JP Cusick
New Member
Mr Know-it-all, sir.
Posts: 258 
|
Post by JP Cusick on Jun 10, 2011 9:28:22 GMT -5
The Child Support laws and its enforcement are NOT really considered as a criminal action as not even a misdemeanor, so if it was dealt with as a criminal action then the Courts would have to give the parents their Constitutional rights, as like legal representation, and a jury trial, and submitting of recognized evidence, and due process of law - but no, the Child Support is not treated as under criminal law and thereby the parents are railroaded without the law suffering such inconveniences.
In my Maryland then failure to pay is classified as "Contempt of Court" which is not in itself a crime because it is the Court itself which is the one being contempted so there is no process other then go directly to jail and do not pass go, etc .....
Child Support is a system that circumvents the US Constitutional rights by making it a thief system of just stealing money from parents and even putting parents into jail while failing to give the parents the old Constitutional rights.
|
|
|
|
Post by citygirl on Jun 12, 2011 10:23:12 GMT -5
Gotta pay the child support.
|
|
JP Cusick
New Member
Mr Know-it-all, sir.
Posts: 258
|
Post by JP Cusick on Jun 27, 2011 9:02:55 GMT -5
Gotta pay the child support. That is the law as it is now, but after reform then it will become up-to each parent and not a Court order. The correct way for both parents to directly contribute to their own children is to be married, while the Child Support and Custody laws violate the Institution of marriage with those intrusive laws. The idea of wanting the parents to live separately but still maintaining a level as if married is completely absurd. |
|
|
|
Post by thunderclapp on Jun 27, 2011 10:12:38 GMT -5
Gotta pay the child support. The correct way for both parents to directly contribute to their own children is to be married, while the Child Support and Custody laws violate the Institution of marriage with those intrusive laws. The idea of wanting the parents to live separately but still maintaining a level as if married is completely absurd.This sounds like you want to eliminate divorce laws. Is that also part of your campaign plank? |
|
JP Cusick
New Member
Mr Know-it-all, sir.
Posts: 258
|
Post by JP Cusick on Jun 28, 2011 10:02:14 GMT -5
This sounds like you want to eliminate divorce laws. Is that also part of your campaign plank? I say the more pertinent question would be - is our gov going to get rid of marriage? since the divorce laws are here to stay. As to my campaign platform then I do not say to end divorce, and divorce laws are a State by State law so it is not under any authority of a Senator if I do win this election. To reform the federal Child Support mandate will definitely affect the divorce laws in a positive way, but that will not by itself end the systematic destruction of families across the USA. Still we could look at other societies as like in Ireland a married couple must wait and be separated for five (5) years before any divorce gets granted. My own thought is from the Bible in that having a baby means the two parents are joined as married. There is no need for a marriage license or ceremony since the baby marks the marriage. So thereafter the couple could not legally marry anyone else and no divorce until the children reach the age of 21. As a US Senator then I myself will not try to turn this into law but that was the original civil and Biblical intent of marriage - to unite the two parents with their child(ren). Otherwise under the present system and in due time then only the homosexuals will view marriage as a worthy goal or as a badge of honor. As I said the better question is whether our gov and its laws are going to protect and defend the parents and their marriages? since the State has violated the religious institution. I myself say it is the Churches that need to reclaim their religious authority over marriage and take it away from the State - but that would be a surprising revolution indeed. |
|
|
|
Post by thunderclapp on Jun 28, 2011 11:29:50 GMT -5
I say the more pertinent question would be - is our gov going to get rid of marriage? since the divorce laws are here to stay. My own thought is from the Bible in that having a baby means the two parents are joined as married. There is no need for a marriage license or ceremony since the baby marks the marriage. So thereafter the couple could not legally marry anyone else and no divorce until the children reach the age of 21. Otherwise under the present system and in due time then only the homosexuals will view marriage as a worthy goal or as a badge of honor. As I said the better question is whether our gov and its laws are going to protect and defend the parents and their marriages? since the State has violated the religious institution. It's funny (but not a big deal) that you would give me a "better question" to ask, but since you did answer the question, I'll just settle with being amused by that "politicspeak". On the one side of your mouth you say that the government should not interfere with marriage if it comes to child support, but on the other side of your mouth you say that government should "protect and defend the parents and their marriage". Otherwise, if having a baby makes you married to the partner, wouldn't having multiple children with multiple partners result in bigamous marriages? There are also laws against bigamy that would have to be changed. Then there are laws about incest that would have to be changed too. I assume that in your plan you can get married religiously without having children? What if the parents don't believe in any kind of god or just don't have a religion? If an only child dies, are the parent's still married? Were you religiously married to both of your wives before your first wife passed away? You only had a child with your first wife as far as I know. I know you think it should be up to "the church" and that government should not get involved but it seems like a pretty complicated can of worms if you ask me. |
|
JP Cusick
New Member
Mr Know-it-all, sir.
