Post: #1

When I think about it, forcing men to pay child support for children which are not biologically theirs or which they have no custody rights to, could be interpreted as slavery and therefore unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment.

Not to mention, abortionist logic claims that legally requiring a woman to give birth to a child even when she consented to the sex act is a form of 'slavery'.

Yet somehow it's not slavery to force a man to use his money to pay for a child conceived by a cheating girlfriend simply because his name is on the birth certificate (while simultaneously allowing him to be denied custody rights since he's "not the real father").

I think there'd be a fairly strong case for filling lawsuits to have the Supreme Court declare child support unconstitutional, at least in cases where the payee is not biologically the father or has no custody rights.

(One potential problem though is one could argue any form of taxation is also therefore slavery, but unless one is an anarcho-capitalist who believes in the privatization of everything, such as the military, this would be an extreme interpretation).

Still I think one might be able to make a better case that arbitrarily forcing individuals to fit the bill for children which are not theirs is slavery - just like arbitrarily forcing black people to work in the cotton fields is despite no consent or obligation on their part.

So if society on the whole has a responsibility to children who lack a father in the home, then sadly the lesser of the two evils would simply be to put the responsibility on the hands of the state and the taxpayers as a whole, rather than individual men.

Meaning men who are not the biological father, or are not actively raising the child would be off the hook for all child support, and any basic needs of the child would simply be left up to welfare.

Post: #2

"I think there'd be a fairly strong case for filling lawsuits to have the Supreme Court declare child support unconstitutional, at least in cases where the payee is not biologically the father or has no custody rights."

I think the government should declare August 31st of each year "Samuel Roberts Day", and mandate that every 9 and 10 visit my house to give me a blowjob and a steak.

Which of us is more likely to get what we want written into law?

Post: #3

Let's boil this down.

The typical grunt soldier has a select fire M4.

The typical American citizen may not own a select fire M4.

"...shall not be infringed". Hard to misinterpret.

The plain letter law of the US Bill Of Rights is no longer worth jack shit. There could be an amendment that said "No child support, like, EVER", and the SCOTUS would just laugh and ignore it when it became politically expedient to do so.

Rule of law is over. We in the West are all peasants from now until we rectify the situation.

Post: #4

Well in 1983, the Supreme Court actually ruled that incarcerating indigent debtors is unconstitutional under the 14th amendment. There's no doubt that the current system of Child Support and it draconian penalties for non payment are unconstitutional but like Leonard said, there is no proper following of the constitution anymore as too many judges feel that it's a living, breathing document subject to be changed on any whim to suit the government. But until people fight back and not be sheeple and accept this nonsense, things will only get worse. There really will be only one way to rectify this problem.

Post: #5

You could make the same argument about student loans that cannot be discharged in bankruptcy. As the above have said, rule of law is dead in America. The masses haven't realized it yet.

Post: #6

Doubt it will happen, but, more importantly, good on you for bringing this up.

Abortion is a fairly common topic and most people know at least a few talking points about it, but child support is rarely ever brought up or taken seriously as a topic.

I hope the Overton window shifts to bring child support payments into mainstream public discourse. It's a long shot, but under a Trump presidency, there might be a very minuscule chance this (eventually) happens.

There is a lot of unspoken backlash against the marriage conditions feminism has created. If Trump wins maybe in a few years people in the west will start having kids and trying to fix how marriage works.

If Clinton wins there's no way this will happen for a while, but even then eventually something has to crack.

Post: #7

Good luck SBroberts trying this one through the court system. The supreme court would most likely not even bother reviewing this case too.

It's bullshit that they get to pick and chose the cases they get to be honest.

Post: #8

In the US there are two types of courts, courts of law and courts of equity. Courts of law have to stick the black letter law and case law as decided by superior courts. All federal courts, to my knowledge, are courts of law. Family law courts are courts of equity, and they are concerned about what is "fair." So that is why it may appear that the constitution does not apply to them; to a first approximation it arguably doesn't. Additionally, federal courts, and certainly the Supreme Court, are generally loathe to take on cases dealing with family law.

In my opinion, they way to bring justice into the process is to attack from a position of privileged minority. For example, gay marriage could probably used effectively to do something like this. Ultimately what needs to be done is for men to be able to absolutely waive paternity (and thus any obligation for child support) in the same way that a woman has an absolute right to an abortion (in the sense that she cannot be legally compelled to carry a baby to term for the father).

Post: #9

(08-22-2016 07:46 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  Rule of law is over. We in the West are all peasants from now until we rectify the situation.

Agreed.

Moreover, the history of the fourteenth amendment is a terrible one. It was so hated that congress passed a law requiring southern states to ratify it to have representation in congress. Even then there were not enough states to ratify it because of how hated it was. So congress just lied and said that NJ and Ohio had voted in favor when they had actually voted against.

The whole thing reeks.

Post: #10

In Australia the "family court" operates outside normal law. It can ignore, go around or over rule normal laws.

Otherwise it wouldn't be worth the billions of dollars a year it pumps into the legals banks.