From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Subject: Re: What a Problem!!!
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 03:05:48 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.141858.1602@panix.com> eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
>In <1992Oct5.050245.6494@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>, noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com sez:
>>In article <1992Oct4.173315.28357@panix.com> eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
>>>>>> < re a law that requires non custodial parents to put children through
>>>>>> college while there is no such law affecting families where parents are
>>>>>> still married to each other >

[summarizing comments by Anne Mitchell, JD (for all you non-legal
eagles out there, JD stands for "Juris Doctoris" - lawyer), who wants
to fight such laws and have them overturned as unconstitutional - an
obvious denial of equal protection under the law that applies to a
group of people that have routinely been denied equal protection in the
form of sexist laws, draconian, unconstitutional punishments,
antiquated, illogical ideologies from sexist legislators, judges and
attorneys => non-custodial parents - parents whose children are taken
from them as a result of a divorce decree, parents that are granted
*mere* visitation with their children, parents that are forced to pay
for children that they sometimes never get to see, parents that were,
for a long time, even denied access to records on their children,
parents who are deemed unworthy of being the primary responsible parent
of the children after a divorce simply because of their gender, parents
that are deemed post-divorce remote wallets and sometimes visitors.]

>>>The flaw in Brett's attempted analysis is that the phrase "equal
>>>protection" by itself is almost meaningless.  The government makes
>>>unfair distinctions all the time: people who live south of 61st Street
>>>in Tulsa get to drive 40 mph legally, while it's 35 and under north of
>>>there.  Why isn't this a basis for a successful suit?  To put it
>>>briefly: "standard of scrutiny".
>
>>How about lack of value?  How about "No one gives a fat rat's ass -
>>because it is not important?"  
>
>Fortunately, the current state of the law does not turn on your
>definition of what is or isn't important.

That it does not always "turn" on the definitions of the many (not just
me, I am not an island) is what makes it unjust.  The law panders to
special interests, because the laws are written by people who pander to
special interests.  The needs of the many SHOULD outweigh the needs of
the few, but the rights of the few should be equal to the rights of the
many.  However, with our current system, the needs of the small groups
that play the game the best and wine and dine their representatives are
the ones that get addressed.  Often, the rights of a few supersede the
rights of the many, because the few are in the pockets of those who can
grant them such rights.  For example, do the rich, in general, have
more rights than the poor?  Did the Constitution grant them greater
rights?

The legislature often does not address the majority, but instead the
squeaky wheels with the dollars.

Lobbying, making campaign contributions through lobbyists and Political
Action Committees (PACs), is legalized bribery and it works for the few
that have the money to make such bribes.  The many's needs rarely get
addressed in this system.

The judicial system interprets laws enacted by our "for hire/bribe"
legislature and the judicial system created almost arbitrary standards
for "measuring" truth - what you and they call `standards of
scrutiny.'  As I stated earlier, the standards of scrutiny is as much a
tool for covering up lies as it is for measuring truth.  They can twist
and distort the truth by inappropriate labeling of the situation and the
concepts - the subjects and objects.

You see, you haven't examined the concept of `standards of scrutiny.'
What does it mean?  "Scrutiny" means to look at something closely - to
study it in great detail.  Defining whether a law will be questioned by
examining it closely or examining it with little regard, is prejudging.
In effect, judges can look at a law and surmise from a quick
examination whether or not the law is important.  If the law is
important, they will examine it more closely, otherwise they won't.  So,
what that means, when you tell me that NO law stands up to scrict
scrutiny and that virtually ALL laws stand up to reasonable basis
scrutiny, is that the judges decide, very early on - at this initial
examination stage, that a law is right or wrong.  The whole concept of
`standards of scrutiny' is logically flawed and morally bankrupt.  The
concept is rubber-stamping prejudice and even declaring it some legal
discovery of great value.  But it reeks.

There should be ONE standard of scrutiny - does the law stand up to
intellectual, societal and biological morals and/or Constitutional
muster?

