So, in your view a federal law needs to be enacted granting a younger age of consent? That would be the only way I can see to actually allow a person under 18 to have the right to defy their parent's wishes in terms of placement.
That, though, could lead to a world of problems. Not the least of which would be deciding when a kid can actually make rational decisions for themselves. When I was sent away, would I have checked myself into a center or not? Probably not. Did I need some help. Probably.
I think the age of consent needs to be lowered, personally- within certain contstraints of course. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. Defying parents if they are irrational is not a bad thing... each person needs to be asses differently. I'm against institutionalization period, unless the person is a threat.
I agree with Charley on this one. - you say, would i have checked myself in and respond 'no'...well, at a certain point you have some rational sense, talking would have helped... but no one changes by force... and if they do, it's only superficial until the external regimine is removed.
http://cafety.org/index.php?option=com_ ... &Itemid=35
I don't have enough information to say whether the age of consent should be lowered or not. I do think that would be much more difficult to persuade people of, than regulating the industry as a whole. Although I've heard Washington State does have a good model for age of consent (something like 14?)... So it might be worth checking out. But on a federal level, that might be a very hard proposition to pass.
And as for forced therapy. Obviously that doesn't work. But I do believe there is a need to seperate people who are dangers to themselves (in reality, not the alleged 'he will die otherwise' crap), and those who are physically addicted to substances. They need separation for a time so that they may regain some "free will" and not "addicted will"...
Federal would interfere with state sovrienty, as I understand it this would not happen... but a state to state effort to that end wouldn't be a bad idea, IMHO...
Although, maybe there's hope- I have zero working knowledge of the law, this is pure speculation...
The argument that Congress exceeded its power under the Fourteenth Amendment(2) when it enacted Title II of the ADA is based on the case of City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997).(3) In that case, the Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment gives Congress the power to enact civil rights statues only if (a) the statute is designed to remedy a history of unconstitutional conduct and (2) the remedy contained in the statute ? for example, requiring states to make reasonable accommodations ? is "proportionate" to the history of constitutional violations.(4)
Relying on City of Boerne, states have argued that Title II is not designed to remedy a record of unconstitutional discrimination by states against people with disabilities. The opponents argue that there is no such history, despite Congressional findings to the contrary. According to the opponents, there may have been discrimination, but the discrimination did not violate the constitution or was not widespread. Moreover, the opponents say, even if there was a record of unconstitutional discrimination, the ADA is not a "proportionate" response. Congress "went overboard" and imposed obligations on states that are "excessive."
Opponents acknowledge that, when Congress legislates to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment, it can outlaw conduct that is not itself unconstitutional and impose requirements not contained in the constitution itself. However, they note, Congress can do so only in limited circumstances. Congress can "prohibit a somewhat broader swath of conduct" than that prohibited by the constitution, but only for the purpose of remedying or deterring unconstitutional conduct.(5)
http://www.bazelon.org/issues/disabilit ... tmemo.html
