Does the 13th amendment make forced Child support illegal?

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 04:34 AM
link   
In the case of unmarried men, I believe it does. I believe the system can be shown to be unconstitutional using other arguments as well, such as privacy rights, and equal protection.
However, in the case of married men, there is a clear contractual basis for child support. Even, forced if necessary. Through garnishment and other legal (civil) means. However, in my view, there should be no federal system, no jail (as the notion of debtors prisons are supposed to also be as obsolete and abhorrent as slavery) and it should be treated as every other legal debt, The BRADLEY AMENDMENT codifies much of the unconstitutional treatment, and should be repealed.
ancpr.com...




posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mountainmeg
Oh give me a break. You have a choice. If you're sleeping with someone you don't want to have a child with, or who is crazy enough to go off her pills to "get herself a man", take some responsibility for birth control. Condom, spermicide, abstinence. Put the weenie enjoyment over putting on a raincoat, and you've made your choice.


Flippant remarks don't change facts, only the unilateral choice of a woman can create a child. I can have unprotected sex 10 times a day and never end up with a child.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 06:50 AM
link   
"Some have also argued that, should Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113 (1973) be overturned by the United States Supreme Court, a constitutional right to abortion could still be sustained on the basis that denying it would subject women to involuntary servitude contrary to the Thirteenth Amendment"

en.wikipedia.org...

This is Irony at it's best I do believe. Saying that the very amendment that does NOT release a Man from his obligations of support could in fact (possibly) be used to release a woman from hers.
edit on 2-2-2011 by Adamanteus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link   
Everyone knows that sex can lead to pregnancy, pregnancy can lead to children and children can lead to *gasp* financial responsibility. If you don't want the responsibility, don't have sex.

"But she said she was on the pill" You should have been wearing a condom no matter what she said.

"But she said she couldn't have children" You should have been wearing a condom no matter what she said.

"I wanted her to get an abortion" You should have thought about the possibility before you had sex with her, its her choice-not yours. I know many don't agree that it should be solely up to the woman, but that's just how it is. It's common knowledge.

Anyone at any time can get their case reviewed. Anyone at any time can get a lawyer and go back to court.

If you have sex, you should go into it knowing that pregnancy is a common consequence. Men should do everything they can to protect themselves if they do not wish to reproduce (or get a nasty disease), regardless of what the girl says she is doing to prevent it.

Just sayin'..



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by daryllyn
 


Well with that logic then a woman knows there is a "possibility" that a father may not want to support her child and is taking a calculated risk and the burden on herself (if he in fact doesn't offer support) and therefore has no RIGHT to expect public assistance. I agree. keep the fathers on support but do away with ALL public assistance programs.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Adamanteus
 


I was just throwing a woman's perspective into what seems like a mostly male perspective here.

She should most definitely be prepared for that possibility. She should also take precautions for herself no matter what the man says if she is serious about preventing pregnancy.

Everyone knows that birth control can (and does) fail. But the risk is very much decreased when more than one method is used 100 percent of the time. Of course, operator error has to be accounted for. If you don't use it properly, its not going to work. Forgetting to take the pill, forgetting to use back up when on certain antibiotics, failing to use backup if you have suffered the flu or other stomach ailment, failing to make your appointment for your shot, etc... can all lead to failure of the method you are using. Its not rocket science.

Pregnancy is easy to prevent. It amazes me that there are so many unwanted/unplanned pregnancies with all of the options available. The pill, the shot, the ring, the IUD, condoms, spermicide etc.. tons of possibilities there.

But I can't agree that men shouldn't HAVE to pay for a child that they didn't want when they are fully aware of the possible outcome of sex in general. There are regulations in place because there are far too many people who wouldn't take the responsibility of caring for the child in question if they didn't HAVE to. It doesn't really matter who's at fault, the child shouldn't suffer because of a lack of precautions that should have been taken in the first place if people were being responsible.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Adamanteus
Section 1 of the Thirteenth Amendment:

“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

If one is ordered to pay child support and has no job then they WILL be incarcerated once the amount owed reaches a certain amount.

I have two children and DO Pay my child support (of my own free will) and would never dream of NOT paying it. I was just wondering if this could be interpreted to make forced Child support unconstitutional?


No, but it does make forced jury duty and conscription illegal.

It also makes taxes illegal because the theft of earned property is equivalent to forcing someone into labor for you.


Child support on the other hand I would argue is a voluntary commitment entered into with the conception of the child. Failure to take care of your kids should result in some form of penalty.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by daryllyn
Everyone knows that sex can lead to pregnancy, pregnancy can lead to children and children can lead to *gasp* financial responsibility. If you don't want the responsibility, don't have sex.


Your argument is so tired and weak...

