One-Child Policy and the Consitution?
539455
Aside from the fact it would never get passed, there are all kinds of Due Processes of Law that it would contradict. The country was founded on the basis of many freedoms and the right to pursue happiness.
1064605
Anchor babies are citizens and are treated as so. The parents aren't being deported so be realistic. The laws that are past aren't going to reap apart families.
1097770
there a single policy party. no way . do they care about my pension, school, disabled, hospitals. tax. Ask these questions. if the answers you find are indeed the answers you want out of this country then go with what you want. My answer would be no.
1157033
I've tried taking an online version and I can get about half of the answers correct. To be honest, the ones that stump me are usually related to the line of sucession past the President and Vice-President, and the Amendments *after* the first 14. \n\nCould my kids pass? Well.... they're 8 and 6. Most of this hasn't been discussed yet.
269369
Universal child care for sure.  Something reasonable.  What is being proposed now ...this $100 per month for preschool children does nothing but put in jepordy the daycare subsidy I currently have.  Believe me if I loose that then childcare is going to cost me WAY more than $100 per month.  And what do I do about my child who is over the age of 5...he still needs care.  I would put into place a system where parents could choose the type of care that was best...even if it ment one parent staying at home.\n\nBilingualism is another thing I would want to look at...I mean really is it necessary to have bilingual services in a small town that is mostly unilingual?\n\nThe bigeset change I would make is I would have the government actually sit in the house and govern.  Right now it seems that they're off more than they're working. (I believe they have almost a month off for Easter then back then the summer break).
570752
I think that it should only be given to citizens and i also think that they should put a limit on how many children a person can have if they don't work or don't make enough $. i ain't rich and i have 3 kids and don't get any welfare.how come others can work to support there family?!
246701
No. The problem was caused by the overreaching governments in the first place.\n\nIn those increasingly rare homes with two biological parents, both usually need to work; one to earn a living; the second to pay the family's tax liabilities.\n\nIn some homes with one parent, the "government" has allowed itself to become the replacement second parent. They disregard the fact that parenting requires two people committed to raising children, not just a monthly check.\n\nThe "government" has made divorce something easier to do than boarding an airliner. Little, if any, consideration was given by the courts and legislators to the effects of divorce on child-rearing.\n \nNational Service would magnify the increasingly popular notion that a child's parents are a disposable entity...”it takes a village,” and all.\n\nThe legal and religious institutions of marriage and parenting were created for a reason. Many have forgotten those original reasons and now view marriage and child rearing as a means solely to access employer benefits and tax privileges.
737455
A Great idea, but difficult to enforce.  We would end up finding a lot of babies in trash cans and in orphanages because people who could not afford to breed in the first place and were too lame to use birth control would dispose of their babies to avoid the tax.\nSad, but true.
833576
most if not all do and one child needs to be at least 13 14 or it is considered neglect
935265
Yes "One man -- One Vote" it is the way our forefathers wanted.  But they create also the electoral college to decide the president that isn't prefect.
906629
The Consttitution states all states are guaranteed a seat in the House.  After that, it is based on population.
739623
That "law" should have been abolished decades ago.  A baby should only be a citizen if it is born of two citizens.  If our government would stop giving illegals all these incentives to come here they would stop coming.  No more birth rights, no free health care, no food stamps, no welfare, no jobs.  Without these incentives they would stop coming!
723787
I am afraid I do not surf the net enough to have a link for you, however one party ruling is just that "ruling" there is no checks and balances. This means that they do whatever they want and no one can tell them no. They could make it illegal for you to pee and there would be no one else there to say you can't do that!
1170730
section one says that all people born in the US  are automatically citizens (even if their parents are citizens of another country, or illegally in the US).  More importantly, this section holds the equal protection clause, which ensures that in the eyes of the law, that no person can be treated better or worse then another.  Its kind of like saying that justice is blind, and that everyone will be treated with the same justice.\nsection two says that congressmen's districts will be chosen by evenly dividing the state into districts of similar populations (number of people).\nsection three says that no government employees can participate in a rebellion (in this case the civil war), and that congress may remove the said person with a 2/3rds vote from each house.\nsection four says that the US government isnt going to cover any debts incurred as part of the Civil War. (in other words, the slave owners wont be compensated for their losses of land and labor because of the war.)\nsection five clarifies that congress can make any law helping in administering the 14th amendment
637211
As many as you can stand giving birth to. Other than that. If it's for a "day care" I tihnk it's about six, but I'd check with your local laws to make sure. ALso, your house might need to pass some kind of inspection, if you're going to do it legally.
1091845
Based purely on legal terms of course the government can allow what ever they want,  and of course they could write limitations on it now, but of course over time, that limit would and could be challenged, just as gays are challenging the man/women standard now.\n\nI would not even be as upset, if the issue went to voters, or was even passed by the state law makers,  it is when the few places it is being ruled on and forced by one man ( a judge)\n\nAnd of course the government can make legal man/boy ( which already has a lobby group)  or poligimy ( and I don't know why there is not a lobby for that)  And yes siblings ( even studies of late showing there is not as much birth defect concern as once thought ( and why are we even studying this)
608258
Things get done quickly and relatively efficiently without the need to vote on things.  Since all of the power is with one person, if the one person is good, then things will be very good.  Of course, there's the downside if the one person isn't that great.