It is often asked why doesn't the Congress and the President do what's good for the American people. Why don't they stop all the party bickering and party line contention and get together and do good things.
Of course what they really mean is why don't they all agree to do what their particular political party, and some cases just a group within one of the parties, in the Congress wants.
The answer is quite simple really. At least when you think about it. The fault is in our type of government as detailed in the Constitution.
The members of Congress do not owe their allegiance to the American People nor to the country. They say they do, but in reality they don't. The members of Congress and even the President owes their allegiances to their own constituencies. Each Congressman and Senator holds their office because of the backing of some set of groups that have an agenda. Some of these groups represent huge money and others significant voting blocks. Many different groups, districts and States have different circumstances, desires and motivations for what they want out of the federal government and intense lobbying groups with deep pockets that are willing to finance the extraordinarily expensive campaigns necessary to be elected to office. The labor unions, especially the very strong and powerful public employee unions have a fat purse and a big stake in who sits in congress. As does manufacturing and small business. The people who are the recipients of government programs of all types (there are almost too many count) represent a significant voting block for any aspiring or current member of Congress.
So each Congressman and Senator represents the group that got them into office. And that folks, is the way the system is set up and works. You say, what's wrong with that? Well, in some cases nothing. It results in the Congress representing somewhere between 1/3 to 1/2 of the citizens of this country. The ones who take the trouble to vote. Although surveys have shown that over 50 percent of the voters don't really understand what or who they are voting for most of the time. (The others should just take what's handed to them I guess, they really don't have a beef).
But, what if something needs to be done for the good of the country that isn't popular with the public employee unions, the people on Social Security, the people on welfare, all the people on the various entitlement programs funded by the government or even with the public at large. In that case the Congress is very loath to tackle the problem in any meaningful way and suffer the outrage of their constituencies. Adding to all of this is that the Congress, led by the Democrats, have added entitlement programs to the federal trough at an astounding rate, putting more voters out there that would resist reductions in those programs.
There has been several bi-partisan super committees established by the Congress over the last years tasked to study and make recommendations on many far reaching problems facing our nation. Congress just set a new one to study how to avoid the coming confrontation over the debt ceiling that's coming up in January. They spend months holding meetings doing research and finally publishing a report detailing the recommendations for future actions to solve the problem they were tasks to study. And then the report is ignored. The escalating federal debt, the soon to be insolvent Social Security Program, the huge pension liabilities for public employees, the dependence on foreign oil, the huge trade imbalance with other nations, and on and on have been studied by these super-committees. Why are they ignored you ask? Because the solutions always mean that some powerful group or groups, at a minimum, will have to take less of bite out of the federal trough. Sometimes the best solution for the country is an even a more bitter pill to swallow. The problem is, and it's real, that for a Congressman or Senator to vote for the changes contained in the recommendations would likely by political suicide. At least that's a risk they're unwilling to take. Even though they know full well that the path outlined by the report is the best thing for America, they just don't have the death wish to go against a large block of voters that make up their own constituencies.
So why don't our elected officials do what's best for the country? The answer, is again, because that's not the way the system is set up and works. And, I see not change in the future.
Sorry folks it's what we've got and we're stuck with it. If you want to make a difference you have to be part of some powerful group that can have an effect on the election of some Congressman or Senator.
Wednesday, December 4, 2013
Saturday, November 23, 2013
The Constitution of the USA
Let's talk about our Constitution. What Constitution you ask. The one written by our founding fathers on a few sheets of paper along with it's Amendments and easily understood by almost anybody, or the one that really exists as a result of a myriad of court decisions down through the years and only understood by lawyers who specialize in Constitutional Law and even disagree among themselves. This one would fill volumes and would take days to read thoroughly. And, by the time you finished it would be changed again. Not by constitutional amendment but by the courts.
We have discovered "rights" in the constitution that would mystify Madison and the original signers. We have also discovered that the federal government has a lot more power than we could glean from reading the archaic piece of paper called the Constitution.
The US Constitution is very specific in the powers given to the federal government. Somehow the power to regulate interstate commerce clause in the constitution has been interpreted to encompass almost anything the congress wants to ram through. And, if not congress then the Supreme Courts have had their say in deciding that the written document doesn't really mean what it says. The Tenth Amendment might as well not exist at all.
