The Abolishment of Modern Indentured Servitude

Page 1 of 6 [ 94 posts ] Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

22 May 2011, 1:24 am

I have long been against Alimony and Child Support as they contradict core American ideals(or at least former American ideals) that I hold dear. I found this a moment ago and figured I would share.

Quote:

Child Support Contradicts the Constitution and Should be Abolished

by Wei Liu
(Kansas, United States)

Child Support Contradicts the Constitution and Should be Abolished

Wei Liu 2011

Recently I find the child support upon divorce contradicts the Constitution and should be abolished. The Preamble of the Constitution says, ?We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.? It is all right/free for any one to publish my article anywhere. And if you agree with me, please spread the idea of the essay around to make America a better country. I will also publish and post the essay elsewhere.

The general welfare now includes housing, food, education and medical care. The land is not made by the government/official, but made by God. Since the government holds the land made by God for people to live, the government is obliged to provide people with the basic living welfares. Now most governments in the world give every citizen there these welfares. Even in India, people going to school and seeing a doctor is free. I, as an adult who consume more than a child, have lived in Minnesota for years without any income. Today over 10% of Americans do not have any income and still live and raise their children. That?s how America is a fair and great nation. In fact, just for materials, raising one or two children is a one-person job.

Actually after divorce, there are at least five options to raise the child: ?1 solely by the father?s welfare 2 solely by the father?s income 3 solely by the mother?s welfare 4 solely by the mother?s income 5 the two raise the child together if the both agreed? These five options are people?s rights/liberty, and the Preamble of the Constitution says ?We the People of the United States??secure the Blessing of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.?

The state makes the family law that includes the child support. The child support forces one side to pay another and preclude people?s options/liberty to raise their children, which contradicts the Preamble of the Constitution.

Amendment 10 of the Constitution?Powers of the States and People says, ?The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.? Does the state law prohibit a person raising a child by himself/herself or by welfare? No, then those powers/rights are reserved to the people. Here the child support precludes people?s liberty/rights of how to raise the child and it contradicts Amendment 10 of the Constitution.

Amendment 14?Citizenship Rights says, ?No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.? It is nothing wrong for a person to raise a child by himself/herself or by welfare, and the child support abridges people of these immunities. It contradicts amendment 14 of the Constitution.

Amendment 13?Slavery Abolished says, ?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.? Divorce is not a crime, but normal life. The child support is forcing one side to pay another of the divorced two. Forcing someone to make money for another is involuntary servitude. No one including the spouse and the baby is slaver. Even within the marriage, no one is obliged to give any family member a penny, and the family law acknowledges that. Now the divorced two should have none or much less relationship than the marriage, and the government says one has to pay another certain amount of money every month, which does not make any sense at all. The child support contradicts Amendment 13.

Now we see the child support contradicts the Preamble, Amendment 10, 13, 14 of the Constitution of the United States and should be abolished.

The child support has already caused so much tension and problems among people and in the country. The divorced two dislike each other and are likely to form family respectively in a couple of years. It is truly not the government/court?s right to force any relationship including the financial one between the two. As I learn, about 50% of the non-custody parents cannot pay the child support. And some of them judged willfully doing so and get put in jail. In a southern state, there are 500 parents in jail just for failing to pay the child support. This is slavery. In America, I do not see people fighting or robbing one time in a year on average, but surprisingly in about 2008, there are 2 million people in the prison in America. Many innocent people including those fail to pay the child support get sent into prison. This is absolutely persecution and human rights disaster. Today in 2011, I see 58% of American people agree with me that the child support should be abolished.

Some people say, ?Then who is going to raise the child?? Upon divorce, whoever expresses that he/she is willing to take care of the child completely including financially, whoever gets the custody of the child. If both sides want or neither side wants, then draw a lot to decide. If the two agree that each contribute to raising the child, which is the child support way, then that?s up to them. But the law shall never force people to do something together.

As a social institution, upon divorce, the government/court should only concerns, ?Who?s going to take care of the child?? And this is easy to solve if we conform the Constitution, basically respect people?s choice/liberty. I know the mind of those who make and enforce the child support law. They just want the family to have more money, but this is the job of business, not the job of law or government. They also say the best interest of the child. We adults even often do not know what is the best interest for ourselves, what is the best for a country. And the government is judging what is the best interest for a child, ridiculous.

The government is not a place for those whose major concern is money, but for those whose major concern is fairness and human rights. Those whose major concern is money no matter for themselves or for the country should enter the business world. Right now the child support has unconstitutionally brought heavy burden upon the divorce people, upon the society and upon the government, has caused massive human rights disaster, and should be abolished. One thing more, those who are judged willfully failed to pay the child support and sent to prison are actually the best lovable people in America because when many people walk away from the Constitution, they are defending it. They are not willing to be a slave. I?m not a slave either. America should be a land of free. Divorce should be free.

