Constitutionality of filial responsibility laws
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 05:38:25 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Constitution and Law (Moderator: World politics is up Schmitt creek)
  Constitutionality of filial responsibility laws
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Constitutionality of filial responsibility laws  (Read 1810 times)
Ferguson97
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,812
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: February 24, 2023, 06:45:09 PM »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filial_responsibility_laws

I genuinely didn't know that these existed until a few moments ago, and cannot for the life of me understand how they could be constitutional.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderator
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,249


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: February 25, 2023, 06:19:36 PM »

Exactly what constitutional provisions do they violate? I'm glad to hear out an argument here, but I don't think it's nearly as much of a slam dunk as you seem to.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: February 26, 2023, 09:32:38 AM »

Exactly what constitutional provisions do they violate? I'm glad to hear out an argument here, but I don't think it's nearly as much of a slam dunk as you seem to.

The equal protection clause is the universal judicial solvent for all that ails the public square. Please write that down for future reference.



https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1347&context=jlp



Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: February 26, 2023, 11:22:20 AM »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filial_responsibility_laws

I genuinely didn't know that these existed until a few moments ago, and cannot for the life of me understand how they could be constitutional.
Do you likewise believe spousal and child support laws are unconstitutional, or is there something specific about filial support?
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderator
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,249


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: February 27, 2023, 01:12:39 PM »

Exactly what constitutional provisions do they violate? I'm glad to hear out an argument here, but I don't think it's nearly as much of a slam dunk as you seem to.

The equal protection clause is the universal judicial solvent for all that ails the public square. Please write that down for future reference.



https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1347&context=jlp

It should be but it's not, "substantive due process" is instead, because of this country's "Hunting of the Snark"-tier jurisprudential traditions.
Logged
Ferguson97
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,812
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: February 28, 2023, 11:19:40 AM »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filial_responsibility_laws

I genuinely didn't know that these existed until a few moments ago, and cannot for the life of me understand how they could be constitutional.
Do you likewise believe spousal and child support laws are unconstitutional, or is there something specific about filial support?

When you enter a marriage or have a child, there is an explicit acceptance of duty. Nobody chooses their parents.
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: February 28, 2023, 12:49:39 PM »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filial_responsibility_laws

I genuinely didn't know that these existed until a few moments ago, and cannot for the life of me understand how they could be constitutional.
Do you likewise believe spousal and child support laws are unconstitutional, or is there something specific about filial support?

When you enter a marriage or have a child, there is an explicit acceptance of duty. Nobody chooses their parents.
Enter a marriage, sure. Have a child, questionable. Child support doesn't care if you didn't want the child, if it was an accident, or how you feel about the child now. The logic of child support is simply that the state shouldn't have to pay to support individuals who could be supported by their family instead (regardless of how the family members may feel about that). Same logic extends to justify filial support laws.
Logged
Ferguson97
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,812
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: February 28, 2023, 12:57:11 PM »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filial_responsibility_laws

I genuinely didn't know that these existed until a few moments ago, and cannot for the life of me understand how they could be constitutional.
Do you likewise believe spousal and child support laws are unconstitutional, or is there something specific about filial support?

When you enter a marriage or have a child, there is an explicit acceptance of duty. Nobody chooses their parents.
Enter a marriage, sure. Have a child, questionable. Child support doesn't care if you didn't want the child, if it was an accident, or how you feel about the child now. The logic of child support is simply that the state shouldn't have to pay to support individuals who could be supported by their family instead (regardless of how the family members may feel about that). Same logic extends to justify filial support laws.

With a child, there is a point at which a parent's legal obligation to provide care for their child ends. This is not the case with parents, per filal law.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,704
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: February 28, 2023, 01:24:31 PM »
« Edited: February 28, 2023, 01:28:33 PM by These knuckles break before they bleed »

FWIW the North Dakota law was repealed in 2019: https://www.grandforksherald.com/newsmd/bill-to-amend-north-dakotas-filial-statute-sent-to-burgum
Logged
Stranger in a strange land
strangeland
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,139
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: February 28, 2023, 01:38:35 PM »

How common is it that these laws are actually enforced?
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: February 28, 2023, 02:23:01 PM »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filial_responsibility_laws

I genuinely didn't know that these existed until a few moments ago, and cannot for the life of me understand how they could be constitutional.
Do you likewise believe spousal and child support laws are unconstitutional, or is there something specific about filial support?

