Pay in installments of $6.16 with
,
and
Shipping Estimate
USA
- USA
- CAN
- USA
- CAN
Ships within 48 hours · Estimated delivery Nov 8 - Nov 13
Promo Codes Available:
For Your Every Summer RSVP, with Code: SUMMER15
Description
babyzen yoyo as everyday stroller Babyzen YOYO² 0+ Newborn Stroller BundleThe one you need. New YOYO. Now YOYO has a new look and evolves into YOYO to offer even more comfort and practicality with a new reinforced frame, independent suspensions on the 4 wheels and a handlebar in faux leather. Still just as lightweight and compact, YOYO has double the agility and ingenuity to make your life even easier! The YOYO stroller folds and unfolds in a moment, can be worn over the shoulder and tucks in anywhere. YOYO is so compact
The one you need. New YOYO².
Now YOYO has a new look and evolves into YOYO² to offer even more comfort and practicality with a new reinforced frame, independent suspensions on the 4 wheels and a handlebar in faux leather. Still just as lightweight and compact, YOYO² has double the agility and ingenuity to make your life even easier!
The YOYO² stroller folds and unfolds in a moment, can be worn over the shoulder and tucks in anywhere. YOYO² is so compact that it can be stored in the smallest space at home, takes up very little space in the trunk of a car and can even be carried on the plane as hand luggage. It’s the only bassinet & stroller combo in the world that folds completely flat!
The new YOYO² stroller benefits from unparalleled flexibility and cushioning, thanks to the new, individual suspensions on all 4 wheels, allowing the stroller to perfectly navigate all types of surface. YOYO² is extremely strong and light thanks to its high quality materials. With its aluminium alloy, stainless steel and fibre-glass reinforced technical plastics, your stroller will last for several generations. And in order not to make the old versions of YOYO obsolete, all the BABYZEN products and accessories that fit YOYO+ also fit YOYO².
From birth, baby lies parent-facing to encourage connection with their parents. The 0+ Newborn Pack has been designed to give your baby maximum comfort, thanks to its soft, cozy nest pad, specially designed to accommodate newborns.
From 6 months and using the same frame, simply swap 0+ newborn fabrics for 6+ fabrics (sold separately), and sit baby up to face the road. Time for him/her to discover the world! The YOYO² backrest can be inclined to multiple positions, and features comfortable padding with a 5-point harness.
Please Note: The Babyzen YOYO² 0+ Newborn Stroller Bundle is actually made up of two separate components- the YOYO² frame and 0+ Newborn Pack. For 6 months and up, the 6+ Color Pack is needed to convert the YOYO² to a seated stroller. The 6+ Color Pack is sold separately or is in the YOYO² Complete Stroller Bundle, which includes the YOYO² frame, 0+ Newborn Pack and the 6+ Color Pack.
YOYO² Frame Features
- New reinforced frame with approved support up to 50 lbs.
- New independent 4-wheel suspension. First-of-a-kind technology (made with a Hytrel® elastomer), providing YOYO² with unrivaled resilience and shock absorption
- New premium faux leather handlebar: more resistant and hygienic, with greater security thanks to the tether wrist strap
- New universal buckle design: more pleasant to the touch and easier to handle
- New adjustable harness strap: softer and more flexible, for greater comfort
- New tool-free reversible backrest, using a more ergonomic button
- Revamped design of the front and back wheel bearings, armrests and shopping basket
- Ultra-compact YOYO-type folding: 20.5 x 17.3 x 7.1 in follows you on-board a plane as hand luggage
- Ultra-light weight for an all-in-one frame: 13.6-14.5 lbs.
- Quickly folds and unfolds with the use of just one hand
- Easy one-hand steering
- Multi-position reclining backrest
- Front swivel wheels
- Rear-wheel parking brakes
- All-wheel shock absorbing suspension
- Basket supports up to 11 lbs, easily accessible from the front or back
- Carry on the shoulder with its padded shoulder strap
- Comes with a transport bag
- Lightweight and durable aluminum frame and wheel axles
- Compatible with select infant car seats with the use of YOYO+ Car Seat Adapters to create a convenient travel system (sold separately)
- Compatible YOYO Bassinet clips onto YOYO² in a single click. It has a semi-hard shell and enveloping foot cover creating a newborn cocoon. The semi-hard shell allows for bassinet to be used off the stroller on the ground. (sold separately)
- Compatible YOYO+ Board connects to your YOYO² stroller in a single one-hand click and it can carry a tired older child up to 44 lbs. (sold separately)
- Compatible YOYO+ Bag hooks onto your YOYO² to carry more shopping goodies. Sitting on a rolling base, it effortlessly carries 22 lbs. (sold separately)
- All accessories that adapt to YOYO+… can now be adapted to YOYO² !
- Suitable for children from birth up to 22 lb.
