| State versus federal law - |
| View previous topic
:: View next topic |
pax
 Posted:
Mon Jul 21, 2008 3:50 pm |
|
|
|
State versus federal law
Just thought I'd mention something about state versus federal law. It relates to discussion about the FLDS case.
Generally laws on marriage are governed by each of the fifty states. States are free to pass laws so long as they do not conflict with a federal law or an inconsistent law from that state. Under the doctrine of preemption, where there is a conflict between a state law and a federal law, the federal law preempts the state law. When anyone claims a state law conflicts with a federal law, it makes for argument. 
|
|
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 16070
Location: Wish You Were Here
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
| PerryPeabody
Posted:
Mon Jul 21, 2008 4:31 pm |
|
|
|
Re: State versus federal law
| pax wrote: | Just thought I'd mention something about state versus federal law. It relates to discussion about the FLDS case.
Generally laws on marriage are governed by each of the fifty states. States are free to pass laws so long as they do not conflict with a federal law or an inconsistent law from that state. Under the doctrine of preemption, where there is a conflict between a state law and a federal law, the federal law preempts the state law. When anyone claims a state law conflicts with a federal law, it makes for argument. |
Thanks very much, pax.
This is why I think that the effect of any and all Federal hearings in the world likening FLDS to an interstate crime syndicate mean bupkis with regard to the welfare of young FLDS girls. Its the states that have jurisdiction over the age of marriage and (despite the finagling about Utah having to outlaw polygamy to get into the Union) the number of people one is permitted to be married to at a time.
|
|
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 1091
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| tulsad
Posted:
Mon Jul 21, 2008 11:56 pm |
|
|
|
Here's a scenario that could drive the ACLU insane.
U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary
LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION
Apportionment of Representatives.
Bankruptcy
Mutiny, espionage, & counterfeiting.
Civil liberties.
Constitutional amendments.
Federal courts & judges.
Governmental information.
Holidays & celebrations.
Immigration & naturalization.
Interstate compacts, generally.
Judicial proceedings, civil, criminal, & generally.
Local courts in the territories & possessions.
Measures relating to claims against the United States.
National penitentiaries.
Patent Office.
Patents, copyrights, & trademarks.
Protection of trade & commerce against unlawful restraints & monopolies.
Revision & codification of the statutes of the United States.
State and territorial boundary lines.
http://judiciary.senate.gov/
civil liberties n. rights or freedoms given to the people by the First Amendment to the Constitution, by common law, or legislation, allowing the individual to be free to speak, think, assemble, organize, worship, or petition without government (or even private) interference or restraints. These liberties are protective in nature, while civil rights form a broader concept and include positive elements such as the right to use facilities, the right to an equal education, or the right to participate in government. (See: civil, civil rights)
If some enterprising group successfully gathered up some of the underaged girls still in the FLDS and tried to take legal action to require that underage marriage stop and the girls be educated until age 18 - whose rights would be violated? The parents (as FLDS members or as individuals) because they choose to practice their religion, or the girls - because they have the right to free speech, thinking, education, etc.?
This question assumes that the underage girls aren't 12, maybe 17 and their education ended at age 13.
|
|
Sparkly Tree
Joined: 19 Aug 2006
Posts: 10139
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| woebedamned
Posted:
Tue Jul 22, 2008 12:20 am |
|
|
|
If some enterprising group successfully gathered up some of the underaged girls still in the FLDS and tried to take legal action to require that underage marriage stop and the girls be educated until age 18 - whose rights would be violated? The parents (as FLDS members or as individuals) because they choose to practice their religion, or the girls - because they have the right to free speech, thinking, education, etc.?
Im not sure how that could even be possible. MANY graduate high school before the age of 17, so saying a child has to stay in school till the age of 18 would, in many cases, mean they would have to continue on to college, which I dont see how can be forced on anyone.
This question assumes that the underage girls aren't 12, maybe 17 and their education ended at age 13.
Again, 17 year old are allowed, by law, to marry in almost every state, so that wouldnt be underage. Most states allow 16 year olds to marry with parental permission. Some allow teens as young as 14 or 15 to marry with parental permission.
Unless the state is going to change it's laws to say no one under the age of 18 can marry, and no one under the age of 18 can complete high school, I just dont see how it can be done.
|
|
Damn it All!!!!