The Supreme Court has become a political institution where the qualifications for appointment and confirmation is very much dependent on the appointees position on a few touchstone issues. Chief amount them seems to be the position on abortion (at least at the moment). A liberal wing of the Senate wants the candidate to be for it and the social conservative wing of the Senate wants the candidate to be against it, otherwise no confirmation. The candidates history in the field of law and knowledge of the constitution seems to have no bearing as long as they have the right political beliefs.
It is easy to see the political biases of the justices on the court as so many rulings come down as five to four with each members vote along party lines. If the conservative, read Republican, members are the majority then the ruling is likely to be more in line with the constitutional constraints. But, not always. We get fooled every now and then. Witness the recent ruling on Obamacare, where it was found the penalty for not buying health insurance was a tax and therefore constitutional. Strange stretch of logic there. And this from a staunch conservative, or so we thought.
If the original Constitution had been written by Harvard and Yale graduate lawyers it would likely take two large volumes, or more, and be so filled with legalisms that hardly anybody could understand, not even other lawyers. The people who wrote the actual Constitution wrote in pretty plain language and almost anybody can understand it. Except lawyers of course, but they're a different breed.
Down through the years the courts have made some rather strange decisions, not all of them overturned by later courts. The Dredd-Scott decision is one of them, which overturned a State court decision and strengthened the case for the slave States to regain control of former slaves that now lived in non-slave states. That really wasn't corrected until 13th and 14th Amendment. In the 1896 case of Plessy v. Ferguson it was held that segregation in the schools, buses, and other facilities was perfectly OK. Separate but Equal. Of course there was only separation, not equality in the schools. In 1890 and confirmed in 1922 the Supreme Court decided that Baseball, and by extension all professional sports, did not fall under the Sherman Antitrust laws and the Reserve Clause was valid. This allowed baseball owners to, in a real sense, enslave the players. This was overturned in 1975 after a long legal battle and two dismissals by the Court of earlier suits brought by Curt Flood of the Cardinals. This and some other rather strange decisions by the court have been overturned by later actions.
The court really does seem to reflect the times more often than not. It isn't likely that the Johnson civil rights laws would have been enacted in an earlier time, but if enacted the the courts would have leaned on precedence from earlier decisions and would have upheld the state challenges. That didn't happen of course. The mood of the country had changed, mainly due to the TV coverage of what was happening in the south during the riots that were occurring at the time in defiance of the segregation laws.
Let's for just a moment review just what the archaic piece of paper, the Constitution, actually spells out. I know that this will be boring for those folks that already have read and understand the Constitution, but for the few that haven't, I will try to give a Crip- Notes version as follows:
First let's discuss the basic constitution without the amendments.
The basic document is written as 7 articles with sections under each article expanding on the articles intent.
Article I -Lays out the structure of the legislative branch of the new government
Amendment 9- States that the rights granted by this Constitution shall be not construed to deny other rights retained by the people. (This is a strange one. It implies that there are certain inalienable rights not contained in the Constitution that shall not be infringed. One can think of a lot of discovered "Rights" that the founding fathers never thought of that would fall under this banner, and that Congress shall not pass laws prohibiting those
"Rights". This where the courts get involved, big time. But, it doesn't give Congress the leeway to "discover" these rights and enact them into law.)
We have discovered "rights" in the constitution that would mystify Madison and the original signers. We have also discovered that the federal government has a lot more power than we could glean from reading the archaic piece of paper called the Constitution.
The US Constitution is very specific in the powers given to the federal government. Somehow the power to regulate interstate commerce clause in the constitution has been interpreted to encompass almost anything the congress wants to ram through. And, if not congress then the Supreme Courts have had their say in deciding that the written document doesn't really mean what it says. The Tenth Amendment might as well not exist at all.
The Supreme Court has become a political institution where the qualifications for appointment and confirmation is very much dependent on the appointees position on a few touchstone issues. Chief amount them seems to be the position on abortion (at least at the moment). A liberal wing of the Senate wants the candidate to be for it and the social conservative wing of the Senate wants the candidate to be against it, otherwise no confirmation. The candidates history in the field of law and knowledge of the constitution seems to have no bearing as long as they have the right political beliefs.
