Constitutionality of filial responsibility laws

[Donerail]

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. 

You do not accept this responsibility simply by being born — children who are put up for adoption, placed in the foster care system, or emancipated from their parents are generally exempt from the obligation to support their (biological) parents. You accept this responsibility by benefiting from the support and care of your parents during childhood. You do not, by definition, share the same relationship with a random stranger.

As the California Supreme Court has explained, "the parents, who are now in need, supported and cared for their children during their minority and ... such children should in return now support their parents to the extent to which they are capable. Since these children received special benefits from the class of 'parents in need,' it is entirely rational that the children bear a special burden with respect to that class." Swoap v. Superior Court, 516 P.2d 840, 851 (Cal. 1973). It is completely constitutional to obligate you to repay the support your parents gave you.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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. 

This is exactly what I suspected you were getting at. It's, again, a personal philosophical and moral view of yours (a denial of the legitimacy of pieties, unchosen obligations) that you're mistaking for a Constitutional provision. The use of "constitutional" to mean "good" and "unconstitutional" to mean "bad" is probably the central sin of American jurisprudence and I think in other contexts you would know that as much as anyone.

[Ferguson97]

As the California Supreme Court has explained, "the parents, who are now in need, supported and cared for their children during their minority and ... such children should in return now support their parents to the extent to which they are capable. Since these children received special benefits from the class of 'parents in need,' it is entirely rational that the children bear a special burden with respect to that class." Swoap v. Superior Court, 516 P.2d 840, 851 (Cal. 1973). It is completely constitutional to obligate you to repay the support your parents gave you.

This is terrible legal reasoning.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

As the California Supreme Court has explained, "the parents, who are now in need, supported and cared for their children during their minority and ... such children should in return now support their parents to the extent to which they are capable. Since these children received special benefits from the class of 'parents in need,' it is entirely rational that the children bear a special burden with respect to that class." Swoap v. Superior Court, 516 P.2d 840, 851 (Cal. 1973). It is completely constitutional to obligate you to repay the support your parents gave you.

This is terrible legal reasoning.

How?

[Vosem]

Very pleasant to see Ferguson making my "it is immoral for society not to minimize the extent to which people are involuntarily held responsible for others' wellbeing" points here.

Why are you so obsessed with me

You make extremely Generic D arguments about a wide variety of issues, and usually do so in ways that are well-written, and so easy to respond to, but also unreflective and predictable, and so easy to respond to. One encounters arguments much like yours in a variety of left-leaning online spaces and opinion sections and so the rebuttals, for those of us that dislike those points, tend to already be mostly formed, making you again easy to respond to.

With that out of the way, I do like what you're saying in this thread, and you should apply the same logic to more circumstances.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Very pleasant to see Ferguson making my "it is immoral for society not to minimize the extent to which people are involuntarily held responsible for others' wellbeing" points here.

He still needs to argue that immoral here means unconstitutional. I think you and I can agree that there are plenty of types of immoral laws that Congress or the states are nevertheless constitutionally permitted to enact!

[Ferguson97]

Very pleasant to see Ferguson making my "it is immoral for society not to minimize the extent to which people are involuntarily held responsible for others' wellbeing" points here.

He still needs to argue that immoral here means unconstitutional. I think you and I can agree that there are plenty of types of immoral laws that Congress or the states are nevertheless constitutionally permitted to enact!

I'm not arguing that it's immoral, I'm arguing that it's unconstitutional.

When you enter a marriage with someone, that is an explicit acceptance of duty and responsibility. When you have a child, that is an explicit acceptance of duty abd responsibility. No one chooses their parents, and there is no explicit or implicit acceptance of duty or responsibility for a child to take care of their parent.

It would obviously be unconstitutional to write a law saying that random people may be on the hook for unpaid bills. So that must also be the case for laws saying that children may be on the case for unpaid bills of their parents.

As the California Supreme Court has explained, "the parents, who are now in need, supported and cared for their children during their minority and ... such children should in return now support their parents to the extent to which they are capable. Since these children received special benefits from the class of 'parents in need,' it is entirely rational that the children bear a special burden with respect to that class." Swoap v. Superior Court, 516 P.2d 840, 851 (Cal. 1973). It is completely constitutional to obligate you to repay the support your parents gave you.

This bolded part is not a legal argument! It is not a "special benefit" to be raised by your parents. And even if it were a special benefit, there is no explicit agreement that such a transaction must be reciprocal.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Very pleasant to see Ferguson making my "it is immoral for society not to minimize the extent to which people are involuntarily held responsible for others' wellbeing" points here.

He still needs to argue that immoral here means unconstitutional. I think you and I can agree that there are plenty of types of immoral laws that Congress or the states are nevertheless constitutionally permitted to enact!

I'm not arguing that it's immoral, I'm arguing that it's unconstitutional.

When you enter a marriage with someone, that is an explicit acceptance of duty and responsibility. When you have a child, that is an explicit acceptance of duty abd responsibility. No one chooses their parents, and there is no explicit or implicit acceptance of duty or responsibility for a child to take care of their parent.

It would obviously be unconstitutional to write a law saying that random people may be on the hook for unpaid bills. So that must also be the case for laws saying that children may be on the case for unpaid bills of their parents.

As the California Supreme Court has explained, "the parents, who are now in need, supported and cared for their children during their minority and ... such children should in return now support their parents to the extent to which they are capable. Since these children received special benefits from the class of 'parents in need,' it is entirely rational that the children bear a special burden with respect to that class." Swoap v. Superior Court, 516 P.2d 840, 851 (Cal. 1973). It is completely constitutional to obligate you to repay the support your parents gave you.

