View Single Post
  #9  
Old March 21st 05, 04:37 AM
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Werebat" wrote in message
news:wTo%d.66092$7z6.51220@lakeread04...


Bob Whiteside wrote:
"Werebat" wrote in message
news:rEn%d.66044$7z6.61623@lakeread04...


Bob Whiteside wrote:

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:q1k%d.66018$7z6.21714@lakeread04...


This is the first chapter of an interesting book:

http://www.supportguidelines.com/book/chap1a.html

And it mentions an interesting idea:

"Some commentators believe that given the continually expansive role

of
the federal government into heretofore matters of family law that were
the exclusive province of the states, it is surely only a matter of

time
until the federal government adopts a national child support guideline
model."

I wonder if it might not be a GOOD thing for NCPs if the federal
government DID implement a national child support guideline model.

Oh,
I'm sure it would be as unfair, clunky, and cumbersome as anything the
states have now, and you can be sure it would be based on
recommendations from Policy Studies, Inc... But it would also provide
the scattered men's rights groups with a unifying target to take aim
against, instead of keeping them divided and conquered. Instead of
trying to fight 50 different sets of state laws, they'd only be
challenging one (albeit federal) set of laws.


We already have a national CS guideline model. The program started in


1974

with passage of Title IV-D of the Social Security Act that tied

together

Aid

to Dependent Children and CS. In 1984 Congress added services to


non-ADC

family CS laws. In 1988 Congress passed the Family Support Act adding
paternity establishment, use of CS guidelines, mandatory income


withholding,

and periodic review of CS orders. In 1996 ADC was replaced with TANF,


and

changes were made to paternity establishment, use of locator services,


added

enforcement tools, and rules on how collects would be dispersed.

2/3 of the costs of implementing the CS guideline system are paid for

by

the

federal government. Federal incentive payments to the states reward
additional money to the states for compliance with federal CS programs.


We

have federal laws regarding felonies for crossing state lines to avoid
paying CS, we have a federal $4 billion computer system to track


everyone

who works, we have federal systems to track interstate CS orders, and

we
have international treaties that facilitate enforcement of

international

CS

orders.

Anyone advocating for more federal involvement in CS, like a federal
standardized CS amount, is asking for more problems than we have


already.

At least the current system allows for local state input into the


guideline

dollar amounts. There is already too much federal involvement in the

CS
guidelines.

Which breaks them apart into 50 little petty fiefs that men must try to
organize themselves against. Imagine if they could pool their resources
against just ONE.



Have you considered that advocating this change to marriage law (which
includes things like divorce, SS, and CS) is a constitutional issue that
would alter current states' rights?


Seems to me like that's already been done, hasn't it?


Technically, no! But taking this to the next stage could really cause a
constitutional crisis. There is a huge difference between telling a state
they have a choice to accept broad federal guidelines on how to administrate
CS programs to share in federal money versus actually creating the program
(CS guidelines) with details they must adopt.

I have been concerned for some time about the proposed U.S. Constitutional
amendment regarding same-sex marriage. Once the topic of marriage is
codified in the constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court could start injecting
itself into marriage even further. The activist court has already been
dictating to the states on other states' rights issues like election law,
sodomy law, abortion law, death penalty law, etc.

Your original source is a group of lawyers who are active in the American
Bar Association. They want to change family law to benefit lawyers, not
fathers.