- Fully reclined newborn nest design that is parent facing
- Reinforced mattress which lies completely flat
- Made with fluffy white sherpa fleece lining that is comfortable for sleeping
- Soft, comfortable mattress
- Padded 5-point safety harness
- Adjustable central strap for optimal baby placement
- Exclusive pop-up canopy with 2 positions
- Canopy offers UPF 50+ rated sun protection
- Anti-UV fabric (UPF 50+) treated with waterproofing
- Includes a foot cover and a newborn head support
- Headrest covered in soft light material matching the mattress color
- Foot cover comes in the same material as the canopy, for more attractive, superior protection
- Carry cot is densely cushioned for comfort
- With handlebar folded, you can change your baby with ease
- Stroller folds flat with bassinet attached
- Included rain cover entirely protects the stroller
- Easy to install and remove
- Machine washable fabrics
- Stroller weight: 14.5 lbs
- Dimensions (unfolded)" 42" L x 17" x 34" H
- Dimensions (folded)" 20.5" L x 17" x 7" H
What you get: stroller frame, reversible backrest, seat base, shopping basket, shoulder strap, transport bag, 0+ newborn nest fabrics, 0+ head support, 0+ canopy, 0+ canopy wire, 0+ nest pad, 0+ foot cover, 0+ rain cover and 0+ user guide.
Shipping Notes
- Free Standard Shipping on $100+ Orders to the USA.
- Except Preorder products are shipped in 48 hours.
- Delivery to the USA:
- Standard Shipping : 3-10 business days
- If time is of the essence, please consider selecting expedited delivery for faster service.
Exchange/Return Notes
- We offer a 30-day return/exchange service after receiving.
- Final sale items are not eligible for returns or exchanges.
- To process your return/exchange, please contact us at [email protected]
- Please click here for more details>>> Return & Exchange Policy
4.4 ★★★★★
Based on 9 reviews
Sort
Product Reviews
★★★★★ 5
Clear, cogent, and illuminating
Format: Kindle
Clear, cogent, and illuminating explanation of the difference between two approaches to interpreting the Constitution: originalism and the Living Constitution
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on September 18, 2015
★★★★★ 5
Excellent!!!
Format: Kindle
A wonderfully refreshing argument for "the living constitution". Most surprisingly is that much of the argument is based in the philosophy of Edmund Burke, father of modern conservatism.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on February 22, 2017
★★★★★ 5
Five Stars
Format: Hardcover
Strauss demolishes originalism in a concise and accessible volume.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on November 11, 2014
★★★★★ 3
Ultimately disappointing .. but still a good read
Format: Hardcover
This book does have a few commendable features. It is written in laymen's language, you don't have to be a constitutional law scholar like David A. Strauss to comprehend the arguments. And it's short. Won't take more than a couple of hours to read. But as a critique of the "originalist" constitutional doctrine, it is hit and miss. For example, Strauss argues that originalism has three major flaws (p.18):
1) the impossibility of determining what the understanding of the founding fathers was on a particular issue.
2) the impossibility of translating an original understanding so that it addresses today's problems.
3) no answer for Thomas Jefferson's question about why we, the living, should be governed by the "dead hand" of past generations, including the founders.
Of these three, the first is the most telling, because it is indeed sometimes the case that we do not know what the founders would have thought about a particular issue, because that issue simply did not exist at the time of the enactment of the constitution or a particular amendment, or because that original meaning could be lost to history. The patent-ability of new life forms as a result of genetic engineering being a good example (but, other technological examples, like cases related to airplanes and cars, are NOT good examples, since while the founders were unaware of these technological advances, it's safe to assume they would recognize them as transportation vehicles, so their understanding of ships and horse carriages would apply to them). That's why i am what Strauss might call a "sometimes originalist" - my view is that IF there is no reasonable doubt about what the enactors of a constitutional provision would have thought about a case, then that should control the decision a court arrives at. But obviously, if the issue was unknown to the enactors, or if their views are forever lost to us due to the passage of time, then there is no "original understanding" of that particular issue, and some other method of constitutional interpretation must be relied on.
The second and third objections are far less compelling to me. The second objection is IMO a non-issue. To ask "well, we know that in 1880 the enactors of the 14th amendment did not believe its equal protection clause outlawed employment discrimination against women, but would they believe that if they were living in the year 2000, with all the economic/cultural/technological changes that have developed over those 120 years?" is an irrelevant question. It's like asking if the 1969 Congress that enacted the Clean Air Act would still enact it if that Congress were to debate the issue in 2010: it's purely speculative and ungermane, since neither statutes nor constitutional provisions have expiration dates on them.
Likewise, the 3rd objection is both shallow and disingenuous. Shallow because Jefferson clearly understood that the constitution, like laws enacted by the legislature, are subject to change by later generations, who can amend the constitution or pass new legislation to supersede what previous generations have accomplished. Disingenuous, because the invocation of Jefferson seems to be a tactical decision by Strauss, a way to tweak originalists by citing one of the very greatest of our founding fathers. Yet Jefferson can also be quoted to support an originalist view. For example, in 1801 he said:
"The Constitution on which our union rests, shall be administered by me according to the safe and honest meaning contemplated by the plain understanding of the people of the United States, at the time of its adoption....These explanations are preserved in the publications of the time, and are too recent in the memories of most men to admit of question." (Writings of Thomas Jefferson, quoted from a letter dated 3/27/1801).
