Constitutionality of filial responsibility laws

[Ferguson97]

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.

[Ferguson97]

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.

[Ferguson97]

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.

[Ferguson97]

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.

[Ferguson97]

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?

[Ferguson97]

Thank you for the idea for a new Atlasia bill.

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

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

[Ferguson97]

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. 

[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.

[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.

[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?