This bolded part is not a legal argument! It is not a "special benefit" to be raised by your parents. And even if it were a special benefit, there is no explicit agreement that such a transaction must be reciprocal.

It is a perfectly sound argument that one's parents are not "random people" relative to oneself under the law. Do you think it's unconstitutional for people who die intestate to have their parents in the line of inheritance as well?

Using words like "agreement," "transaction," and "reciprocal" to describe a child's relationship with their parents is exactly the presuppositional and moralizing approach that everyone else in this thread is attributing to you, Ferguson. Your legal argument here IS BASED ON a moral belief that you refuse to acknowledge isn't universally held. That's why people keep bringing up morality in our responses to you.

[Donerail]

He still needs to argue that immoral here means unconstitutional. I think you and I can agree that there are plenty of types of immoral laws that Congress or the states are nevertheless constitutionally permitted to enact!

I'm not arguing that it's immoral, I'm arguing that it's unconstitutional.

When you enter a marriage with someone, that is an explicit acceptance of duty and responsibility. When you have a child, that is an explicit acceptance of duty abd responsibility. No one chooses their parents, and there is no explicit or implicit acceptance of duty or responsibility for a child to take care of their parent.

It would obviously be unconstitutional to write a law saying that random people may be on the hook for unpaid bills. So that must also be the case for laws saying that children may be on the case for unpaid bills of their parents.

If it's so "obvious," why don't you explain why? You keep making that (ridiculous) analogy, and yet you still haven't even said what provision of the Constitution you think is at issue here. Here is a copy. Tell us what provision of the Constitution you think forbids these laws. Repeated statements about "explicit acceptance" get us nowhere — if you think the Constitution forbids something, show us where.

As the California Supreme Court has explained, "the parents, who are now in need, supported and cared for their children during their minority and ... such children should in return now support their parents to the extent to which they are capable. Since these children received special benefits from the class of 'parents in need,' it is entirely rational that the children bear a special burden with respect to that class." Swoap v. Superior Court, 516 P.2d 840, 851 (Cal. 1973). It is completely constitutional to obligate you to repay the support your parents gave you.

This bolded part is not a legal argument! It is not a "special benefit" to be raised by your parents. And even if it were a special benefit, there is no explicit agreement that such a transaction must be reciprocal.

No, the bolded part is what a legal argument looks like. You seem confused about the difference between legal and moral arguments. There is no "explicit agreement" clause of the Constitution, and nothing in the document says anything close to the argument you're making.

[Ferguson97]

No, the bolded part is what a legal argument looks like. You seem confused about the difference between legal and moral arguments. There is no "explicit agreement" clause of the Constitution, and nothing in the document says anything close to the argument you're making.

Since these children received special benefits from the class of 'parents in need,' it is entirely rational that the children bear a special burden with respect to that class

Explain to me how this is a legal argument and not a moral argument. What legal reasoning is being used here?

[Donerail]

No, the bolded part is what a legal argument looks like. You seem confused about the difference between legal and moral arguments. There is no "explicit agreement" clause of the Constitution, and nothing in the document says anything close to the argument you're making.

Since these children received special benefits from the class of 'parents in need,' it is entirely rational that the children bear a special burden with respect to that class

Explain to me how this is a legal argument and not a moral argument. What legal reasoning is being used here?

The Court in the quoted language is identifying a reasonable and non-arbitrary relationship between the class of persons the legislature has singled out to bear this obligation and the object of the law. (Note that this does not require an "explicit agreement" or "reciprocity" — the legal standard is reasonable and non-arbitrary.) This is the legal test for whether a law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Again, states may pass whatever laws they like unless they violate the U.S. Constitution. The plaintiffs in the case unsuccessfully argued that these laws violated the Equal Protection Clause. Is that your theory? Or is there another part of the Constitution you think these laws violate?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Donerail, would another example of a "reasonable and non-arbitrary" special burden be that borne by smokers with respect to public health (i.e. cigarette taxes being used disproportionately to fund CHIP at the federal level and anti-smoking programs at the state and local levels)?

[Donerail]

Donerail, would another example of a "reasonable and non-arbitrary" special burden be that borne by smokers with respect to public health (i.e. cigarette taxes being used disproportionately to fund CHIP at the federal level and anti-smoking programs at the state and local levels)?

Yes, though I'd probably try to make the argument more straightforward than that: Taxes are rationally related to the state's interest in raising revenue. A better example might be indoor smoking bans, where the legitimate state interest is public health and the ban is rationally related to that (via reducing second-hand smoke). A blanket ban on indoor smoking might be more intrusive than is necessary to achieve that goal — an "imperfect fit between means and ends," as the Court has put it — but so long as it's rationally related, it passes muster.

What's more difficult is thinking of a law that would fail rational basis. There's a case from the 11th Circuit that struck down a Palm Beach ordinance requiring all joggers to wear shirts, which the town asserted was rationally related to its desire to "maintain its character as a residential community." There's also one from the 5th Circuit that struck down an ordinance that sought to prevent the "corrupting influence" of gambling by banning all minors from entering arcades. You generally have to get into that realm of something the judge will read and think is faintly ridiculous before rational basis starts to have purchase.

A personal favorite, Simi Investment Co. v. Harris County:

Satisfied that the County's blockage of access [between a parcel of land and an adjacent city street] implicates a constitutionally protected property right, we must ask next whether this denial is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest. ... In brief, it is apparent from the record that the County cannot demonstrate that a five-foot park ever existed in between Fannin Street and the Simi Property. ... As will be discussed in detail below, the evidence demonstrates that the County acted arbitrarily in inventing a park and, thus, acted without a rational basis in depriving Simi of a constitutionally protected interest.