Child Support Payback

[vegas giants]

Men can get consent from a woman to have sex, but if a conception occurs, he can’t control whether or not he’ll be a parent. Women have the legal option to give birth - despite what the bio-dad wants.

Yes we should try to make that a little more fair. I wonder what we could do? LOL

 

[Bodi]

Based on the laws of the land, your comment above only applies to women. Men can only be party to consenting to sex.

That is the point. Inequal distribution of the law.

 

[Removable Mind]

Government has no say in her choice to give birth. She has complete freedom

You’re either in denial or wasting my time.

The government can’t Constitutionally intervene prior to conception or at any stage of development - including giving birth if all occurs within the parameters of the law.

In other words....

The government won’t recognize “her choice to give birth, based on her moral beliefs,” as violating your civil rights while simultaneously denies giving you the choice to opt out of paying support.

 

[vegas giants]

You’re either in denial or wasting my time.

The government can’t Constitutionally intervene prior to conception or at any stage of development - including giving birth if all occurs within the parameters of the law.

In other words....

The government won’t recognize “her choice to give birth, based on her moral beliefs,” as violating your civil rights while simultaneously denies giving you the choice to opt out of paying support.

I am sorry that you keep getting this wrong. Your constitutional argument fails on the face of it. There is NO constitutional barriers to a male opt out clause . But I am fine letting scotus decide.

 

[Removable Mind]

That is the point. Inequal distribution of the law.

I understand. But currently men can only get consent to have sex. He can’t get consent not to be a parent.

 

[vegas giants]

I understand. But currently men can only get consent to have sex. He can’t get consent not to be a parent.

Currently the law is unfair and a civil rights violation. We have the constitution on our side

 

[SDET]

What?

Now you're not even trying to make sense.


I tell you what. Y'all go back to being bitter that men are held responsible for paying for the children they help create.

And I'll go about my day happy that we have laws to protect the children.


Have a nice day.

Encouraging single motherhood is protecting children? Don't you know that most jailbirds were raised by single mothers?

 

[Removable Mind]

I am sorry that you keep getting this wrong. Your constitutional argument fails on the face of it. There is NO constitutional barriers to a male opt out clause . But I am fine letting scotus decide.

There are no Constitutional provisions that have successfully lead to men being declared to have THE RIGHT to opt out. My argument has been stated in caselaw for decades.

 

[Bodi]

I understand. But currently men can only get consent to have sex. He can’t get consent not to be a parent.

I understand. I am pointing out the hypocrisy of using that argument agaist a man...

 

[vegas giants]

There are no Constitutional provisions that have successfully lead to men being declared to have THE RIGHT to opt out. My argument has been stated in caselaw for decades.

Yes civil rights has a long history of decades long struggle. Legal abortions have only been around about 40 years. The struggle is very early on yet

 

[Removable Mind]

Currently the law is unfair and a civil rights violation. We have the constitution on our side

State your Constitutional argument that will enlighten the S.C. I’d love to read it.

AGAIN....

I did cause the problem, I can’t control the problem, and I can’t cure the problem. But I acknowledge the problem.

 

[vegas giants]

State your Constitutional argument that will enlighten the S.C. I’d love to read it.

AGAIN....

I did cause the problem, I can’t control the problem, and I can’t cure the problem. But I acknowledge the problem.

Your honor I present to you the 14th amendment

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[Removable Mind]

I understand. I am pointing out the hypocrisy of using that argument agaist a man...

I hear ya.

So what argument can you create to reverse or remedy those hypocrisies...that the powers that are will make serious consideration?

You’ve journeyed into a REPAY remedy. I’d like to see that idea developed. I threw in my 2 cents worth to get that idea rolling. So you and others can use my thoughts as a spring board to develop a specific solution that might have enough merit to be heard by Congress and the S.C. Or take the premise in a totally different direction???

 

[Removable Mind]

Your honor I present to you the 14th amendment

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That argument has failed numerous times because the EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE is considered to be FORMAL EQUALITY. That means the government can discriminate. Why? Research it for yourself. It’ll help you understand why your argument fails...like it has so many times. And if you understand my original point about the First Amendment then you would begin to see how that is enmeshed with the Fourteenth Amendment. And the Nineth.

 

[vegas giants]

That argument has failed numerous times because the EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE is considered to be FORMAL EQUALITY. That means the government can discriminate. Why? Research it for yourself. It’ll help you understand why your argument fails...like it has so many times. And if you understand my original point about the First Amendment then you would begin to see how that is enmeshed with the Fourteenth Amendment. And the Nineth.