It is easy to see the political biases of the justices on the court as so many rulings come down as five to four with each members vote along party lines. If the conservative, read Republican, members are the majority then the ruling is likely to be more in line with the constitutional constraints. But, not always. We get fooled every now and then. Witness the recent ruling on Obamacare, where it was found the penalty for not buying health insurance was a tax and therefore constitutional. Strange stretch of logic there. And this from a staunch conservative, or so we thought.
If the original Constitution had been written by Harvard and Yale graduate lawyers it would likely take two large volumes, or more, and be so filled with legalisms that hardly anybody could understand, not even other lawyers. The people who wrote the actual Constitution wrote in pretty plain language and almost anybody can understand it. Except lawyers of course, but they're a different breed.
Down through the years the courts have made some rather strange decisions, not all of them overturned by later courts. The Dredd-Scott decision is one of them, which overturned a State court decision and strengthened the case for the slave States to regain control of former slaves that now lived in non-slave states. That really wasn't corrected until 13th and 14th Amendment. In the 1896 case of Plessy v. Ferguson it was held that segregation in the schools, buses, and other facilities was perfectly OK. Separate but Equal. Of course there was only separation, not equality in the schools. In 1890 and confirmed in 1922 the Supreme Court decided that Baseball, and by extension all professional sports, did not fall under the Sherman Antitrust laws and the Reserve Clause was valid. This allowed baseball owners to, in a real sense, enslave the players. This was overturned in 1975 after a long legal battle and two dismissals by the Court of earlier suits brought by Curt Flood of the Cardinals. This and some other rather strange decisions by the court have been overturned by later actions.
The court really does seem to reflect the times more often than not. It isn't likely that the Johnson civil rights laws would have been enacted in an earlier time, but if enacted the the courts would have leaned on precedence from earlier decisions and would have upheld the state challenges. That didn't happen of course. The mood of the country had changed, mainly due to the TV coverage of what was happening in the south during the riots that were occurring at the time in defiance of the segregation laws.
Let's for just a moment review just what the archaic piece of paper, the Constitution, actually spells out. I know that this will be boring for those folks that already have read and understand the Constitution, but for the few that haven't, I will try to give a Crip- Notes version as follows:
First let's discuss the basic constitution without the amendments.
The basic document is written as 7 articles with sections under each article expanding on the articles intent.
Article I -Lays out the structure of the legislative branch of the new government
- Section 1- Specifies that all legislative powers shall be invested the Congress of the United States consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
- Section 2- Details the responsibilities and make up of the House of Representatives. Defines age requirements, terms of office and other details. Also details the original makeup of the House and how the occupants of each State shall be counted in determining the number of Representatives for that State. (Indians (not taxed) are excluded and slaves count as 3/5 of a person.
- Section 3 does the same for the Senate
- Sections 4 through 6 defines the rules compensation, elections and other procedural matters concerning the members of the legislature.
- Section 7 defines who does what on revenue bills (the House is responsible for originating all revenue bills) and defines how they are passed and the extent of the Presidential veto.
- Lay and collect taxes
- Borrow money on credit of the US
- Regulate commerce -with foreign nations, among the States and Indian Tribes.
- Coin money and fix standards for weight and measures. (The interesting thing here is that Congress has abdicated their responsibility to create money to a private organization run by the bankers, The Federal Reserve. Look at your money sometime.)
- Provide punishment for counterfeiting.
- Establish a Post Office and Post Roads.
- Establish protection for science and useful arts (Patent Office)
- Constitute lower courts
- Declare war
- Raise and support Armies (funding limited to two years; The Congress was fearful of a standing Army and did not wish to establish one.)
- Provide and maintain a Navy
- Make rules for the government and regulation of the armed forces.
- Provide organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia.
- Exercise legislation for what is essentially all federal government property.
- Make laws for carrying out the above delineated powers.
- Section 9 defines the limits on Congress.
- Provides that persons imported to the states prior to 1808 shall not be prohibited, after that a tax can be imposed. (This was clearly a sop to the slave states)
- Prevents the suspension of habeus corpus, except in times of rebellion or invasion.
- No ex post facto laws shall be passed.
- No tax or duty shall be levied for exports from any State.
- No preference for any State in matters of commerce nor can States levy duties for commerce between states.
- Withdraw money from the treasury, except as required by law. Receipts and Expenditures must be published
- Confer no title of nobility.
