn. Where do you get your assertion that Congress can CONSTITUTIONALLY get involved with playing nanny.
- Who says it is not the job of the government?
The U.S. Constitution.
- What support do you have for your assertion?
The U.S. Constitution.
- I agree that it is the job of the parent, but believe they need government's help.
See #1 & $2. The U.S. Constitution doesn't grant Congress the 'right' nor power to help parents play computer nanny.In case you missed the Roberts' and Alito hearings the second most 'hot' topic was the Commerce Clause. Since it sounds boring and not about abortion, the MSM ignored it.
You see, SCOTUS has finally reined in the abuse of it by Congress - after 60 years, and they 'ain't' too pleased. Especially Di-Fi and Durbin. As when you limit Congresses power to cite the Commerce Clause as the foundation for a bill you limit what they can do. If strictly interpreted, Congress would need to meet about six weeks a year
The Commerce Clause is the basis for every Federal gun control law, every 'hate crime' law, and every other stoo-pid Federal law not specifically allowed by the US Constitution. All of which are then patently unconstitutional. Like DiFi's recently struck down 'Gun Free School Zone Law'.
In fact in the recently passed Sexual Orientation Hate Crime Bill in the senate. Section 2 (IIRC) specifically referenced the Commerce Clause as it's legal basis solely in an attempt to make it constitutional - and avoid a SCOTUS smack down.
Ergo, having the gubmint get involved in what can be "viewed" on a computer screen has diddley to do with Commerce and as such they can't so shiite about it.
The Constitution doesn't allow 'feel good'; or 'gee whiz, it'll help parents'; nor 'gosh, but we meant well' laws. And it's about time SCOTUS is doing what they are supposed to.
Parents can easily buy Internet filters from the private sector.
Federal government is out of control - Just like the Libertarians said: The GOP is the Daddy version of big government while the Dems are the Mommy version.
The Constitution says it's not the governments job. The Supreme Court already told them that once.
The CONSTITUTION for the United States says it's not the job of government, The Tenth Amendment says that if a power is NOT SPECIFIED to FedGov, then it is DENIED to FedGov. Can you show me (or anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together) just exactly WHERE this sort of authority is granted to FedGov?
If it's left to the government, then you were trusting Bill Clinton to protect kids from porn for 8 years?
The fact that until a minor child turns 18, his parents have the sole legal and moral responsibilty of him.