I know of it only failing once. I can cite numerous civil rights cases that failed before finally passing. The Dred Scott case is of course the most famous.

But please.....cite your references

 

[Removable Mind]

I know of it only failing once. I can cite numerous civil rights cases that failed before finally passing. The Dred Scott case is of course the most famous.

But please.....cite your references

Gezzzzzus Gawd! You’re so wrong.

I can cite a quite a few cases. But I won’t. I’m not your personal legal researcher. You simply don’t know what you’re talking about.

I’ve posted a number of cases a number of times over the years - long before you began posting. Minnie has posted cases dozens of times.

Educate yourself! Then come back with a valid rebuttal.

 

[vegas giants]

Gezzzzzus Gawd! You’re so wrong.

I can cite a quite a few cases. But I won’t. I’m not your personal legal researcher. You simply don’t know what you’re talking about.

I’ve posted a number of cases a number of times over the years - long before you began posting. Minnie has posted cases dozens of times.

Educate yourself! Then come back with a valid rebuttal.

I see. You have no evidence. Your honor we ask we ask for a summary judgement.

Would you like to see some civil rights cases the courts got wrong?

1883: In a series of cases known as the Civil Rights Cases, the Supreme Court held that the Civil Rights Act of 1875 was not constitutional under the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court established the state-action doctrine, thereby allowing segregation and discrimination by private actors.

1896: In Plessy v. Ferguson, the Court upheld a Louisiana law requiring restaurants, hotels, hospitals, and other public places to serve African Americans in separate, but ostensibly equal, accommodations. In establishing the separate but equal” doctrine, the Court said that segregation is “universally recognized as within the competency of states in the exercise of their police powers.” In the sole dissent, Justice John Marshall Harlan — a former slaveowner — said the ruling would “stimulate aggressions, more or less brutal, upon the admitted rights of colored citizens.”

1944: In Korematsu v. U.S., the Supreme Court held that the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII was Constitutional. While extremely controversial, this case is the first time the Court invoked the concept of strict scrutiny in regard to racial discrimination, requiring a showing that the racial classification is narrowly tailored, in the least restrictive means to further a “compelling government interest.”

 

[Removable Mind]

I see. You have no evidence. Your honor we ask we ask for a summary judgement.

Would you like to see some civil rights cases the courts got wrong?

1883: In a series of cases known as the Civil Rights Cases, the Supreme Court held that the Civil Rights Act of 1875 was not constitutional under the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court established the state-action doctrine, thereby allowing segregation and discrimination by private actors.

1896: In Plessy v. Ferguson, the Court upheld a Louisiana law requiring restaurants, hotels, hospitals, and other public places to serve African Americans in separate, but ostensibly equal, accommodations. In establishing the separate but equal” doctrine, the Court said that segregation is “universally recognized as within the competency of states in the exercise of their police powers.” In the sole dissent, Justice John Marshall Harlan — a former slaveowner — said the ruling would “stimulate aggressions, more or less brutal, upon the admitted rights of colored citizens.”

1944: In Korematsu v. U.S., the Supreme Court held that the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII was Constitutional. While extremely controversial, this case is the first time the Court invoked the concept of strict scrutiny in regard to racial discrimination, requiring a showing that the racial classification is narrowly tailored, in the least restrictive means to further a “compelling government interest.”

Your claiming that I don’t have any judicial evidence is merely an attempt to get me to do your legal research for you. Based on your citations thus far clearly shows that you seriously need to learn how to find relevant cases that deal with the issues that you argue are caselaw decisions that directly established grounds for recognizing that men have fundamental rights violations, which prevent men from opting out of parenthood.

The above doesn’t address your violation of men’s civil rights that would lead to government reviewing opt out of child support.

You really need to understand the difference between formal equality and substantive equality.

 

[vegas giants]

Your claiming that I don’t have any judicial evidence is merely an attempt to get me to do your legal research for you. Based on your citations thus far clearly shows that you seriously need to learn how to find relevant cases that deal with the issues that you argue are caselaw decisions that directly established grounds for recognizing that men have fundamental rights violations, which prevent men from opting out of parenthood.

The above doesn’t address your violation of men’s civil rights that would lead to government reviewing opt out of child support.

You really need to understand the difference between formal equality and substantive equality.

You make claims without evidence. They are easily dismissed. I have presented evidence for my claims. The courts are wrong on civil rights sometimes such as in the Budray case. But civil rights will prevail in the end.