Posts: 258
|
Post by JP Cusick on Jun 29, 2011 10:58:32 GMT -5
I must give this disclaimer that we are just discussing subjects while my only platform and intent is to stop the injustices of the Child Support system, so anything else is just not part of my campaign. On the one side of your mouth you say that the government should not interfere with marriage if it comes to child support, but on the other side of your mouth you say that government should "protect and defend the parents and their marriage". The laws could defend and protect parents and marriage without interfering or violating them. As like having laws that declare the adulterer (the outside person violating the marriage) to be the criminal. As like President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky being that the only legal option for the violated family was for Mrs Clinton to get a divorce and separate their daughter from her Dad and break up their family, while the adulteress Lewinsky was the one protected by the laws. That Clinton family had no legal protection nor defense while our laws protect and defend the ruin of families. And if there had been such a law at that time then President Clinton would have known that if they got caught then his little adulteress would have gotten into trouble, and Lewinsky herself would have known she would be viewed as the wrong doer so both would have had big incentive to refrain. And Hillary Clinton could have sought justice instead of standing alone. Otherwise, if having a baby makes you married to the partner, wouldn't having multiple children with multiple partners result in bigamous marriages? There are also laws against bigamy that would have to be changed. They already do this in that a mother having multiple children by multiple fathers will get Child Support from multiple Court orders, so the laws of bigamy are already undermined, and thereby mostly irrelevant. Then there are laws about incest that would have to be changed too. I do not see incest as being a factor, and maybe some changes might be needed, but we are not going to work out such a thing on this board, and not in the US Senate either. I assume that in your plan you can get married religiously without having children? What if the parents don't believe in any kind of god or just don't have a religion? Yes of course people can still be married whether they have children or not, and whether they believe in God or not. The gov's civil union is a marriage outside of religion. If an only child dies, are the parent's still married? Of course they would still be married. But if they did not legally nor religiously enter into their marriage and they wanted to separate after the child dies or matures to adult then the two could chose to stay together or separate or whatever. I know you think it should be up to "the church" and that government should not get involved but it seems like a pretty complicated can of worms if you ask me. There are only legal complications, and those legalities are the ongoing problem we have today. Religions and Churches already have a big-daddy-God, and they can do just fine without the big-daddy-gov giving out such religious doctrines as civil law. |
|
JP Cusick
New Member
Mr Know-it-all, sir.
Posts: 258
|
Post by JP Cusick on Dec 3, 2011 8:39:56 GMT -5
Gotta pay the child support. The Child Support and Custody laws are effectively making it against the law for poorer people to have children, because the evil laws demand cash payments which poorer people can not pay (including working parents). So the laws are making childbirth as a privilege of the richer citizens, and a punishment to the poorer population, and it is an ugly inhuman injustice going onward. Of course the law also provides the abortion facilities as another way of stopping the poorer parents from having poor children, because the laws have made children into a matter of money, where people who can not pay the demanded Child Support are those who legally are not to have children or else they will be legally punished accordingly. The laws are anti-human and unnatural and they need to be fought. |
|