- Section 10 defines limits on states powers
- Essentially says---No state can enact laws that are in conflict with the limitations on the federal legislators, nor may they enact actions that are the proper domain of Congress. I.e see powers and limits on Congress. The State may coin Gold or Silver coinage for payment of debts and other obligations. (Don't know any State that has ever done that).
- No state shall lay a duty of tonnage, keep troops or ships of war in time of peace or enter into compact with another state or foreign power to engage in war.
Article 2 --Lays out the structure of the executive branch.
- Section 1- defines how the President is elected, compensated and succeeded in the event of inability to continue in office. (Some of this was modified later by the 12th, 20th and 25th Amendment.)
- Section 2 -Establishes the Civilian power over the military. Names the President as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.
- Section 3 - Establishes the requirement for a periodic "State Of The Union" assessment by the President. Convening of Congress to be addressed is optional. (In fact few of the earlier Presidents exercised that option. They just sent a letter to Congress).
- Section 4 -Establishes the ability and reasons to impeach.
Article 3. ---Defines the scope of the Judicial Branch
- Section 1 -Gives judicial powers of the USA to one Supreme Court and such inferior courts as the Congress shall establish. They serve for life and shall be compensated.
- Section 2 - Trial by Jury. Specifies that all crimes except for impeachment shall be accorded the right of Trial by Jury. Specifies that judicial power shall extend to all cases rising concerning almost everybody such as Ambassadors, between states, the citizens of different states, etc.( Modified by the 11th Amendment.)
- Section 3 -Treason. Defines the meaning and specifies the requirement for trial.
- Section 1 -The citizens of each State shall be entitled to the Privileges and Immunities in the several States.
- Section 2 -States Citizens, Extraditions - Specifies that full credit shall be given the to the public records, Acts, Articles and Judicial proceedings of every other state. Extradition for crimes committed in another State shall enforced. Also says that escaped slaves in another State are the property of the original owner and will be returned. (This clause was superseded by the 13th Amendment.)
- Section 3- Defines how new states shall be admitted.
- Section 4- Specifies that every state shall have a Republican form of government.
Article 6 - Debt, Supremacy, Oaths.
- Specifies that all debts contracted under the Articles of Confederation shall be binding. Specifies that all Treaties made shall be the law of the land. All offices of the United States and it's States shall be bound by an oath of affirmation to support this constitution. No religious test shall be required as a qualification for office or public trust.
- Specifies how this Constitution shall be ratified.
Now the Amendments. The first 10 are generally called the Bill of Rights, and their obvious purpose is to protect the people from the power of government. Our founding fathers really feared big government and what it was capable of doing.
Amendment 1-- Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression
- This amendment specifies the basic Four Freedoms that we talk about a lot. It says that Congress shall establish no religion, abridge the freedom of speech or the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble and to petition the Government for redress of grievances.
- Specifies that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (This one has a lead in statement that has caused a lot of controversy through the years. i.e. the statement that this is required because a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state. The Supreme Court up to this point has ruled that this statement does not impinge on the basic right. That might change in the future with newer Courts, who knows.)
Amendment 3--Quartering of Soldiers
- Specifies that no soldier shall be quartered in any house in time of peace and in war except in a manner defined by law.
- Specifies that searches and seizing of property or persons shall only be done with a proper warrant.
- Specifies that all civilian crimes must be presented for indictment to a Grand Jury. Implements the concept of immunity under double jeopardy. Declares no person shall have to testify against themselves, and that life, liberty or property shall not be taken without due process of law.
Amendment 7- Specifies that in suits of common law over 20 dollars, that citizens have the right of trial by jury.
Amendment 8- Specifies that there shall be no Cruel and Unusual punishment for crimes and the there shall be no excessive bail.
Amendment 9- States that the rights granted by this Constitution shall be not construed to deny other rights retained by the people. (This is a strange one. It implies that there are certain inalienable rights not contained in the Constitution that shall not be infringed. One can think of a lot of discovered "Rights" that the founding fathers never thought of that would fall under this banner, and that Congress shall not pass laws prohibiting those
"Rights". This where the courts get involved, big time. But, it doesn't give Congress the leeway to "discover" these rights and enact them into law.)
