UNC Human
Rights Convention Blog:
Social Rights
This blog is for Social Rights, and we can think of social rights that are universal and ones that apply to particular groups. Peace, information, nondiscrimination, the rights of refugees might be examples you wish to pursue.
Comments
I am not sure if this is a social or economic issue, but I propose the right
to affordable or free quality childcare/daycare. Quality daycare is
outrageously expensive in
I propose the right to same-sex marriage. I believe that everyone has the right to marry regardless of sexual preference. This has an economic component as well - the fact that many benefits such as health care that are extended to marriage partners are thus denied from those not allowed to marry.
The following link describes the same-sex marriage rights extended in some
countries around the world, such as
I propose that all individuals be free from discrimination. I think it's
very interesting that the
Furthermore, discrimination against minority groups has become more
prevalent after 9/11. People often classify individuals and groups as
'terrorists' or 'Anti-American' just because of the color of their skin or
native costume. Racial profiling is seen throughout the
So I propose that all forms of discrimination be banned. A crackdown on this would advance social equality in the nation.
Below is a link to a website that describes hate crimes in the U.S in the aftermath of 9/11. Check it out.
http://harisingh.com/newsBacklash.htm
I propose that all people should have access to adequate health care.
Regardless of income, I feel all citizens should be able to take care of
themselves and their children when they are sick.
I agree that daycare and pre-school should be a right that all people should have. Back when kindergarten was introduced to our school systems, it was not a concept paid for by the government. As the necessary education to succeed in first grade increased, the government finally took heed and created a institutionalized kindergarten. Today, the amount of information needed to excel in kindergarten has increased, therefore, people who can afford it are sending their children to pre-school while others are just having to make do. If the expectation for kindergarteners is to be able to read, the government should mandate a program which insures each child equal opportunity to do so by the time they enter said grade.
I propose that all employment agencies be required to give both maternity and paternity leave for parents. The time away from work should be both paid and adequate time. This is both a very exciting and stressful time for all families and in today's society it seems that both parents should have the opportunity to partake in this experience. It will relieve some stress to know that you will be able earn pay during this time and return to the same position you took a leave from.
I propose the right to free, quality parenting classes for all parents that continue at least through the first six years. Research has shown that schooling is important, but it is ultimately the parents who have the most influence on a child. However, so many parents do not understand even the most basic child care, such as not leaving a child in a seat all day. If we want to help our children it is most effective to target them directly. Furthermore, research has shown that the most important years in a child's life are the first six years (including being in the womb where things like what the mother eats has huge impacts on the child later in life). The current education system generally does not even reach the child until 5 years of age, so these programs would have a huge impact.
I think that everyone deserves the right to a healthy environment. Since the environment is a commons, most people have no control over what is in the air they breathe, the water they drink, etc. The only way to ensure that the environment is respected and taken care of is for the government to step in and regulate pollution, etc. Individuals should not have to suffer from the negative externalities of businesses who are not environmentally responsible. Thus, the government needs to implement a program that makes it financially beneficial for businesses to pollute less.
I propose that every woman, regardless of income or level of health care coverage, should have unlimited access to quality prenatal care.
Not only is prenatal care associated with lower rates of low-weight births, premature births, and infant mortality, but it is linked to improved cognitive development of the child. With this issue especially, studies show a few dollars of preventive policy save taxpayers many more dollars down the road.
A great CDC report of the importance of prenatal care (and barriers to accessing it) can be found here: http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/Products&Pubs/DatatoAction/pdf/rhow8.pdf
I propose the right for anyone to leave their country, and equally, to return. This is sort of a 'freedom of movement', but it is very applicable to people trying to flee countries at the risk of being tortured.
I agree with Tessa. I believe that sexual orientation should not decide ones rights. The rights that are given to us are HUMAN rights not just heterosexuals' rights. Ones sexual orientation does not define them as a human or an American. I believe that all rights in the constitution should be inclusive to ALL American Citizens. The only time one should not be given a natural American right is when they commit a crime or choose to give up those American rights. Being homosexual, gay, lesbian, bi or what ever is not a crime.
I agree with Julia. Prenatal care is so important for a child's future development. I remember in class when the reduction of future costs was mentioned. The research, medical, emotional costs will greatly decrease for a new mother if she gets the proper care before her baby arrives. Less money will be spent in the long run if less physical and mental disabilities have to be corrected after birth. I believe prenatal care ranges from prenatal vitamins to free access to yoga classes to keep a mother calm. Research is finding more and more connections with maternal stress during a pregnancy and development problems in the child's future.
Along with prenatal care for women and their baby, I also propose that there be free educational opportunities for women to learn more about how to take of themselves. They should not only be taking the correct vitamins, but they need to know what to eat and what not to eat. They need to know what should and not should be entering their body during pregnancy and what precise developmental issues their child should suffer from if it does. They need to understand their bodies, as well as, their babies during the entire course of the pregnancy.
I have a hard time with Kate's proposal for "freedom of movement,"
and it could be very well that I am not understanding all the reasonings behind it or exactly how one would play out the
proposal. I guess the first thing is, are people in
I guess with my rambling I'm just trying to say I think most people are
fleeing to the
I propose that a college education should be available to every student coming out of high school. If a student can successfully make it through high school I think that they should be guaranteed a college education. Whether this is funded nationally or through state money I think that this is very important. Providing a college education for low income students give them the means to provide for themselves and their families in the future.
I propose that we as a society decide that education must be a priority in
the
The average high school teacher in the
I suggest we enact a minimum salary law or an amendment to the constitution requiring a certain percentage of the annual budget that must be directed towards education.
I propose that all people should have the right to quality legal representation. Although American citizens already have the right to an attorney and a trial, I think that there is still a huge discrepancy in the available legal services for people who can and cannot afford to find their own, often expensive, representation. Someone's life should not be drastically changed simply because they could not afford to pay the inordinate amounts of money necessary to pay for expensive lawyers.
I am having trouble with the proposal for a free college education for every student coming out of high school. While I would certainly have loved coming to UNC for free, I do not think that this idea would pose some difficulties. For one thing, the proposal seemed to imply that all high school students are qualified for a college education simply because they graduated from high school. I think that a college education should be reserved for the high school students who have proven themselves to be deserving and able to complete a college degree. However, I do think that no otherwise qualified high school student should be unable to attend college simply because they cannot afford it, yet I do think that there are a lot of opportunities for these students to have access to the needed financial aid. I think that a college education is a privilege that should be accessible to those who have worked hard and are deserving of the opportunity.
I'm not sure if this is a social right but I didn't see a blog for political rights so I guess I'll just post it here. I believe that high school students as well as all students should have the right to freedom of symbolic speech. Symbolic speech is behavior that expresses an idea.
"Although speech is commonly thought of as verbal expression, we are all aware of nonverbal communication. Sit-ins, flag waving, demonstrations, and wearing . . . protest buttons are examples of symbolic speech. While most forms of conduct could be said to express ideas in some way, only some conduct is protected as symbolic speech. In analyzing such cases, the courts ask whether the speaker intended to convey a particular message, and whether it is likely that the message was understood by those who viewed it" (landmarkcases.org).
"So, just as there are limitations on the extent to which 'free speech' applies to the spoken word, there are restrictions on the actions that people seek to have protected as symbolic speech" (landmarkcases.org). In the High School case, Tinker vs. Des Moines three students were expelled after wanting to wear armbands to silently protest the Vietnam War.
"In the case of Tinker v.
