1. violation of due process under the 4th and 5th Amendments
2. deprives citizens of equal protection under the law
3. violation of state sovereignty under the 10th Amendment
4. violation of natural human rights under the 9th Amendment
5. often violates the assumption of guilt over innocence.
Write your Congress and Senate to repeal Bradley!
by E. Manning
Truthfully, there is no such thing as a “little Constitutional violation”, as if a violation can really exist in degrees. The legislative and executive branches of our government have grown rather fond of creating their own rules as they go, creating new rules of order with legislative precedence and simple rationalizations in violation of all laws written previously, even the big ones. The Constitution and successive Amendments are simply ignored in the name of tolerance and judgment, while little unchecked constitutional violations grow to become blight that is considerably more rampant. Laws that are drafted aren’t considered in light of the Constitution, but rather from expedience and the playground of good intentions.
One could suppose that if one wanted to be picky, this country has operated outside the Constitution in a rather complete sense from 1776 to 1865, as the annals of national slavery have proved. Slavery worked out very well for millions in this nation. The problem is that this was accomplished with what effectively became a huge subclass of people. During the 1800s, an outside party of foreign-controlled central bankers worked on and off to put this country in their back pocket in a very unconstitutional way. They succeeded fully with the advent of the Federal Reserve in 1913. Yet, somehow the loss of freedom involved with Federal Reserve doesn’t seem too important or even very apparent. Yet, in both of these cases, a subclass of people is always being victimized by established authority whether you recognize them or not.
Just considering these two areas, the nation has only existed on a Constitutional basis for 48 years. However, that doesn’t include the myriad of other lapses, breaches and encumbrances too multitudinous to mention. The quantity could not be contained on this page. It’s almost like spitting into hurricane winds during Hurricane Katrina and few seem to care as long as they get what they want.
Americans can use a similar Constitutional debate with the Internal Revenue Service, government surveillance of citizens combined with other unwarranted surveillance and the creation of a subclass of citizens in the name of children’s rights and federal welfare. The Constitutional lip service by our presidential candidates is significant, notably by John McCain, but proves to be a mere attempt at placating citizens as the words roll off their tongues. When faced with real unconstitutional issues and provisions in this nation, duck and dodge is the order of the day. The presidential campaigns will discuss only what is considered to be most pressing and popular. Congress performs even more poorly. The approval rating of Congress is a mere 9% and they still remain in power to create more Constitutional subversion.
The two-party system in United States doesn’t really measure anything by the values of the Constitution. Perhaps the ACLU and other fine freedom organizations should suggest removing the Constitution and the Amendments in favor of something more workable so that the nation doesn’t continue as a nation of hypocrites. The real problem has been and continues to be accountability. However, as citizens of this fine country, ultimately and collectively, we are the decision makers whether politicians like the truth or not.
In what is supposed to be the nation’s most respected body, military servants are often cowed on both sides, by the authority of their superiors and the authority of law. A patriotic military man has few rights that he can count on other than those he can find. Economically speaking, the military is still the best way to get out of a life of abject poverty and build a better life. What’s more, if you want to live life on the edge of adventure, it can be argued that there is no better place. The military is one place to truly learn the lessons of life.
Drawing men into the military continues to be a challenge. Many men are not entirely ignorant to the problems in the military. They have learned that patriotism is not rewarded, at least not if they are married. When they join the military, the chances are better than 50% that they will end up divorced, with a huge child support debt and in a jail cell on criminal federal child support charges. While this and other statistics can be contested, established fact dictates that government statistics are often skewed and highly arguable. Since the military is a cross-section of the nation and military marriages are under much higher pressure than average, no less than the national average in this area of statistics is acceptable.
Easy divorce provisions, child support entitlements and the inequities of law chronically mistreat men and patriotic men alike. This is a fact that is often downplayed, notably by feminist society and government sources. A gold-digger can marry a military man for one day to take a nice chunk of support when the divorce is final. The argument can be made that military men are not wealthy. That isn’t the point. The gold-digger can dig for gold at the military till without limit, developing a means of self-support through the bearing of children. While this is reprehensible, even more so in the military, it is not entirely uncommon. What is worse, this is often done when the man is on the other side of the world defending and serving the country. The little woman can do as she pleases while the husband pays in spades. The cash comes from his military pay, but if not, it will come out of his patriotic hide when he returns home via the godless Bradley Amendment. Notable are the proved cases where child support is no longer collected by the military and when the ex-husband returns from the hands of the enemy, terrorists or similar circumstances, he is faced with prison at home for non-payment of child support. The decision of a man or woman to stop paying child support after he or she has returned home is not in the direct scope of this commentary.
