@Green Witch,
Green Witch wrote:
aperson, Should an 8 year old be allowed to vote,
join the army,
buy alcohol,
drive a car,
have sex,
enter into a legal contract?
I think not.
They do not have the judgement to do so.
It's not just a matter of knowing right from wrong,
it's the deeper issue of having the mental judgement to know
how these things will effect your life. An 8 year old does not
understand what the final consequences of shooting someone can be.
This part of brain development is fairly well documented
and it's what will probably lead to him being tried as a minor.
Here r my observations qua these questions:
IF kids r prevented from voting,
then thay r not part of the polity,
and have
a good moral argument that its laws do not apply
to them and that (as to them) society and its instruments of force
have
only the authority of a schoolyard bully: none.
The Founders declared independence because of taxation
without representation, in addition to other harassing laws
passed by the English Parliament, for which thay coud not vote;
thay found that unacceptable. The precedent of principle
was established. Morally, kids and any citizen who is expected
to obay the law has a right to vote.
I doubt that the US Army woud esteem the services of an 8 year old
enuf to accept him onto its payroll, but historically, English fathers
sold or gave 8 year old boys to the Royal Army and Navy.
Thay served; sometimes for a lifetime.
I don 't believe that drinking alcohol is wise,
(I did not begin to drink until over age 37)
but government was
not created to interfere
in such
personal decisions as to what the citizens
(its owners and its masters) will ingest.
It does so only by
USURPATION of power.
In PLANNED PARENTHOOD v. CASEY (1992) 112 S.Ct. 2791 (P. 2805)
the US Supreme Court declares that:
"...by the express provisions of the first eight amendments to the Constitution"
rights were "guaranteed to THE INDIVIDUAL... It is a promise of the Constitution
that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter."
[emphasis added by David]
The Court also adopted the Harlan dissent in POE v. ULLMAN 367 US 497 that:
"...'liberty' is not a series of isolated points...in terms of the taking of property;
the freedom of speech, press and religion; the RIGHT TO KEEP and BEAR ARMS;
the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures....
It is a rational continuum which...includes a freedom from all
arbitrary impositions ..."[all emphasis added by David]
The USSC goes on to say, concerning reproductive autonomy
in particular, but also stating the principles generally:
" Our law affords constitutional protection to PERSONAL DECISIONS....
Our cases recognize 'the right of the individual ...
to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion
into matters ... fundamentally affecting a person'...
These matters involving the most intimate and
PERSONAL CHOICES a person may make in a lifetime, choices
central to PERSONAL DIGNITY and AUTONOMY,
are central to the liberty protected by the 14th Amendment." (P. 2807)
[all emphasis added by David]
I deny that government was ever granted jurisdiction
to interfere with a decision by any of its citizens
qua what he will ingest, including any drugs.
That is a personal decision.
Qua driving a car:
all citizens and any citizen owns the public roads
and has a right to use them, enjoying equal protection of the law.
If competent tests proved that people below or above
a particular age are unable to safely drive cars
(as the blind or paralyzed cannot drive cars) then,
in defense of the other citizens, law can prohibit them from
doing so, but before that is proven, government has no basis
upon which to prohibit and is only arbitrary n capricious in doing so,
and in violation of its duty to render equal protection of the laws.
If an 8 year old decides to have sex,
he is not likely concerned about its legal aspects;
he is not likely to make an appointment to take counsel
of his lawyer on that subject.
He is more likely to make an appointment with his girlfriend.
Qua contracts:
there is no legal interference with his entering into a contract,
but some contracts are voidable on his part. That fact might
drive people with whom he might contract to discriminate
against him, fearing an imbalance, as to an escape clause.
Green Witch wrote:
Quote:
It's not just a matter of knowing right from wrong,
it's the deeper issue of having the mental judgement to know
how these things will effect [sic] your life.
Well, by
THIS criterion,
WHO among us can be tried as an adult ?
How old was Ted Kennedy when he got thrown out of Harvard
for cheating ?
How old was Clinton when he got close to Monica and got impeached ?
Quote:An 8 year old does not understand what the final consequences
of shooting someone can be.
That allegation is in dispute.
David