While I fully support people's right to have healthy relationships with whomever they choose, I question the jump to our current idea of what a same-sex marriage should be. First of all, this assumes that same-sex couples want to get married. I know some who do and then some who do not. Furthermore, I think this is perpetuating a heteronormative standard, where same-sex couples should be like "us". I think that we need to look beyond the issue of same-sex marriage and examine whether marriage should even remain an institution. By creating a standard reinforced by marriage, it is important to understand how the government is ultimately shaping the ways in which "family" is socially constructed. Additionally, many married couples receive benefits such as tax breaks. Rather people should be economically assured and insured and be entitled to tax breaks, whether they are married or not.
I think that this would fit under a larger umbrella of safety, but i think every person should be able to live a life free of violence, particularly sexual violence.
I believe that there should be a standard of regulations that the District
Attorney should be required to use in order to make a charging decision against
individuals. I am not sure how what a person should be charged with is
determined, but I feel that the charges are not consistent throughout the
Recently six African American males were initially charged with aggravated assault but were later charged with attempted second-degree murder for beaten up a white male. The definition that I found of second-degree murder is as follows: “an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion".” To me the key word is killing, meaning that the person died. The white male that was beaten up was released from the hospital the same day and able to attend the ring ceremony at the school later that evening. The white male never died either because he testified at one of the defendant’s trial. So, not unless second degree murder has another meaning besides the one that I found, I feel as the District Attorney abused his power and this should be reevaluated.
I have to strongly disagree with the objection to free college education.
While a free education for every high school graduate may be a bit idealistic,
a system set in place to cover the cost of attending at least a public state
university would make sense. Nonetheless, I have trouble understanding the
argument that not all high school graduates are qualified enough. While some
high school graduates may not be qualified enough to attend an Ivy League or a
school like UNC, they should not be denied a college education. Making college
education universally available wouldn't have any effect on what colleges
graduates got into; it would simply make it possible for them to attend. Those
who do earn a spot at a prestigious college should have the same opportunity as
those who decide to go to a community college. If someone gets into a great
school, they deserve to attend. On a similar note, many low income students
come from communities where they never had the opportunities/resources to
succeed as much as their peers in other communities. One's ability to earn a
college degree cannot truly be known until one is given the opportunity to use
what potential one has always had. As for financial aid and other
'opportunities' already in place, they're not good enough. The standard (parents'
income, etc.) to receive need-based financial aid is too high and leaves many
students to fend for themselves. As for loans, with interest rates set at 9%
and with tuition skyrocketing more and more each year, it's not uncommon for a
graduate of a state university like UNC to graduate with almost $100,000 in
loans. And graduate school? What 22 year old college graduate wants to pile on
more loans when they're already in debt? It's even harder to think about
raising a family.
I agree with the original post that a college education should be made
available to any high school graduate and I find the objection easy to refute.
There is a college out there for every ability. No high school graduate should
be denied the education that they deserve.
In regards to the discussion on same-sex marriage I feel many great points have been brought up. Some people in same-sex relationships may or may not want to get married. Regardless of each couples desire I feel it is only right for all same-sex relationships to have the same rights, therefore same-sex relationships would have the right to get married OR to have a civil union.
It was stated that same-sex relationships should have benefits from tax breaks. It would be great if same-sex couples were able to have these tax breaks, however, I cannot help to think of the movie, I now pronounce you Chuck and Larry. For those of you that have not seen this movie, Chuck's wife dies and in order for Chuck to claim his children as insurance beneficiaries, Chuck must have a "married" partner. Larry owes Chuck for saving his life, therefore Chuck and Larry become domestic partners in order for Chuck to claim his children as insurance beneficiaries. My point being, I feel it is great to help a friend out, and I completely understand the importance of Chuck making his children beneficiaries, however, we must be careful in giving these tax breaks and insurance rights to every same-sex "couple". I DEFINITELY think same-sex couples should have every right heterosexuals have.
This movie served a good point in having someone monitor their living situation and relationship with one another, making sure it was in fact a domestic relationship. I also find it interesting same-sex unions are investigated, whereas I have not heard of heterosexual marriages being "looked into." It is assumed that all heterosexual marriages are legitimate while they would have the same incentive to get married. Given all this, is it fair that same-sex couples are investigated and heterosexuals are not investigated to the smallest degree?
Though the
I propose that the federal government set up a paid maternity leave program
for all mothers. Many women in
I propose a reevaluation of a person's constitutional rights to privacy. In this age of technology, there are many more factors to consider than could possibly have been imagined two hundred years ago. Especially in light of the recent PATRIOT Acts and preoccupation with homeland security, a person's right to privacy, whether citizen or alien, needs to be clearly and fairly redefined. Even on the local law enforcement level and in the business world between employers and employees, technological advances that increase surveillance and the gleaning of private information are often taken for granted. As technology empowers our world, the constitution needs to take steps right along with it to protect everyone's privacy and security.
To add on to the healthcare discussion, I also agree that everyone should have a right to healthcare. While there are arguments both for and against universal healthcare that make sense to me, it is true that there should be some system in place to provide healthcare to all citizens.
The focus of
Included with this idea, all people should have a right to food security. Not only that, but nutritious food should be made available to everyone. This will benefit both those who receive the food and those paying for the food security programs/health care costs. Less money would need to be spent on treating illnesses and more could be spent on other positive programs such as housing, the environment, and education.
I propose more cultural tolerance. An area I feel is especially pertinent concerns religious holidays. Under the current system, those of a different religion or culture are allowed to take off days significant to them but often times they can't because upon return they still have to make up work or time and it is inconvenient for them. People also may not feel comfortable requesting these days off which brings another important issue which is spreading awareness of different customs. While this issue may seem minor if you talk to anyone whose religious affiliation deviate from mainstream Christianity this has probably been an issue for them.
I propose affordable and quality childcare for all families. Too many parents must choose to pay for childcare or sacrifice working to take care of the children themselves. With affordable quality childcare, parents would have the opportunity to work without a huge part of their salary going to childcare establishments. This would ultimately send more people into the workforce and give children more opportunities because all children would have equal opportunities in childcare quality.
I propose that to job security and benefits are entitled to everyone. Employers should offer paid maternity leave for a minimum of three months as well as paternity leave. If the employers have stricter requirements and stipulations on maternity and paternity leave then they should provide childcare for employee families. Mother's should not be rushed back to work or have their job security threatened for giving birth and being with the child during it's first weeks of life which are critical. Employers should also offer pension plans and benefits for employee's who have been loyal and faithful to their company. If employer's downsize, offshore, or outsource they should be held accountable and some kind of arbitration resulting in an employee buyout should result.
I would have to agree wholeheartedly with Reine in regards to the ongoing free college education debate. I was born and raised in the metro-Atlanta area and this issue hits home for me, because I am a first generation college student in my family. My parent's worked very hard in school, but weren't able to afford a college education, so they won't let me forget what an opportunity I have. In my town, if after high school you do not go to college, you are relatively stuck in the system and are forced to get a job that more times than not keeps you in the same town; not allowing for exposure to bigger and better things. And I believe everyone is entitled to opportunities.
Of course free education for every high school graduate is not plausible at
the moment, but who is to say that it cannot be a worthy goal for a public
university system such as
I agree with Lauren. I propose that the government should establish a law under which men and women are guaranteed to be paid when they are sick/ or taking a paternity leave. It extremely unfair for workers to be left out of getting paid as a result of an illness or having babies. The government should find a way to stop the corporations from abusing and taking advantage of their workers.
Also, I agree with Reine. I believe every high school graduate should be have the chance to attend college. If they get accepted to a university then I believe the government should step in and provide financial assistance for students who can't afford to pay the tuition.
I agree that people have a right to be with whoever they choose regardless if it is with a man or woman. We all have a right to find happiness and I think that regardless of what kind of relationship it is considered people should have a right to have the same benefits that that married couples have. We cannot restrict people from having certain rights because they are attracted to who they are attracted to, it is not their choice.
