From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.couples
Subject: Re: What a Problem!!!
Date: 5 Oct 92 14:18:58 GMT
Followup-To: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.couples,soc.men
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.

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 >

>>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.


>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.

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.

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 interpretting it, but this
>	idiot thinks . . .


>>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.
>
>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.


>>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.


>  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
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.

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
you encounter an inconvenient truth suggests that such a dialogue
would be pointless indeed.


>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. 


>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.


>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.

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.


>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.



>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.

Followups anywhere but misc.legal.  And please note, Aaron, that there
is no such newgroup as "alt-dads-rights".  Remember, "this is USENET,
where your words WILL BE scrutinized".

-- 
		The sleep of reason begets Limbaughs.

	Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck