http://law.lclark.edu/live/fil... a detailed paper on the matter if you'd prefer. Note to those who think this might be a "democrat vs republican" thing - Clinton enacted the deduction, Bush extended it, something they could all agree on.
You mean like they did for SUVs/Trucks in 1997 with the $25,000 tax break for small businesses buying a vehicle over 6,000lbs? Which if that wasn't bad enough they extended to $100,000 in 2003?
Lets look at just the fatalities though. I counted 99 in total. There were about 4000 school aged child deaths due to neglect/abuse in the US during that period. That means even based on the woefully incomplete data regarding home schooled kids they've already managed to identify a fatality rate 20% higher than the national average over a 15 year period. That's not insignificant.
(numbers based on US Child Maltreatment statistics and assumed average of 1.5 million home schooled students which is higher than the actual average meaning the % would increase if calculated more accurately)
I agree "if it saves just one" can be taken way too far - especially when it comes to adults. Children are a different matter. They deserve special consideration not only for moral reasons but also for simple economics, the more chance you can give a child to succeed the less chance society is going to have to pay for them (be it welfare or prison etc).
I might be convinced of that regarding secondary education. Primary education though, not a chance. Aside from the basic need for literacy, basic math skills, and such in our society, there's the child welfare aspect. If a simple once a year assessment of a child's well being can prevent or stop a single William Flynn Walker, Order of the Solar Temple/Twelve Tribes, LoReyna Barea, M. L. Lloyd III, Lora/Aubrey Thomas's 6 kids or... sadly I could go on for some time. To be clear, I'm not suggesting all home schooled parents are committing criminal acts - simply that because they are home schooled they are more likely to be isolated and the potential for long term abuse/neglect/exploitation/etc is significantly increased (not the chance of abuse, just the chances of it going undetected).
I'm not suggesting huge intrusions or dictating what's taught - just making sure the children are safe and actually being educated to a minimum standard (that does not conflict with beliefs).
You skipped the obligatory Republican/Democrat argument - democrats wasting billions on useless research! republicans trying to give tax break to big pharma!;)
It doesn't because it's a covenant - it's foundation is in the rule of law. If a country isn't respecting the rule of law then no legal treaty, including those with international enforcement, will mean a damn.
It's very much getting all the worlds "gangs" to agree to something and nudging them along to where they ought to be. With each successive nudge and treaty ratification the rule of law becomes stronger and eventually everyone gets on the same page (or close enough for it not to be a significant issue)
As to the objection, you're right I should have said "was" - not present tense. Roper v. Simmons got rid of the death penalty for minors in the US in 2005. Oddly enough in the closing reasoning for the decision the court stated:
Respondent and his amici have submitted, and petitioner does not contest, that only seven countries other than the United States have executed juvenile offenders since 1990: Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and China. Since then each of these countries has either abolished capital punishment for juveniles or made public disavowal of the practice. In sum, it is fair to say that the United States now stands alone in a world that has turned its face against the juvenile death penalty.
1990... interesting year... right it was the year the CRC came into effect! Amazing that a toothless, purely symbolic, pointless gesture managed to help change US law. *note I did say help, it was obviously not the only reason given
They've also gone a step beyond, and abolished life-sentences for minors.
I won't call you a liar, merely misinformed: mandatory sentences of the death penalty for minors is abolished as are life terms for non-homicide crimes. Homicide crimes can still come with a life sentence subject to Miller v. Alabama 567 U.S. ___ (2012) which requires consideration of the defendant and the details in determining sentence. See the ruling itself or below is the SCOTUSBlog text on the case:
Plain English Summary: In a series of decisions dating back to 1988, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that youths under age 18 who commit crimes must not necessarily get as severe a punishment as adults who committed the same kind of crimes. Among other rulings, the Court has forbidden the death penalty for minors who commit murders, and it has barred a sentence of life in prison without a chance of release for minors who commit crimes in which the victim is not killed. In this new ruling, the Court avoiding imposing such a flat ban on life without parole for a minor who commits murder, but it did rule out such a sentence as a mandatory requirement in all such cases. It said, though, that it does not expect very many youths under age 18 to get such a sentence that essentially would require them to stay in prison until they die.
