Replies

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."

In all honesty, what is the difference between many Freepers and Liberals?

Their choice of what the government should force people to do, to conform to their own likes and dislikes.

Freepers that support government control over personal lives, should be ASHAMED!

But we seem to differ on what constitutes "child abuse" to a degree sufficient for government intervention.

Filling a kids lungs with carcinogens is sufficient. I guess the resolution is to have it decided by our elected officials, whom we elected, and then adjudicated.

I'm sure this will be thrown out like other laws requiring that kids wear seatbelts, that children not under 18 cannot by cigarettes, and criminal enhancements for driving while drunk or at high speed with minors in the vehicle.

BTW - I think the term you are looking for is selective inclusion re: amendments being applied to states/munis.