Why did laws that denied equal rights to women or minorities remain
standing when the judicial system could have overturned them?  Could it
be that these laws passed the standards of scrutiny of the justices
responsible for reviewing and interpreting them at the time?   Could
it be that these judges or justices were so prejudiced on this issue
that they would never apply a STRICT standard of scrutiny to these
laws?  So, did that make those laws morally or logically correct - at
the time?

>>If it were important, people would be
>>screaming to get the law changed and all the legal bullshit of
>>"standards of scrutiny" and "rational basis" would mean absolutely
>>nothing.  It is when people, en masse, are willing to stand up and exert
>>extreme resources in attacking poor value, low-quality illogical laws
>>that things get changed.  You cannot depend on lawyers or judges to
>>understand why something is illogical.
>
>People _en masse_ generally effect their change at the ballot box.

Yeah, sort of - sometimes.  Really though, political parties choose
candidates and it seems to me most of our candidates today are just
different flavors - let's say chocolate and vanilla - of the same thing
- ice cream.  We lean one way or the other based on the subtle
differences between the two possible choices, but ice cream is ice
cream and bureaucratic, money-grubbing, selfish prostitutes
masquerading as do-gooders are just that - Republicrat or Demican.

I mean, don't you get this incredible power rush when you vote?  Don't
you think to yourself when you pull those levers, "Hey, I'm changing
things, I'm having an impact.  I have power."  Or is it more like, "Who
are these two people?  I've never heard of either one of them."

>BTW, you're entitled to your opinion that the present equal protection
>schema is mere "legal bullshit".  That, however, does not render your
>ill-mannered outburst either informative or persuasive.

Not every sentiment comes wrapped with bows and ribbons.  Sometimes
people believe things so thoroughly that they can tap into their
emotions.  If you check yourself over, you'll find yourself unharmed,
dude.

>More of Aaron's watertight, incisive legal analysis:
>
>>Sez you and other lawyers and judges.  Big deal.  So you decided to
>>slice the truth in this way (or the Supreme band of idiots - who
>>cares?), such a slicing is really saying: 
>
>>     => Group 3 - who cares?  The law sucks canal water or it doesn't
>>	but an idiot making the decision wouldn't know it anyway.
>>	. . .
>>	the garbage law and the idiots assigned the responsibility of
>>	interpreting it . . .
>>	a rational basis to the idiot interpreting it, but this
>>	idiot thinks . . .

Question:  Is Dan Quayle an idiot?  Most of us who aren't idiots,
think he is an idiot.  The man is a lawyer - not a good one, not a
great one, but one of the most powerful lawyers in the US.  The man is
a heart-beat away from the Presidency and he bought his law degree.
Now, that doesn't make him representative of the profession.  But even
Dan Quayle opined that the legal profession has done much damage to this
country and to our economy.   Just as one such lawyer could rise to the
top of his profession and never be noticed for the idiot that he is, I
believe many others in the profession have done the same thing.  That is
not a condemnation of all lawyers, or judges.  Many are brilliant,
moral.  However, many aren't.

What I was saying (and what you ripped apart physically to make it seem
really stupid) wasn't legal analysis.  It was TRUTH.  Big difference.
I believe there are legal minds that are brilliant.  There are many
sincere, logical people in the legal profession.  I do not, however,
believe these folks are in the majority nor do they always rise to the
top.  Sometimes the ass-kissers who fall in line with political agenda
A or B rise to the top and have the opportunity to spew forth garbage
disguised as intellectual legal discourse.  Take our current Supreme
Court, for example:  mostly way above average in intelligence, but
mostly prostitutes of a political agenda.   Logicians?  Let's not
insult ourselves.  "Natural law" - well, you see, sometimes the penny
naturally falls heads up and tails down and sometimes it falls heads
down and tails up - and that's natural, we don't have to explain it, we
just have to follow what it says.

[Mark thoroughly explains "rational basis"]

>>>Rational basis: the law need only be *reasonably* related to advancing
>>>a *legitimate* governmental interest.  This standard applies to ALL
>>>CASES NOT COVERED ABOVE, and it is rare indeed for a law to fail this
>>>most lenient test.  The example above concerning Tulsa speed limits is
>>>a "rational basis" scenario that the city wins hands down.

