Parents should be legally identified and held responsible [2]

Although Pro's proposition is facially innocuous, there are three major flaws with the proposition that must be handled. First, Pro's proposition is blatantly unconstitutional because it is too broadly drawn, and will infringe upon rights guaranteed by the 4th and 14th Amendments. Second, absent the Constitutional infringements of Pro's proposal, there are still several ethical and less binding legal issues that must be addressed. Finally, the proposition is an impractical solution to an admittedly growing problem. The 4th Amendment states that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. " Like any law that does not facially deny Constitutional rights or overstep the bounds of the Legislature, it cannot be claimed that this law explicitly denies citizens of their 4th Amendment rights since any law passed by Congress is considered to be reasonable. However, the wording, the intent, and the high likelihood of misuse of the law cause the law to be too broadly drawn. Upon the wording of part d. , one can see that the law is too broadly drawn, and will likely infringe upon 4th Amendment rights. The phrase "Authorities shall have broad authority upon reasonable suspicion," clearly oversteps the Constitutional right of the accused party to have the burden of probable cause met to search his person. For example, if a police officer pulled someone over, and they were slightly twitchy, and if the area was known for meth. use, a police officer would certainly have a reasonable suspicion that the person is on or has meth. on his person. However, reasonable suspicion clearly is not as high of a burden as probable cause. In order to meet the standard of probable cause, the police officer would have to smell the drug, see apparatus for smoking the drug, have the man state that he is "high" (without coercion), or have a variety of suspicion raising conditions (nervousness, pipes and chemicals used in the manufacturing of meth in the back, etc. ) that contribute to probable cause based on the totality of the circumstances. In the case on hand, all a police officer must have to swab a person's mouth for DNA is reasonable suspicion, which could be anything from testimony of a roommate or landlord, rumors known around the town (if it is a small town), etc. If this is all that is required for DNA swabs, then it is a clear violation of the 4th Amendment based on the wording of the proposed legislation. Now, my esteemed opponent is not expected to be a legislator or a judge, so one cannot completely fault him for the wording of his proposed legislation without examining the intent behind the wording. However, I think it is evident that the intent of the proposed legislation is one that severely punishes those who do not comply, and would gladly overstep the due process rights of an individual to meet the ends of the legislation. For example, in part b. it states that mothers are required to supply a name or list of names to the authorities upon risk of imprisonment. Clearly, this part of the whole points to the severity of the law in question, and it points to the excessive and overzealous intent of the writer. Part c. is equally if not more harsh and telling. This portion punishes men who may not believe that they are the father by a stint in jail. It is not unreasonable to suppose that a man might not think he is the father based on the promiscuity of the mother. And, considering the extreme legal obligations that follow from claiming to be the father, it is not unreasonable to deny parenthood before scientifically proving one is the father. Finally, my opponent in part g. claims that "If the child receives support from the government, the parents bear a lifetime responsibility to repay that support," which is clearly a punishment without precedent. In fact, this punishment tends to fly in the face of every other paternity based law on the books. Although none of the above mentioned irregularities and extremes are unconstitutional, they clearly point towards the intent of writer, which is to place custodial obligations on fathers and mothers regardless of the costs. Clearly, then, it can be supposed that I am warranted in taking part d. on its face, and since it is clearly unconstitutional on it's face, it should be struck down. Not only is the law unconstitutional on its face, it also carries with it such a burden for the judicial branch that it should be struck down based on its easy manipulation by law enforcement. If, for example, a police officer has collected DNA evidence at a crime scene, and he/she 'knows' who the culprit is, but has not met the burden of probable cause in the case at hand, he/she may very well resort to part d. of the proposed legislation to obtain the DNA of the suspect. Clearly, this evidence would be fruit of the poisonous tree, but in the legislation described above it is very easy to sidestep the burden of probable cause in any case. The police officer could find anyone with a record who had some kind of contact with the suspect who has a child, and pressure them to state that the child might be the suspect's. The officer can then reasonably swab the suspect for DNA, and, presto, the police officer has sidestepped the chain of evidence and the Constitution. Even if part d. were changed to probable cause, the above scenario would be equally as possible because the testimony of the mother would clearly constitute probable cause for search and seizure of DNA evidence in the legislation proposed above. Since the proposed legislation could so easily be manipulated to sidestep 4th Amendment rights, it should be struck down as overly broad and unconstitutional. Therefore, if you believe in the rule of law and the sanctity of the social contract known as the Constitution, then you must vote for Con. Negated I will save my ethical and practical considerations for round 2, and I will rebut my opponents subsequent rounds in round 3.