Joined: 15 Aug 2006
Posts: 6287
Location: pathetic joke of an American, bitter, gun clinging, God loving, racist cracker
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| dugo
Posted:
Tue Jul 22, 2008 1:20 am |
|
|
|
How the Dutch try to pull it off:
"Learning duty applies to children of 5 up to 18 years. As from the first day of the month after a child 5 reaches years of age to the end of the school year in which has become the 16 years a child is of school age. Directly after the learning duty the qualification duty starts. The qualification duty finishes only if a student has obtained a start qualification or becomes 18."
|
|
Dashing Dutch Dynamo Dude
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 6007
Location: L4L
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| tulsad
Posted:
Tue Jul 22, 2008 1:38 am |
|
|
|
| woebedamned wrote: | If some enterprising group successfully gathered up some of the underaged girls still in the FLDS and tried to take legal action to require that underage marriage stop and the girls be educated until age 18 - whose rights would be violated? The parents (as FLDS members or as individuals) because they choose to practice their religion, or the girls - because they have the right to free speech, thinking, education, etc.?
Im not sure how that could even be possible. MANY graduate high school before the age of 17, so saying a child has to stay in school till the age of 18 would, in many cases, mean they would have to continue on to college, which I dont see how can be forced on anyone.
This question assumes that the underage girls aren't 12, maybe 17 and their education ended at age 13.
Again, 17 year old are allowed, by law, to marry in almost every state, so that wouldnt be underage. Most states allow 16 year olds to marry with parental permission. Some allow teens as young as 14 or 15 to marry with parental permission.
Unless the state is going to change it's laws to say no one under the age of 18 can marry, and no one under the age of 18 can complete high school, I just dont see how it can be done. |
My 'case' is very poorly worded. Basically what I'm asking is - the FLDS believe education should stop after the 8th grade, they also marry off their girls young. If a girl was of legal age to marry with parental permission but didn't want to marry, and she had also wanted to continue her education, but her parents had made her stop her education in order to get married because of their religious beliefs. Which trumps? The girl's right to education and not marry? Or her parent's rights to their religious beliefs?
|
|
Sparkly Tree
Joined: 19 Aug 2006
Posts: 10139
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| tulsad
Posted:
Tue Jul 22, 2008 1:40 am |
|
|
|
| dugo wrote: | How the Dutch try to pull it off:
"Learning duty applies to children of 5 up to 18 years. As from the first day of the month after a child 5 reaches years of age to the end of the school year in which has become the 16 years a child is of school age. Directly after the learning duty the qualification duty starts. The qualification duty finishes only if a student has obtained a start qualification or becomes 18." |
Some states require kids to stay in school until they graduate or reach 18, too. Are the Dutch successful?
|
|
Sparkly Tree
Joined: 19 Aug 2006
Posts: 10139
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| woebedamned
Posted:
Tue Jul 22, 2008 9:15 am |
|
|
|
| dugo wrote: | How the Dutch try to pull it off:
"Learning duty applies to children of 5 up to 18 years. As from the first day of the month after a child 5 reaches years of age to the end of the school year in which has become the 16 years a child is of school age. Directly after the learning duty the qualification duty starts. The qualification duty finishes only if a student has obtained a start qualification or becomes 18." |
That is the way most of our states work, although many have clauses which allow a kid to quit after age 16 or 17 with parental permission. Many now opt to take the GED in 10th grade so they can quit high school. Honestly, IMO many times a 16 or 17 year old who doesnt want to go to school should be allowed to quit. Those who are forced to stay cause trouble, take time away from the students who want to be there and waste resources. Last study I saw said America's drop-out rate is around 35%.
|
|
Damn it All!!!!
Joined: 15 Aug 2006
Posts: 6287
Location: pathetic joke of an American, bitter, gun clinging, God loving, racist cracker
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| woebedamned
Posted:
Tue Jul 22, 2008 9:20 am |
|
|
|
| tulsad wrote: |
My 'case' is very poorly worded. Basically what I'm asking is - the FLDS believe education should stop after the 8th grade, they also marry off their girls young. If a girl was of legal age to marry with parental permission but didn't want to marry, and she had also wanted to continue her education, but her parents had made her stop her education in order to get married because of their religious beliefs. Which trumps? The girl's right to education and not marry? Or her parent's rights to their religious beliefs? |
I think we already have protections in place for such a scenario, but finding the girl who will stand up and say she is being forced to quit school and marry may prove difficult.
|
|
Damn it All!!!!