As to the political bias, I'm neither Democrat nor Republican. The facts are that Bill Clinton's administration signed the CRC, Bush ratified 2 of the optional protocols, and Obama stated his intent, but given the current climate it's unlikely that he will as it's better not to submit it than to have it fail.
"It's important that the United States return to its position as a respected global leader and promoter of Human Rights. It's embarrassing to find ourselves in the company of Somalia, a lawless land. I will review this and other treaties and ensure that the United States resumes its global leadership in Human Rights."
I've got to agree with the other two comments. In addition to their excellent perspectives there's also the issue of 47 countries which practice Shari'a law in some form. When 25% of the world's countries do things a certain way they need to have their perspective in the mix. The only way a universal human rights treaty can be respected is if it considers the perspective of all it applies to. For those 25% religious rights/law are a human right. Getting them to agree, in principle, that religious rights - while respected - do not trump other rights relating to the rule of law/security of person/etc. is massively important and has already lead to significant changes in their laws/application of justice. Far from perfect but a step forward.
Side note: the test I describe doesn't test any particular subject, just developmental functions. In that way it's unbiased to subject matter beyond basic skills (ie: no issues around religious or cultural teaching but one still needs to learn to read/write/do arithmetic/etc.)
US constitution prohibits "after the fact" creation of laws and congress failed to define a special category for these individuals in law before taking them. Because they were not legally defined they would have to fall into one of the following definitions:
1) Citizen (or a subset with similar rights like landed immigrants) 2) foreign national (or a subset of that designation) 3) a combatant subject to the Geneva Convention
They couldn't allow 1 or 3 to occur due to legal implications so the only remaining classification if foreign national. the "Laws of Nations" is one of the few areas in the constitution which guarantees foreign nationals any rights. By holding a foreign national indefinitely without charge it becomes involuntary servitude. The moment they charge them they fall under one of the other categories.
Guantanamo's prisoners status in the constitution is actually quite clear:
Article 3, Section 2:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
The above gives jurisdiction, regardless of whether or not it is on US soil or a US citizen.
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
These national laws include:
- No attacks on foreign nations, their citizens, or shipping, without either a declaration of war or letters of marque and reprisal.
- Honoring of the flag of truce, peace treaties, and boundary treaties. No entry across national borders without permission of national authorities.
- Care and decent treatment of prisoners of war.
Most importantly it includes:
- Prohibition of enslavement of foreign nationals and international trading in slaves.
This gives specific provisions for the rights of non-US citizens. Said citizenship (or rather lack there of) was the basis for denying Guantanamo prisoners due process under the previous challenge. A challenge under the "laws of nations" would imbue at least a small section of rights to those individuals.
US 13th Amendment:
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction
note the bolded part as it relates to the above bolded part.
Per United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931 (1988):
"Involuntary means `done contrary to or without choice' - `compulsory' - `not subject to control of the will.' [487 U.S. 931, 972]
"Servitude means `[a] condition in which a person lacks liberty especially to determine one's course of action or way of life' - `slavery' - `the state of being subject to a master.'
Since they refuse to charge them with a crime they cannot claim the exemption in slavery laws - if they do charge them with a crime they are subject to the rights under US law which they don't want either.
It doesn't require an international enforcement mechanism. The enforcement is to come from within, with consideration by the local courts/legislatures of its interpretation and application. Sovereignty isn't ignored just because an international treaty is signed. It would be prohibitively complex and expensive to get everyone to comply 100% right away. A report/observations are made and the most egregious violations get the focus. Right now it's focused on Saudi Arabia's law where a child can be convicted as an adult and killed (they wait until they're 18 before killing them though) as well as some of Iran's laws - political pressure has already got Iran to recognize the Age of Majority in its law which was huge. Now it's just the most serious crimes which are still allowing capitol punishment of children.
Funnily enough, that's one of the US's objections to ratifying - they want to continue to kill minors for certain crimes.
It has been interpreted by that country's laws in certain ways, absolutely. It is not what it's made out to be though. Most of the rhetoric stems from ParentalRights.org and in particular this: http://www.parentalrights.org/...{550447B1-E2C1-4B55-87F1-610A9E601E45}
If you read through their citations though you'll notice they start off by mentioning the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties - the US has not ratified that treaty. Then they go on to quote the constitution...
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding
This is particularly interesting because the US has already ratified "International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights". In doing so they declared that Articles 1-27 were not self-executing. This meant that congress had no obligation to implement the provisions in law. However, they did not make the exception of the remaining articles meaning they are self-executing (Medellin v. Texas).
