|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not a lawyer, but it doesn't sound to me like this will survive a challenge based on the Fourteenth Amendment. However, it will require a challenge which is costly and time-consuming.
Are the provisions joint and severable? If so, a challenge would not invalidate the whole law, which would be a good thing, because if the challenge prevailed, you wouldn't want to go back through the whole process over again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
... but it doesn't sound to me like this will survive a challenge based on the Fourteenth Amendment.
Could you clarify what you mean by this? Perhaps an example would help.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I apologize, Warble, I haven't read the whole thing. But from your initial description, it sounds to me like women get more and better rights of representation under the law than men do.
If I'm all wet, please let me know.
Frank
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I apologize, Warble, I haven't read the whole thing. But from your initial description, it sounds to me like women get more and better rights of representation under the law than men do.
That is a correct interpretation of what I meant. But I should explain further to clarify myself. The bill in it's current form is quite well written and takes care of many issues. However, men do not have equal representation when the paternity declaration form is altered. The exact language follows:
[Original Bill - AB2240]
" 7574. (a) The voluntary declaration of paternity shall be executed on a form developed by the Department of Child Support Services in consultation with the State Department of Health Services, the California Family Support Council, and child support advocacy groups, and father's rights advocacy groups. "
(emphasis added)
This was all stricken in the amended version of AB2240. That means that the current code states:
[Current law of unequal representation as created by feminist]
"7574. (a) The voluntary declaration of paternity shall be executed on a form developed by the Department of Child Support Services in
consultation with the State Department of Health Services, the California Family Support Council, and child support advocacy groups."
It is well known that child support advocacy groups are feminists using another name. This means that males (fathers) do not get equal representation. That is why we need to know of a case where the court system has provided for equal representation of both the sexes or both children and adults. It can even be a precedent that requires children and adults to have equal representation. Either will do.
Note that it isn't sufficient to just quote the 14th amendment. That just makes men look like they are backlashers pounding on the constutition shouting men rights! We must site case law when making an argument to the Committee of Judiciary in CA if we want them to pay attention.
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