I propose that all people have the right to comprehensive sex education and free contraception. It is unfair that a child not learn how to practice safe sex just because his or her parent or school system has decided to teach abstinence-only education. This injustice leads to higher rates of teenage pregnancy among children who have been exposed to abstinence-only education versus those with a comprehensive sex education. Additionally, contraceptives and contraceptive education should be available without parental consent and be easily accessible. Access to contraceptives will only help a country as the STD and HIV rates are sure to decrease thus leading to a healthier, more productive society.
I propose that all people have the right to comprehensive sex education and free contraception. It is unfair that a child not learn how to practice safe sex just because his or her parent or school system has decided to teach abstinence-only education. This injustice leads to higher rates of teenage pregnancy among children who have been exposed to abstinence-only education versus those with a comprehensive sex education. Additionally, contraceptives and contraceptive education should be available without parental consent and be easily accessible. Access to contraceptives will only help a country as the STD and HIV rates are sure to decrease thus leading to a healthier, more productive society.
In addition to what Chandni has already mentioned, I also believe that our people should be taught tolerance of diversity. Though it is hard to monitor what is taught in each individual home, the government can play a part in what is taught in the school systems. This new aspect of public education should not be exclusive communities that are better-off than others, but also to inner-city schools. As a result of this, more funding for education is vital. Though funding is very important, I think a major issue with this proposal is that we, as the teachers, must also be followers of our own teaching. Too many times, people show their ignorance of historical events through the way they talk and things they do. With incidents of racism still occurring, such as the Jena Six, it is easy to see that we, as a people, have not advanced in socialization nearly as much as we brag to have. Through quality education and the willingness of each individual, I believe that tolerance of all races, religions, traditions, etc. will increase throughout the country and it will increase national solidarity.
The issue that is most in the forefront of my mind at this time is healthcare. I know that people have already brought it up in both this blog, as well as in the economic blog (clearly it pertains to both; it overlaps as do most other rights). But, since it is the topic I am most passionate about at the moment, I wanted to reassert the issue. Personally, I think that quality healthcare should be available to all. The two most frequent complaints to such a claim are (1) that it leads to a decline in the quality of healthcare provided/available and (2) some people may take advantage of it. And yes, maybe some people will “take advantage of it” – yet personally I don’t even know what it means to take advantage of healthcare. Are we really trying to advocate that if people can’t find work, then they deserve to just die if they get sick? It is the first claim/rebuttal that I think has the most value. Guaranteeing quality healthcare to all really is an issue that needs to be addressed; what we need to determine is how to ascertain that the healthcare provided is of the highest tier across the board. I think most people would take that to mean good pay. But really, I don’t see why this would be an issue. Since individual people will not be paying private healthcare bills, the community as a whole should be taxed at a level that covers the total amount currently paid to healthcare providers. So, I guess that leads to the question of how to determine “fair” taxing…
There are many topic points that I agree with, such as same-sex marriage rights as I believe that people should have the right to be legally connected to whomever they wish (whatever gender) and have the government recognize that and also, the rights to education after high school because of the growing demands in educational standards. I would like to, however, respond mostly to the post about privacy - it does not seem to be a "hot" topic within our class discussions, but there are a lot of changes being questioned now because of increase in technology and people rights inside their home. On a similar, but separate note, what then do people think about privacy for convicted child molesters or pedophiles when they move into neighborhoods with children? Many people are pressing for signs or some type of recognition of someone's criminal history OUTSIDE of their home in order to protect their children and others... I have not figured out how I feel about this, but I was just wondering do any of you have any thoughts on the topic?
I think that it's wonderful that the
I propose the right to same sex unions. I understand that many argue that marriage is a religious ceremony. Thus I propose that it be called a union. Since you are not allowed to make any state or federal consideration of someone based on their religion, and marriage is seen as a religious ceremony, I propose that everyone, no matter their sexual preference, be allowed the same rights through same civil unions. Thus, a couple that signs documentation for a union will be recognized as a civil union and given same rights and benefits marriages currently offer. A marriage will only be recognized by those who performs a religious ceremony.
I propose that the federal government provide better pre-neonatal care for both parents. Educating pregnant families, both the mother and father of the parent, about setting the proper environments for new borns, eating healthy foods, being on a schedule for the child, etc and about the outcomes of poor decisions while being pregnant.
I think it is a great idea that every have the opportunity to go to college following high school. I think we should keep in mind that some people choose not to go to high school. I would say to revise that to include scholarships for trade school or community college. I do think it's really important for everyone to have the opportunity to go to college, and that states across the nation should follow the example set by some states that give high school students that are in the top of their classes scholarships to the state university of their choice.
In reading the human rights documents I became more jaded about this idea of 'guaranteed rights' being bestowed on citizens. The writings about the rights felt wordy and heavy and hard to navigate, even upon further study. The very people these documents were addressing would have difficulty dissecting and participating in a forum about their rights. How then can we be more reachable to the population in question? And how can we not establish this need for other people to advocate on a 'people's' behalf? Upon reading about indigenous social rights I just wanted to consider more the opportunities given to those on the social, racial, and historical periphery. But until these communities are given a place to speak their needs, and until there is a safe community that would be willing to HEAR these needs the discrimination will persist. I am hopeful that people are talking about this in their own corners of the globe. Perhaps in this way we can make our little sectors that much brighter.
Most western nations do have a system of taking care of maternity leaves. In
the
I think that disabled people should have more opportunities for work. Although there are currently programs that facilitate the involvement of mentally and/or physically handicapped people in the workforce, I think that there should be more efforts to assimilate these people into the everyday adult world. As a volunteer with UNC's Best Buddies program, which pairs a college student with a mentally handicapped adult for friendship and fellowship, I saw first hand how lonely and separated many people who have these difficulties often feel. I also saw how amazingly capable and talented many of them are. There are lots of jobs that disabled people would be able to perform, and I think that making disabled people more visible and involved in society would be a huge step towards ending prejudices.
I believe education is one of the most important issues today in
This seems to be both a social and economic right: Rights to Leisure.
I noticed this on the list of missing rights that Professor Blau handed out, and I think it's an interesting one to discuss.
The American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (created by the Organization of American States in 1948) frames it this way:
Article XV. Every person has the right to leisure time, to wholesome recreation, and to the opportunity for advantageous use of his free time to his spiritual, cultural and physical benefit.
Perhaps a comparable statement in our constitution is as far as we want to go with rights to leisure. But it might also be interesting to consider certain economic rights that might promote and enable leisure time. For example limits on the number of hours a person can work per week, or rights to time off from work without fear of losing one’s job. What do you think?
Bowen, I definitely agree with you. I believe that an increase in teacher salaries would recruit talented and energetic individuals to the position, and that these people would be more able to give students a quality education. Education, especially at the primary/secondary levels, should provide students with not only the academic skills necessary to succeed in post-secondary endeavors, but also to teach them to value education as a life process. By looking at education as a process rather than a chore that lasts for childhood, and combining this value system with success based on achievement in the classroom (and enabled by quality instructors), students are more likely to view a university education as important. University education, especially in liberal arts, does away with many of the societal issues that we face today. With education and the increased level of tolerance that often accompanies it, many of the harmful -isms that plague society must move on to less-enlightened minds. Increased efficiency in the workplace, a more positive outlook on life, and more rewarding networks of colleagues and friends are the benefits of dissolving the -isms that so often go hand-in-hand with poor education and life goals that do not emphasize the necessity of lifelong education.
