When did China establish and pass their one child per household poilcy law?
I think that was just after WW2.
Should America enact a "One Child Only" law like China?
No, I don't believe so. Not only does it fly in the face of the entire concept of reproductive rights (that you, and only you, have the right to decide when, how, and with whom to reproduce), but it also financially penalizes folks who experience unplanned or unexpected pregnancy (who, in the U.S., are already often poor and experiencing unplanned pregnancy due to lack of access to resources). The best way a nation can control its population while still respecting reproductive rights is to give your citizens access to family planning resources, and to work towards gender equality (and, in some cases, secularism). The more equality women have (i.e. the more they are seen as having worth beyond simply bearing children, the more they are able to participate outside the home, being able to pursue education and careers), the more likely they are to postpone motherhood and limit the size of their families. There is a huge unmet need for contraception in the developing world- increasing access to contraception, family planning, voluntary sterilization, abortion services, and sexual education all help to stop overpopulation. Hope that helps!
List of American laws that need to be changed?
Although i dont see this often, I feel as if the Female Genital Mutilation bill should be made gender neutral For the reason that states in the 14th admenment that laws cant be gender or racially seperated, as a circumcised male i feel as the FGM law should be made to give men equal protection when they lack the protection from intentionally misinformed parents. I also agree that Stem cell research should be unchained completly, however when it comes to Teaching religion in a personal private school setting I dont think thats a good idea, Im not christian or Muslim but i am skeptical of an existence beyond our own. And i feel like prohibiting religious texts in private schools is radical to an extent, however prohibiting religous text in a public school setting I feel that would be okay since parents do have the option to take their kids to private schools.I also feel the NSA should be given Strict limitations when it comes to spying for the reason that NO ONE HAS BEEN CAUGHT BY NSA SURVEILLANCE. Its honestly stupid and for all we know, it could be a lie.
Should America have a one child policy?
As a second-generation Chinese American who has seen first-hand the results of the one-child policy in PR China, I think this is definitely a good idea. You see, when you have a population that has 40 million more men then women because of sex-selective abortion, that's just shows how amazing the policy is. You females (such as "✖CRiZCRosZsTicHez✖", nice name btw) who like this idea would certainly enjoy the resulting gender ratio... except that everybody becomes a spoiled brat, because parents value their children more (too much) and they are sheltered from the real world. /sarcasm And Foxx (what, was one "x" not enough for you?) and Roe, how is this a liberal policy? "Republican Boy" might want to know that Mao was not a Marxist, and the One Child Policy was started under Deng Xiaoping, who was a goddamned reformist. You guys really need to get your different forms of Communism straight. Oh yeah. Regarding this being a "liberal" policy. You know, everybody labels everything bad as the same thing. If you're a Republican, socialist and terrorist are the same thing, right? Soviet Russia looked at the US lynching blacks and said "See how uncivilized they are?" How is a one-child policy a "liberal" policy? If anything its a conservative policy, because conservatives don't give a **** about the poor and want them to die off. You see what I did there? And, of course we should tighten the "boarders" (good job Samantha) so that one child won't have to feed a family of ten illegals. (way to be racist Roe, Mexicans have a lot of kids?) And Roe also seems to think that Obama brings in "millions of illegals", as if he personally guides them to the United States. Because if you are born in a crappy country and are brilliant, you still can't go to a better country to make a better life. I guess your "my ancestors came here on the freaking Mayflower and my family has been here for forever" mentality doesn't show much empathy to other peoples... oh wait. TL;DR: No.
Do you think America should adopt a one child policy? like in China?
THIS IS NOT COMMUNIST CHINA!!! If you love Communist China and their ideas so much why don't you move there? “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children what it was once like in the United States when men were free.” President Ronald Reagan 40th President of the United States of America 1981 - 1989
America still has archaic laws on the books. So should we start shooting police officers for arresting us if we are not doing anything wrong?