Everyone knows that if you have sex the woman might get pregnant and have a late term abortion, therefore you're equally responsible for a late term abortion taking place if she has one (even if you didn't know she was pregnant and had nothing to do with the decision).

It amazes me that apparently (at least somewhat) rational adults actually employ such logic with a straight face. What can possibly explain it? Brainwashing? Self-interest? Sexism?
edit on 2-2-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)
edit on 2-2-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation

FACT: "Involuntary servitude" is a United States legal and constitutional term for a person laboring against that person's will to benefit another, under some form of coercion other than the worker's financial needs.

Child support is for something "other than the worker's financial needs."

FACT: Coercion is the practice of forcing another party to behave in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of Threats, intimidation or some other form of pressure or force

Failure to pay Child support will result in the threat and action of loss of Drivers License and incarceration if not paid after being court ordered.

Summary: Forced Child support forces someone to work for something "other than their own financial needs" under threat of loss of Liberty.

If someone has an argument OTHER than "moral obligation to the child" to show where this is in fact NOT unconstitutional please enlighten me.
edit on 2-2-2011 by Adamanteus because: (no reason given)
edit on 2-2-2011 by Adamanteus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by daryllyn
Everyone knows that sex can lead to pregnancy, pregnancy can lead to children and children can lead to *gasp* financial responsibility. If you don't want the responsibility, don't have sex.


Your argument is so tired and weak...

Everyone knows that if you have sex the woman might get pregnant and have a late term abortion, therefore you're equally responsible for a late term abortion taking place if she has one (even if you didn't know she was pregnant and had nothing to do with the decision).

It amazes me that apparently (at least somewhat) rational adults actually employ such logic with a straight face. What can possibly explain it? Brainwashing? Self-interest? Sexism?
edit on 2-2-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)
edit on 2-2-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)


What is tired and weak about it?

Pregnancy is preventable. It is not the sole responsibility of the female to prevent it. There are measures that can be taken by BOTH parties if they are serious about preventing pregnancy. If more than one method is being used, the risk is greatly decreased.

Everyone knows where babies come from, its not rocket science.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   
"Effective October, 1997, a federal law went into effect that denies and revokes passports of those alleged to be delinquent in child support. In the Dred Scott decision we can see that the Secretary of State refused to give passports to slaves in pre Civil War times. Isn't it ironic that these new laws are merely restoring the old laws that applied to slaves?"

SLAVERY AND CHILD SUPPORT

"First of all, where is the authority in the Constitution which gives courts the authority to order child support? It is a fee imposed upon the labor of a human being with the force of law behind it. Simply stated - slavery. The 13th Amendment only allows slavery or involuntary servitude to be imposed upon someone after the party has been charged with a crime and has been convicted in a court of law. The courts of the country are progressively becoming an enslaving force; and as the politicians need more money, the judges will get meaner and meaner, for the master will have his Mammon, and masters who are cannibals will pass the expenses of masters off onto the backs of others. The slavery that develops as the cannibalism spreads can get pretty mean."

Very interesting article on the OP's subject.
edit on 2-2-2011 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   
well I gave give money to help my boys of my own free will (((as i have no child support payments by any judge.)))
Ill tell you why . My wife went off the deep and then after i lost every thing i went off the deep end .
(still wish that so called hero didnt pull my out of my car.
anyway they 9the scyki people concluded im bypoler (probly am btw) and something else a big word lol.
so i gess crazy people are not expected to pay? hold a job? what i dont know all i know is they have never did it to me .
And yes I DO help pay for my boys i love them very much and dont need someone to force me to do whats right.and i do work and can hold a job thank you very much. tryed telling the judge that didnt help.
maybe that makes me crazy? what you think?
you know i think all the things they say make me crazy are good things yes i am over emotional 9in all GOOD ways i love to deeply way to deeply I cant even stand seeing the o send us money for the poor starving kids comurcials thinks what a jurk give the kid something to eat your standing right there.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by daryllyn
What is tired and weak about it?


Is the man equally responsible for an abortion when a woman unilaterally chooses to abort?

If not, why on earth is he equally responsible when she makes the opposite unilateral choice?


Originally posted by daryllyn
Pregnancy is preventable. It is not the sole responsibility of the female to prevent it. There are measures that can be taken by BOTH parties if they are serious about preventing pregnancy. If more than one method is being used, the risk is greatly decreased.


What on EARTH are you talking about pregnancy for? You understand the difference between pregnancy and a child correct?



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by SevenBeans
 


Because pregnancy is the root of the discussion here. Without a pregnancy, there is no decision to be made regarding an abortion. Without pregnancy, there is no child needing to be supported.

My point, in my original post that you chose to reply to was about pregnancy. The post I made after the one that you replied to, was about pregnancy.

The OP, that I replied to originally, had no mention of abortion. That is an entirely different issue.

