Welcome! Sign in to access your account. New user?
ADULT: OFF HOME DIRECTORY SEARCH RANDOM POLL MAKE A POLL

Civil Rights for Youth

Civil Rights for youths??

Posted by Michael on 2002-03-26 13:46:48

They should have some, but common sence needs to be used. Thats where the problem comes in. Let me explain this! We have 18-20 year olds fighting for our freedom over seas right now. They are old enough to fight and die for our country but not old enough to drink!? A 17 year old and in some states 16 year old is old enough to drive a car where they can wiped out a whole family with one mistake but yet, they are not old enough to have a smoke!? These are just some examples. The real question here is, should the ones who decide what Civil Rights the youth have even have the right to do so? I think not!

Posted by Justin on 2002-05-02 22:22:29

QUOTE: WE have 18-20 year olds fighting for our freedom...but not old enough to drink?

YES. And I'm glad of it. A THREE YEAR OLD can help fight a war. By your logic, that three year old should be allowed to drink/smoke, whatever. Don't you dare tell me you'll give a drink to a three year old. Drinking is a PRIVILEGE not a RIGHT. The reason the age to drink is 21 because the leading cause of car wrecks is because of DRINKING OF PEOPLE UNDER 21!

You may not like this, but I have to agree with Duke sort of. Although I don't think people should just be allowed to automatically have "rights" at the magic age of 18 or 21, but teens simply can not be allowed to drink or smoke. They are the least experienced in work force [not neccessarily the worst], most immature [with exceptions, of course], and the least well behaved to hit the world ever [at least in the U.S.] Teens also have yet to know how the real world turns. Many 18-21 year olds also have that same thing. How would you like it if someone who has yet to experience the real world have the rights you want?
I would vote no for a "Minor Constitution." But There should be at least some things availabe for them.
========== In Reply To ========== They should have some, but common sence needs to be used. Thats where the problem comes in. Let me explain this! We have 18-20 year olds fighting for our freedom over seas right now. They are old enough to fight and die for our country but not old enough to drink!? A 17 year old and in some states 16 year old is old enough to drive a car where they can wiped out a whole family with one mistake but yet, they are not old enough to have a smoke!? These are just some examples. The real question here is, should the ones who decide what Civil Rights the youth have even have the right to do so? I think not!

Posted by Andrew Jennings on 2002-05-04 13:47:20

Should we allow a three-year old to vote? Yes. (Though how many would have an interest?)

Should we allow a three-year old to drive? Yes. (Though how many would be able to pass to proper tests?)

Should we allow a three-year old to drink or smoke? Yes. (Though how many would really want to?) Surely most parents would direct their children away from such activities.

Not to mention that these current restrictions violate the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth amendments. Andrew

Posted by Justin on 2002-05-05 18:25:39

QUOTE: Should we allow a three-year old to vote? Yes. (Though how many would have an interest?)

Actually, almost all of them would. All it takes to get a three year old to do something is to have one of it's parents say, "Gee, TED is better than NED, so vote for him!" And whammo, the three year old will trust its parent and a vote will be cast for TED. If we let three year olds vote, it will turn the tides of voting to whoever get's the most votes, to whoever can gain the support of those who have the most children.

QUOTE: Should we allow a three-year old to drive? Yes. (Though how many would be able to pass to proper tests?)

Now I'm beginning to question your intelligence. Are you just a teen who's ticked off at your mom or dad for grounding you, or are you trully trying to get youths civil rights?
It doesn't matter if three-year olds could pass the tests or not. They do not have complete control over themselvs yet. Their reflexes are slower. They can not judge very well. I wouldn't let a three-year old drive no matter if he passed the driving test with a perfect 100% for those reasons. Not saying that all 16 or 18 year olds should be able to drive either-obviously many are too immature to even get in a car.

QUOTE: Should we allow a three-year old to drink or smoke? Yes. (Though how many would really want to?) Surely most parents would direct their children awayfron such activites.