[Sounds a lot like "natural law" bullshit to me. So I assumed the role of
the judicial expert making the "rational basis" decision....]

>>Nobody cares about this one and I have a lunch date. The law stands.
>>Besides the sheriff told me we get a lot of dough from that speed trap.  
>>I had to hint to him that I hadn't seen any of it yet, though.  Good day 
>>to do some swimming in my pool.  Maybe I should go up to the lake this 
>>weekend....  

>I extend my most humble apologies to all of Usenet for daring to set 
>out the intricate framework under which the Equal Protection Clause is 
>applied.  Persons interested in understanding footnote 4 of the famous 
>_Carolene Products_ Supreme Court decision should consult Aaron, who 
>obviously has far greater familiarity with constitutional adjudication 
>and the federal court system than I do.

Mark, why should I care what chants and incantations judges recite when
they perform their magic - magic that is above the minds of mere
mortals?  Just because it was written somewhere that A > B, doesn't
make A > B.

I'm not here to explain legal theory.  As such, I don't have to buy it,
either.  See, I'm not a member of the "club."  I haven't sold my soul
to the devil (or traded in my right to make independent logical
evaluations for a law degree - not that I believe all lawyers do
that).  I see myself as someone who noticed a wrong and wants to make
it right - or at least discuss it.

>>>The law summarized above (re parental responsibility for college
>>>costs) sure looks like a rational basis case to these eyes.
>>
>>Wrongo.  Forcing non-custodial parents to pay for college educations by
>>law is not a "who cares" issue and there is NO LEGITIMATE government
>>concern that is being REASONABLY addressed by such a law.  Such laws
>>affect approximately 50% of the fathers living in the states that have
>>these laws.  That is many people.
>
>I really admire Aaron's ability to clarify the state of the law.  I
>had no idea that the rational basis test hinged on the number of
>people affected.  Perhaps Aaron would be generous enough to provide a
>citation to an opinion of some idiot court or other that explains this
>prong of the test in greater detail.

What government concern is being addressed by this law in those few
states that have enacted and enforced this law (the law of forcing
non-custodial parents to pay for the college educations of their
children)?  How is this law reasonable?

What punishments could be (have been) enacted to enforce such a law?
How does this law engender the beneficiary of the provisions of the law
to the person being made legally responsible for their college
education expenses?  In other words, what is the reasonable basis for
this law?

>>  And, to show you how flawed your
>>logic is:  forcing non-custodial parents to pay for their children's
>>college education with no recourse is as great a logical aberration as
>>forcing people whose last names begin with L to pay for their
>>children's college education - but no one else.  It is the exact same
>>thing.  It is applying a standard of law unfairly to only one limited
>>subset of people for no logical reason.
>
>I'm not even the tiniest bit interested in getting into a religious
>war with you and your EuStressed bacchantes in alt.dads-rights and
                                  ^^^^^^^^^^
Mark, ever quick to notice a person accusing some lawyers and judges of
being idiots as an attack against him and his calling, calls the folks
debating non-custodial parents' rights and child support, drunken
revelers engaged in an orgy with folks like EuStress.  Yes, even if
many of them are lawyers, doctors, scientists.  Because we are
concerned with this topic, we are bacchantes.

Well, I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints then.

>alt.child-support.  Having seen quite enough of these ravings slopping
>over into misc.legal this year, I'm content to let people decide for
>themselves whether they think there's a "rational basis" for the law
>in question.

Mark, who took great offense to truthful labels being applied to idiots
who can't recognize an illogical law, deems that the posts that
filtered over to misc.legal from soc.men, alt.dads-rights and
alt.child-support were "ravings."

Didn't have any answers, eh?  If someone asks you a question that is the
hinge of an entire discourse and you say, "I'm not here to get into a
religious war with zealots," might we think that you don't know the
answer?

Yes, of course, all the sentiments expressed by a band of "losers" (by
definition, anyone who fought the law and the law won), whether
logically sound or correct at the societal and intellectual levels of
morality, is a raving lunatic.  And well, if they are emotional in
their discourse, that just proves my point.