My original point (which you seem to have overlooked completely) was that if you do not want to pay support/have a child, don't get anyone pregnant. Its preventable. The responsibility is on both parties to ensure that it doesn't happen if both parties do not wish to bring a child into the world.

I am having a hard time understanding why you are talking down to me. My post obviously struck a nerve with you, I didn't mean for anyone to take offense. I was merely stating my opinion, just like everyone else.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by daryllyn
I am having a hard time understanding why you are talking down to me. My post obviously struck a nerve with you, I didn't mean for anyone to take offense. I was merely stating my opinion, just like everyone else.


Maybe it's because you refuse to answer very simple questions... want to try again?

Is the man equally responsible for an abortion when a woman unilaterally chooses to abort?

If not, why on earth is he equally responsible when she makes the opposite unilateral choice?



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by daryllyn
 


The issue at hand is Child Support,and the right to be forced to pay it,and what does the Constitution play in its part. Morally it is right for both Parents to play an active roll,in the child's development. I dont believe the Federal Government should be as involved,as it is,when it comes to child Support. It is a State decision.

"First of all, where is the authority in the Constitution which gives courts the authority to order child support? It is a fee imposed upon the labor of a human being with the force of law behind it. Simply stated - slavery. The 13th Amendment only allows slavery or involuntary servitude to be imposed upon someone after the party has been charged with a crime and has been convicted in a court of law. The courts of the country are progressively becoming an enslaving force; and as the politicians need more money, the judges will get meaner and meaner, for the master will have his Mammon, and masters who are cannibals will pass the expenses of masters off onto the backs of others. The slavery that develops as the cannibalism spreads can get pretty mean."


This rings true. Paying to support a child is one thing. But if two people equally go out and have a child,they should be held EQUALLY responsible. Does a child need, say 25k a month in support? Why should one parent be held MORE responsible,then the next when it comes down to the financial end? Child Support shouldn't be spousal support. That line gets blurred too many times. And accountability should be reckoned on also,when monies is given to the parent with said child. Did Parent need to buy the child 90 dollar tennis shoes? Could money have been saved for other needs? If the Agency's already have their foot into said Parent who pays support,why cant the Parent who gets the money,be held accountable,to how she/he spends the money?
edit on 2-2-2011 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by daryllyn
I am having a hard time understanding why you are talking down to me. My post obviously struck a nerve with you, I didn't mean for anyone to take offense. I was merely stating my opinion, just like everyone else.


Maybe it's because you refuse to answer very simple questions... want to try again?

Is the man equally responsible for an abortion when a woman unilaterally chooses to abort?

If not, why on earth is he equally responsible when she makes the opposite unilateral choice?


I will answer.Its because women have rights afforded to ONLY them,because men cannot have children. The Supreme court has already ruled on this.Their Body ,their right. Fair,maybe not. Because it takes two to Tango. Even when same sex Partners decided to have a baby,the donor can be forced to pay child support. Its already happened.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by SevenBeans
 


Just to be clear: I am not an abortion advocate. Not at all. There are other options available. Prevention and adoption are clear alternatives.

I never said the system was right. Its not fair that the man has no say when it comes to abortion, I would agree with that. But the fact is, that right now, the man has no right (legally) to tell a women what she can or cannot do with her body. Right or wrong, thats just how it is. Maybe someday that will change to a degree but I doubt it will happen any time in the near future.

My opinion is that every parent should be obligated to care for their children whether they planned for them or not. If one doesn't want the "burden", they can sign away their rights. I really don't think that is the best option, but it is an option.

Is there a reason why you are so worked up over the issue? Do you have children?



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 


I agree almost completely with your reply. You see all too often that child support is not spent on the child or not spent in the appropriate way (like the 90 dollar shoes example you gave). I think there should be more regulation in that aspect.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by daryllyn
Its not fair that the man has no say when it comes to abortion, I would agree with that.


It's perfectly fair actually... what isn't fair is holding one person responsible under threat of jail for the results of another person's unilateral choice.


Originally posted by daryllyn
But the fact is, that right now, the man has no right (legally) to tell a women what she can or cannot do with her body.


Correct and that's exactly how it should be. Your body, your choice, YOUR responsibility.


Originally posted by daryllyn
My opinion is that every parent should be obligated to care for their children whether they planned for them or not. If one doesn't want the "burden", they can sign away their rights.


No, that is almost never an option actually.


Originally posted by daryllyn
Is there a reason why you are so worked up over the issue? Do you have children?


I do, wonderful kids (my wife and I are together, I assume you were wondering if I was a non-custodial parent?).

Is there a reason that you aren't? The government is basically saying that Women can't be trusted to take responsibility for the results of their own unilateral choices... if I was a Woman I would find that incredibly insulting.

You still didn't answer the questions...
edit on 2-2-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join