If you have any legal questions on child support laws or any thing related, there is a box below where you can type in your question and a certified lawyer will be able to assist you.

Please leave your question in the box below and a professional lawyer will get back to you.

Apparently this guy is from the same state as me, found that interesting.

BadPuddle
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

Joined: 11 May 2009
Age: 53
Gender: Female
Posts: 57
Location: North West England

22 May 2011, 4:58 am

Hi, (I've been off this forum for a bit)
What are your views on the responsibility of both parents to support their children? Would you acknowledge that upon separation, one party, usually the parent with care (PWC) is left financially disadvantaged? They are also by default supporting the child by providing a roof over its head, day to day expenses etc. The non resident parent (NRP), often but not always the father, sometimes thinks that to buy treats and days out constitutes a contribution. There also appears an entrenched attitude that children are pay-per-view. Their OWN kids, btw. In the UK, contact and maintenance are legally separated. I believe that to be correct.
I have years of experience of child support work and sadly find that some NRPs are only interested in the children of the partner they are with at the time. A further sizeable minority are happy to financially support their offspring, but resent the idea of their ex having her hands on the money. This is not to negate the overwhelming majority of separated parents who either happily pay through either the courts or CMEC or make satisfactory arrangements between themselves.

91
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

22 May 2011, 5:36 am

I cannot comment on the constitutionality of the practice. However, I tend to support the idea of making both parents responsible for the upbringing of Children. My own experience, growing up in a single-parent family (being raised mostly by my father) has been that men have a much harder claiming child support from women than vice versa. The idea of Child support as a leveler between partners, a way of keeping both parents involved in the upbringing of a child seems a necessary intrusion. That does not mean that it is not without its issues. There is really only one way of making a man as responsible for a child as a woman and that is the institution of marriage.

_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.

Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

22 May 2011, 9:08 am

the institution of marriage bring no more responsibility to the married than a prison does to its inmates,
if the people feel and reason one way no imaginary boundry or concept is gonna change that.

_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

22 May 2011, 9:18 am

Indentured Servitude is a limited term labor contract, not slavery.

ruveyn

jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,144
Location: The end of the northwest passage

22 May 2011, 9:26 am

No one in the legal profession would take that essay seriously, for too many reasons to list. I suspect there's a scam in there somewhere.

_________________
"I find that the best way [to increase self-confidence] is to lie to yourself about who you are, what you've done, and where you're going." - Richard Ayoade

ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw

22 May 2011, 9:28 am

So, like, child support and alimony bug you more than a multi-billion dollar global sex trafficking trade,
as far as "indentured servitude"?

Strange, that.

zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,613

22 May 2011, 2:53 pm

Here are my thoughts as a legally-trained person.

1. Alimony. This practice is the product of an era where women could not work or certainly could not earn enough to be able to support themselves. Often, a dowry was required to get a woman into a good marriage, and unless she was unfaithful to her husband, if a man wanted out of a marriage, he was socially obligated to support her in the manner to which she had become accustomed. More so, a divorced woman was seen as "damaged goods" and was highly unlikely to ever remarry.

Alimony is largely a tool of feminist empowerment. Women can work and largely make the same as any man with equal training and relevant experience in the workforce. Yeah, if your man and you break up and you were living high on the hog together, it's a big step down when you live on your own, but if the divorce is a mutual choice (both want out) or NOT the product of HIS infidelity, there is no reason to award it to a divorced woman. It's amazing how often a judge (and not surprising a female judge) can impose insane levels of monthly alimony obligation as a way to "punish the man" for his perceived transgressions in failed relationships where both deserve the blame.

2. Child Support. Clearly, if you father a child, you have a moral and legal obligation to help pay the cost of raising the kid. My issue diverges into the topic of abortion. A woman can choose to abort a baby or bring it to full term and either keep it or give it up for adoption. In no way can the father impose his choice upon the mother. However, if she chooses to have the child and keep it, the father is legally bound to raise a kid he did not want. If she chooses to abort the kid, the father has no authority to force her to bring the child to term and allow him to have full custody of the unwanted kid. It is such a one-sided issue that it screams with injustice. Furthermore, the position most all states take on child support is that all that matters is that a "target" is identified for child support payments. If you prove via DNA test the kid is not yours, you still are bound to make those payments. If the mother LIED and said the kid was yours, falsely identified you (although a DNA test done before imposition of support payments will solve this) or led you to believe the kid was yours so you went forth erroneously representing yourself as the father, you will be bound to those payments. The state cares nothing about justice...only about getting the money. More so, some states (like California) the judge can impose any amount of child support with no regard as to the father's financial means and threaten imprisonment for non-compliance. Such fathers are frequently forced to move to other states that do put caps on how much of their pay can be taken for child support so that they can actually manage to live on what's left over.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

22 May 2011, 3:20 pm

ValentineWiggin wrote:

So, like, child support and alimony bug you more than a multi-billion dollar global sex trafficking trade,
as far as "indentured servitude"?