Article 50: The provisions of the present Covenant shall extend to all parts of federal States without any limitations or exceptions.
This means that the Supreme Court as well as State legislatures are obliged to adhere to all the articles. This is further backed up by their statement of understanding:
(5) That the United States understands that this Covenant shall be implemented by the Federal Government to the extent that it exercises legislative and judicial jurisdiction over the matters covered therein, and otherwise by the state and local governments; to the extent that state and local governments exercise jurisdiction over such matters, the Federal Government shall take measures appropriate to the Federal system to the end that the competent authorities of the state or local governments may take appropriate measures for the fulfillment of the Covenant.
So what does that mean? Likely a court challenge to get the supreme court to apply something like the "Baker" principle (there is precedent for it):
The Baker decision thus establishes the principle that, in the process of statutory interpretation and in matters of judicial review, it is entirely appropriate to rely on provisions of international conventions which have not been incorporated into legislation but with which the State is presumed to have a will to be in compliance.
Once that is done articles 1-27 come into effect in practice:
Article 17
1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.
2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 18
1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.
3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
The "test" isn't required, merely that the state is ensuring the child is getting what it considers to be a proper primary education (not even secondary - just primary, secondary education they actually encourage alternate forms)
How they determine that can take many forms, standardized tests, interviews, or the preferred method in my mind would be something akin to the "psycho-educational assessment" done to identify disabilities. It's not a test to memorize and grade - it compares you on individual functions and criteria as compared to everyone else who's taken that particular test. Prior knowledge might boost the odd score but there'd be no incentive to do so since it's not graded in the formal sense. If anything it would be a useful tool for parents who are homeschooling to identify areas of weakness that they may want to focus on or even strengths that they might use to focus their child's education on some potential careers which use a particular function.
So yes, it would "affect" parents in that they might have to do some paperwork but would protect kids from falling through the cracks and receiving inadequate/no primary education.
The US has legitimate objections to the CRC. Around here we believe that things like homeschooling and closed adoptions are in the best interests of some children.
There's a lot of noise around the subject but 99% of it is misunderstanding of law.
Regarding "closed adoptions" the CRC avoids using any language which attributes a biological connection between parent and child. They always use terms related to the "family" or to the legal status of the child. A child given up for adoption ceases the "familial" bond with the biological parent and the state then must look out for the best interests when placing the child with a new family or caring for it. This language allows for voluntary cessation of that relationship while protecting involuntary cessation.
Home schooling is similarly unaffected. Article 28, which people believe affects their ability to home school, simply don't understand that "home school" is a valid "school" under Article 28 so long as it is meet's the state's own educational standards. Meaning the state needs to monitor the child's educational development (usually done by a test once or twice a year) to make sure they are getting an education, but they do not have to force anyone into a particular institution.
There are similar concerns about the language of "child rights" vs "parental rights" thinking that the child's rights can somehow overrule the parent in things like searching a child's room, disciplinary actions, familial/cultural rules, etc. but these are absurd in a legal interpretation. The CRC goes out of its way to respect "applicable law" of the state. It leaves interpretation of "best interests", "appropriate", etc up to the individual states because no two will be identical and much of it is situational or subject to change over time. These definitions would normally be interpreted by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties which may put some limitations on the state definitions but of course the US hasn't ratified that treaty either.
Either way, no international treaty can supersede the constitution (Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957)) and the CRC only allows for "advisory" judgements by the ICJ so no one could actually force the US to do anything (including applying sanctions). It's all just fear mongering to justify political positions.
No, it just means that your country has more in common with countries like Iran or Soviet era Russia than you'd like to admit.
Did you know that the US is one of only 3 countries that haven't ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child? The other two are Somalia and South Sudan.
Very much so, our offices are up to 3x23" screens for the top 1/3rd. My home computer I setup with a dropzone program with a 3x2x3 window setup on a 30" screen with a 19" side screen... back in 2006. Only time I go back to a single screen/window is on a laptop and even then I'll run a 2/3rd by 1/3rd windowed setup for gaming etc.