By raising teachers' salaries, I believe that individuals who may have opted for more lucrative fields will enter the profession, cause widespread systemic change in the lives of their pupils, and consequently play a vital role in the shaping of American society as our workforce improves in productivity and its recognition of the benefits of education at any grade level.
Tessa,
I agree with you in that I think a "right to leisure" is an interesting idea. However, I believe limiting the number of hours that a person could work each week would be a bad idea. For those of us that enjoy the feeling of satisfaction after a long day's work (and to some, that IS leisure) or who believe in the idea of hard work leading to the successful American dream, a limit on the number of hours would be harmful! People entering into fields with hourly wages instead of salaried positions would feel this the most. Instead of being able to pick up a few hours of overtime towards the holidays or when a spouse is out-of-town or in in the military, these people would lose the benefits that optional hours supplementing their normal wages would offer.
Additionally, I disagree with the notion that allowing employees time off from work without it harming their job. This actually already exists -- it's called vacation time, and most people don't fully exercise it anyway. I also worry about the effects that such a n allowance would have on employers. While I don't know the extent of what people supporting "rights off from work" would want, I fear that employers would suffer when, well, their employees don't work. What would be the limit? Would this exist merely in the form of allowing more vacation days each year? Would the employer somehow compel the employees to take advantage of the days offered each year?
I know that a family friend toiled diligently his entire life and eventually retired over a year early because of accumulated vacation days (still getting paid). Should employers allow this under the "right to leisure" provision? Or does this go against the very idea of the right itself (in that leisure should be spread out over one's life). Or will it just allow the hard-working to work harder (as in the case of the family friend, who moved into a second career during that year just because he knew he couldn't fail).
In closing, I believe that the right to leisure is an interesting and attractive idea. At the same time, I think there are ways to promote it without forbidding those who enjoy overtime from benefiting from it.
Concerning the rights of prisoners, I believe that they should have basic rights. However, pretty much all luxuries should be taken away. Overseas prisons are known for being tough while US prisons are a lot kinder to the inmates.
I agree with Chandni Patel that racial tensions
are higher than normal in the
As far as proposals for prisoners go, I've debated this subject with myself for some time. I believe that prisoners should be punished; if you did something illegal, you shouldn't get the privilege to hang out with friends, play sports, or read books at your leisure (with a few guards watching you). Yes, prison is supposed to serve as a rehabilitation of sorts, preparing the people to be well-mannered citizens when they are released, so solitary confinement isn't always the best solution. But instead of sitting around within the walls of the prison doing basically whatever they feel like, I believe prisoners should be out doing something constructive to better the community. Pick up trash on the side of the roads or re-pave streets so there are fewer potholes. At least society as a whole would benefit from the prisoners if these changes were made.
All workers have the right to a certain degree of occupational safety. There should be plenty of rules and regulations regarding work safety that should be often checked and supervised. Of course not all work environments can ensure perfect safety at all times therefore, those jobs should pay a reasonable wage and should offer a plenty of workers compensation if one is injured on the job.
I agree with Laura's ideas to implement ways in which prisoners can be
constructive in our society. I used to live in
The rights of children should be the highest priority for the nation. Children are the future and their rights should be more of a focus of the government. Healthcare for children should be more of a focus and they should give more rather than cutting it back. They need to focus on giving healthcare to kids who need it to ensure the safety of the children.
In response to the comments advocating prisoner's rights - I propose that prisoners should have the right to vote.
Currently, the
I think that, while prisoners should have many privileges taken away during their incarceration time, prisoners can not be denied a voice in our democracy.
Thus, I think our constitution should include prisoners when enumerating voting rights.
Interesting related websites:
http://www.aclu.org/votingrights/exoffenders/index.html - the ACLU's page about the issue
http://www.hrw.org/reports98/vote/usvot98o.htm - Human Rights Watch report
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4316148.stm
- about a similar debate in the
I agree with Tessa, I think that it is fair for prisoners to be excluded from voting while they serve their time. I think that prisoners need to realize that what they have done is wrong and that is why they are incarcerated. While in jail, prisoners should not have the right to vote. Since we live in a democracy, once they are free and served their time for their crime, they should be reissued their right to vote. I think that there should be rules to go along with this issue because in many cases of prisoners after being released many ex cons break the law/parole and go back to jail. In this case I don’t think those citizen should be given the right to vote again.
In one of my other classes we've been discussing the issue of intersexuality and the obstacles that those born 'intersexed' are faced with daily. I therefore think that there should be an amendment allowing a broad range of sexes and moving away from our dimorphic definition of sex (that of male or female). There are many people who aren't born strictly 'male' or 'female' but rather fall on the spectrum of sex, yet our country makes it acceptable to only be 'male' or 'female.' I think that certain barriers should be removed, such as having to choose either 'male' or 'female' on a drivers license, etc. in order to move toward more acceptability in our society.
I don't agree with allowing felons to vote. I don't think prisoners in general should be allowed to vote when they are serving their sentence. Once they finish their sentence, and as long as they are not felons, then they can vote.
I also propose that every single American citizen should be given the right to housing. If they can't afford a house, then the government should provide them with one.
I propose the implementation of federally funded educational programs for students K-12 who are not performing at grade level. In many situations, these students are simply pushed to the side, disregarded, placed in remedial courses that function only to keep them at the same level instead of propelling to the level they need to be, and/or are passed to the next grade (despite their performance levels and test scores) to avoid being a continuous "burden" to the teacher. The majority of students who are performing below grade level live primarily in low-income neighborhoods (this information found according to the number of children who receive free or reduced price lunch).
Instead of continuing the perpetual cycle of social reproduction, where these children are most likely to follow the status of their parents (many of which may be low-income, poor, working-class families), programs designed to provide these children with alternative learning styles, required tutoring (with transportation arrangements in place, or during school hours to avoid this potential problem) should be in place to ensure equal opportunity of education and access to higher education which could in turn possibly help these children gain some momentum for mobility in society. Otherwise, with possibly only a high school level education (or less in some cases, without appropriate academic programs and extra assistance) these children will continue to be pushed into the bottom wrung of society and only have limited choices beyond working-class, low-wage jobs. (The access to higher education can be linked to the proposals for free college education, often a major barrier preventing students from seeking and receiving education beyond the high school level, especially children from low-income families).
Another point that was not discussed in our first round of Constitutional
proposals was Farmers' Rights. Farmers are competing with large corporations
and monopolies over food production and resource use. Rights over land, seed
and natural resources are being debated and stripped from those farmers whose
main purpose is to ensure food security within the
Charter of Farmers' Rights Website: http://www.agobservatory.org/library.cfm?refID=29551
I am proposing legislation against the discrimination of women. More specifically against items like:
1)domestic violence
2)trafficking
3)discrimination in the work place (unequal incomes), etc
Of course these items could be gone into more detail, and many more could be mentioned. These vary from extremes, to every day forms of discrimination. The real problem here, is how to enforce things like no discrimination in the workplace, an idea that was brought up in class, and a problem that is difficult to solve.
As a student enrolled in Education 441 (Schools in
I propose that we should have a freedom of language. Everyone's language is important and it is unfair for companies and the government to provide documents only in the languages that the majority speaks. It is not fair when documents are being translated into Spanish while not for other languages such as German, French, Chinese, Vietnamese, etc. If they provide translations for one language then it should be done for every language. Why do the rest of us have to learn the language or have to forfeit our rights because we don't understand them while other ethnicities get to have their rights written in their language so they can understand?
I propose that women should have the freedom from the sexuality double
standard. In our society, women are discriminated, stereotyped and marginalized
because of their professions while men are praised for sexually exploiting
women.
As a society, we should make a conscious effort to erase stereotypes and
eliminate gender when relating it to sexuality.