Now you're starting to show your intelligence. And to give you a hint, it isn't high on the scales. I am really wondering now what you have against your parents-how could their punishments push you to this affects?
By saying we should allow three-year olds to do drugs, parents would have no power to get them to stop if they ever did.

QUOTE:Not to mention that these current restrictions violate First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

Incorrect in most of the listed ammendments. I doubt you've seriously looked at the Constitutional Ammendments. Here is an explanation of the ones listed above. -Amendment One: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

That Amendment deals solely with the rights of citizens of the United States. This also affects minor children OF those citizens. So, you are allowed the privledge of those rights regardless of age, as long as your parent also thinks so. Otherwise, you will not have those rights until the age of 18.

Amendment Four: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall be issued but upon probably cause, supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be siezed.

The current restrictions in no way violate this Amendment. You may have typed in the wrong Amendment violated by a restriction. Suggestion is to correct.

Amendment Five: No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment of indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

This too has no restrictions violating it. Before you go saying restrictions violate the Amendments, perhaps you'd better look at the Amendments. It's possible that I've also missed something that may actually be a violation. Let me know if that's the case.

Amendment Fourteen: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I can see why you say restrictions violate this. The Amendment says anyone born in the U.S. or naturlized, they have rights. However, you've missed one other requirement. They must ALSO be subject to the jurisdiction of the law. But, minors ARE under that jurisdiction, so they should have those rights, correct? Well, laws were made to ensure people like you didn't gain power. You just said three-year olds should be allowed to smoke or drink should they chose so, so I'm glad of those laws.
By the age of 18, those laws say you are supposed to be experienced enough to live on your own. Whether you be experienced enough before that age doesn't matter. Your parents have 18 years to get you ready for the real world [of which your parents have not gotten you ready for yet], and then you have all the privledges and rights bestowed to you, as long as you or the majority of those your age does not abuse them.
Instead of pushing towards civil rights for youths, I suggest you understand a few points.

  1. Youths are not adults. Adults are more mature, intelligent [USUALLY], and more experienced to affect the real world. Youths are USUALLY less mature, less intelligent, and have little or no experience in the real world. Thus, you should not be able to affect the laws of the real world.
  2. By the age of 18, you should be mature and intelligent and experienced enough in the real world to affect it. There are many 18 year olds who are not, and that's a shame.

    I do not know you, so I can not say that you are just an angry teen wanting to do what they want. But I can hypothesize; and that's EXACTLY what I THINK you are. I can't tell you how many times when I was younger and immature when I brought up, "Oh, teens need rights." But all the time, I was in trouble when I thought of that. It's natural for you to think that-your mind is usually not capable to handle situations in an adult manner. Sooner or later you'll mature. By the time your 30 years old, you should agree with every bit of the things I posted here. But until then, listen to your parents, they probably know what's best for you. You and your kind just aren't ready to affect the real world yet. But I can tell that when you are, you'll make a big impact on it. Hopefully for the good. But at this stage of life, you won't be able.

========== In Reply To ========== Should we allow a three-year old to vote? Yes. (Though how many would have an interest?)

Should we allow a three-year old to drive? Yes. (Though how many would be able to pass to proper tests?)

Should we allow a three-year old to drink or smoke? Yes. (Though how many would really want to?) Surely most parents would direct their children away from such activities.

Not to mention that these current restrictions violate the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth amendments. Andrew

Posted by troy on 2002-05-09 15:33:46

Are you by any chance a drunken three year old?.

========== In Reply To ========== Should we allow a three-year old to vote? Yes. (Though how many would have an interest?)

Should we allow a three-year old to drive? Yes. (Though how many would be able to pass to proper tests?)

Should we allow a three-year old to drink or smoke? Yes. (Though how many would really want to?) Surely most parents would direct their children away from such activities.

Not to mention that these current restrictions violate the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth amendments. Andrew