>Moreover, given the obvious fact that your mind is made up despite
>your unfamiliarity with the relevant legal standard, I see no point in
>wasting my time explaining constitutional law to you.  Your
>demonstrated propensity for shrieking "idiot" and "garbage" whenever

Which was much more debased that your demonstrated propensity for
shrieking "bacchantes" and "ravings" (which implies lunacy).  Oh, yes,
Mark, you are so much better at this than I am.

>you encounter an inconvenient truth suggests that such a dialogue
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's a good one.  So, the limited and prejudiced standards for
examining laws - what you and people who like to wear dresses over
their clothing and wave gavels in the air like magic wands, and make
vainglorious pronouncements (15-minute recess, I have to take a dump) -
are inconvenient truths.  As such, these truth are more profound than
these mere mortals can understand.  Plebes, nothing but.

Ignorance is strength.

>would be pointless indeed.

The law is illogical.  The law DENIES EQUAL PROTECTION.  It is
unconstitutional.  Non-custodial parents have been singled out, they are
forced to pay for their children's college educations with no legal
recourse.  We do this to them, primarily because they lost custody -
custody that they didn't have a chance at winning in the first place,
because 85% of these losers were men.  They were not judged as being fit
to be a custodial parent based on their personal skills or weakness -
they were discriminated against because of their sex.  And then, after
all is over, they are further discriminated against and denied equal
protection because the legal system pegged them into a category and
labeled all those in that category as undeserving of equal protection.

Tell me this is not the truth.  Tell me I am wrong.  Get pissed off.  I
don't care, but Christ man, say WHY they did this and why they are
right.  If they are not RIGHT, then they are WRONG.  If they are WRONG,
then the law must be changed.

It is very simple:  Is it a denial of equal protection under the law to
make criminals out of parents who do not have primary custody of their
children, but cannot or will not pay for their children's college
educations, when parents who do have custody or parents of intact
families are not held legally accountable to the same standard?  Why
does a different and distinct legal standard apply only to non-custodial
parents?

>>And that, my friend, is DENIAL of EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW!  It
>>is, therefore, unconstitutional.   

>Personally, I'm always convinced by an argument typed in capital 
>letters.  

Great comeback, Mark.  Did you address the statement?

>>Now, would you care to take a shot at defending such an illogical law?  

>You're either hopelessly confused or willfully blinded by your own 
>indignation.  I haven't attempted to "defend" the law in question, but 
>rather to explain how it would be analyzed under the present state of 
>equal protection law.

But I claim you completely mis-categorized this issue.  I think you are
absolutely wrong - it is NOT how it would be analyzed under current
equal protection law.  This is a `strict scrutiny' issue.  The law is
logically flawed.  It benefits no one.  It doesn't even benefit the
intended recipients.  Who is to say the non-custodial parent wouldn't
help his/her children to go to college?  No one!  But this law creates
an atmosphere of animosity - of indentured servitude for non-custodial
parents.  The law costs the government money to enforce.  Violators are
in breech of a law that only applies to people of a distinct marital
status - divorced, non-custodial parents.  This law does NOT stand up
to Constitutional muster.  I'm quite literally amazed that you can't
see this.

Fortunately, you won't be or won't be among the person(s) deciding what
level of scrutiny to apply to this law when it is challenged.

This law, to me, says it's OK to commit selective robbery (force by
penalty of law a non-custodial parent to fork over money) as long as
you give the loot to charity (for their children's college education),
but not rob custodial parents or parents of intact families for the
same cause.  As long as it is the state that is the robber (forced
payments for college), and as long as the money goes after good
(college education) in the end, and as long as the law is denying the
rights of an underbelly class of society, a class of deadbeats who
refuse to provide and care for their children (non-custodial parents),
the law is good.  The ends justify the means.  But do they?  Can these
ends be achieved any other, more legitimate, more logical way?  For
instance, would these parents willingly pay if given the opportunity?
Would these parents be more inclined to pay if their rights to see
their children were enforced?