Slide-ins on websites have been around a LOT longer than Metro. I did one based on Fallout's pipboy interface back in the 90s, does that mean I influenced Microsoft? They come and go though are generally abandoned after a time because users didn't know they were there, they interfered with navigation, and/or they just plain annoyed users. As to the Toronto Sun, it's a fucking tabloid their bread and butter is sensationalist in-your-face over-the-top garbage.
First, it's a UI designed for media consumption (and single- and double-tasking)
Yet the reason Microsoft became the dominant OS was because of business uses. Businesses do not want systems built for media consumption. They want productivity. More and more offices are going to multiple screen systems or "ultra wide" screens because they're finding productivity gains for having multiple windows visible at once instead of switching between apps.
Second, Metro is actually pretty decent when you figure out how the keyboard shortcuts
That's the definition of a bad interface when you have to go to an alternate interface (keyboard) to get it to do what you want.
Third, the Start button thing is... almost, but not quite, a red herring
I could have cared less about the start menu if I could disable the start screen. I'd long since abandoned the start menu in favour of Launchy
Fourth...
Exactly right. Full screen was a bad idea period, changing the bounding on windows so the flow below the start menu when maximized, and those effing trigger zones drive me nuts. I don't know how many times I've gone for desktop peek or to minimize all and been prevented by the Charms bar - it's gotten a little better with the latest update, now it shows up but doesn't prevent you from clicking unless you move up/down but that still causes issues on occasion.
Pretty sure that's always been the MO for CCG's, even before they became electronic...
Very true, it's slightly different in the digital world though. Cards can be "rebalanced" after purchase, no digital CCG has provided the ability to sell your cards so they don't retain value, they are limited to the game in which you purchase (thinking of Magic games which release a new version each year but can't transfer decks)...
That said back in the day I spent a crapload on ChronX and didn't regret a penny of it.
Slashdot Mirror
http://law.lclark.edu/live/fil... a detailed paper on the matter if you'd prefer. Note to those who think this might be a "democrat vs republican" thing - Clinton enacted the deduction, Bush extended it, something they could all agree on.
http://www.skeptically.org/oil... for another summary of it, though horribly biased in its language.
You mean like they did for SUVs/Trucks in 1997 with the $25,000 tax break for small businesses buying a vehicle over 6,000lbs? Which if that wasn't bad enough they extended to $100,000 in 2003?
http://hsinvisiblechildren.org... nearly 400 or about 28 per year based solely on news articles and a couple databases.
Lets look at just the fatalities though. I counted 99 in total. There were about 4000 school aged child deaths due to neglect/abuse in the US during that period. That means even based on the woefully incomplete data regarding home schooled kids they've already managed to identify a fatality rate 20% higher than the national average over a 15 year period. That's not insignificant.
(numbers based on US Child Maltreatment statistics and assumed average of 1.5 million home schooled students which is higher than the actual average meaning the % would increase if calculated more accurately)
I agree "if it saves just one" can be taken way too far - especially when it comes to adults. Children are a different matter. They deserve special consideration not only for moral reasons but also for simple economics, the more chance you can give a child to succeed the less chance society is going to have to pay for them (be it welfare or prison etc).
I might be convinced of that regarding secondary education. Primary education though, not a chance. Aside from the basic need for literacy, basic math skills, and such in our society, there's the child welfare aspect. If a simple once a year assessment of a child's well being can prevent or stop a single William Flynn Walker, Order of the Solar Temple/Twelve Tribes, LoReyna Barea, M. L. Lloyd III, Lora/Aubrey Thomas's 6 kids or... sadly I could go on for some time. To be clear, I'm not suggesting all home schooled parents are committing criminal acts - simply that because they are home schooled they are more likely to be isolated and the potential for long term abuse/neglect/exploitation/etc is significantly increased (not the chance of abuse, just the chances of it going undetected).
I'm not suggesting huge intrusions or dictating what's taught - just making sure the children are safe and actually being educated to a minimum standard (that does not conflict with beliefs).
You skipped the obligatory Republican/Democrat argument - democrats wasting billions on useless research! republicans trying to give tax break to big pharma! ;)
It doesn't because it's a covenant - it's foundation is in the rule of law. If a country isn't respecting the rule of law then no legal treaty, including those with international enforcement, will mean a damn.
