Constitutionality of filial responsibility laws

[Donerail]

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?

[Donerail]

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.

[Donerail]

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?

[Donerail]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.