Dudley
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 12:21 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Free Exercise Clause and child support obligation
On Aug 14, 2006, at 10:59 AM, Volokh, Eugene wrote:
In re Didier, 2006 WL 2258571 (Wash. App.), raises an
interesting
question
On Aug 14, 2006, at 12:30 PM, Volokh, Eugene wrote:
Well, recall that under Thomas v. Review Board, you don't need
an official belief of any well-established religious group -- a
person's idiosyncratic religious belief, if held sincerely, would
qualify. We thus can't simply say
I'm afraid I can't do much to explain strict scrutiny on the
list -- many tomes have been written on the subject; you might start
with a good short book (say, the Nutshell) on the Religion Clauses. Nor
is the matter quite one of conscience rather than religion; given
Yoder, the Free
I much sympathize with Ed's position, but let me probe that a
little further. First, while there's obviously a compelling government
interest in making sure that the children don't starve, that interest
isn't implicated in all child support cases. In at least some, the
mother would be
Title: Re: Free Exercise Clause and child support obligation
Ed Brayton wrote:
No one would even conceive of allowing a father to
voluntarily decide to stop working toget out of paying child
support.
There are cases on this, and they go both ways.
Some involve Dads who simply refuse
Alan: I wonder if you could discuss a little further. Say that
John and Mary are two California lawyers with three children; they make
$200,000 each (not an unreasonable salary for a California lawyer).
John experiences a revelation and decides to join a monastery and take a
vow of
for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Free Exercise Clause and child support obligation
Alan: I wonder if you could discuss a little further. Say that
John and Mary are two California lawyers with three children; they make
$200,000 each (not an unreasonable salary for a California lawyer).
John
]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 1:40 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Free Exercise Clause and child support obligation
Alan: I wonder if you could discuss a little further.
Say that John and Mary
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 2:40 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Free Exercise Clause and child support obligation
I think that under strict scrutiny, that's an eminently
plausible result; and under a state RFRA it might even be the right
result, because
On Aug 14, 2006, at 1:28 PM, Alan Brownstein wrote:
Jean makes an important point here when she states,
I'm thinking that should a parent choose to take a vow of poverty,
they
should be required to perform community service in lieu of child
support. Give back to the community that is
10 matches
Mail list logo
