Does the 13th amendment make forced Child support illegal?

page: 6
7
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vicky32

Originally posted by korathin


The 80's was 20-30 years ago. Back when the Berlin wall still stood and nuclear annihilation between the USSR and the USA was a close reality. Why not use statistics from the 90's or the last decade? Why rest your entire argument on unverifiable emotional hearsay and outdated facts? As well as paranoid delusions(Judge was out to get me because of a movie) and pure conjecture(he had to of had mommy issues)?


edit on 2-2-2011 by korathin because: Corrected "USSR"

So, personal experience means zip to you, unless it's posted by a Daddy? Typical...
I don't use more recent stats because they are not available. Your statistic would mean a lot more if it listed cases where the Daddy actually opposed the mother's custody. As I said, and you ignored, my second ex was a Family Court lawyer, and he it was who told me that fathers always win - as his personal experience had shown him. (Despite my experience 6 years earlier, I didn't believe him...
Because of my experience I don't date Solo Daddies, I don't even speak to them. I am not exaggerating when I say that aside from the widowers, they're psychotic scum.
The Bristol case - one of many
So, I am outa this thread.
Vicky


Honestly I dealt with way too much anti-male discrimination in my short life(either experienced first hand or seen happened to others) to ever be non biased in this matter. And your psycho rant pretty much proves and justifies my continued bias(but I will never be ignorant to hard facts)

I have seen it before, heck I debated with femnazi's way more out there than you. I have no more tolerance at all left in me for female chauvinist's. It is just the way it is. Besides, one of the cornerstones of your argument that your based in NZ pretty much shoots all credibility you might of had, as the whole feminist female supremacist got pretty bad there from the 80's-90's.




posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 06:08 AM
link   
Constitution or not... be a man and uphold your responsibilities.

No laws forced you to have sex with this woman or any other woman. You knew the possibilities and consequences when you did what you did. Now be the man.

Fair...life isn't fair..sometimes life sucks, but be the man... Do you need a law to make you do what is right for the child. If the mother is abusing and pissing away the money you pay, the child will know and see in time who is the real parent....

I know, been there and done that...eventually, my daughter saw through her mother and at age 12, I gained custody of her...she is now in college. Her mother... we are not sure of where she is...somewhere in SC. But we have our lives now and she may sometimes disagree with me...sometimes she may wish I'd been a better parent, but she can never say I abandoned her or my responsibilities.

Law or not... it is the right thing to do... otherwise, keep the horse in the barn...and wear a saddle if someone wants to ride.



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 06:42 AM
link   
reply to post by AlreadyGone
 


I will call you out as off-topic. This is a thread about the constitutional issues involved with forced child support, specifically the 13th amendment. Great that you feel your wisdom is so impressive that everyone needs to read your opinion. Problem is, it adds nothing to the discussion, which is a discussion of law, not opinions about how some hypothetical expectant father should behave.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Adamanteus
 

No, it is not unconstitutional!
edit on 7-2-2011 by tubtoes because: realized I was off topic



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   
This is the way it works in the US ..

The court system .. judges and lawyers are all bollocks .. they are not qualified in most cases to make decisions about other peoples' children .. a lot ofthese people are divorced .. alcoholics .. sex offenders, etc themselves .. sitting there with "your honor" in front of their names ..

Its all about money .. uncle SAM doesn't give a rats a** about you or your children or anyone .. its just a business transaction to them .. just another way to make money off your emotions!

They blatantly lie and come up with statements that start with "in the best interest of the child" .. they use the emotions of the fighting parents to come in and take advantage by making them so alienated .. so angry with the injustice administered to them ... that the parents have to spend all their money IN THE HOPE of getting justice .. which never comes ...

In the end ... the system is designed to trap one parent into a life sentence of payments, garnishments, threats of impriosonment, restrictions, etc ... once you are in that "black book" ... they track you fiercely to make sure you keep paying .. NOT for your child .. but for the system to make INTEREST on your payments ..

This evil system is designed NOT to take care of kids but to continue the alienation of one parent from his/her child .. I can not believe that MEN AND WOMEN .. have not taken a stance against this yet ...
I know too many good people who are deprived of their rights to see their children while slaving away for no reason ...

In the end when you are morally .. physically .. mentally and spiritually defeated and can not work any more due to any reason (handicap, disabled, age, mental state, fatigue) .. you can not think anymore from the emotional pain of not being with your kids due to a screwed up custodial parent .. the SYSTEM labels you a Dead beat parent ... and moves in to throw you in prison ...

BRAVO AMERICA! ... then we wonder why our moral values are so llloowwww .... and why kids turn out as messed up as they do ... thanks to UNCLE SAM!



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by tubtoes
 


Do you care to elaborate?

I clearly stated in this Post www.abovetopsecret.com... that it IS and showed the basis for my claims.(the 13th amendment and definitions of key words within it) Can you provide me some sort of proof that it isn't other than a single sentence stating so? Which with no links to back up Your claim that it isn't, I assume is just Your opinion.