It's very much getting all the worlds "gangs" to agree to something and nudging them along to where they ought to be. With each successive nudge and treaty ratification the rule of law becomes stronger and eventually everyone gets on the same page (or close enough for it not to be a significant issue)
As to the objection, you're right I should have said "was" - not present tense. Roper v. Simmons got rid of the death penalty for minors in the US in 2005. Oddly enough in the closing reasoning for the decision the court stated:
Respondent and his amici have submitted, and petitioner does not contest, that only seven countries other than the United States have executed juvenile offenders since 1990: Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and China. Since then each of these countries has either abolished capital punishment for juveniles or made public disavowal of the practice. In sum, it is fair to say that the United States now stands alone in a world that has turned its face against the juvenile death penalty.
1990... interesting year... right it was the year the CRC came into effect! Amazing that a toothless, purely symbolic, pointless gesture managed to help change US law. *note I did say help, it was obviously not the only reason given
They've also gone a step beyond, and abolished life-sentences for minors.
I won't call you a liar, merely misinformed: mandatory sentences of the death penalty for minors is abolished as are life terms for non-homicide crimes. Homicide crimes can still come with a life sentence subject to Miller v. Alabama 567 U.S. ___ (2012) which requires consideration of the defendant and the details in determining sentence. See the ruling itself or below is the SCOTUSBlog text on the case:
Plain English Summary: In a series of decisions dating back to 1988, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that youths under age 18 who commit crimes must not necessarily get as severe a punishment as adults who committed the same kind of crimes. Among other rulings, the Court has forbidden the death penalty for minors who commit murders, and it has barred a sentence of life in prison without a chance of release for minors who commit crimes in which the victim is not killed. In this new ruling, the Court avoiding imposing such a flat ban on life without parole for a minor who commits murder, but it did rule out such a sentence as a mandatory requirement in all such cases. It said, though, that it does not expect very many youths under age 18 to get such a sentence that essentially would require them to stay in prison until they die.
As to the political bias, I'm neither Democrat nor Republican. The facts are that Bill Clinton's administration signed the CRC, Bush ratified 2 of the optional protocols, and Obama stated his intent, but given the current climate it's unlikely that he will as it's better not to submit it than to have it fail.
"It's important that the United States return to its position as a respected global leader and promoter of Human Rights. It's embarrassing to find ourselves in the company of Somalia, a lawless land. I will review this and other treaties and ensure that the United States resumes its global leadership in Human Rights."
I've got to agree with the other two comments. In addition to their excellent perspectives there's also the issue of 47 countries which practice Shari'a law in some form. When 25% of the world's countries do things a certain way they need to have their perspective in the mix. The only way a universal human rights treaty can be respected is if it considers the perspective of all it applies to. For those 25% religious rights/law are a human right. Getting them to agree, in principle, that religious rights - while respected - do not trump other rights relating to the rule of law/security of person/etc. is massively important and has already lead to significant changes in their laws/application of justice. Far from perfect but a step forward.
He was tricked into going there.
http://venturebeat.com/2014/05...
Side note: the test I describe doesn't test any particular subject, just developmental functions. In that way it's unbiased to subject matter beyond basic skills (ie: no issues around religious or cultural teaching but one still needs to learn to read/write/do arithmetic/etc.)
I should clarify that statement a bit...
US constitution prohibits "after the fact" creation of laws and congress failed to define a special category for these individuals in law before taking them. Because they were not legally defined they would have to fall into one of the following definitions:
1) Citizen (or a subset with similar rights like landed immigrants)
2) foreign national (or a subset of that designation)
3) a combatant subject to the Geneva Convention
They couldn't allow 1 or 3 to occur due to legal implications so the only remaining classification if foreign national. the "Laws of Nations" is one of the few areas in the constitution which guarantees foreign nationals any rights. By holding a foreign national indefinitely without charge it becomes involuntary servitude. The moment they charge them they fall under one of the other categories.
Guantanamo's prisoners status in the constitution is actually quite clear:
Article 3, Section 2:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
The above gives jurisdiction, regardless of whether or not it is on US soil or a US citizen.
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
These national laws include:
- No attacks on foreign nations, their citizens, or shipping, without either a declaration of war or letters of marque and reprisal.
- Honoring of the flag of truce, peace treaties, and boundary treaties. No entry across national borders without permission of national authorities.
- Care and decent treatment of prisoners of war.
Most importantly it includes:
- Prohibition of enslavement of foreign nationals and international trading in slaves.
