California Senators Vote Unaminously to Bring Back Indentured Servitude?

Minority Report Approach to Child Support Collections. Fact or Fiction?

Lary Holland
Has California's Senators voted unaminously to bring back indentured servitude? The California Political Desk in the California Chronicle today reported that the State Senate "today unaminmously (38-0) passed legislation to help increase the number of child support payments collected in San Mateo County," which further states "...would establish a program in San Mateo County to provide judges with the discretion to order an unemployed child support obligor to seek work at the time of the initial hearing determining such support." ("Yee's Bill To Strengthen Child Support Laws Approved." California Chronicle 6 Sept. 2007) The premise of the program essentially forces individuals to participate in programs, often against their will, without compensation, something that has long been outlawed by the Constitution of the United States.

Basically, I call laws like the above a "Minority Report Approach" to legislation, based on the Tom Cruise movie Minority Report. The premise of the movie was that three "pre-cognitives" could see into the future and determine a crime before it was committed and arrest the individual before they engaged in the criminal activity. Only one problem, the "pre-cogs" didn't always agree so the "system" would cover up the mistakes of the pre-cogs. Also, the movie raises an interesting philosophy that since an act was not committed yet, could they be found truly guilty of the crime "before it even happened?" In Tom Cruise's case, he demonstrated that the future was not always certain. In the above California Legislation, California Senators are attempting to force someone to perform an act before there is even a crime, as required by our Constitution. But...this is family court right? Now remember that child support is merely a civil debt and no crime has been committed leading up to the order of such debt to be paid to another party.

For those of you unfamiliar with the Constitution, the document that restricts governmental powers, there was an Amendment that completed Ratification on December 6, 1865. Under US Const. Amendment 13 Sec. 1 "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." Either California isn't part of the United States, or California and other states are trying to take more authority than what they actually have. The

The U.S. Supreme Court, in United States v. Kozminski (1988), has defined involuntary servitude as "compulsory service by the use of physical restraint or injury, or by the use or threat of coercion through legal process." Essentially the program as defined above, as well as the many court orders forcing individuals to participate in government welfare programs without compensation because there exists a civil debt or other civil judgment, is nothing more than a return to the slave trade and indentured servitude that was outlawed just a mere 142 years ago.

Published by Lary Holland

From a technological perspective, computers, networks, and internet technologies are like toys, easily mastered and completely understood. I am Host and Producer of the popular online talk show "Get Your Jus...  View profile

  • The Thirteenth Amendment Outlawed Indentured Servitude and Slavery in the United States.
  • Child Support is a civil judgment for a debt and is not criminal in nature.
  • State legislatures are competing aggressively for the chance at federal funding through CSE programs
Involuntary servitude is "compulsory service by the use of physical restraint or injury, or by the use or threat of coercion through legal process." Child Support programs fit into the definition and threaten incarceration of litigants do not participate.

2 Comments

Post a Comment
  • http://ChildSupportReformNow.com10/13/2008

    Yes, your right, something needs to be done, however, not at the cost of taking away someone's civil liberties. You obviously have no idea how the child support laws work. It would be in your best interest to familiarize yourself with the "Bradley Amendment". This was signed into law by Clinton in 92 and basically says that even if you were a prisoner of war, you can / will be arrested for the child support debt while you were a prisoner.

    This law also states that regardless of a person's handicap or inability to earn a living, the debtor still must pay. Removing a person's right to work by ruining their credit, taking away their privilege to drive is certainly not in the "best interest of the children".

    There are roughly 10,000 suicides that occur each and every year because of the unfair child enforcement laws that do nothing more than enslave a person to a debt that they will never recover from. The child support system was designed to be this way and is nothing more than a mo

  • T.H.Pankey9/9/2007

    very good point. However, something has to be done to get dead-beat dads(mothers) to help take care of their off-spring. And what's happening here, if I'm not mistaken, is that when eahc case comes up, it is then that the individual case will be evaluated to see whether or not the absent parent is "able" to do something to provide for the future welfare of their off-spring. I don't see them, as a general rule, forcing folks that aren't capable of providing for their children, e.g., handicapped to the point of "inability" to do constructive and monetarily beneficial work to the betterment of said offspring.

Displaying Comments

To comment, please sign in to your Yahoo! account, or sign up for a new account.