The man on duty overseas can be hit with a surprise divorce by the little woman, lose every worldly thing he owns while being victimized by a temporary child support order that has little to do with real income. While any child-support is based on income in the beginning, but the reality of income can change quickly based on a large variety of scenarios. The division of real property while the patriotic man is overseas is entirely dependent on the decision of the judge combined with immediate pull of legal strings. The system never automatically address the payment issues after the initial court order beyond the concerns of collection. The burden “of proof” is on the non-custodial parent, yes even the patriotic man, a direct violation of Constitutional Law within itself. He is guilty until proved innocent. As a result, a man can end up owing more in support than he makes and there isn’t a thing that the patriotic man can do. A patriotic man has little help from authorities as they collude to solve their common “problem”. Getting a support modification can be next to impossible in the States, but a modification isn’t any easier in Afghanistan or Iraq. This is a sad fact, not the stuff of fiction.
The authorities have decided that since the patriotic man volunteered to go into service, he bears full responsibility. This is the government position. The patriotic man won’t get a better shake in a system that is designed by default to work in the favor of women and children only. There is no excuse for non-payment of any kind and rights to see children are virtually non-existent, even though decrees are carefully worded to have you believe otherwise. The patriotic man quickly becomes a felon, often without knowing. Strangely, neither the Feds nor the States have taken any action to alleviate the problem of the patriotic man. It’s all about personal responsibility, even if dad is working behind-the-scenes as a Navy SEAL or held prisoner by terrorist factions and presumed missing.
The Bradley Amendment that cements all of this abuse in place violates the Constitution on so many counts that there is no excuse. Yet, feminists and surrogate lawmakers in the 1990s, with the help of George Bush, Sr. and the Clinton Administration brought the debacle together in grand style in the name of welfare reform. The reform has never worked other than to enlarge the size of big government.
Every taxpayer knows that taxes change based on income that is easily proved. If you are employed, the Internal Revenue Service often knows as much about you as you do. Why shouldn’t child and spousal support adjust in the same way? Yet, because of a court order that often cannot be corrected, millions of men and women have become a subclass society of America. There is no justification for treating a divorced man or woman differently from a married one through the violation of Constitutional Rights. Support that is garnered should be against actual income and resources, not figures from a court order at a previous point in time. The impoverished or sequestered have lost the ability to defend themselves and there is little interest in change. There is no forgiveness for the patriotic man, much less the working men of America. The Congress doesn’t concern itself with emergency legislation for patriotic misfits, much less a subclass of American jurisprudence.
As long as the government system is fat and happy combined with a subdued and appeased class of women, even presidential candidates could care less. All presidential candidates have ignored the plight of oppressed non-custodial parents because of fear. In the meantime, men and women continue to be looted without regard, the patriotic man even more so. Soldiers are even being charged for their own equipment, as the patriotic man continues to burn his candle at both ends in the name of God and country, for the honor of the land of the free and home of the brave. The “pressure” of personal responsibility and sacrifice never ends while the authorities take the profits home and use them as they please.
Common Sense and the Democratic Primary
Child Support Mess: The Federal Bradley Amendment
Clinton: The Power to Reform in Secret
The Vision of Hillary Clinton: No Child in Poverty
Income lapses or loss of job are costly for any father because of a federal law known as the Bradley Amendment. The amendment, named for former Sen. Bill Bradley, New Jersey Democrat, establishes that once a child-support obligation has been established, it can’t be retroactively reduced or forgiven by a judge. The amendment was enacted in 1986 to stop parents from running up huge child-support debts and getting a sympathetic judge to erase them..
Even now, the unintended consequences of the Bradley Amendment have become clear and a growing number of people are calling for the law to be repealed or at least modified.
According to the reformers, the Bradley Amendment:
* All but ensures that any parent who has a dip in cash flow will be buried under a debt that cannot be legally escaped.
* Helps chase poor men into illegal activities or the underground economy, away from “mainstream” jobs and their children.
Reformers are having some success arguing their case on Capitol Hill, but admit that their battle is uphill: Members of Congress are loath to do anything that might be seen as going soft on child-support enforcement.
Reformers say, they have a powerful incentive for change in the way the Bradley Amendment keeps impoverished fathers trapped in child-support debt. Never mind the fact that the Bradley Amendment is unconstitutional. The Congress isn’t concerned with that reality, nor is any presidential administration. In this case, the ends justify the means. This years’ electorial candidates have simply ignored the problem. They are more concerned with “hot issues”.
The Bradley Amendment has often worked as intended by Congress, by locking in arrears while the system doggedly pursues wily, wealthy parents ducking their obligations, like Hillary Clinton’s brother. However, even he hasn’t paid his tab.
