Child Support Unconstitutional

[mplsfitter539]

Child Support System
Declared Unconstitutional
Minnesota Supreme Court upholds ruling

 
In 1975, Congress passed a law which included a last minute amendment to create the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE). When signing the bill, then President Ford commented that it took the federal government too far into domestic relations and promised to propose legislation to correct the problem. Over the decade that followed, it became clear that OCSE intended to grow in size and power to control all aspects of child support law, seizing that power from the state courts.
The size of the OCSE grew, this decade acquiring a staff in excess of 50,000 and costing taxpayers some $3 billion annually. Child support laws were modified, so that simple mathematical formulae are used to make award decisions. This new simplicity is required due to the low level of education of workers who are assigned as "judges" in child support cases. Extreme consequences defined by new federal laws, often carried out automatically and without trial, give the child support enforcement agency power over tens of millions of individuals that surpasses anything previously seen in the United States.
After almost 25 years since its start, judges in Minnesota finally felt that they had seen enough. In June of last year, the Court of Appeals decided that the administrative branch of government had exceeded its constitutional powers.

"The administrative child support process governed by Minn. Stat. 518.5511 (1996) is unconstitutional because it violates the separation of powers required by Minn. Const. art. III, 1." (STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS C7-97-926 C8-97-1132 C7-97-1512 C8-98-33, Filed June 12, 1998; http://www.courts.state.mn.us/library/archive/ctappub/9806/c797926.htm)
The Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the decision in January of this year.
"The administrative child support process created by Minn. Stat. 518.5511 (1996) violates the separation of powers doctrine by infringing on the district court's original jurisdiction, by creating a tribunal which is not inferior to the district court, and by permitting child support officers to practice law. Therefore, the statute is unconstitutional." (STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT C7-97-926 C8-97-1132 C9-98-33 C7-97-1512, Filed: January 28, 1999, Office of Appellate Courts; http://www.courts.state.mn.us/library/archive/supct/9901/c797926.htm)
 
--Reported by Roger F. Gay

[leon]

The Dsitrict courts and the superior courts in the administrative welfare states are Article I tax courts and are so reconized in state and federal case laws.Article I tax courts are not constitutionaly created, they are creations of the legislatures and congress under Social Security, goverment created has never and will be never constitutionaly protected. These entities within the alledged judicial sytem operate within with out an office, the power of the Article III courts is reserved in the Office through the constitution and its basis is founded on the strictist basis that the courts are indpedant. Article I tax courts and superior courts of the States have only employees in it, the judges are not officers, and are state appointed, with contracts to the Administrative state,(they cannot be independant) as far as juridiction you surrender youre juridiction to the Administrative courts when you file in under any motion without declaring youre rights to an Article III court under the constituion,(took a while but found a few cases to verify)consent is and has always been a prerequsit in these courts for them to move forward. what many of the courts dont want to come and say is if you want a public created right you will surrender youre constitutional protections, and this is why so many lose under the right and wrong of it, because they have no idea, hire an attorney and sign over to him power of attorney.In Alaska we have the Bar Association and they all, judges and Lawyers take an Oath to it, and one of the rules within the bar is Lawyers cannot talk constitutional Laws. always more to come.