Parents should be legally identified and held responsible [2]

Con raises interesting issues. I look forward to a good debate. 1. The resolution is posed with "should." If we agree it should be done, and if it were, for the sake of argument, found unconstitutional, then we should amend the Constitution to accomplish it. A Constitutional argument based on legal technicalities is irrelevant. That leaves the ethical issues to be discussed separately, but the argument of Constitutionality is nullified. 2. Pro cites the 4th Amendment as grounds that investigating parenthood is an unreasonable search. Consider the systematic search of every airline passenger, which the Supreme Court has declared Constitutional. There is no probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or any other standard that is applied to justify the searches. There are no Court orders or reviews, and no grounds for refusal if the person wishes to fly. The right of passengers to fly in greater safety is held above Fourth amendment rights. It is common for rights to be in conflict, in which case we (or the Supreme Court) must decide which rights take precedence and to what extent. For example, freedom of speech does guarantee a right to make fraudulent claims. For the present resolution the rights of a child to know his parents, the rights of the child to be supported by his parents, and the rights of the taxpayer to avoid paying for irresponsible parenting must be weighed against the right of a suspected father to avoid supplying a mouth swab and of a parent to remain unknown. In weighing the rights, the non-intrusive nature of a mouth swab is an important consideration. Searching airline passengers is both public and highly intrusive, including physical body searches by government agents. A mouth swab is unintrusive and may be reasonably required to be done in private. The anonymity of the suspected father subsequently cleared may be preserved. 3. Pro cites "the high likelihood of misuse of the law cause the law to be too broadly drawn." I have not drawn a law, I have offered a resolution that outlines a system for determining parental responsibility. Of course an outline is broad, that is the nature of an outline. I acknowledged in opening arguments that there would be need for more detail. The question is whether the detailed implementation would necessarily be overly broad. For example, the system might be implemented with police investigating fatherhood might draw up a list of those they reasonably suspect and present that list to a judge for approval. The list might be sorted into more and less likely, and the requirement made that the more likely suspects be tested and cleared before the less likely. Standards for "reasonable suspicion" might be drawn up, and those standards checked for applicability by a judge. Keep in mind that if father volunteers or if the mother names the father or supplies a list of potential fathers, then there is no need for a broader investigation of any kind. Therefore there is no general license for the police to go on fishing expeditions. If the DNA of a sought criminal is discovered as a by-product of a properly conducted investigation, that is scarcely a severe downside. It is comparable to the authorities discovering an illicit cache of machine guns in plain sight when they originally had a search warrant for cocaine. I do not understand Con's reference to sidestepping the chain of evidence. Huh? 4. The doctrine of "probable cause" does not apply because the suspect is not subject to being found guilty of a crime by determining parenthood, which is the information is sought. Getting a passport or a driver's license requires a person to disclose their identity. If they disclose their identity that information may later be used to hold them responsible for a violation associated with the passport or the driver's license, but requiring the information in the first place in not a violation of Fourth Amendment rights. One might argue that getting a passport or driver's license is a voluntary act, so it is fair to require a means of holding the person responsible for the subsequent consequences of their voluntary actions. That is exactly the same as parenthood. Their are inescapable responsibilities to the voluntary act of parenthood, so it is reasonable to require that identity be registered so that subsequent responsibility can be assessed, if necessary. 5. Con claims there is a "Constitutional right to the presumption of innocence." First of all, there is no such right in the Constitution and never has been. In many administrative actions of government, citizens are presumed guilty until and unless they can prove innocence. For example, the government can assess penalties for non-payment of taxes based solely upon its own calculations. It is you job to prove to the government's satisfaction that you have enough legal deductions to obviate the tax. In a sales tax audit, a company is liable for sales tax on 100% of income until the company can prove they paid salaries, etc., that offset the income. Guilt is presumed. Perhaps a Constitutional amendment requiring a presumption of innocence is a good thing, but it is not in the Constitution now, so Pro's argument is invalid. Con is wrong about the presumption of innocence, but even if there were such a presumption, it would not apply because the person is not charged with a crime. Only identity is being established, and for a valid purpose. 6. Con objects to (c), saying "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." Section (c) is worded such that the father must explicitly deny fatherhood, per "Any man who denies paternity and is subsequently identified ..." A denial means he must assert that he is not the father. Good grounds for such a denial would be that he is sure he never had sex with the woman. However, he is not required to know whether or not he is the father. The suspected father can say he doesn't know or is for some reason, amnesia perhaps, completely unsure. If he is unsure, the authorities can be proceed with a mouth swab. If he denies any possibility, then it would be logical to first test the men who admit the possibility. Only deliberate evasion is punished. This is fair and equitable to the mother's obligation to disclose. Note that penalty is not being imposed for being a father. The penalty is for obstruction of the investigation. For example, Martha Stewart was convicted and punished for obstructing investigation of her stock broker; she did not commit any violation of securities laws. 7. Pro argues, "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." If so, it is high time we remedied the unjust shirking of responsibility. The responsibility should not go away because the child does not "go way." The point is to impress upon parents that they have a very serious responsibility, which in fact they do. The public ought to be held harmless, to the extent possible, from the results of that irresponsibility. Con errs in asserting that the constitution is a determining factor in a "should" resolution. He errs in believing that Fourth amendment rights ought to take precedence over the rights of a child and of society. He errs in asserting that establishing identity is comparable to establishing guilt for a crime. Being a parent is not a crime. We are required by law to establish identity for many things, for the sound reason that later responsibility may require it. Parental responsibility should be enforced. Affirmed.