Legal Question in Constitutional Law in California

thirteenth amendment

How is it that child support enforcement agencies can suspend a person's driver's licence or business permits or licences, and otherwise oppress people and this is not considered a violation of the thirteenth amendment? I know that the amendment excludes criminals and nonsupport is a crime but doesn't someone first have to be found guilty of a crime and convicted before they are considered a criminal? Also if a person doesn't actually have the ability to pay support they are not considered guilty because it was not their intent to commit a crime. I am reasonably certain that this exception to the amendment was intended to refer to imprisonment of a criminal and not to placing an otherwise free person in a state of servitude.


Asked on 4/13/04, 3:55 pm

2 Answers from Attorneys

Michael Stone Law Offices of Michael B. Stone Toll Free 1-855-USE-MIKE

Re: thirteenth amendment

The general answer to your question is that the enforcement of the Constitution, or of any law, depends on the judges who decide individual cases, and ultimately the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. I can think of a number of unconstitutional conditions and practices that the Supreme Court might possibly address if there were better Justices appointed to sit there.

Supreme Court Justices are appointed by the President. Vote accordingly.

Read more
Answered on 4/13/04, 4:09 pm
Edward Hoffman Law Offices of Edward A. Hoffman

Re: thirteenth amendment

The Thirteenth Amendment was enacted to put an end to slavery, and if you think having to support your own children is equivalent to being a slave then you have a serious attitude problem.

Generally speaking, failing to pay child support is not a crime -- at least not a major one. It is more like a traffic ticket until the problem grows sufficiently large. It can then be considered a crime and, as you say, you can't be punished for it until you have a trial or plead guilty. You are also correct that being able to pay is part of the crime; the state can't punish someone who is broke for not providing money he doesn't have.

However, you seem to think that only criminals can have their licenses etc. affected like this. Think again. A civil judgment can have some of the the same kinds of effects; many professionals could lose their licenses as a result of losing certain types of civil suits. Your child support order is equivalent to a judgment against you, and it can be enforced if you try to shirk your obligations.

Keep in mind that driving is a privilege and not a right, and the state can deprive you of that privilege for sufficient cause. The state has an interest in making sure children are taken care of even when their parents try to abandon them financially, and revoking the driver's license of a deadbeat parent can be a very effective motivating force.

This "servitude" you complain about is not the result of an overbearing government. Instead, it is the result of your decision to have a child and your subsequent failure to live up to your obligations to him or her. As determined as you obviously are to put the blame on someone else, it boils down to accepting responsibility for your actions.

Read more
Answered on 4/13/04, 6:15 pm


Related Questions & Answers

More Constitutional Law questions and answers in California