When you enter a marriage or have a child, there is an explicit acceptance of duty. Nobody chooses their parents.
Enter a marriage, sure. Have a child, questionable. Child support doesn't care if you didn't want the child, if it was an accident, or how you feel about the child now. The logic of child support is simply that the state shouldn't have to pay to support individuals who could be supported by their family instead (regardless of how the family members may feel about that). Same logic extends to justify filial support laws.

With a child, there is a point at which a parent's legal obligation to provide care for their child ends. This is not the case with parents, per filal law.
And what constitutional principle do you think is offended by this fine-grained distinction? Indefinite support violates some due process principle, but eighteen years of support doesn't?
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderator
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,249


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: February 28, 2023, 05:23:42 PM »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filial_responsibility_laws

I genuinely didn't know that these existed until a few moments ago, and cannot for the life of me understand how they could be constitutional.
Do you likewise believe spousal and child support laws are unconstitutional, or is there something specific about filial support?

When you enter a marriage or have a child, there is an explicit acceptance of duty. Nobody chooses their parents.
Enter a marriage, sure. Have a child, questionable. Child support doesn't care if you didn't want the child, if it was an accident, or how you feel about the child now. The logic of child support is simply that the state shouldn't have to pay to support individuals who could be supported by their family instead (regardless of how the family members may feel about that). Same logic extends to justify filial support laws.

With a child, there is a point at which a parent's legal obligation to provide care for their child ends. This is not the case with parents, per filal law.
And what constitutional principle do you think is offended by this fine-grained distinction? Indefinite support violates some due process principle, but eighteen years of support doesn't?

Yeah, like I said, I'm happy to hear out Ferguson on this, but so far it seems a bit like he's mistaking a philosophical or moral objection to the idea of unchosen obligations for something that's in the Constitution.
Logged
Ferguson97
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,812
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: March 01, 2023, 02:55:01 AM »

And what constitutional principle do you think is offended by this fine-grained distinction? Indefinite support violates some due process principle, but eighteen years of support doesn't?
Yeah, like I said, I'm happy to hear out Ferguson on this, but so far it seems a bit like he's mistaking a philosophical or moral objection to the idea of unchosen obligations for something that's in the Constitution.

What part of the Constitution permits filal laws?

Fundamentally, there is no difference between making John pay for his dad’s bills, and making John pay for a complete stranger’s bills. But obviously legislation stating that “in the event that an elderly person cannot pay their bills, a random resident of the state shall be made responsible for payment” would be considered unconstitutional.
Logged
Blue3
Starwatcher
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,035
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: March 01, 2023, 03:41:15 AM »

These are state laws and local laws, not federal laws, right?
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,522
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: March 01, 2023, 09:58:07 AM »

And what constitutional principle do you think is offended by this fine-grained distinction? Indefinite support violates some due process principle, but eighteen years of support doesn't?
Yeah, like I said, I'm happy to hear out Ferguson on this, but so far it seems a bit like he's mistaking a philosophical or moral objection to the idea of unchosen obligations for something that's in the Constitution.

What part of the Constitution permits filal laws?

Fundamentally, there is no difference between making John pay for his dad’s bills, and making John pay for a complete stranger’s bills. But obviously legislation stating that “in the event that an elderly person cannot pay their bills, a random resident of the state shall be made responsible for payment” would be considered unconstitutional.

They are state laws, so the Constitution would need to be found to forbid them.  Otherwise, it's presumed to be permissible.  States have police power. 
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: March 01, 2023, 11:32:01 AM »
« Edited: March 01, 2023, 11:35:07 AM by Taylor Swift Boat Veterans for Truth »

And what constitutional principle do you think is offended by this fine-grained distinction? Indefinite support violates some due process principle, but eighteen years of support doesn't?
Yeah, like I said, I'm happy to hear out Ferguson on this, but so far it seems a bit like he's mistaking a philosophical or moral objection to the idea of unchosen obligations for something that's in the Constitution.

What part of the Constitution permits filal laws?