Strange, that.

Well, let's just look at it this way: sex trafficking is a trade of goods and services. Alimony is the guberment taking your hard-earned cash.

Obviously the former is more acceptable than the latter. It's just... actual slavery and rape, but thank goodness it isn't the government putting its nose where it doesn't belong.

BurntOutMom
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Mar 2011
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 502
Location: Oregon, USA

22 May 2011, 4:56 pm

ikorack wrote:

I have long been against Alimony and Child Support as they contradict core American ideals(or at least former American ideals) that I hold dear. I found this a moment ago and figured I would share.

So core American ideals (or at least former American ideals) promote neglect and abandonment by non-custodial parents?

You would rather a single parent survive on social services than attempt to get deadbeat parents pay child support?

You incite a need in me to gloriously blow something up.

jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,144
Location: The end of the northwest passage

22 May 2011, 5:24 pm

zer0netgain wrote:

Here are my thoughts as a legally-trained person.

Fairness has little to do with legal decisions, and the essay addressed the constitutionality of the laws. For fairness, elect fairer politicians. Judges care only about precedent, and not looking bad due to getting overruled by a higher court.

_________________
"I find that the best way [to increase self-confidence] is to lie to yourself about who you are, what you've done, and where you're going." - Richard Ayoade

AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

22 May 2011, 10:26 pm

BurntOutMom wrote:

ikorack wrote:

I have long been against Alimony and Child Support as they contradict core American ideals(or at least former American ideals) that I hold dear. I found this a moment ago and figured I would share.

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

22 May 2011, 11:46 pm

Is this a joke? It's not funny.

ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

23 May 2011, 12:06 am

ValentineWiggin wrote:

So, like, child support and alimony bug you more than a multi-billion dollar global sex trafficking trade,
as far as "indentured servitude"?

Strange, that.

What the heck are you talking about, I've never discussed the sex trade before, not here anyways.

BurntOutMom wrote:

ikorack wrote:

I have long been against Alimony and Child Support as they contradict core American ideals(or at least former American ideals) that I hold dear. I found this a moment ago and figured I would share.

My preferences is marriages that are actually binding for the duration of any child to majority.

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

ValentineWiggin wrote:

So, like, child support and alimony bug you more than a multi-billion dollar global sex trafficking trade,
as far as "indentured servitude"?

Strange, that.

Am I forgetting a conversation or something?(I really don't know of any sex trafficking discussion) Alimony is enforced by the government but it doesn't go to the government.

Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

23 May 2011, 12:24 am

Ideally, I don't think the government need be involved. A marriage is a contract between two people and that is where I think this should be addressed. Government should enforce the contract agreed upon by the two parties. Realistically, a lot of people have children outside of marriage so I'm not sure what a more pragmatic solution to this is but at the very least I think spousal support be taken a hard look at. I find the whole perpetual standard of living thing thing pretty dumb when you're dealing with 2 adult.

BurntOutMom
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Mar 2011
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 502
Location: Oregon, USA

23 May 2011, 12:45 am

ikorack wrote:

BurntOutMom wrote:

ikorack wrote:

I have long been against Alimony and Child Support as they contradict core American ideals(or at least former American ideals) that I hold dear. I found this a moment ago and figured I would share.

My preferences is marriages that are actually binding for the duration of any child to majority.

When your fantasy world becomes a reality, let me know. Until then, perhaps you should understand that it's not always in the child's best interests for a broken marriage to stay together until that child reaches majority. Actually, it can lead to a very miserable existence for everyone involved. I find it odd that you would think that people should go through years of pretended contentment but say that non-custodials don't have a financial responsibilities when a split does occur.

My mom left my father and filed divorce when I was 2, because my father, in a high and drunken rage, beat the crap out of her. My father and my stepmom held their sham of a marriage together until my youngest brother graduated high school... It had to have been a wonderful, nurturing, supportive situation as both of my brothers grew up to be model drug and alcohol addicted prison yard citizens. My mom's second marriage seemed to be going fabulously until her husband informed her that he'd married her thinking he'd fall in love with her, it hadn't happened and he wanted a divorce, 3 months before their 10th wedding anniversary.

It would be great if marriage was forever. Very rarely is that the case. I think it's perfectly ridiculous for people to stay together simply because society thinks they should. Life is too short to not find happiness if you can, and too long to endure unhappiness if you don't have to.

I don't understand why society thinks humans are supposed to mate for life. Experience has shown me that this is rarely the case.

To absolve someone of their parental obligations on the grounds of your antiquated moral code is absurd.

Page 1 of 6 [ 94 posts ] Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Jump to:

The Abolishment of Modern Indentured Servitude Post Reply New Topic

The Abolishment of Modern Indentured Servitude