Amendment 10- States that all powers not delegated to the United States by this Constitution shall be reserved to the States, or to the people. (This may very well be the most ignored Amendment to the Constitution, as the Federal Government imposes its will on the States and the Citizens in an ever increasing amounts).
Amendment 11 - Judicial Limits. Limits the judicial reach of the federal courts. Does not extend to any suit of law or equity brought by a citizen of one state by the citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.
Amendment 12 - Specifies how the President and Vice President are chosen.
Amendment 13 -Abolished Slavery
Amendment 14 - Citizen Rights
Amendment 16 - Legalized the Income Tax
Amendment 17- Specified that Senators shall be elected by popular vote.
Amendment 18 - Established Prohibition
Amendment 19 - Gave Women the right to vote and forbade denial of any right accorded to any citizen of the United States.
Amendment 20 - Really updated and modified the terms of the President and Congress, how they are elected and various contingencies if the President Elect dies before taking office.
Amendment 21 -Repealed the 18 Amendment
Amendment 22 -Limited the President to two terms of office.
Amendment 23 - Specifies that the District of Columbia shall have Electors for the election of the President and Vice President of the United States proportioned to the population of DC, but not to exceed the smallest State.
Amendment 24 Bars the Poll Tax
Amendment 25 - Spells out the new rules for Presidential Disability and succession.
Amendment 26 - Sets the voting age at 18.
Amendment 27- Limiting Congressional Pay Increases. Simply says the Congress cannot give itself a raise in mid session.
That's it---Our whole written Constitution with all it's amendments.
The interesting and perhaps disturbing thing is that nowhere in that written document can one find a provision that gives the Federal Government the right to enforce a lot of programs that we take for granted. And some we don't. The Constitution clearly gives the Feds the right and obligation to provide for and maintain the interstate transportation systems, whether by land, water or air. Also, to raise an Army and Maintain a Navy along with the obligation to fund the development of equipment for the Armed Services to employ in their missions. It requires that the Federal Government develop and maintain a Postal System, whether that's a good thing or not.
But, exactly where does one fit Obama Care into the picture. Or for that matter, a great number of social programs that the Feds now fund with ever increasing parts of the national budget. Even borrowing money to do so. The disturbing thing is not that some, if not most, of the social programs are needed and worthwhile, but rather that they're being funded at the expense of the clear mandate of the Constitution to provide the infrastructure to promote interstate commerce and to provide for the defense of the country. And doing so without the power, as delineated in the Constitution, for them to mandate and support these programs.
Court decisions down through the years, especially since the FDR New Deal regime have found words in the Constitution that would escape normal people and determined that the Congress has the right to pass these "Entitlements" and charge the American taxpayer for the privilege. So the real Constitution is not just the words on a few sheets of paper signed by the founding fathers and modified with legally adopted Amendments over the years, but rather a whole host of expansions, interpretations and modifications that have been advanced over the years. So many that a whole field of study is devoted to Constitutional Law.
Have fun everybody. .
Amendment 12 - Specifies how the President and Vice President are chosen.
Amendment 13 -Abolished Slavery
Amendment 14 - Citizen Rights
- Essentially gave former slaves full citizenship.
- Essentially specified that former slaves will be counted as one person in determining the election of representatives and other public office.
- Forbade any person who formally held a public office and had sworn allegiance to the United States by oath and had participated in insurrection or rebellion against the United States from holding public office. They gave a way around that requirement however.
- Specified that the public debt to put down rebellion shall not be questioned and the United States nor any State shall assume any debt or obligation incurred in aid to an insurrection or loss of property or emancipation of slaves.
Amendment 16 - Legalized the Income Tax
Amendment 17- Specified that Senators shall be elected by popular vote.
Amendment 18 - Established Prohibition
Amendment 19 - Gave Women the right to vote and forbade denial of any right accorded to any citizen of the United States.
Amendment 20 - Really updated and modified the terms of the President and Congress, how they are elected and various contingencies if the President Elect dies before taking office.
Amendment 21 -Repealed the 18 Amendment
Amendment 22 -Limited the President to two terms of office.
Amendment 23 - Specifies that the District of Columbia shall have Electors for the election of the President and Vice President of the United States proportioned to the population of DC, but not to exceed the smallest State.
Amendment 24 Bars the Poll Tax
Amendment 25 - Spells out the new rules for Presidential Disability and succession.
