Constitutionality of filial responsibility laws

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

[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.

[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.

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

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.

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.

[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.

[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?

[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!

[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.

[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)?