Is it possible, under a scenario of this law, that a non-custodial
parent, who had been denied access to his/her children for up to 18
years and was forced to pay child support for those same children that
entire time, would have to continue paying money to the custodial
parent because the children went on to college?  Is it further possible
that the custodial parent would not be forced to pay a dime for the
children's college expenses?  It is possible to have a situation
wherein a mother, who has custody of the children of a divorce, who
later remarried, who works and makes $50k per year and is married to a
man who makes $70k per year, refuses to pay a cent for the college
education of her children, but there is no law that would make her (and
of course, not the new husband either) pay a dime?  But isn't it true
that a non-custodial parent of these same children, who makes $17k and
has a new family with new children to provide for, could be legally
forced to pay for the college educations of his children under penalty
of law - but only for the children of the prior marriage(s)?

That's how BAD this law can be in application.

>>How would your defense differ from defending a law which stipulated that
>>non-custodial parents MUST sit at the back of the bus?  
>
>It's not a "defense"; it's an explanation of the state of the law.  To
>say that a law is consistent with the constitution is not the same as
>saying that one endorses the law's intent or effect.

Once upon a time, a situation which forced people to sit at the back of
the bus based solely on their race, was the common state of law.  Once
upon a time, a situation which denied people the right to vote based
solely on their sex, was the common state of law.  The "state" of the
law is transitional.  A few people pointed out how these states of the
law did not hold up to logical analysis - they were unfair.  Basically,
they couldn't withstand `strict scrutiny.'  

Now we are looking at a law that has been enacted in only a few
states.  Why is this law unfair in some states, but evidently, not in
others?  

>To answer your misphrased query: Since there isn't any apparent
>connection between non-custodial status and seat allocation on the
>bus, such a law would likely be invalid.  I'm not sure what this hypo
>has in common with obligating a parent to pay for a child's college
>education, though.

They're called analogies, Mark.  Very similar situations in objectivity,
but different subjects.  I was trying to lead you into recognizing a
couple of other laws that did not stand up to `strict scrutiny.'

>>Or how 'bout a
>>law that says that non-custodial parents can't vote - they lost that
>>right when they lost custody of their children?
>
>Had you bothered to read what I wrote about the various degrees of
>scrutiny, you would know that this comes under the "strict scrutiny"
>rubric by virtue of the effect on a core constitutional right.

Equal protection is a core constitutional right, Mark.  Discrimination
based on sex is a Constitutional issue.

>>And now Mark Eckenwiler explains how judges can totally screw people
>>because they can't think logically.
>
>I take it that your vitriol flows from the fact that you've gotten
>screwed by a judge because you can't think logically.

Wrongo!  Dude.  They tried - just couldn't do it.  Why did they try?
Good question.  It seems my sex had a lot to do with their preconceived
notions of who I was and what I "really" wanted.  I think if you were
familiar with my situation, you'd agree that I was successful.  I got a
law changed because it was unconstitutionally vague.  How many have you
changed?  If I had the money and the time, I would try to overturn a
whole slew of laws that are pure garbage.

But you know, sometimes judges won't even allow people with resources
and time, who are intent on battling laws, into the arena.  Recently
several gay men and lesbians turned themselves over to a prosecutor's
office to voluntarily be charged with committing acts of sodomy and oral
sex.  You know what?  The judge in this case would not allow these folks
to attack these laws because he stated something to the effect "they
were not violating the law because these people committed these acts in
private."  But the law for the state in question specifically forbids
people from committing these acts - even in private.  No matter, the law
stands, these people can't fight it.  The law can still be used against
anyone who does NOT have the resources to fight it.

Many of the laws that are currently on the books need to be changed -
they are not fair, they are illogical, they are sexist, they are
prejudiced against sub-groups of society.  Sometimes the laws aren't
challenged until they affect someone with the resources to fight them.
Sometimes even that doesn't matter - the laws get to stand - no matter
what.  That doesn't make them right.

>		The sleep of reason begets Limbaughs.
>
>	Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck

The sleep of reason begets Eckenwilers.  OK, so it was TOO easy.  I still
did it.

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM 
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights