Tuesday, November 21, 2006

No Compelling State Interest For Alimony

“Economic necessity cannot justify a disregard of cardinal constitutional guarantee.” — Riley v. Carter, 165 Okal. 262
--------------------------------

In fact, there simply is no "compelling" state interest for the alimony statute. Any interest offered as a "compelling" can readily be rebutted. You must realize the test is a "compelling" state interest...not "rationally related to a state interest."

1. If the state were to try arguing “not wanting to have needy spouses on the public dole” as a "compelling” state interest...then "every" divorce should be examined to see if that would happen...and they are not! 90%-95% of all divorces are uncontested. Even with those contested, unless the spouse pleads for alimony, the court cannot give it...

2. If “not wanting to have a needy spouse on the public dole” was the reason, the state would equally be concerned that a party getting married does not turn into a "needy spouse." They should check the earning power of the husband, how many children are planned, is it a second marriage, are there kids. etc...when someone wants to "enter" marriage. Why simply check "some" citizens who are "exiting" marriage to see if a needy spouse will result. Have you ever read a legal opinion that says the state's interest is to prevent needy spouses? It’s unlikely that you did.

3. There are no statutes that say a wife must live at a certain lifestyle while she is married. If the husband wanted to slow down and downsize the life style, she cannot go to the court and say .."he can work harder and make more...make him do it.”

There are more but you get the drift. All divorces must be treated the same. Entry and exit from marriage should be treated the same. And if the reason you offer ..is right, it is a taking...taking private property (ex husband's money) for a public good to save welfare and taxes for the public.

4. In Florida, the "Dissolution of Marriage" statute has a purposes section. They are crystal clear. There is no mention of any compelling state interest

In Florida, there is another good reason...consistency in the legislation of the “compelling interest”....that does not exist. In Florida, they repealed the motorcycle helmet law...and made the simple requirement you can ride without a helmet if you have $10,000 in health insurance.

Surely, if they were interested in the plight of needy spouses being in poverty after an accident, they could have made the requirement if you are married, you need $10,000 in life insurance. They could care less about a needy spouse as a result of a motorcycle accident.

The needy spouse on the public dole argument is a joke! It’s just that no one ever challenges it or thinks it through

WOMEN RULE: MORE ON THE SUBJECT:
* Women Rule! But Is That A Good Thing?
* Female power: the financial markets need more women like Hope ...

EXAMPLES OF A JUDICIAL SYSTEM AND JUDGES GONE AWRY:
* Alimony Forever: Shack Up and Collect Moolah From Your Ex? Not So Fast.
* Baumgartner Files Federal Civil Rights Action
* Judge Sought In Baumgartner Case, Sheriff Could Be Charged

INTERESTING READING:
* Happy Father’s Day My Ass
* Dirty Tricks
* October's Domestic Violence Awareness Month Ignores Many Victims

RELATED WEBSITES OF INTEREST:

* Judicial Misconduct Investigators: Find out where you can go to file a complaint against a judge in your state.

Be sure to visit these sites: www.abolish-alimony.org/ and www.alimonycentral.org

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

>