 

[Removable Mind]

You make claims without evidence. They are easily dismissed. I have presented evidence for my claims. The courts are wrong on civil rights sometimes such as in the Budray case. But civil rights will prevail in the end.

You have repeatedly claimed men’s civil rights are being violated by not being allowed to opt out prior to viability - that’s on you to provide evidence or judicial arguments, which supports your claim.

That’s Dubay v Wells, FYI.

 

[vegas giants]

You have repeatedly claimed men’s civil rights are being violated by not being allowed to opt out prior to viability - that’s on you to provide evidence or judicial arguments, which supports your claim.

That’s Dubay v Wells, FYI.

My typing mistake. Apologies. I think Mr Dubray should have taken his case to scotus. I think he would have had a good case based on the 14th amendment.

 

[Removable Mind]

My typing mistake. Apologies. I think Mr Dubray should have taken his case to scotus. I think he would have had a good case based on the 14th amendment.

That’s hilarious. What the hell do you think Matt Dubay’s argument was based on?

By the way, the Men’s National Center Organization assisted to help Dubay’s Attorney, for free, in creating the argument to present to the court. Dubay was responsible for the costs of his legal representation - and was ordered to pay Well’s legal fees and the State’s costs to prosecute the case when he lost in the Michigan District Court. Dubay then sued the prosecutor. The case went to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. The 6th upheld the District Court’s decision.

Men’s National Center Organization can’t pay for every man’s case that is related to child support. They have a knowledgeable legal team that will act as legal consultants pro bono.

Consequently, Dubay lost because the court applied FORMAL EQUALITY in making its decision. But since you don’t have a clue what that means, you’ll continue to mind**** yourself about what the Constitutional dynamics are that has made the 14th argument a failed argument in a number of related cases.

Dubay’s attorney said he was willing to take the case (w/a MNC consultant) to the Supreme Court if the 6th Appeals sided with the State. But do you think that was free? And if his attorney was honest, he would sit down with Dubay and review with him all of the federal level cases similar to his and advise him on what he believed would be his chance of winning before the SC. No Men’s rights organizations have been successful before Federal Appeals Courts or the S.C.

And now you think that your argument is the magic bullet? :doh.

 

[vegas giants]

That’s hilarious. What the hell do you think Matt Dubay’s argument was based on?

By the way, the Men’s National Center Organization assisted to help Dubay’s Attorney, for free, in creating the argument to present to the court. Dubay was responsible for the costs of his legal representation - and was ordered to pay Well’s legal fees and the State’s costs to prosecute the case when he lost in the Michigan District Court. Dubay then sued the prosecutor. The case went to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. The 6th upheld the District Court’s decision.

Men’s National Center Organization can’t pay for every man’s case that is related to child support. They have a knowledgeable legal team that will act as legal consultants pro bono.

Consequently, Dubay lost because the court applied FORMAL EQUALITY in making its decision. But since you don’t have a clue what that means, you’ll continue to mind**** yourself about what the Constitutional dynamics are that has made the 14th argument a failed argument in a number of related cases.

Dubay’s attorney said he was willing to take the case (w/a MNC consultant) to the Supreme Court if the 6th Appeals sided with the State. But do you think that was free? And if his attorney was honest, he would sit down with Dubay and review with him all of the federal level cases similar to his and advise him on what he believed would be his chance of winning before the SC. No Men’s rights organizations have been successful before Federal Appeals Courts or the S.C.

And now you think that your argument is the magic bullet? :doh.

I believe I listed several examples of the court making the WRONG decision on civil rights cases. I'm sure of you were Dred Scott's attorney you would have advised him he has no case. And he didn't at the time. Yet that changed....just like lots of civil rights cases. But the constitutional merits of a male opt out are crystal clear to me.

 

[Removable Mind]

I believe I listed several examples of the court making the WRONG decision on civil rights cases. I'm sure of you were Dred Scott's attorney you would have advised him he has no case. And he didn't at the time. Yet that changed....just like lots of civil rights cases. But the constitutional merits of a male opt out are crystal clear to me.

You’re still wrong. And based on the cases that you’ve cited - your way out of the ballpark wrong. Any Constitutional Attorney will tell you that you are. There’s so much more at work that you simply don’t have the legal skills or knowledge to analyze your own arguments.

 

[vegas giants]

You’re still wrong. And based on the cases that you’ve cited - your way out of the ballpark wrong. Any Constitutional Attorney will tell you that you are. There’s so much more at work that you simply don’t have the legal skills or knowledge to analyze your own arguments.

Thank you for your opinion. You have presented no evidence to support your opinion so it is dismissed