On Fri, 5 Feb 2016, 1:29pm PST
My Body My Choice for Men,
By the by - for the rest of you Clarrence Darrows out there who are going to figure all this out on Patnet, keep in mind the general rule in place now is the child support is something which almost always runs with the child, no matter where that child is located. Fact of the matter is, if I took in a child as a foster parent, I very well could claim and receive child support from both mom and dad. Same goes for a grandparent taking care of junior - same too for the State depending upon the specific facts and circumstances of mom & dad.
In cases where the parents are deabeats (often) it unfortunately costs more resources (i.e. state employees chasing them at $X per hour) vs recovery to make it worthwhile, but if one or both parents have resources, they can and often are successfully shaken down in various states. And here the laws are truly genderless (so as to survive the appropriate balance test required by Art I section VIII or Art III section II cases which for those who care is the real meat and potatoes of the Constitution in terms of affecting our lives and our society).
As I said before, the real systemic bias is in awarding primary custody and theres also the bias in the abortion (which is actually a separate discussion on limitations to our liberty interests and the ability of others to force you into any medical procedure). Anyway, im out so you all have fun with that! On Fri, 5 Feb 2016, 1:25pm PST
My Body My Choice for Men,
By the way, CDon, perhaps you could summarize that case (Gibbons v. Ogden) for the benefit of all readers? I probably, don't have time to read it today, and I am sure it might be a bit much for others, too.
Sure thing. Ogden was nominally about interstate commerce, but that (and the Art III Sec II cases) have by far the biggest Constitutional impacts on our modern lives. As much as Dan likes to pontificate on the well known "liberty interests" granted to us in the 1st, 4th, 5th, 13th & 14th amendments, in the 200 years post Ogden the Supreme Court clarifies how important Article I section VIII (and Article III Sec II) is to reign in those liberty interests (i.e. another exception to the rule). Let me give you an example:
The law generally makes it such that all citizens are equal and we do not have to assist others. Say you had a roomate, nice guy and all, but he was kind of a wreck. He had no stable job, late or couldnt pay rent, mooched your food, constantly calling you to let him in when he gets locked out, or take him somewhere because his car was broken. You of course are free to help him if you want, but the Constitution makes perfectly clear, you have NO OBLIGATION TO THIS FELLOW CITIZEN WHATSOEVER, and we (the collective) cant force you to personally support or take care of him.
By contrast, say one or both (doesnt matter) custodial or non-custodial parents decide to treat their 5 year old, exactly as they would a roomate... after all, they are fellow citizens with no duty right? So imagine then they seem him around the house or the neighborhood...
- Hey Junior, quit mooching that food and go get your own.
- Wow Junior, what happened to your arm there? That looks bad YOU better go get that checked out!
- Hey, we are headed out of town this week on vacation so you are on your own - have fun!
- Whats that, you need someone to help you? Some social worker to take care of you? Look, I dont have time for that now, go to the internet and figure it out. Oh, you cant read yet? Well, you better do that first.
You may think I'm exaggerating here but only slightly. The juvenile court termination of parental rights cases (styled like "In re. The Matter of S.K. a Minor") I saw in law school often showed no physical abuse, but shocking negligence and abject moral depravity on the part of parents who couldnt be bothered to do shit. One case of a 4 year old girl found snared in the neighbors barbed wire fence still haunts me. This all came to a head in the 90s when technology caught up so Congress instituted multistate laws and databases to track down the deadbeats.
In any event, what Ogden, and Article I section VIII makes clear is that unlike the true "roomate" situation where no citizen has a duty to another, the State can, and has indeed created special protections for the most helpless and vulnerable members of our citizenry that require that others DO INDEED SUPPORT THEM. Thus, the longstanding societal contract codified in I sec VIII (via Ogden, et. al) is that most of you (parents) do care about these fellow citizens (your children), so we give you the right to dominion and control over them (and yes the obligation support them) until their 18. After that, if it turns out they are a louse, or you otherwise dont give a shit, then we (the collective) will provide for them from age 18 til death (iow, they probably wont die in the streets).
Moreover, I/VIII and Ogden et. al make clear that if you (the parent) do not do the minimal amounts required, there is a small chance you will be put in prison, and in any event, rather than having us (the collective) pay for it, its you (the parent)s obligation up until that age of 18 whether you like it or not. And no, this is not something you can contract out of via check the box decisions on a marriage license or otherwise. Congress made this so per its plenary powers in contravention of our liberty interests. IOW the Constitution guarantees that Congress can and in fact does make separate groups "unequal" for whatever reason if there is found to be a "compelling state interest" Examples include child support, affirmative action programs, WIC or Section 8, certain farm subsidies, etc. If you dont like it, vote for people who will change it.
Now, there can obviously be some improvement in the law, and that especially applies to the inherent, systemic bias as it relates to primary custody (which is decidedly feminist). Also, there can be increased accountability to ensure that support payments from the non-custodial parent to the custodial actually go to the kids wellfare, and not just for new shoes or clothes or a car for mom. And the abortion/ carry to term dilemma is a separate liberty interest discussion which I will save for another day. But I what can tell you now is that for someone to whine via a political argument or otherwise, about how they are forced into involuntary servitude or lack of due process in violation of the 13th or 14th amendment, is absurd and a clear indication the person has no idea what they are talking about as it relates to the Constitution.