Joined: 15 Aug 2006
Posts: 6287
Location: pathetic joke of an American, bitter, gun clinging, God loving, racist cracker
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| dugo
Posted:
Tue Jul 22, 2008 9:31 am |
|
|
|
| tulsad wrote: |
Some states require kids to stay in school until they graduate or reach 18, too. Are the Dutch successful? |
This is rather new, it used to be till your 16th birthday. YMMV.
|
|
Dashing Dutch Dynamo Dude
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 6007
Location: L4L
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| dugo
Posted:
Tue Jul 22, 2008 9:48 am |
|
|
|
| woebedamned wrote: | | Honestly, IMO many times a 16 or 17 year old who doesnt want to go to school should be allowed to quit. Those who are forced to stay cause trouble, take time away from the students who want to be there and waste resources. Last study I saw said America's drop-out rate is around 35%. |
I'm all in favor of school till 18/19 or graduation, whichever comes first. However, I think 13 years of continued education is brutal on parents and kids though. I think every parent should have the right to pull their kids out of school for a full schoolyear (from start to finnish of the year of course). A sabbatical year so to say.. if you don't take it you can stop at 18, if you do you'll have to go till 19..
|
|
Dashing Dutch Dynamo Dude
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 6007
Location: L4L
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| woebedamned
Posted:
Tue Jul 22, 2008 9:55 am |
|
|
|
| dugo wrote: |
I'm all in favor of school till 18/19 or graduation, whichever comes first. However, I think 13 years of continued education is brutal on parents and kids though. I think every parent should have the right to pull their kids out of school for a full schoolyear (from start to finnish of the year of course). A sabbatical year so to say.. if you don't take it you can stop at 18, if you do you'll have to go till 19.. |
In today's world, 13 years is no longer the accepted time. Starting school at age 5 will put your child far behind the others. Most are in school by the age of 3 or 4.
I think one of the biggest mistakes our govt made was making it madatory for a kid to stay in school till the age of 18. Our public schools have gone down hill ever since. Add to that the idea of every child learning the same thing at the same rate, and we end up either watering things down so the slower learners can keep up, or speeding things up so the brighter students dont get bored. I think we need to accept the fact that not all students have the desire or ability to do certain things.
|
|
Damn it All!!!!
Joined: 15 Aug 2006
Posts: 6287
Location: pathetic joke of an American, bitter, gun clinging, God loving, racist cracker
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| dugo
Posted:
Tue Jul 22, 2008 10:12 am |
|
|
|
| woebedamned wrote: | | In today's world, 13 years is no longer the accepted time. Starting school at age 5 will put your child far behind the others. Most are in school by the age of 3 or 4. |
And as our world becomes more complex every day this is only going to be longer and longer. All this in one stretch is too much and that's why I'm all for a sabbatical.
|
|
Dashing Dutch Dynamo Dude
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 6007
Location: L4L
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| woebedamned
Posted:
Tue Jul 22, 2008 10:16 am |
|
|
|
| dugo wrote: |
And as our world becomes more complex every day this is only going to be longer and longer. All this in one stretch is too much and that's why I'm all for a sabbatical. |
Oh, I agree. Here in our state students are eligable for college scholarships from the state ONLY if they start college the semester after high school graduation. If they take a "break", the lose the scholarship.
ETA: I should probably end this discussion since it is not on topic 
|
|
Damn it All!!!!
Joined: 15 Aug 2006
Posts: 6287
Location: pathetic joke of an American, bitter, gun clinging, God loving, racist cracker
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| dugo
Posted:
Tue Jul 22, 2008 10:25 am |
|
|
|
| woebedamned wrote: |
In today's world, 13 years is no longer the accepted time. Starting school at age 5 will put your child far behind the others. Most are in school by the age of 3 or 4.
I think one of the biggest mistakes our govt made was making it madatory for a kid to stay in school till the age of 18. Our public schools have gone down hill ever since. Add to that the idea of every child learning the same thing at the same rate, and we end up either watering things down so the slower learners can keep up, or speeding things up so the brighter students dont get bored. I think we need to accept the fact that not all students have the desire or ability to do certain things. |
Eeeew! That's bad.. by 12 it is time to split them up, not everyone is smart or handy... but I can see how it becomes hard to set up a bunch of different tracks (a few professional ones for different kinds of trades, 2 or 3 general tracks and a pre-academic track) in rural areas or in sects*.
*Obligatory reference to topic
|
|
Dashing Dutch Dynamo Dude
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 6007
Location: L4L
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| woebedamned
Posted:
Tue Jul 22, 2008 10:43 am |
|
|
|
| dugo wrote: |
Eeeew! That's bad.. by 12 it is time to split them up, not everyone is smart or handy... but I can see how it becomes hard to set up a bunch of different tracks (a few professional ones for different kinds of trades, 2 or 3 general tracks and a pre-academic track) in rural areas or in sects*.
*Obligatory reference to topic |
Tracking is illegal in US public schools. IMO when it was ended many of the problems began. Many students know they can never be successful so give up, and spend their time in school causing problems. In groups such as FLDS or the Amish, I think by grade 8 they have most likely learned enough to be successful in their lifestyle. I also think they are most likely better educated than many students in our public schools.
|
|
Damn it All!!!!
Joined: 15 Aug 2006
Posts: 6287
Location: pathetic joke of an American, bitter, gun clinging, God loving, racist cracker
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