This gives specific provisions for the rights of non-US citizens. Said citizenship (or rather lack there of) was the basis for denying Guantanamo prisoners due process under the previous challenge. A challenge under the "laws of nations" would imbue at least a small section of rights to those individuals.
US 13th Amendment:
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction
note the bolded part as it relates to the above bolded part.
Per United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931 (1988):
"Involuntary means `done contrary to or without choice' - `compulsory' - `not subject to control of the will.' [487 U.S. 931, 972]
"Servitude means `[a] condition in which a person lacks liberty especially to determine one's course of action or way of life' - `slavery' - `the state of being subject to a master.'
Since they refuse to charge them with a crime they cannot claim the exemption in slavery laws - if they do charge them with a crime they are subject to the rights under US law which they don't want either.
It doesn't require an international enforcement mechanism. The enforcement is to come from within, with consideration by the local courts/legislatures of its interpretation and application. Sovereignty isn't ignored just because an international treaty is signed. It would be prohibitively complex and expensive to get everyone to comply 100% right away. A report/observations are made and the most egregious violations get the focus. Right now it's focused on Saudi Arabia's law where a child can be convicted as an adult and killed (they wait until they're 18 before killing them though) as well as some of Iran's laws - political pressure has already got Iran to recognize the Age of Majority in its law which was huge. Now it's just the most serious crimes which are still allowing capitol punishment of children.
Funnily enough, that's one of the US's objections to ratifying - they want to continue to kill minors for certain crimes.
It has been interpreted by that country's laws in certain ways, absolutely. It is not what it's made out to be though. Most of the rhetoric stems from ParentalRights.org and in particular this: http://www.parentalrights.org/...{550447B1-E2C1-4B55-87F1-610A9E601E45}
If you read through their citations though you'll notice they start off by mentioning the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties - the US has not ratified that treaty. Then they go on to quote the constitution...
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding
This is particularly interesting because the US has already ratified "International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights". In doing so they declared that Articles 1-27 were not self-executing. This meant that congress had no obligation to implement the provisions in law. However, they did not make the exception of the remaining articles meaning they are self-executing (Medellin v. Texas).
Article 50: The provisions of the present Covenant shall extend to all parts of federal States without any limitations or exceptions.
This means that the Supreme Court as well as State legislatures are obliged to adhere to all the articles. This is further backed up by their statement of understanding:
(5) That the United States understands that this Covenant shall be implemented by the Federal Government to the extent that it exercises legislative and judicial jurisdiction over the matters covered therein, and otherwise by the state and local governments; to the extent that state and local governments exercise jurisdiction over such matters, the Federal Government shall take measures appropriate to the Federal system to the end that the competent authorities of the state or local governments may take appropriate measures for the fulfillment of the Covenant.
So what does that mean? Likely a court challenge to get the supreme court to apply something like the "Baker" principle (there is precedent for it):
The Baker decision thus establishes the principle that, in the process of statutory interpretation and in matters of judicial review, it is entirely appropriate to rely on provisions of international conventions which have not been incorporated into legislation but with which the State is presumed to have a will to be in compliance.
Once that is done articles 1-27 come into effect in practice:
Article 17
1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.
2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 18
1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.
3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
The "test" isn't required, merely that the state is ensuring the child is getting what it considers to be a proper primary education (not even secondary - just primary, secondary education they actually encourage alternate forms)
How they determine that can take many forms, standardized tests, interviews, or the preferred method in my mind would be something akin to the "psycho-educational assessment" done to identify disabilities. It's not a test to memorize and grade - it compares you on individual functions and criteria as compared to everyone else who's taken that particular test. Prior knowledge might boost the odd score but there'd be no incentive to do so since it's not graded in the formal sense. If anything it would be a useful tool for parents who are homeschooling to identify areas of weakness that they may want to focus on or even strengths that they might use to focus their child's education on some potential careers which use a particular function.
So yes, it would "affect" parents in that they might have to do some paperwork but would protect kids from falling through the cracks and receiving inadequate/no primary education.
The US has legitimate objections to the CRC. Around here we believe that things like homeschooling and closed adoptions are in the best interests of some children.
There's a lot of noise around the subject but 99% of it is misunderstanding of law.
