Further research is revealing that child support may not be constitutional either in many cases. (Keep in mind that we are not attorneys and are only sharing information with you as we understand it as laymen and are sharing for political reasons as well as we have a right to challenge intrusions in our lives by government as our founding father’s did. And we are allowed to express these findings and share with others under the 1st Amendment.)
In Hodges v. United States from 1906, and unless there is a more recent case that overturns this interpretation of the Supreme Court of the United States, child support might be seen as a punishment in some cases. If the court awards it before a parent is properly convicted of a crime then could this be argued as a punishment? (Also, if the court did not support a right of the state to reduce the parent’s time with the child to less than equal to that of the other parent, and is challenged effectively, this would explain why in most cases when a parent has the children equal time no child support is awarded. This case is not the proper authority to cite for not having your time deprived with your child, we just bring it up here so that you understand that there are other excuses that they can use to award child support if they have deprived you of unequal time with your child — things like dividing the estate equitably and dividing the responsibilities, etc. There are all sorts of things that they hide behind. But this post is to help you understand that unless they can justify taking your equal time from you with your child and unless they can justify the punishment, the question here is have the state’s been exceeding their authority in child support awards, alimony, and spousal maintenance? Where is the line drawn with their claims that they are dividing the estate, and that they are dividing the responsibilities? Can they continue to do this unequally without proving one deserves to be punished? Without proving that they have me the bar to prove they have the authority to punish one over the other?)
HODGES v. UNITED STATES READS:
The Thirteenth Amendment reads:
“SEC. 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.
“SEC. 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”
The meaning of this is as clear as language can make it. The things denounced are slavery and involuntary servitude, and Congress is given power to enforce that denunciation. All understand by these terms a condition of enforced compulsory service of one to another.”
While the inciting causes of the passage of the 13th and 14th amendments might have been race and discrimination, the SC in this case states that these are “denunciation of a condition and not a declaration” and therefore applies to all people in all cases where the government might be trying to prevent any person from being able to exercise the following:
“What these fundamental principles are, it would be more tedious than difficult to enumerate. They may, however, be all comprehended under the following general heads: protection by the Government, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety; subject, nevertheless, to such restraints as the Government may prescribe for the general good of the whole.'”
So we ask again has the divorce or family law court met the bar to allow them to deprive each parent in a divorce the equal ability to exercise their fundamental rights and enjoyment of “life and liberty.” How can a parent enjoy their life and liberty if they get their child only 20% of the time, how can they enjoy that child and “pursue and obtain happiness and safety” if they have no money left over after paying the other parent to do anything with that child, to provide for that child during the time the child is with them, if that child has no reason to go to them for any of their needs or permission for anything. How are these not “restraints” placed on them by the Government? How is this not the State abusing its power and authority? There are other cases that state that the State is not to convey their power to an individual. How are they not doing that here to the other parent? And how is this “for the general good of the whole?” Allowing the other parent to terrorize one parent for their benefit and to tear from the other parent the most important individual in their entire life, we cannot see is good for any “whole” or society or community. (And the State’s have restrictions on them before they can justify infringing on your fundamental rights that we go over in the book, such as they must be “narrowly tailored” and must meet “a compelling state interest.” We discuss further in the book where we talk about when the state’s parens patriae authority is triggered and when it is not.)
So the next time that an attorney, or the opposing attorney, or even a judge tells you that you don’t have the right or that the statute allows them to infringe on that right, you can quote from this Justice, Justice Brewer, in this case has ruled that these amendments “are restrictions upon state action.”
and for the state to believe that you do not have rights unless they are individually spelled out and enumerated when it comes to raising your children and making the decisions regarding your child in divorce, quote this:
“”It would be the vainest show of learning to attempt to prove by citations of authority, that up to the adoption of the recent Amendments no claim or pretence was set up that those rights depended on the Federal Government for their existence or protection, beyond the very few express limitations which the Federal Constitution imposed upon the States — such, for instance, as the prohibition against ex post facto laws, bills of attainder, and laws impairing the obligation of contracts. But with the exception of these and a few other restrictions, the entire domain of the privileges and immunities of citizens of the States, as above defined, lay within the constitutional and legislative power of the States, and without that of the Federal Government.””
We are working on further argument for you to be able to defend against improper state action forcing parents into a position of servitude to the other parent, or a position of master and slave after divorce. We post the above to give you an example of how we walk through cases and present argument that you can use to protect the rights you have, and as a gentleman that we spoke to yesterday proclaimed, and rights “he didn’t know he had.”
We cannot stress the importance of getting our book so that you understand how to stop the state from depriving you of your time with your child or from using your time with your child as an equitable division of the estate in your divorce.
The book contains the general foundations for arguing your fundamental parental rights with annotated case and case citations.
We are working on further arguments for child support and alimony and spousal maintenance. But without the foundation book, “Not in the Child’s Best Interest” you risk getting lost in your arguments and the courts and the process will be able to continue to trick you out of your rights, and impose things on you that you could have challenged and changed.
We don’t want anyone to lose their time with their child or to be forced out of being able to enjoy having the money to enjoy their child and their time with their child, or the abilities that come along with having your financial freedom after divorce. Everyone in the United States should be able to enjoy their rights until convicted and told otherwise equally. And if they are going to make you forever responsible to another person financially, then we would think that the states need to make that known before you sign that marriage contract. And then we would argue then is there really such thing as a “no-fault” divorce.
These were just thoughts going through our heads this morning. We hope that you find some use and comfort in that we are making progress in figuring out how to stop the state’s from doing what they have been doing to families after divorce.
And some of you may have noticed that these posts are a constant work in progress and that sometimes we pull them down to correct them or update them, because as stated before and on other social media where we share, these are works in progress.