Fundamentally, there is no difference between making John pay for his dad’s bills, and making John pay for a complete stranger’s bills. But obviously legislation stating that “in the event that an elderly person cannot pay their bills, a random resident of the state shall be made responsible for payment” would be considered unconstitutional.
State laws like these need only satisfy rational basis review (assuming you're making some sort of equal protection argument). There is a legitimate state interest in ensuring that the indigent elderly are cared for, and there's a rational relationship between that goal and state filial responsibility laws. The latter part makes the difference between filial responsibility laws and your hypothetical clear — children receive support from their parents during their childhood, so it's rational to single them out for the duty of supporting their parents during their old age, in a way in which it would not be rational to assign this obligation through a lottery or random draw.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderator
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,249


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: March 02, 2023, 12:58:56 AM »

Fundamentally, there is no difference between making John pay for his dad’s bills, and making John pay for a complete stranger’s bills.

This is the philosophical or moral view I'm referring to, yes. It's a subject on which the Constitution is agnostic, although if these were federal laws, sure, some kind of argument could probably be made. Someone like William Rehnquist would be likeliest to have made it, though.
Logged
Ferguson97
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,812
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: March 02, 2023, 08:59:29 AM »

Fundamentally, there is no difference between making John pay for his dad’s bills, and making John pay for a complete stranger’s bills.

This is the philosophical or moral view I'm referring to, yes. It's a subject on which the Constitution is agnostic, although if these were federal laws, sure, some kind of argument could probably be made. Someone like William Rehnquist would be likeliest to have made it, though.

Do you believe it would be constitutional for a law to stipulate that someone can be forced to pay the bills of a random stranger?
Logged
lfromnj
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,217


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: March 02, 2023, 09:45:15 AM »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filial_responsibility_laws

I genuinely didn't know that these existed until a few moments ago, and cannot for the life of me understand how they could be constitutional.
Do you likewise believe spousal and child support laws are unconstitutional, or is there something specific about filial support?

The main difference is that spousal and child support both involve a contract of sorts(excluding rape). Said contract would accept the risk of divorce and alimony or having a child. However filial responsibility involves no such contract. Therefore my main argument is that it violates the 13th amendment.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderator
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,249


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: March 02, 2023, 10:49:57 AM »

Fundamentally, there is no difference between making John pay for his dad’s bills, and making John pay for a complete stranger’s bills.

This is the philosophical or moral view I'm referring to, yes. It's a subject on which the Constitution is agnostic, although if these were federal laws, sure, some kind of argument could probably be made. Someone like William Rehnquist would be likeliest to have made it, though.

Do you believe it would be constitutional for a law to stipulate that someone can be forced to pay the bills of a random stranger?

I don't know. Probably not. I don't think you understand the point I'm making.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: March 02, 2023, 11:01:00 AM »

Fundamentally, there is no difference between making John pay for his dad’s bills, and making John pay for a complete stranger’s bills.

This is the philosophical or moral view I'm referring to, yes. It's a subject on which the Constitution is agnostic, although if these were federal laws, sure, some kind of argument could probably be made. Someone like William Rehnquist would be likeliest to have made it, though.

Do you believe it would be constitutional for a law to stipulate that someone can be forced to pay the bills of a random stranger?

I mean, the state already forces you to pay a portion of the bills of a whole lot of random strangers. That's what taxes are for. And sure, there are limits to taxation (and there should probably be limits to filial responsibility laws as well, like they can't force you to go brankrupt), but the principle that the state has a say in what people do with their money is widely accepted by all except the wildest libertarians.
Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,784
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: March 02, 2023, 05:37:59 PM »

Thank you for the idea for a new Atlasia bill.


Quote
F.E.R.G.I.E. ACT

Quote
1. This law shall be referred to as the Filial Emancipation Requires Great Ignominious Evil Act or the F.E.R.G.I.E. Act.

2. It shall be the joint and several duty of all persons in the South nineteen (19) years of age or over, of sufficient earning capacity or income, after reasonably providing for his or her own immediate family, to assist in providing for the support and maintenance of his or her mother or father, he or she being then and there in necessitous circumstances.