Some big catches have included a New York plastic surgeon who owed $172,000, a professional athlete who owed $76,000 and a yacht company owner who owed $50,000, according to a recent article in Government Executive magazine.
The child-support system is celebrated when it bags deadbeats like these.
But there’s less applause when the system applies the same tough rules and penalties on people like the shaggy-haired man who recently stood in handcuffs before a Maryland Circuit Court judge.
The shaggy-haired man told the judge he lived with his mother and was too disabled to work. He had just spent two weeks in jail for not paying his $10-a-week child support. His total debt was $42,788.
The judge ordered the man to pay $75 a week toward his debt.
But even at that rate, observed a lawyer, “it will take that guy 80 years to pay it off.”
Several child-support advocacy groups say that, despite these pitiful cases, the Bradley Amendment should be maintained because it serves a need.
“We supported the Bradley Amendment when it passed, because it stopped a judge in State B from wiping out [the debt from] an order passed by a judge in State A,” says Geraldine Jensen, president of the Association for Children for Enforcement of Support.
“We still need it because 40 percent of cases are interstate, and we still only have 20 percent of people paying” their full support, says Ms. Jensen. Ms. Jensen seems to forget that bad legislation doesn’t work. Keeping that legislation with a 20% success rate is simply bad management with the pretense of doing something good. There is no logic behind the insistence of the process.
Despite the Bradley Amendment’s hold on accrued debts, and a new array of enforcement tactics, the child-support system still collects less than half of what is owed. A lot of this debt is owed by “dead-broke dads,” “turnip dads” or “beat-dead dads,” say scholars and advocacy groups. Naturally, nobody seems to object to calling men by derogatory names. Try calling a woman an equivalent and you are likely to hear about it. In fact, let’s just make up names as we go along.
The concept of “turnip” dads are those who earn less than $130 a week and would be impoverished themselves if they paid support, says Ford Foundation Project Officer Ronald B. Mincy. Mr. Mincy and Elaine J. Sorensen estimate that between 16 percent and 33 percent of fathers are “turnips.”
The concept of “beat-dead dads” are the ones who have child-support orders set so high that “any hiccup in cash flow” quickly results in thousands of dollars of arrears, says Ron Henry, a lawyer active in the Children’ s Rights Council and Men’s Health Network.
“The Bradley amendment [says] once an arrearage is accrued, it exists forever. You cannot waive it. You cannot modify it. Too bad, sucker,” says Mr. Henry, who says the law should be repealed. The child-support system, in theory allows parents to change the amount of their child-support payments. However, the system has all kinds of obstacles built in to prevent such an action. The system hates change and works against such change until a child reaches emancipation.
A major reason many child-support orders are set at high amounts and grow so fast is because they are set without the paying parent in the courtroom, say experts. The Los Angeles Times reported last fall that “roughly 70 percent” of fathers “are not in court when paternity is established and their monthly obligations set.” The same Los Angeles Times story said that local law enforcement records showed that “on average, more than 350 men a month are incorrectly named as fathers.”
The Bradley Amendment ensures that even if the court makes a mistake, “you can never get out of it,” says Mike Ewing, a leader of the Virginia Fatherhood Initiative in Norfolk, who knows several men who are paying support even though DNA tests proved they weren’t the children’s father.
The fun never ends and nobody questions the legality of any of it. You should. The Bradley Amendment and support enforcement are unconstitutional. Politics doesn’t enter into the equation. Check this out and discover the truth for yourself.
Generally, when children of divorce are losing a parent, they are losing their dad. Studies still show that social acceptability of divorce does not stop the ravages of family breakdown and damage to children, let alone the damage to society as a whole.
The fact that divorce happens at all when children are young has proved that the life damage results in unemployment, unskilled citizens, large welfare rolls as adults and depression.
The federal Bradley Amendment helps to cement this issue in place. Mothers can easily cut dads out of the lives of their children, receive welfare, public services and child support simultaneously while living a life of wanton abandon if they choose. Fathers are often forced to work multiple jobs without relief to support a system that is broken and fails to address anything beyond the superficial needs of children. These superficial needs are considered as “rights” while many women relish in the feeling of power and control.
Recently, a man in Texas was awarded 50 years of jail time for the failure to pay child support. The article says nothing about the case or cause, simply a headline for vindictive characters to rally around.
Mothers often parade around “children’s rights”. Men say something different.
“Family court corruption is real. There are good fathers and they are bad ones. I find it funny that there is no talk about bad mothers. The cost of living isn’t because of bad fathers. This is not about the kids; this is about money, tax money. I love my son and I always been there for him until the day the courts came into our lives. My son would never go without… The courts pushed me out of my sons’ life and made me a pay check. I hate the Judges and the people who back them up. They know they are hurting the kids. You make me pay money and allow me to see my son every other weekend. After 12 years of all I have done. The late night feedings, diaper changing, trips to the park. I have invested my life into him. The government took it all away.”