Amendment 26 - Sets the voting age at 18.
Amendment 27- Limiting Congressional Pay Increases. Simply says the Congress cannot give itself a raise in mid session.
That's it---Our whole written Constitution with all it's amendments.
The interesting and perhaps disturbing thing is that nowhere in that written document can one find a provision that gives the Federal Government the right to enforce a lot of programs that we take for granted. And some we don't. The Constitution clearly gives the Feds the right and obligation to provide for and maintain the interstate transportation systems, whether by land, water or air. Also, to raise an Army and Maintain a Navy along with the obligation to fund the development of equipment for the Armed Services to employ in their missions. It requires that the Federal Government develop and maintain a Postal System, whether that's a good thing or not.
But, exactly where does one fit Obama Care into the picture. Or for that matter, a great number of social programs that the Feds now fund with ever increasing parts of the national budget. Even borrowing money to do so. The disturbing thing is not that some, if not most, of the social programs are needed and worthwhile, but rather that they're being funded at the expense of the clear mandate of the Constitution to provide the infrastructure to promote interstate commerce and to provide for the defense of the country. And doing so without the power, as delineated in the Constitution, for them to mandate and support these programs.
Court decisions down through the years, especially since the FDR New Deal regime have found words in the Constitution that would escape normal people and determined that the Congress has the right to pass these "Entitlements" and charge the American taxpayer for the privilege. So the real Constitution is not just the words on a few sheets of paper signed by the founding fathers and modified with legally adopted Amendments over the years, but rather a whole host of expansions, interpretations and modifications that have been advanced over the years. So many that a whole field of study is devoted to Constitutional Law.
Have fun everybody. .
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Rules for Raising Kids
I am going to stick my head into a noose and state that there are rules one should follow in a family when raising kids. I don't expect anyone to follow them all, all the time, but they make a good yardstick. What makes me an authority? Nothing really, except some real life experience and observation of other families. Both their successes and their failures. I will state them in no particular order. But, I do think they are all important. If a family is following most of them all the time, and the rest at least some of the time, I think the family has a good chance to succeed. What I'm going to advocate flies in the face of a lot of so called child experts, who write books by the thousands for gullible parents to read, but having never actually raised a child themselves, they teach a permissive style of parenting based on their studies at liberal universities. As a result we have a spoiled "me first" mentality among the current crop of young people, who think they are entitled to everything from society.
* Recognize that the parents primary responsibility is to raise children to be responsible, independent adults. Someday the child will grow up and be on their own. If you have not prepared the child for that, then they are in deep trouble when that time comes; and it will, whether we like it or not. Letting the child be overly dependent on the parents is not doing them any favors. The parent is just enabling the dependent behavior. They are going to become adults; that should guide the parent relationship to the child throughout their formative years. One of the things to remember is that you are their parents, not their friend or buddy. They will have lots of friends, but only one set of parents.
*Never make a threat you don't carry out. Be careful with your threats for bad behavior. Too many threats not carried out makes them absolutely useless. The child just learns to ignore them, knowing full well that they will never be implemented. If you threaten to ground a child of a period of time for bad behavior, then do it if the behavior isn't corrected. Never, ever make a threat you can't or wont follow up on. So be careful what you threaten.
* Have fun together as a family. Go to the beach. Have a picnic. Go to a theme park. Whatever. But, the whole family should participate in an activity that everyone enjoys. Often. And, leave the IPads, Gameboys, cell phones, etc. at home. This must be a family activity. And having someone in the family sitting playing on an electronic device, or Dad checking his messages constantly isn't going to cut it.
*Meals are family affairs. Not every meal can be a sit down for the entire family because of conflicting schedules, but one meal of the day, preferably the dinner at night should be treated as a requirement except in extraordinary circumstances. That means when dinner is served everyone sits at the table and eats. And, nobody leaves until the meal is over. This is the time to catch up on the families day. Conversation is a must. No IPhones, etc. allowed. Dinner is not the place to criticize; it should be an enjoyable time of day for everyone. It doesn't matter if it's a home cooked meal, microwaved TV dinner, or take out, it should be treated as a family activity.