The simple fact is that it IS unconstitutional BUT On March 9, 1933 President Roosevelt called for the passing of The WAR POWERS ACT TITLE 12 USC. Section 95 (a) and 95 (b). This act declared all United States Citizens to be the enemy of the United States Government, and placed us under permanent Emergency Rule, bypassing Constitutional constraints on government.

So YOU have NO Constitutional Rights whatsoever they'll do what they want to who they want whenever they want.
First force you into involuntary servitude and slowly enact their power to strip you of the rest of the rights that You ASSUME that You have.

'It's just a goddamned piece of paper" -George W. Bush referring to the Constitution.
edit on 7-2-2011 by Adamanteus because: (no reason given)
edit on 7-2-2011 by Adamanteus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   
I would say in the case of someone having to pay child support for a child that is not theirs - that could be unconstitutional. After all the person is paying restitution for a debt / burden / action that should be someone else’s. Why does the courts hold him, the non-father, responsible for the mother and the real father’s actions? Unfortunately the courts have no general concern to make the mother actually produce the real father.

So here have a man who is financially crippled in pursing his life goals because he is paying someone elses debt.

On the other hand, if you father a child, I don’t care under what the circumstance is - Pay up. If you have an issue with that I suggest you, the man, ensure birth control.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Yes. Children are a burden and require slavery from parents.

They should all be tossed into the street so that you can free yourselves. Via La Revolution!

Out of curiosity - is this rampant stupid plunge for complete cultural destruction through your own spoiled self-serving dumbness really THIS attractive to y'all?
edit on 2011/2/7 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by korathin
 


De poor wussy boy is oppressed by being an adult and not being able to compete with women with legal protections. Pumpkin. Run home to Mommie's apron strings.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   


De poor wussy boy is oppressed by being an adult and not being able to compete with women with legal protections.
reply to post by Aeons
 


I know you're just trying to be cute here, but nonetheless, let's examine your comment with a critical eye, shall we? Firstly, you seem to be okay with beginning your response with an attack (wussy, etc.) clearly intended to appeal to one's sense of "manhood." Clever, I'll grant you. This approach is actually quite effective, though only on the emotional level, and many men DO accept the twisted logic of, "be a man," while at the same time being fed the line that women are EQUAL, in every way, except when they decide otherwise.

Now here's the part I find particularly offensive and an insult to all thinking people: "oppressed by being an adult and not being able to compete with women with legal protections." WOW. Just let that sink in a moment.....Okay.
Are women not adults? There seems to be a different standard for what constitutes adulthood here. Is it not adult to take responsibility for YOUR OWN BODY? Is it really "adult" to pretend that your rights and responsibilities are unrelated? That someone else be forced to accept responsibility for YOUR OWN CHOICE? This is clearly the childish position.

Are men exempt from the equal protection clause of the Constitution? You seem to be implying that they are, or should be. Actually, from having debated your untenable position before, I realize you could care less about the Constitution, fairness in law, or even common sense. Unfortunately for you, this thread is DIRECTLY about such issues and since you come to the discussion with an obvious disregard for the founding principles of our nation, and accept totalitarian measures when they align with your own self-interests, your views have no place in this discussion. Unless of course you'd care to ARGUE the point being made. No....? I didn't think so....

It's funny how you attack a man's adulthood, while using the argumentative tactics of a grade-school bully. Childish.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by korathin
 


De poor wussy boy is oppressed by being an adult and not being able to compete with women with legal protections. Pumpkin. Run home to Mommie's apron strings.


Obviously You have failed to read Any of my posts or You would have known that I take full responsibilities for my Children and think that ALL men should!

I am simply here for someone to provide PROOF that it is indeed NOT unconstitutional(which NO one has been able to do)

Now that We are over the childish school yard retorts do You have proof that others lack? Please bring it to light if You do.

Do You find it hard to comprehend that the 13th Amendment which freed poor black southerners can indeed be used to free fathers of their parental responsibilities?

Does it frighten You that IF someone Had the Money and Pushed it all the way to the Supreme court that Millions of fathers could indeed "opt out' of their parental duty?or does it frighten You even more to realize that the Constitution of the United States of America is (as Geroge W. Bush said) "just a goddamned piece of paper" and effectively protects none of us in the least?

I agree fathers "should" take responsibility for their Children but "should" is in no way a legal reason for anything,and the legality is in fact all this thread is about.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by joechip
 


You're bullied by BABIES.

Immaturity is really the only way to deal with you on a level you'll understand.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Adamanteus
 


You can be free of parental responsibility.

Castrate yourself. Get a vasectomy.

You have legal options to protect yourself from your "oppression." Failing to use them isn't a federal issue.

You freely contract in the behaviour that you know what the results are. In that contract you freely accept the consequences of your actions. You freely and with all legal protection have legal options to stop yourself from producing and deseminating (inseminating) material that would lead to said contract.