Regarding "closed adoptions" the CRC avoids using any language which attributes a biological connection between parent and child. They always use terms related to the "family" or to the legal status of the child. A child given up for adoption ceases the "familial" bond with the biological parent and the state then must look out for the best interests when placing the child with a new family or caring for it. This language allows for voluntary cessation of that relationship while protecting involuntary cessation.
Home schooling is similarly unaffected. Article 28, which people believe affects their ability to home school, simply don't understand that "home school" is a valid "school" under Article 28 so long as it is meet's the state's own educational standards. Meaning the state needs to monitor the child's educational development (usually done by a test once or twice a year) to make sure they are getting an education, but they do not have to force anyone into a particular institution.
There are similar concerns about the language of "child rights" vs "parental rights" thinking that the child's rights can somehow overrule the parent in things like searching a child's room, disciplinary actions, familial/cultural rules, etc. but these are absurd in a legal interpretation. The CRC goes out of its way to respect "applicable law" of the state. It leaves interpretation of "best interests", "appropriate", etc up to the individual states because no two will be identical and much of it is situational or subject to change over time. These definitions would normally be interpreted by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties which may put some limitations on the state definitions but of course the US hasn't ratified that treaty either.
Either way, no international treaty can supersede the constitution (Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957)) and the CRC only allows for "advisory" judgements by the ICJ so no one could actually force the US to do anything (including applying sanctions). It's all just fear mongering to justify political positions.
If I have I wouldn't recognize it as you - I don't look at the usernames, just the comments.
No, it just means that your country has more in common with countries like Iran or Soviet era Russia than you'd like to admit.
Did you know that the US is one of only 3 countries that haven't ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child? The other two are Somalia and South Sudan.
the use of such vehicles as guided bullets
Now that is evil.
http://www.discovery.com/tv-sh... - around the 5 minute mark. That's evil.
Pretty much.
Here's the actual link to the apology instead of a random blog. http://corporate.comcast.com/c...
Very much so, our offices are up to 3x23" screens for the top 1/3rd. My home computer I setup with a dropzone program with a 3x2x3 window setup on a 30" screen with a 19" side screen... back in 2006. Only time I go back to a single screen/window is on a laptop and even then I'll run a 2/3rd by 1/3rd windowed setup for gaming etc.
...broadcasting beautiful ads 24 hours a day, on a window near you.
Fixed
1997 and I so want a Global Communicator.
Slide-ins on websites have been around a LOT longer than Metro. I did one based on Fallout's pipboy interface back in the 90s, does that mean I influenced Microsoft? They come and go though are generally abandoned after a time because users didn't know they were there, they interfered with navigation, and/or they just plain annoyed users. As to the Toronto Sun, it's a fucking tabloid their bread and butter is sensationalist in-your-face over-the-top garbage.
When I see the Toronto Sun's interface I think of this: http://b2b.cbsimg.net/blogs/th...
First, it's a UI designed for media consumption (and single- and double-tasking)
Yet the reason Microsoft became the dominant OS was because of business uses. Businesses do not want systems built for media consumption. They want productivity. More and more offices are going to multiple screen systems or "ultra wide" screens because they're finding productivity gains for having multiple windows visible at once instead of switching between apps.
Second, Metro is actually pretty decent when you figure out how the keyboard shortcuts
That's the definition of a bad interface when you have to go to an alternate interface (keyboard) to get it to do what you want.
Third, the Start button thing is ... almost, but not quite, a red herring
I could have cared less about the start menu if I could disable the start screen. I'd long since abandoned the start menu in favour of Launchy
Fourth...
Exactly right. Full screen was a bad idea period, changing the bounding on windows so the flow below the start menu when maximized, and those effing trigger zones drive me nuts. I don't know how many times I've gone for desktop peek or to minimize all and been prevented by the Charms bar - it's gotten a little better with the latest update, now it shows up but doesn't prevent you from clicking unless you move up/down but that still causes issues on occasion.
Pretty sure that's always been the MO for CCG's, even before they became electronic...
Very true, it's slightly different in the digital world though. Cards can be "rebalanced" after purchase, no digital CCG has provided the ability to sell your cards so they don't retain value, they are limited to the game in which you purchase (thinking of Magic games which release a new version each year but can't transfer decks)...
That said back in the day I spent a crapload on ChronX and didn't regret a penny of it.
Angular.js/ng-grid are not exactly coded by "normal" people.