* Never order a child to do something you don't intend to enforce. When the child is doing something that is not permissible, for whatever reason, then they should be taught that the failure to obey the order to stop carries punishment. "No" should always mean "No". There should be no confusion in the child's mind that you don't really mean it. Again, don't be over controlling. But, the child tearing up the house, running into the street, making a nuisance of themselves in public, or similar dangerous or destructive behavior should not be tolerated.
*Never let a child play one parent against another. That is a tactic that will be tried. It always has been and always will be. Kids aren't dumb, they're quite smart. If they find they can get their way by that artifice, then they will. Don't let them get away with it. Critical decisions should be jointly made by both parents. Failing that, I suppose one of the parents has to step up and make all decisions; not a good approach. But, you can't let the child play their game to get their way.
*Show an interest in your child's education. In this modern world advanced training and education is a necessity. Always encourage your child to do well in school. Be interested. What are they studying? How are their grades? What do they seem most interested in, and video games don't count? Not every child is destined for an academic future requiring a college education. We need skilled craftsman almost as bad as we need engineers. I believe there is something out there for everybody. You should help the child to find theirs. The parent should try their best to nurture a love of learning in the child. You wont always succeed, but you have to try.
*A child requires age appropriate limits. There should be limits placed on the amount of freedom a child is awarded during their pre-adult years. Times to be in at night. Times to go to bed. Limits on the areas that are allowable for the child to go and so forth. Be reasonable in setting these limits. Get too restrictive and you might have a rebellion on your hands. They should be rational, and age appropriate. At the same time, you must let the child untie the apron strings little by little. Again, the limits should be age appropriate. The child will use every tactic at their disposal to try to expand these limits. Listen, weigh the arguments and then make a decision based on your own, I hope, mature judgement. But, remember this, breaking the rules brings on punishment; always.
*It's not your job to entertain your kids. One of the lessons the child must learn is to be independent. That includes learning to develop activities on their own. "Mommy I'm bored" is not a signal for the parent to drop what they're doing and launch into a game with the child.
* It is generally not a good idea to kill your kid. I know that you sometimes feel that way, especially if you have teenagers and more especially teenage girls, but society doesn't look on that as being a viable option. Think it over first and try to come up with something more appropriate.
* Let the child know that he or she is loved. They should feel secure in their place in the family no matter what. When punishment is being handed out the child should realize that it's for an act of misbehavior not for the child personally.
*Never let a child play one parent against another. That is a tactic that will be tried. It always has been and always will be. Kids aren't dumb, they're quite smart. If they find they can get their way by that artifice, then they will. Don't let them get away with it. Critical decisions should be jointly made by both parents. Failing that, I suppose one of the parents has to step up and make all decisions; not a good approach. But, you can't let the child play their game to get their way.
*Show an interest in your child's education. In this modern world advanced training and education is a necessity. Always encourage your child to do well in school. Be interested. What are they studying? How are their grades? What do they seem most interested in, and video games don't count? Not every child is destined for an academic future requiring a college education. We need skilled craftsman almost as bad as we need engineers. I believe there is something out there for everybody. You should help the child to find theirs. The parent should try their best to nurture a love of learning in the child. You wont always succeed, but you have to try.
*A child requires age appropriate limits. There should be limits placed on the amount of freedom a child is awarded during their pre-adult years. Times to be in at night. Times to go to bed. Limits on the areas that are allowable for the child to go and so forth. Be reasonable in setting these limits. Get too restrictive and you might have a rebellion on your hands. They should be rational, and age appropriate. At the same time, you must let the child untie the apron strings little by little. Again, the limits should be age appropriate. The child will use every tactic at their disposal to try to expand these limits. Listen, weigh the arguments and then make a decision based on your own, I hope, mature judgement. But, remember this, breaking the rules brings on punishment; always.
*It's not your job to entertain your kids. One of the lessons the child must learn is to be independent. That includes learning to develop activities on their own. "Mommy I'm bored" is not a signal for the parent to drop what they're doing and launch into a game with the child.
* It is generally not a good idea to kill your kid. I know that you sometimes feel that way, especially if you have teenagers and more especially teenage girls, but society doesn't look on that as being a viable option. Think it over first and try to come up with something more appropriate.
* Let the child know that he or she is loved. They should feel secure in their place in the family no matter what. When punishment is being handed out the child should realize that it's for an act of misbehavior not for the child personally.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)