Squirrelmania
16-12-2004, 18:20
In looking through U.N. resolutions throughout history, we note that a couple stand out as being redundant or superseded by subsequent resolutions. But none is more redundant than Resolution #3: "Education for All" (January 2003). As a result, the Commonwealth of Squirrelmania has proposed a resolution to repeal UN Resolution #3 (currently on page 23 of the proposal listing).
Resolution #3 (January 2003) states that it "give(s) every child under the age of 16 the right to a free education." That's all. However, Resolution #28, adopted just seven months later (August 2003), "give(s) every person under the age of 18 the right to a free education." Resolution #79: "Reformed Literacy Initiative," which expands upon what is meant by a "free education" and was just adopted in November 2004, references Resolution #28, not Resolution #3. So does Resolution #54: "UN Educational Committee," adopted in April 2004.
Since Resolution #3 provides for nothing that is not covered by the subsequent Resolution #28, its continuing presence on the books of the UN is superfluous. We suspect that Resolution #3 would have been repealed back in 2003 if the potential for repeal existed at the time that Resolution #28 was passed. However, now that repeal is possible, let's move forward with the most obvious repeal there is: repeal of a resolution that has been superseded in its entirety and is not referenced in subsequent laws (not even Resolution #25: "The Child Protection Act").
We of the Commonwealth of Squirrelmania request your support for the proposed resolution, to help clear the regulations of the UN of the clutter created by superseded laws.
Resolution #3 (January 2003) states that it "give(s) every child under the age of 16 the right to a free education." That's all. However, Resolution #28, adopted just seven months later (August 2003), "give(s) every person under the age of 18 the right to a free education." Resolution #79: "Reformed Literacy Initiative," which expands upon what is meant by a "free education" and was just adopted in November 2004, references Resolution #28, not Resolution #3. So does Resolution #54: "UN Educational Committee," adopted in April 2004.
Since Resolution #3 provides for nothing that is not covered by the subsequent Resolution #28, its continuing presence on the books of the UN is superfluous. We suspect that Resolution #3 would have been repealed back in 2003 if the potential for repeal existed at the time that Resolution #28 was passed. However, now that repeal is possible, let's move forward with the most obvious repeal there is: repeal of a resolution that has been superseded in its entirety and is not referenced in subsequent laws (not even Resolution #25: "The Child Protection Act").
We of the Commonwealth of Squirrelmania request your support for the proposed resolution, to help clear the regulations of the UN of the clutter created by superseded laws.