Believe it or not, there is strong legal precedent for this. For example, in Georgia, we have Mullis v. State, 196 Ga. 569, 27 S.E.2d 91, 98 (1943), in which the court ruled that: “Where an arrest is not lawful, the person sought to be so arrested, contrary to his right if the arrest had been lawful, has the right to resist, and in doing so has a right to resist force with force proportionate to that being used in unlawfully detaining him.” So, if the cop brings a gun to arrest you and you're doing nothing wrong, you're legally justified in using a gun in self-defense (in Georgia anyway). The problem is that the laws don't actually matter. All that matters is what the state decides to do about it. You pull the gun on the cop, and you'll get killed. If you don't get killed, the DA will charge you with murder, because he doesn't care about defending your rights, and the jury will convict you, because they also don't care about your rights and are too ignorant to know them. If you're lucky, you'll get out of prison after about 5 years when an appeals court finally gets around to considering your case. But you probably wouldn't be so lucky. Unfortunately, so many innocent activities have been criminalized that almost anything can be claimed to justify an arrest. Officers have claimed a right to kick doors down because the sound of a toilet flushing might have been someone disposing of contraband, for example. And the courts have ruled that a police officer only needs "arguable probable cause" to make an arrest. So basically, if anyone can make up anything approaching a bullshit reason that you might have looked like you were breaking the law at the time, then you'll be cast as resisting a lawful arrest rather than repelling a kidnapper. That's not how the law is supposed to work, but, well, "All animals are equal - some more equal than others." So, if the cop breaks up your marital bliss and you fight back, best-case scenario is that you spend five years in prison after a stint as a fugitive. Worst case is that you go into solitary confinement for a few decades while you await the death penalty. It would be easier to just wait the five years out and get married to that girl when she's a little older, you know?
Should America Adopt China's One Child Policy?
No.Even China is beginning to relax its One Child policy. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2010-... Within the Western mindset that there are resources and plenty of space available to support steady population growth, one may find it difficult to understand the major social problem facing modern China. Surely, for decades we have been concerned about "over-population". However, China (and India) is already on the other side of the curve. The question facing these modern nations is: How should a nation go about REDUCING its population without negatively impacting Human Rights? Suggested viewing: the movie "Soylent Green" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Gre...
What does it mean to establish justice?
A couple things to consider before you can get to the concept of establishing justice. Remember, that the preamble to Constitution actually carries no weight in law. It is a statement of intent and expected outcome. With that said I will be looking at two primary sources in preparing this answer. The Court has read the preamble as bearing witness to the fact that the Constitution emanated from the people and was not the act of sovereign and independent States, McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 403 (1819) Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419, 471 (1793); Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304, 324 (1816). The Court has also said that the phrases of the Preamble are made for, and is binding only in, the United States of America. Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 251 (1901); In re Ross, 140 U.S. 453, 464 (1891). - The preamble is made up of two approaches to the establishment of the law. The first of these would be a prescriptive approach, meaning that in the context of the words chosen there is an obligation on the government to act according to the words chosen. And the second approach is that the language is restrictive, meaning that it takes away power or authority from the government. Each of these, as intended using the concepts of the day, are said to be an extension of the social contract; i.e., if the power rest with the people in that they surrender only enough power for the government to operate and achieve the goals within the document. But suppose the terms of a given power admit of two constructions, the one more restrictive, the other more liberal, and each of them is consistent with the words, but is, and ought to be, governed by the intent of the power; if one could promote and the other defeat the common defence, ought not the former, upon the soundest principles of interpretation, to be adopted?'' See, J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (Boston: 1833), 462. For a lengthy exegesis of the preamble phrase by phrase, see M. Adler & W. Gorman, The American Testament (New York: 1975), 63-118.
Can a child who is born in America to foreign parents have more than 1 passport?
Yes. A former colleague was born in the US to Norwegian parents, he held both passports.The official Norwegian line is that one should have one citizenship only, though with numerous exceptions for those who haven’t actively sought out their non-Norwegian citizenship, for example those who have received their American citizenship through being born there. Those who naturalize as adults, of their own free will, lose their Norwegian citizenship.At least one country also automatically bestows citizenship on people marrying their citizens, this is tolerated by Norway since it is automatic rather than applied for, and another country requires their citizens to pay a huge sum to be released from their citizenship, Norway allows these to keep their old citizenship when naturalizing as Norwegians, as Norway disapproves of the extortionate practice of that other country the citizen has fled from.
Should the law allow prenuptial agreements to establish who will get custody of the kids if the couple divorces?
I don’t think soIf I understand correctly (and I may not, I am not a lawyer)But I think that a judge can set aside a prenup if he finds that the terms are egregiously unjust - like one party agreeing that, “in the event of a divorce, I will never ever even go on a date with anyone else, and should I make any money, I will give it all to my ex. In addition, I will show up at my ex-husbands house every Saturday night to have sex with him.” -A judge can throw that out.In the same way, a prenup would almost certainly be agreed to without the presence of the conflict that lead to the divorce. Child custody is not about what would be best for each of the parents, the parties to the prenup, (like who gets custody of the boat) but are instead about the best interests of the children. That will be very different than it would have been at the time the document was signed.