This is mainly for female correctional facilities, but can be taken into account for male facilities as well.
In several female correctional facilities, the number of male officers outnumber female officers by three to one. Sexual misconduct by officers are enormously high - sexual misconduct meaning sexual intercourse, touching, inappropriate visual surveillance, and verbal degradation and harassment.
With this said, sexual misconduct within correctional facilities should be denounced, outlawed, and those who commit such crimes should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. There should be a revision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act which prohibits efficient acknowledgment of prisoners' rights by
1)the limitation of individuals and nongovernmental organizations to
challenge abusive prison conditions through litigation
2)the termination of any court order regarding unlawful conditions or practices
in a given prison after two years, which is often an unreasonably short time to
achieve any meaningful change in the way a prison is operated
3)the restriction of court-awarded attorneys' fees, which are the main income
for prisoner rights attorneys, and severely limits the authority of federal
courts to assign judicial officers to oversee prison reform, a key tool for
implementing remedial court orders.
Information on Sexual Abuse of Women in Correctional Facilities and the
Prison Litigation Reform Act can be found on the following link
http://hrw.org/english/docs/1996/12/07/usdom4164.htm
With regards to prisoners' rights, I believe that prisoners should have certain rights and programs. Several people who come out of prison are unable to find work, which is essential to the "American Dream". How can we expect a former drug dealer to keep away from his/her former life if they cannot find a job. Educational programs and programs that may help them find jobs when they are no longer incarcerated will only be beneficial if we expect a change.
I propose that there be more funding for Social Services in order to better
serve our children. Many children are taken out of there homes and sent to
Orphanages that do not provide them with enough individual emotional and
intellectual care. We need more funding to better the living situation of these
children. They need optimal medical and educational care. They should be able
to have the same opportunities as other children.
This funding should not only go to the facilities in which they stay but also
to the adoption process and advertising to get the community involved to help.
The adoption process takes a lot of time and money and although I believe it
should remain extensive, for the well-being of the child, we should find a way
to shorten this process and make it easier for children to find loving and
caring homes.
Children do not put themselves in unfortunate situations, so as a community there should be more involvement to improve the lives of children who do not have families to do so.
I propose more legislation on the rights of children regarding their wishes and desires in court matters involving them. In accordance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child, a child's voice and opinions should be heard in all judicial or court matters concerning them. This of course requires that the child be deemed at a level of maturity to voice their own beliefs. While children are often appointed representatives, often times even if they are old enough they are not allowed to play an active enough role in cases that directly involve them and their livelihood.
I agree with Miranda's statement because its not the child's fault that there are in the situation that they are in. Perhaps if the community stepped in then perhaps enough attention could be aroused to cause the nation to see the importance in create ways to improve the lives of children who do not have families. It sounds cliché but children really are the future and many of the values essential in molding some of the best people emerged from what they learned through their families (whether biological or adopted).
Although the Equal Pay for Equal Work Amendment was passed by the legislative branch a long time ago, it reflects poorly in society. No check on companies is conducted on how much they pay comparably or serious legal action taken for those who do not follow this law. I propose that there be a system in place where if any company is suspected to be in violation of this amendment, there be a punishment. For example, the company would have to share 10 percent of its profits in the year with its workers for a whole year.
I like the idea of a paid maternity leave, however, I am not sure about the government paying for it. I think that a good way to approach this might be through workers rights. I think that the federal government should enforce regulations on employers that give both women and men leave from work after having a child. Ultimately it would be the employer's responsibility to enact the regulations set forth by the government. I think that job security and continued pay are two major point sof importance. No woman or man should lose their job because they decide to have a child. They should feel free to take time from their job with a guarantee that they may return to that same position when they are ready. They should also have a certain amount of time that they will be paid their salary.
I believe that both women and men should be guaranteed time off of work after they have had a child. I believe, however, that there should be governmental regulations that make employers have to give this to their employees, and that it not be money directly from the government. I believe that both women and men should be able to take as much time as they wish after having child and be able to return to their same position, thus having job security. And I believe that both women and men should receive pay during at least part of that time. I think that this is more a workers rights issue, and therefore something for the government only to enforce but not subsidize.
I found Reine's comment on intersex individuals to be particularly important. I think this move away from the binary system of gender would greatly benefit our society, creating more equality (hopefully).
Furthermore, I think people should have the right to change their sex and gender if they choose. I think this should be covered within our new concept of healthcare, as it is a crucial component of an individual's health, mental and beyond.
I also find the prisoner discussion to be very interesting. I do not understand why the justice system continues to punish "ex-cons" by barring them from voting. Beyond this issue, however, i think the purpose of prisons and the prison industrial complex needs to be examined with more scrutiny. The laws that incarcerate certain demographic groups seem very biased, yet still exist. I think laws and our ideas of "punishment" and "retribution" need to change.
Building on Kate McIntyre's comment, I believe we should have specific rights for women regarding domestic violence and sexual assault. This of course, should be extended to all victims of domestic violence which includes men as well. Victims have very limited rights, especially when it comes to obtaining protective orders. I think that such individuals should be protected by just laws and feel safe to exercise these rights.
I agree with Kayla. Not being able to take maternity leave in the fear of losing your job or not receiving a paycheck, especially for single mothers, is very stressful. Providing mothers with paid maternity leave is a must. All new mothers should have the opportunity to stay home with newborns without having to worry about a loss of income.
Women in the business world are treated unequally compared to their men co-workers. Salary pay and compensation should be equal based on an employee’s ability and work. There should be an evaluation of how well each employee does and bonus, pay raise, and promotion should be based on these evaluation.
I think that women's rights should definitely be addressed in the constitution. Women should have the same rights to the same degree as men. This includes rights over their body.
I propose the law that children should be forced to stay in school until completion. Technology has made it difficult on the human society to receive common everyday jobs that was once offered. Its imperative in today's world to have a high school diploma in order to be competitive and survival techniques. Even secondary schooling is becoming more common and structural measures for competitiveness in the labor force.
I agree with Bria about consideration of farmers' rights in this country. It is becoming increasingly harder and less appealing to make a living as a farmer. It is hard labor, long hours, with little to show for it. Competition with large corporations of mass production is squelching the local farmer. We need to acknowledge how important these farmers are to the American future and address the grievances that are driving people away from farming, before there is no locally grown produce, no farmland, no honest laborers left in this country.
I think that there needs to be some sort of federal regulation of common law "marriages". Although some states currently do recognize common law, to my knowledge, there is no federal law about it. If we had a law about a legal agreement over common law relations (hetero or homosexual), for those who choose this path, many familial and economic problems would be easier to solve if the couple ever broke up. Problems often occur when there are children between the couple, and when the couple has large assets.
While I love the idea of paid maternity leave, I think that the issue roots deeper than simply giving women money. I think that if women are not paid for maternity leave, it could possibly be an infringement of their rights. We were just told in class how women have the same rights as men, therefore, is the root of this proposal really just insuring the rights that women already have? And, in addition, does this mean that men should have paid maternity leave after their wives have children so they can get acquainted with the new child? I just hope that if we add this amendment, we look at all the areas of it. While I think that it is a great idea, I also believe that we need to look closely at the rights of men as well as the root of this issue.
I believe children, from conception to age 18, should have the right to state-funded nutritious meals if a regular, quality food supply cannot be provided by the family alone. If a child qualifies for free or reduced meals at her public school, she should receive take-home packages to take home on weekends and breaks. This kind of preventative health program would reduce health care costs substantially, and improve the scholastic performance of low-income children.