You engage in sex, you leave behind material which will create a baby, you have legal options to stop yourself from leaving behind said material, you do not use them, and therefore you freely contract to engage in fatherhood with complete knowledge beforehand.

No takes-es-backs-es.
edit on 2011/2/7 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   


You're bullied by BABIES. Immaturity is really the only way to deal with you on a level you'll understand.
reply to post by Aeons
 


You're really gonna attempt to refute my argument with this....? If I really was at such a level of understanding, how did I avoid getting personal and ugly, and manage to deal with your meager statement, point by point, using nothing but reason and logic? Do you really think you can avoid everything I said, refuse to respond, and blame the lack on ME and MY level of maturity?
You are clearly not equipped to debate this issue.

You will be ignored, as you've shown on other threads, you are insulting, never respond to others' valid points, or address the topic at hand. It amazes me that the moderators continue to tolerate this.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 06:08 PM
link   
I have responded - you just don't like the answer that if you don't want a baby don't leave your semen where one might be made. You have legal protections to do so. Use them. If you choose not too, you fully accept the result.

You don't like that, too bad.

I don't need to win you over. You're an immature brat trying to make your immaturity into law, at the expense of all other people, and worst of all your own children. You're a spoiled brat. You should be treated to a spanking and sent to your room to think about things. Instead, you want to talk about how you are oppressed by your own decisions and blame that on others. Grow up.

Only a complete narcissist thinks his immaturity and unwillingness to acknowledge his legal, physical, and moral responsibilities made in full knowledge of the consquences of his actions is a CONSTITUIONAL issue. Little Emperor.
edit on 2011/2/7 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Oh, and if you were my son and you told me that you were going to follow up on this horsecrap you believe....

I'd kick your hiney from here to the end of the block, and then cut you out of my life in preference for the baby who needs people to love and support it over your lazy ass any day of the week.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 





You're an immature brat trying to make your immaturity into law, at the expense of all other people, and worst of all your own children. You're a spoiled brat. You should be treated to a spanking and sent to your room to think about things.


You don't know me, woman.

How dare you. (Don't get me wrong, I'm not personally offended, merely amazed, again, that this passes for acceptable debate on ats.)

I however, can, based purely upon your own words, judge you. Mentally, morally, and even on the level of the ability for simple polite discourse. You may rant on, but I won't read it...you are now IGNORED.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Men bullied by their own decisions, and don't like hearing about it.

Men who think that they can use the Constitution as an after the fact condom.

I've heard of using paper to CYA, but using it to plaster up your penis is new.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 



You have legal options to protect yourself from your "oppression." Failing to use them isn't a federal issue


The Constitution of the United States of America is the Supreme Law of the land and nothing can override them. them and invoking those rights is in fact a legal option.


You freely contract in the behaviour that you know what the results are. In that contract you freely accept the consequences of your actions. You freely and with all legal protection have legal options to stop yourself from producing and deseminating (inseminating) material that would lead to said contract.


Not in all cases. A 16 year old babysitter got her 12 or 13 year old charge drunk and after he passed out she "raped" him and got pregnant. The victim of this rape was then forced to pay his assailant. there was nothing freely given or entered into there at all. Oh wait he's a Male so he deserved what he got I guess?


You engage in sex, you leave behind material which will create a baby, you have legal options to stop yourself from leaving behind said material, you do not use them, and therefore you freely contract to engage in fatherhood with complete knowledge beforehand.


The woman has options also and if said woman tells her partner she is on birth control but is not then she led him into this union under false pretenses so she should foot the bill? Oh wait he's a male so deserves what he gets.

I clearly see your stance on this women should be equals with men unless they make a mistake or fail to protect themselves and then the men should foot the bill. You can have it one way or the other but not both.

If a man impregnates a woman and she chooses to have the baby then he must pay for it.

If a man impregnates a woman and wants the baby she is free to abort.

Women get to dictate when a man can or cannot have a baby and require him to pay also? hmm oppressive as you said.

Next time you're riding with someone and they get a speeding ticket I want You to tell the officer to ticket you also because you entered into a situation that you knew could result in a ticket even though it was a unilateral decision of the driver to speed or not to speed.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   
The 16 year old babysitter is guilty of a crime. And should be in jail.

Using uncommon and unusual circumstances to make your case is disingenious, and a form of manipulation.

Not surprising - anyone trying to use the constitution to protect themselves from...well themselves, is pretty manipulative to begin with.

And nice try on the "just along for the ride officier" analogy. Very amusing. Has nothing in common with your intentionally leaving your semen where you know a baby can be made, but amusing nonetheless.

That a woman has more time to make a decision, doesn't absolve you of YOUR decisions.

You put your penis there, you spurted your semen there....you knew from grade school what that meant. You choose the behaviour to make a child. That's a contract. One that you should have "pulled out" of before the act if you didn't want to.
edit on 2011/2/7 by Aeons because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join