“Because of the horror of what DHS has done to me and my family I must do what others in similar situations have done throuhout the ages. We must either flee the tyranny or fight for our God-given rights. Because I have no right to have any money, because I have no right to operate a motor vehicle I can not flee. Because I have no right to competent legal counsel, because I have no right to plead in court for my rights or the rights of my children I must fight the only way I have left for I am in the corner.”
Senators say men must take responsibility for raising their children.
Back on Father’s Day, Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama made what was supposed to be inflammatory comments against absentee fathers, notably African-American ones. Barack Obama, like many Democrats, seems to have plenty on his mind that he isn’t saying clearly.
Democrats are sponsoring an effort through Senators Barack Obama and Evan Bayh to intensify child support enforcement. On the surface, this appears to be a good idea. However, what is not said is that major areas of child support law are absolutely unconstitutional, sponsored by Democrats and others as far back as the Bradley Amendment in the 1980s. None of the federal law has been repealed.
The country has a national epidemic of absentee fathers. This much may be true as statistics reveal, but Senators are looking at a symptom rather than a cause. However, creative Democrats have designed “The Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2007 as their latest social engineering effort.
The legislation claims to offer support for fathers trying to do the right thing while cracking down on men that avoid “parental responsibility”. The bill is designed to provide fathers with “innovative job training” and other nameless economic opportunities while using a typical social engineering tool called the “Earned Income Tax Credit.” Hillary Clinton favored the same kind of tactics. The idea is to “help” non-custodial parents to support their families.
Combined with the unconstitutional Bradley Amendment and other similarly-styled state laws, the idea is designed to encourage the idea of outright slavery to government authority in the name of doing the right thing because, after all, the government is always there to help honest men. The track record of politicians since the Clinton presidential daze has proved otherwise as feminists took advantage of opportunities to oppress men in the name of child law, welfare reform and rightful propriety.
The “Bayh-Obama legislation” is designed to strengthen violence prevention services, once again looking at symptoms rather than causes. The proposed law is supposed to ensure that money paid for child support goes “directly to children and their mothers”, without loss of food assistance for eligible families. The same old stinking thinking that mothers are without cause in the whole process of divorce and child-rearing is offensive. The fact that politicians want to green-stamp domestic violence by supporting negative parental attitudes, including sexual immorality is even more reprehensible. Women and men are not saints and law needs to stop treating them like saints.
Senator Evan Bayh stated, “Fatherlessness is an issue many politicians would prefer to avoid, but elected officials have a moral obligation not to sit idly by while communities crumble because of the epidemic of absentee fathers. I am not naïve enough to believe that government alone can solve this problem, but together we can play a constructive role in crafting policies that attack the root causes of this epidemic.” Unfortunately, government tactics of the past have not and do not encourage family-building, but rather societal destruction.
It can be argued that the welfare system and even child support measures are a wonderful thing for many. However, the cost to the country cannot be unconstitutional state and federal laws that are supported by politicians. For example, the federal Bradley Amendment along with a flotilla of state laws that support the violation of a number of Constitutional Rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
Currently these Constitutional Rights are actively violated as well as other civil rights:
1. violation of due process under the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments
2. deprives equal protection under the law
3. violation of state sovereignty under the 10th Amendment
4. violation of natural human rights under the 9th Amendment
In a typical multi-pronged attack, the U.S. House of Representatives has companion legislation that is being introduced by Democrats Julia Carson and Danny Davis. Earmark spending is certain to follow as the legislation is crafted and agreed upon between the two legislative bodies.
Last year, Congress passed legislation based on a proposal introduced by Senator Bayh that provided up to $50 million each year for the next five years in funding for responsible fatherhood programs nationwide as part of a spending reconciliation bill to prepare for future legislation that is on the board now.
Does this political scene sound like the new politics of hope to you?
Make a public statement
 | leslie on Barack Obama Attacks Non-Custo… |
 | Paul Giordano on Repeal the Bradley Amendment: … |
 | Jose Lopez on Fathers Being Destroyed by Eco… |
 | Jeff Smith on Fathers Being Destroyed by Eco… |
 | Poppi on American Poverty: An American … |
 | swordoftruth on Human Rights and Child Support… |
| swordoftruth on A Message to Women: Women, Ent… |
 | childsupportteaparty on Barack Obama Attacks Non-Custo… |
 | joshua green on Barack Obama Attacks Non-Custo… |
 | Peter Calma on Unemployment, Child Support … |
| Peter Calma on Unemployment, Child Support … |
| Peter Calma on Unemployment, Child Support … |