Julia your idea is fantastic. Nutrition has become a huge problem in our nation and children, as well as, their parents need to be better informed about the impact of obesity and a healthy diet. Having the government pay the food for all children until the age of 18 seems a little unrealistic to me, although it would be helpful.
The children of the state, that have been abandoned or taken from their parents should most certainly be allotted nutritious meals everyday. Other children should ideally be cared for by their parents or guardians. This does pose a problem though. If a parent treats their child well, but only cannot provide them with adequate meals, what should the government do then? Maybe there should be a decrease in price for healthier foods or a governmental owned food supplier that can provide healthy food for a lower price.
I also propose that there should be free educational classes on proper nutrition and health for anyone that wants it, especially parents and children. I also propose there should be free financial advisors for those who cannot afford food, so that they can help them adjust their budget and determine whether or not their current occupation could sustain a healthy life for their children.
I agree with the post about maternity leave. Many of the problems in society are rooted not in denying rights, but in simply enforcing the rights we supposedly have. As far as maternity leave goes, the Family and Medical Leave Act sets a federal minimum standard for maternity leave and it does apply to fathers. However, only 11 states have similar statutes that go beyond just the minimum. We should work on enforcement as well as setting a better 'minimum' standard. Nonetheless, I can't help but think that the maternity leave law should focus not just on the time approaching a child's birth. Too many women face discrimination in the workplace when they become pregnant yet they face even more obstacles after the child is born when they have to change their work hours, etc. to care for the child. Overall, I agree that we need to look at the real meaning of EQUALITY on this issue (for men and women) and ENFORCEMENT, but at the same time, look even farther beyond the time limit we set on 'creating equality.'
I agree with Reine on her position of enforcing equality when it comes to maternity leave. While women in positions of power within the workplace so often have to choose between a job and a family, men are rarely ever faced with potential job insecurity for starting a family. Progressive welfare states in Europe have tackled this issue by passing laws requiring businesses to allow both men and women to take a leave of absence from work after a child is born, and also requiring businesses to allow people back into their same positions after their maternity or paternity leave. I think our stance on the issue should follow the example set by these states.
I also agree with enforcing equality and having both maternity and paternity leave. I also feel that these men and women should be entitled to a paid maternity/paternity leave. Having a child is costly and in many cases the family cannot afford for the mother and father to take paternity/maternity leave without pay.
I feel that there should be more programs focusing on helping children who
live in poverty. Ideally, nobody should go without food, shelter, or health
care, but I think the child poverty rate in the
I agree with Amanda. It is very important for the U.S to protect children and to provide them with a place to live and good food. I propose that there should be a law that says that every child in the U.S should be protected especially if they are poor. We can't just leave poor children in their current situation.
I propose that all individuals have the right to equal protection. Though
the
In regards to the maternity leave issue, I agree that women should be allowed a paid maternity leave and that the length of this leave should maybe even be extended. However, I don't think that men should be allowed to benefit from a paid maternity leave. Laws regarding maternity leave are aimed at minimizing the conflict between a women's career goals and family goals. Doesn't a career woman also have the right to be a family woman? Absolutely, but extending such a privilege to men is, in my opinion, ridiculous.
I have been recently introduced to the severity of the problems that the
countrymen of
I agree with earlier statements that it is important to discuss issues of racism, discrimination and prejudice. Often in this country people believe that these issues are no longer a problem and this is not the case. If we are open to discussing these issues, there is a chance for a better understanding of others of diverse backgrounds and eventually acceptance.
I agree with the nutritious meals idea. The food served in most public school cafeterias is awful in nutrition. There needs to be more emphasis on this as it is all part of prevention and teaching children about a healthy lifestyle. In the long term this would allow in a decrease in pressing problems like obesity and the health problems resulting from it. Vending machines should only dispense healthy snacks and there shouldn't be any sodas at schools. Healthy eating should also play a greater role in elementary school curriculum.
I agree with the nutritious meals idea. The food served in most public school cafeterias is awful in nutrition. There needs to be more emphasis on this as it is all part of prevention and teaching children about a healthy lifestyle. In the long term this would allow in a decrease in pressing problems like obesity and the health problems resulting from it. Vending machines should only dispense healthy snacks and there shouldn't be any sodas at schools. Healthy eating should also play a greater role in elementary school curriculum.
I agree with Kate that everyone should be able to come into and leave this
country as desired. A criminal background check, etc. would of course be
required, but if people are of no harm to the country and are here trying to
work, earn a living, and make a better life for themselves, then why not let
them? There are many issues in today's society regarding illegal immigrants,
especially from
In agreement with previous comments, I believe that children, especially those living in poverty or in poor neighborhoods, be given a chance to receive education and socialization before entering the school system. Our country should provide outreach programs for parents, teaching them the best way to prepare their children for school.
I would like to take Bernard’s comment a step further and propose the right
to individuals to have complete access to all news, and not what is
sensationalized to
I also agree that international border should be fluid. People should be allowed to travel where ever they want without being heckled and harassed. Yes since we are living in a age of terrorism, there is a need for heightened security however, there are already efficient security checkpoints in place. Allowing people to move freely across borders would undoubtedly unite people of different nations, cultures, and backgrounds as well as transfer language and customs and integrate.
I believe that everyone should have the right to vacation time. Working 6 or 7 day weeks is nonsense. In addition, working 5 days a week year round with no built in vacation time is recipe for disaster. All employers be should required to give their employees 15 days vacation and 15 sick days. No questions asked.
(is this economic or social?)
Getting back to Lauren's post on children and education I would have to say that I agree. But also we need to address the reasoning behind why some children, especially those of "lower class" families, are already 'behind' when entering the public school system. While outreach to parents would be beneficial, it's hard to have parents spending 1 on 1 time with children, focusing on reading and cognitive skills when the parents need to be at work in order to make ends meet. The economic horror behind this is that some mothers and fathers cannot afford to read to their kids at night, or prepare them in the way deemed fit for entering school. Most pre-schools cost a significant amount of money where I am from, and as a result parents opt out of this practice of social skills and learning styles prior to entering the public school system. In response to this I think there is a need for the provision of child care that addresses these issues (for example head start and read-early programs offered in some states) and provides not just physical attention and care to children but attempts to level the inequality of access to pre-education education. And maybe this is also a consequence of wage levels and the hours required to work in order to pay rent. Would mom and dad have more time at home if their jobs paid more and would thus work less? I'd be curious to see how this would play out.
Concerning Veronica's comment about fluid national borders. If I am misinterpreting you comment I apologize but how I understand what you are saying I have a problem with idea. Yes, I am in full support of individuals being able to travel- I think it is dreadful that countries are closed to people coming in and don't allow their own people out. However, I do not think we should have fluid borders. If we view a country like your house then you are not going to let just anybody into your home to roam around as he or she pleased. Instead you would at least greet them at the door, meet them, perhaps figure out if you have a mutual friend. This is not a ridiculous notion, but one that I think we would all accept. Similarly, I do not think it is wrong for a country to meet the people coming into their countries or making sure they know who they are sending out as a representative off their nation. I think the problem becomes when criteria becomes crazy, when people are excluded based on religion, race, or political party.
I understand that marriages are complicated issues to discuss in the constitution- whether they be same-sex or different-sex. While some couples choose to marry and enjoy the benefits provided by the law, others choose to not do so and decide to just live together. When people choose not to marry, they usually do so because they believe that everyone, not just people of two different sexes, should have that right. Or, sometimes, they are not prepared for the extent of that commitment. I suggest that every couple, regardless of what sex they are or how they define their relationship, have the right to all the benefits provided to married couples as long as they live together for at least five years.