The first part of this quote clearly indicates that Jefferson believed that constitutional provisions should be interpreted according to original understanding, not "modern, evolved" standards of meaning as David Strauss would contend. The second part speaks to the need i identified before, that of knowing within the bounds of reasonable doubt what the enactors understood a provision to mean.
Beyond all this, though, is David Strauss's contention that a "living constitution", as defined by a common-law like accretion of judicial precedent in constitutional matters that leave the original meaning of the text behind, is necessary because otherwise our constitution would become an archaic relic unable to meet the demands of a changing society, and that the formal amendment process is too slow and cumbersome. Professor Strauss correctly notes that Jefferson believed that our institutions must evolve with the development of society; however, he crucially fails to note that to Jefferson, the primary mechanism of such innovation was to be the actions of the legislature. Constitutional provisions are expounded in broad, general language not to enable future judges to interpret them in light of changing societal conditions, but to permit elected bodies, like legislatures and congress, wide latitude to address the problems of today. Legislative bodies, which directly reflect the ebbs and flows of societal change and are accountable to the people, were Jefferson's preferred vehicle of constitutional innovation, not the decisions of insulated, life-tenured court judges. On this point, unlike on many others, Jefferson was in agreement with John Marshall. As Jean Edward Smith (1996) writes "When (in McCulloch v. Maryland) Marshall spoke of the Constitution as "intended for ages to come" and of the need to adapt it "to the various crises of human affairs", he was alluding to the responsibility of Congress, not the Court. And the limits on Congress were defined by the political process, not the judiciary" (p. 445).
Thus, for example, while the enactors of the 14th amendment did not intend for it to ban employment discrimination against women, it also was not intended to prevent Congress or the state legislatures, at the time of the enactment or in the future, from enacting legislation that does protect women from employment discrimination should that type of legislation be deemed necessary or advisable. Jefferson was far more wary of "innovative" actions by judges, exemplified by his belief that "if federal judges have the final word over its meaning,
the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please". Yet it is exactly this type of judicial activism that Strauss means when advocates a "living constitution".
Strauss's fundamental error is revealed on page 103 when he says that "We cannot say that the text of the constitution does not matter ... no (textual) provision of the constitution can be overruled in the way a precedent can, or disregarded the way original understandings often are". What Strauss is saying here (well, he wouldn't put it this way, but this is my view of the matter) is that when a judge wants to be activist, to impose his/her personal policy preferences on a case, it's very important that the judge somehow, through clever verbal gymnastics, no matter how convoluted, "ground" that ruling in some actual constitutional-textual language. This is very important for achieving the political purpose of maintaining respect for the court in the eyes of the public. But to me, Strauss creates a false dichotomy: The text of the constitution is ONE AND THE SAME with its "original understanding". The 'text', the actual words of the constitution, does not exist independent of the original understanding of those words, the text is merely the communicative vessel used to convey that original understanding. That's the way language works. It's a method to convey meaning. Thus, to invoke the Due Process Clause of the 5th amendment to outlaw Federal segregation laws (as the Court did in 1955) when the enactors of the 5th amendment clearly (as Strauss admits) did not intend for it to mean that, is the SAME THING as ignoring the "text" of the constitution, since the text and original understanding are one and the same.
Overall, i recommend this book. One will learn alot about constitutional history, and Professor Strauss is surely correct in that the "living constitution" view is in fact the dominant way in which the Court has gone about its business in practice, regardless of what legal theoreticians have thought.
But, don't expect to be convinced by much Professor Strauss has to say about why this is a good thing.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on May 18, 2010
★★★★★ 5
Originalist v Living Document , 5 - 4
Format: Hardcover
I found the author's arguments to be logical and compelling. Those who embrace the so-called originalist view of the Constitution, for example Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, claim that they know - with great certainty - the absolute intent of the Constitution's authors. Further they claim that the Constitution provides specifics and principles which of course it does. It is simple to understand the specifics, but what about the principles? Principles, it seems to me, can and do have differing interpretations. One of the definitions of the word principle found in Merriam-Webster states, "a moral rule or belief that helps you know what is right and wrong and that influences your actions." As we all know, rules and beliefs frequently mean different things to different people. If it were not so, Supreme Court decisions would inevitably be decided 9 - 0.
Many are familiar with the Supreme Court's case District of Columbia v. Heller in which Justice Scalia opined that the Second Amendment shouldn't stop the U.S. from barring certain weapons. While his opinion certainly seems reasonable to me, I cannot find that principle in the Constitution. Rather it seems to be a logical conclusion based on modern society, mores, and laws - perhaps, as Professor Strauss argues, Common Law.
Whether one accepts the originalist view of the Constitution or, as I, believes a living interpretation of the great document is preferable, the one thing we can all agree on is that our nation is one of laws. To that end, it is incumbent on all citizens to accept and abide by the pronouncements of our judges, agree with them or not.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on November 18, 2014