3. If there be more than one (1) person bound to support the same parent or parents, the persons so bound to support shall jointly and severally share equitably in the discharge of such duty. Taking into consideration the needs of the parent or parents and the circumstances affecting the ability of each person to discharge the duty of support, the court having jurisdiction shall have the power to determine and order the payment, by such person so bound to support, of that amount for support and maintenance which to the court may seem just. Where the court ascertains that any person has failed to render his or her proper share in such support and maintenance it may, upon the complaint of any party or on its own motion, compel contribution by that person to any person or authority which has theretofore contributed to the support or maintenance of the parent or parents. The court may from time to time revise the orders entered by it or by any other court having jurisdiction under the provisions of this section, in such manner as to it may seem just.

4. Prosecutions under this section shall be in the jurisdiction where the parent or parents reside.

5. This act shall not apply if there is substantial evidence of desertion, neglect, abuse, or willful failure to support any such child by the father or mother, as the case may be, prior to the child's emancipation or, except as provided hereafter, if a parent is otherwise eligible for and is receiving public assistance or services under a government program.

6. Any person violating the provisions of an order entered pursuant to this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $500 or imprisonment in jail for a period not exceeding twelve (12) months or both.

7. This act shall take effect thirty (30) days from the date of enactment.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderator
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,249


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: March 03, 2023, 02:41:21 PM »

Thank you for the idea for a new Atlasia bill.


Quote
F.E.R.G.I.E. ACT

Quote
1. This law shall be referred to as the Filial Emancipation Requires Great Ignominious Evil Act or the F.E.R.G.I.E. Act.

2. It shall be the joint and several duty of all persons in the South nineteen (19) years of age or over, of sufficient earning capacity or income, after reasonably providing for his or her own immediate family, to assist in providing for the support and maintenance of his or her mother or father, he or she being then and there in necessitous circumstances.

3. If there be more than one (1) person bound to support the same parent or parents, the persons so bound to support shall jointly and severally share equitably in the discharge of such duty. Taking into consideration the needs of the parent or parents and the circumstances affecting the ability of each person to discharge the duty of support, the court having jurisdiction shall have the power to determine and order the payment, by such person so bound to support, of that amount for support and maintenance which to the court may seem just. Where the court ascertains that any person has failed to render his or her proper share in such support and maintenance it may, upon the complaint of any party or on its own motion, compel contribution by that person to any person or authority which has theretofore contributed to the support or maintenance of the parent or parents. The court may from time to time revise the orders entered by it or by any other court having jurisdiction under the provisions of this section, in such manner as to it may seem just.

4. Prosecutions under this section shall be in the jurisdiction where the parent or parents reside.

5. This act shall not apply if there is substantial evidence of desertion, neglect, abuse, or willful failure to support any such child by the father or mother, as the case may be, prior to the child's emancipation or, except as provided hereafter, if a parent is otherwise eligible for and is receiving public assistance or services under a government program.

6. Any person violating the provisions of an order entered pursuant to this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $500 or imprisonment in jail for a period not exceeding twelve (12) months or both.

7. This act shall take effect thirty (30) days from the date of enactment.

This is funny, but I think it's also personal-attack-adjacent and I'd like to warn everyone against taking this sort of thing further on this board.
Logged
Ferguson97
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,812
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: March 05, 2023, 12:34:39 PM »

Thank you for the idea for a new Atlasia bill.


Quote
F.E.R.G.I.E. ACT

Quote
1. This law shall be referred to as the Filial Emancipation Requires Great Ignominious Evil Act or the F.E.R.G.I.E. Act.

Why are you so obsessed with me
Logged
Ferguson97
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,812
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: March 05, 2023, 12:37:40 PM »

Fundamentally, there is no difference between making John pay for his dad’s bills, and making John pay for a complete stranger’s bills.

This is the philosophical or moral view I'm referring to, yes. It's a subject on which the Constitution is agnostic, although if these were federal laws, sure, some kind of argument could probably be made. Someone like William Rehnquist would be likeliest to have made it, though.

Do you believe it would be constitutional for a law to stipulate that someone can be forced to pay the bills of a random stranger?

I don't know. Probably not. I don't think you understand the point I'm making.

If it's unconstitutional to force someone to pay a random stranger's bills, then it cannot be constitutional to force them to pay a parent's bills. There is no inherent responsibly that one accepts by being born to someone. You accept responsibility when you sire children, and you accept responsibility when you enter a marriage contract. 
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.08 seconds with 11 queries.