I agree with Tejaswi's comments about marriage restrictions in the Constitution. Although, I would like to add the notion of modern marriage values compared to the marriage values of generations before and how it influences modern marriage values. In past generations, loyalty and commitment laid at the basis for successful legal marriages. The values of a marriage was taken more seriously in past generations. On the other hand, modern marriages tend to lack the loyalty value. Ultimately, I feel that modern marriages in our society represents a social status in which people seek more materialistic values. The divorce rate for marriages today is a lot higher than recent generations. More than half of modern marriages result in divorce. My question is this: How does marriage restrictions of the Constitution affect modern marriages values? What can be adjusted or change to accommodate for the modern era?
As I am now a part of the right to democracy discussion for the constitutional convention, I've been giving some thought to what the right to democracy actually entails. Though I am still dissecting the idea points of people's right to voice their opinions, their right to influence laws and the extent of their power in the control of a nation should be addressed.
I recently saw a story on CNN covering a law that would allow unpaid time
off for family related issues like having to go to a parent teacher conference
or taking a child to the doctor. The law would specify a certain amount unpaid
leave time that a person would be allowed for family time. I feel that this
ties into the maternity leave debate earlier in this blog.
Family is an important institution in the
I think that allowing prisoners to vote while serving their time is a very bad idea. When courts convict prisoners of crimes, they essentially conclude that wrongdoers have erred in their judgment. Do we want people with poor judgment (to the point that they receive prison time for it) determining who will run our local, state, or federal governments? I certainly don't. If a Presidential candidate appeared who promised pardons by executive order immediately upon entering the White House, prisoners could potentially swing the vote in the candidate's favor. Many other hypothetical situations exist that seem to make this conclusion pretty clear -- we should not allow prisoners to vote. We are suspending their rights to put them in prison, as well as their rights afterward (firearm ownership). Would many people encourage recidivist child molesters or rapists to provide childcare for their communities while in prison? No! Why in the world would we want them to vote with their existing history of poor judgment?
A serious healthcare debate is occurring following Bush's recent veto of the
State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) expansionary bill. Opponents
of the veto said Bush's decision endangers healthcare for millions of children
in the
Children should have an unconditional right to health care which cannot be
taken away by a sudden governmental veto.
I certainly agree with John that allowing prisoners to vote is ludicrous. Voting is not a right, it's a privilege that is not to be taken for granted. We are lucky we live in a democratic nation - we did not earn the privilege to vote, we simply were born in a country that allows us to. We must live our life with this in mind. This means we must respect the laws that our government has set forth; after all, the government is the entity that allows us to vote. Thus, when a citizen breaks a law, they are giving up the privilege to vote.
Of course, I believe that all citizens in any country deserve the right to vote by virtue that they are human and they should be able to express their opinions. But, if we want our government to respect our opinions (our votes), we must respect its laws.
What are everyone's thoughts on rights to language? Should there be an official national language? Is that just? What are the pros and cons to this?
My initial thoughts on the matter are that pros of a national language include quicker communication (by not translating it to multiple languages), more efficient paperwork (instead of having the same document provided in like 12 different languages and then having to sort through and organize all of that), and additionally I actually think that having a national language promotes community and identity among people (citizens). Cons of a national language include that some people will undoubtedly feel excluded, the time that must go into educating others on the national language of a country, and the potential loss of cultural diversity.
What are everyone else's thoughts?
I think that a national language would be good, but not necessary. What is more important would be equal opportunities to a proper education. If we provide people with the chance to learn the language, than all of the benefits you described would have happened. On the other hand, if someone chose not to participate in the language courses, that is their choice and freedom to do so, however, they should not expect people to cater to that fact. If you choose not to participate in something that is equally provided to all people, than in a way, you are excluding yourself. Basically, I think it is about equal education, for everyone, in every way.
Since we do not have a cultural rights blog, I'm proposing provisions for the preservation of cultural identity on this blog. Professor Blau said to focus on the area of cultural rights and how everyone has the right to one's inherited culture and inherited traditions. The UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity is an excellent source for ideas about how to express these rights in our Constitution in order to create a thriving, creative society. UNESCO declares, "As a source of exchange, innovation and creativity, cultural diversity is as necessary for humankind as biodiversity is for nature. In this sense, it is the common heritage of humanity and should be recognized and affirmed for the benefit of present and future generations." It goes on to say that cultural heritage is the "wellspring of creativity" because when different cultures combine in one society, ideas, development, and creativity flourish and "genuine dialogue between cultures" emerges. No human being is the same--we all have different beliefs, values, practices, morals, opinions, etc. We would never have achievement or originality if there were no differences between individuals and peoples--differences encourage new ways of thinking. To foster a creative, successful, vital society, cultural heritages and identities must be preserved and celebrated.
I was outraged by President Bush's veto of the Child Health Insurance Plan. I can't believe that his reasoning for the veto was because the plan would create incentive for people to abandon their plans with private insurance companies and switch to the government. It is very sad to see that corporations are more important than children and their welfare. Something needs to be done about this issue. We should always put people's rights before the welfare of corporations.
As far as prisoners and voting rights go, I agree that voting is a privilege and that by committing a crime and not following the laws that everyone must abide by, convicted felons have given up their privilege. However, many states have laws banning convicted criminals from voting even after they have served their time in prison. While I hold some doubts about the effectiveness of our prison system and its success in 'reforming' criminals, I can't help but think that forbidding the right to vote for life could be wrong. If they serve their time and remain law-abiding citizens for, say, a minimum number of years after they leave prison, couldn't it be said that they've earned back their right to vote? If they've become law-abiding citizens shouldn't they be given another chance and be entitled to the same rights as other citizens?
"In reality, the
I saw this article on bbc.com and the statistic was quite a surprise to me.
I would like to propose that when revising our constitution, there needs to be
a clause about job security and making sure that unemployment is targeted. So
many of our country's residents are actively looking for work, but for whatever
reason (i.e lack of proper education, citizenship,
familial obligations) they cannot secure a job. This should be one of the most
important issues to address in the constitution. In
In response to the post about cultural rights, I think that an article protecting the cultural rights of individuals is essential to maintaining and promoting a successful "melting pot" society and I propose that such an article to incorporated into our constitution. Culture, in itself, is essential to the inalienable right of human dignity in that it connects people with those around them, creating a sense of self-worth and connectedness. Because it is so closely associated with, and imperative to human dignity, an article protecting cultural rights is an absolute necessity. Further, because our society is becoming increasingly globalized, it is also important that we are able to understand and tolerate the many diverse cultures that act as its foundation. I agree with Liz's comments and propose that the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Rights be used as a framework for the cultural right article to our constitution.
All American citizens should have the right to take free English classes. We ARE a melting pot of cultures, but the main language spoken is English, and no one should be hindered because they don't know the language. Free English classes should be taught across the nation, so everyone has access to them. Not only should there be classes, but they should be available at night and on the weekends, so everyone has the ability to attend. If everyone learned how to communicate, companies would run smoother, social groups could interact more easily, and more things would get accomplished.
I have been thinking a lot about my article that i chose for the Constitutional Convention...about torture. I am going to try to frame torture as broadly as possible, so that many things not considered torture now will be defined as such. I will also be including the death penalty as a type of torture that must be eliminated.
I have been interested in the Invisible Children organization lately and I
believe it is really important to have the right to free will within the
confines of the law. This is broad, but by being open to interpretation hopefully,
it will protect citizens from others imposing on their liberties. The child
soldiering situation in
In regards to the post of language rights, I feel like the cons of an
official national language outweigh the pros. Granted, it may create a more
unified
I agree that healthy food choices should be assessable for all minors! But along with this idea I believe AFFORDABLE and healthy choices should be available to people of all ages. One of the reasons a larger percentage of the lower class population is overweight/obese is because healthy food choices are just not affordable in comparison to prepackaged/processed foods.
