From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Subject: Re: What a Problem!!!
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 05:02:45 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.173315.28357@panix.com> eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
>In <1992Oct3.032743.4943@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@midway.uchicago.edu sez:
>>In article <1992Oct2.140210.4499@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep30.163147.9706@cbnewsc.cb.att.com>, kapa@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (k.a.perkins) writes:
>>>> In article <1ach72INN1em@gw.home.vix.com>, shedevil@vix.com (Anne P. Mitchell JD) writes:
>
>>>> < 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 >
>>>> 
>>>>> long said that such a law will be my first constitutional case [i.e. I
>>>>> believe that such a law is unconstitutional and must be challenged].
>>>> 
>>>> Well, it may certainly be an unfair law, but how exactly is it
>>>> unconstitutional?  I mean, what part of the constitution does it
>>>> violate? 
>>>
>>>	Equal protection.  It targets one set of parents while others are
>>>omitted.  Either all parents must pay for college or none have to.
>>>	But telling some of them "yes you do" while others are not told this is
>>>clearly unequal treatment.
>>
>>In my not-a-lawyer state of knowledge, I've seen cases where such laws
>>were challenged.  To the best of my recollection, the laws were consistently
>>upheld.
>>
>>But Terry's the equal-protection guru around misc.legal so I'll let him
>>explain about suspect classes and the like, 'cuz I'm not going to see
>>the stuff until classes this spring.
>
>*Sniff*  I'm hurt.  Deeply.

Here's a quarter - go call someone who cares.

>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?"  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.  They are as familiar with logic
as George Bush is to poverty.

>When making an equal protection claim, you fall into one of three
>levels of scrutiny: strict, mid-level, and "rational basis".

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: "There are three standards of
scrutiny that really represent opposition from three distinct groups...

     => Group 1 - lots of opposition - good, intelligent folks willing
	to commit lots of resources to this battle - the law is
	illogical and it will be publicly portrayed for what it is.
	Judges who do not act in accordance with the logic defined by
	those challenging this law will come across as idiots and will
	be publicly humiliated.  Your `strict scrutiny.'

     => Group 2 - not a whole lot of resources committed to the
	opposition of the law.  Law doesn't seem to hold water but who
	are we to judge?  Shrewd judges who understand logic will
	probably rule correctly.  Idiots won't.  May be some hub-bub
	over idiotic decisions, but probably not a whole lot.
	`Mid-level' scrutiny.

     => Group 3 - who cares?  The law sucks canal water or it doesn't
	but an idiot making the decision wouldn't know it anyway.
	Since there are virtually no resources committed to overturning
	the garbage law and the idiots assigned the responsibility of
	interpreting it, this one could turn out any way and no one
	will care one iota - except for the pest filing suit.  `The law
	has a rational basis to the idiot interpretting it, but this
	idiot thinks re-runs of _I Love Lucy_ are the highest form of
	intellectual discourse.'"

That's called "truth."   Truth and justice, unfortunately have nothing
to do with law.  We would like them to, but some people don't want
"truth and justice" to be important.  Some of these folks are called
lawyers.

And now Mark Eckenwiler explains how judges can totally screw people
because they can't think logically.

>Strict scrutiny: the law is invalid unless *necessary* to achieve a
>*compelling* governmental interest.  (No law ever survives strict
>scrutiny.  Ever.)  Strict scrutiny applies to distinctions directly
>affecting fundamental rights -- "people whose names end in 'L' may not
>complain publicly about the government" -- and to distinctions based
>on race and ethnicity.

Strict scrutiny - I'm being second-guessed here.  I'd better really
think about this one - maybe I should read the documents filed by the
litigants.  Oh, God, they have TV reporters outside....

>Mid-level scrutiny: law is invalid unless *substantially* related to
>achieving an *important* government objective.  This degree of
>scrutiny applies to gender-based distinctions, such as the ban on
>female personnel aboard combat vessels (upheld) and Oklahoma's
>different ages -- males, 21; females, 18 -- for purchasing alcoholic
>beverages (struck down in _Craig v. Boren_).  [This may also cover
>alienage status; I forget whether aliens are protected under strict
>scrutiny or mid-level.]

I remember when I was a 19-year-old lad.  God, it pissed me off when
women could buy booze and I couldn't - yet we were the same age.  Don't
know why, really, in retrospect.  Oh yeah, it was one of my friends who
said, "We are old enough to fight and die for our country but not old
enough to buy booze.  Yet women, who are not forced to defend their
country can buy booze.  This makes no sense."  Law overturned.  Didn't
have to crack book one.

>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....
 
>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.  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.  If custodial parents want to
pay for their children's college education, they can - no law forces
them to, however.  If parents of intact families want to pay for their
children's college educations, they can - no law forces them to,
however.  It is only the arbitrarily selected group of non-custodial
parents that are denied the right to pay of their own volition and in
the amounts they can afford.  In only this case the state dictates that
it WILL happen and what the AMOUNT will be!  (And the state processes
that money at tax-payer expense.)

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

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

How would your defense differ from defending a law which stipulated that
non-custodial parents MUST sit at the back of the bus?  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?

Mark Eckenwiler, meet the opposition to such idiotic, unequal and unfair
laws....

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM 

P.S. I'd really like to hear or read why this law has "rational basis."
Should be easy, dude.  It looked that way to your eyes without even
having to consult your brain.

Welcome to USENET, where your words WILL BE scrictly scrutinized.

Leave It Alone

Don't care what you say
Don't care what you do
Don't care what you love 
Don't care where you go
Don't care where you live
Don't care will you stay away
Don't care how you feel
Don't care how you know
Don't care how you cry
Don't care how you are
Don't care how you were
Don't care how you want to be

I don't care for you
I'm not here for you

Don't care what you say
Don't care what you do
Don't care what you love 
Don't care where you go
Don't care where you live
Don't care will you stay away
Don't care how you feel
Don't care how you know
Don't care how you cry
Don't care how you are
Don't care how you were
Don't care how you want to be

I don't care for you
I'm not here for you

You tell me over and over again 
All the little things that I can't understand

Over and over and over and over and over
and over again
	- Mary's Danish
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.environment,va.general