[mbraynard]

you know nothing about the Constitution and the legal tradition of the country

It sounds like you're a moron. Because this is about a state and city law. And since there is nothing in the ten amendments that would prevent a city or state from preventing child abuse, I suppose you're out on your keester.

I don't know the particulars in your case, but isn't it better for the child who old enough to talk to tell his or her parent that the smoke is bothering him or her, rather than to have a stranger from a government bureaucracy intervene.

Oh? That solution works so well all the other cases of child abuse that result in CPS taking children away. WHY DIDN'T I REALIZE the solution is just to have the three year old simply ASK his parents to stop lighting up in the car. Or to not beat him so much. Or to not keep him in the closet. Or to not starve him. Etc.

If a child needs to ASK their parent not to do this, the evidence is already enough that the parent is a GD moron, too, and I'm sure that you and said parents can discuss your dillusions about what is and isn't in the constitution.

[justiceseeker93]

Braynard, I'm a guy who is very far from a moron, especially on constitutional law. Court rulings down through the years have made it clear that the restrictions of the Bill of Rights Amendments against federal violations of rights specified there also restrict state and local governments via the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment has a clause stating "...nor shall any State deprive a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." Federal courts have consistently held that violations of the Bill of Rights amendments by States, cities, or counties automatically do not pass the Fourteenth Amendment's "due process" test. Example: A city can't run a religious parochial school because the First Amendment's "establishment" clause, combined with the Fourteenth Amendment's "due process" clause, prohibits it. Another example: the right to counsel in a criminal trial specified in the Sixth Amendment applies to state courts via the Fourteenth Amendment.

You are correct to say that cities and states are allowed to intervene in some cases of child abuse, where there is a compelling interest in protecting the child against serious and immediate danger. But we seem to differ on what constitutes "child abuse" to a degree sufficient for government intervention. A parent who smokes in a car with his/her child there is not committing child abuse ipso facto, and should not be subject to a police officer stopping the car and issuing a traffic ticket (if that's all this typical airhead of a councilcritter has in mind). The motivation behind his proposed law is more "revenue enhancement" (a favorite term of Dummycrat-left politicians), not "protecting the health of the children."