"Scientific American," recently published an article about how an increasing number of developing countries are struggling not with famine, but obesity and malnutrition.
We can not let cost be the deciding factor when it comes to health. Nutrition is essential.
I have recently been working with the issue of domestic violence and believe that there should be rights to victims of these abuses. I believe there should be affordable therapy and counseling services available to all people involved in these situations. Many times women and children of battered homes have lost the stability in their lives in terms of mental health, monetary resources and more. It is very difficult for these people to rebuild their lives and it should be our responsibility as a society to ensure that they are not victims to the justice system as well.
I agree that victims of domestic violence should have rights, but I would suggest measures that go beyond the right to affordable therapy and counseling. Many victims of domestic violence hesitate to seek help (of which there is already some available) because they fear the way society will view them. I believe this is especially true for people in and above the middle class as it is especially stigmatized to have domestic violence in those classes. Therefore I think that there should be the right for people, of all classes, to come forward as victims. This may be accomplished in such ways as educating society more on the rampant presence of domestic violence and what forms it can take.
While I was researching constitutions for the midterm, I came across a right that I found interesting. It was, the right of the family. Family is an important social institution, and it is where kids will gain most of their influence from. Thus, a family has a right to give their kids a good education, good jobs, a home with a yard to play in, a car, and anything else that is deemed necessary in order for kids to grow up in a nurturing family.
Today
I found Article 16 especially interesting. It concerned the right of people with disabilities to learn life and social development skills that foster full and equal participation in education and community. An excerpt:
"...In order to help ensure the realization of this right, States Parties shall take appropriate measures to employ teachers, including teachers with disabilities, who are qualified in sign language and/or Braille, and to train professionals and staff who work at all levels of education. Such training shall incorporate disability awareness and the use of appropriate augmentative and alternative modes, means and formats of communication, educational techniques and materials to support persons with disabilities.
...States Parties shall ensure that persons with disabilities are able to access general tertiary education, vocational training, adult education and lifelong learning without discrimination and on an equal basis with others. To this end, States Parties shall ensure that reasonable accommodation is provided to persons with disabilities."
I agree with Veronica and the right to family. I think to add on to that, children should be guaranteed a right to a stable and healthy family environment. Social services should be a priority since dangerous family environments often perpetuate social injustice by leading to crime and poverty.
This is in regard to the conversation on felon disenfranchisement and the idea of a Social Contract. Many use the excuse of a Social Contract and suggest that felons should loose the right to vote because they breeched their responsibilities to follow laws. One of the many problems with the latter idea is that voting IS NOT SUPPOSE TO BE A PRIVLEDGE according to the democratic ideals our nation hypocritically stuffs down the throats of foreign governments.
Fair elections are key to true Democratic principle; however an election in which willing citizens are denied the vote is not fair. A common example is the 2000 election in which thousands if not millions of democrats who were convicted of felons were disenfranchised. Many political scientists argue that Gore would have won presidency if disenfranchised democrats would have had the power to vote. In addition data (which I can offer if you are interested) indicate that the ratio of disenfranchised felons vs. those who have can vote, disproportionably weakens the black and Latino electorate.
Furthermore, disenfranchisement laws found in the constitutions of many states were decided during a time where race and class placed strong limitations on government consideration and participation of NON-represented groups. Even if you wanted to say that modern disenfranchisement is color blind one can not deny its history nor can we ignore the disproportionate rates at which blacks and Latinos are currently disenfranchised in comparison to any other race.
And on the issue of Healthy Food, have any of you noticed how much cheaper eating unhealthy is, or should I say how expensive eating healthy is?
In
Is this true for any of your hometowns? and Why is it that Public Health has not interested themselves in this matter?
This is NOT really a proposed right but more of a question:
I was watching Oprah yesterday and a doctor was stating that this generation of children will be the first in recorded human history that will have a shorter life span than their parents. Main reason for this, he says that 1/5 of children are overweight and this leads to other problems such as diabetes. He states that 35% of white children are at risk for diabetes, 40% of black children, and 50% of Latino children. Although the country could initiate programs and create campaigns that promote healthier living, what kind of programs would be most effective (i.e. more p.e. in schools, changing lunch programs in school, etc.)? Also, one of issue that the doctor mentioned on the show that really got me thinking is that while we can initiate programs and change policies, that the main factor behind any change concerning children are the parents. And how can make parents realize the importance of health and how allowing your children to live a certain lifestyle could be slowly taking years off their lives.
I propose that more structured after schooled programs, should be promoted not only for inner city kids, but also kids who are located in the rural areas of the country.
I was originally going to focus on religious freedom, but have been redirected by Professor Blau. Now the topic I am assigned to study is the Right to Peace and its place in our constitution. The two (religion and peace) are linked in that the desire, and movement toward peace is prevalent in most of the major world religions. The question is, how is peace to be defined? What is the role of the government in upholding said peace? I tentatively propose that the right to peace be seen as the right to live in a time of stability and security, as guaranteed by the national government (reminder that we are dealing with what could be, and not the land of feasibility. This peace would also be an economic right in that war would not threaten commerce or business, and a social right in combating the negative effects of war on the victims. Let me know your thoughts so we can brainstorm through this together...
I propose that all there should be free centers for children in early childhood, where children can get intellectual stimulation. Pre-school center should be a part of the public school system. In some places they are, but not all. Early childhood is an important time for children to develop and poorer communities cannot afford books and educational toys.
All American Citizens should have the right to affordable, livable housing. No one should have to live in dirty or unsafe conditions. Additionally adequate space must be provided for large families.
All American Citizens should have the right to affordable, livable housing. No one should have to live in dirty or unsafe conditions. Additionally adequate space must be provided for large families.
As I have gotten more involved with SAF, the APPLES project I am on, I have become more keenly aware of how easy it is to exploit and abuse workers who rights are not protected by our constitution. It is called the Guestworker Program; we ask them to come here to work, yet we do not treat them like guests at all. Money has such power in today's society, that employers think they can do anything they want and the workers will still work because they need the money. The government needs to keep this power in check to insure humane working conditions for even our guests.
I agree with housing rights that everyone should have the right to adequate housing and the government should help citizens realize this right. This should also extend to no one being evicted from their house without considering relevant circumstances.
Matt, I agree that this is a serious problem. People are taken advantage of because they have no other choice, but to keep their jobs in order to feed themselves or their family. Could you tell me more about the Guestworker Program?
A maternity leave for women is a good idea. In
I really, really like Kayla Johnston’s proposition about maternity leave. I completely agree with all of the points that she brings up. However, there is something I would like to add to it. What about paternity leave? Shouldn’t fathers have the same rights, abilities, privileges, and dare I say it even obligations when it comes to having children? So instead of it being specifically maternity leave, I think it should be open/available to both sexes.
In response to Danielle Lucas's post, I agree that programs should be implemented to encourage healthier living but I think it would have to involve a lot of restructuring as far as how our society thinks. In addition to focusing on schools, etc., for children, it's important to educate parents about the effects of childhood obesity, etc. I think that a lot of the problem stems from merely an absence of knowledge on such a topic. Some of us take for granted that we learn healthy living in our schools and are raised a certain way so its important for society to focus on the parents and making sure they have resource and knowledge available to them. At the same, (in an absolute ideal world), toy manufacturers and other entities whose 'technologies' have allowed them to develop new and improved products making every little thing easier for Americans, would focus on promoting a healthy lifestyle, and not one based on being lazy and seeing how little activity we can do.
I propose that children should get free daycare when they are little because it would allow all little children to get the same basic care and beginning education so that they wont fall behind when they start school.