Comments by Elizabeth
Page 1 of 12 | Next
Posted on June 26 at 6:59 p.m.
I'm confused how a supporter of the constitution would support denying basic due process rights to detainees on U.S. controlled land.
Posted on June 18 at 1:22 p.m.
really - I practice predominantly family law and deal with Minnesota's child support laws on a daily basis and have to attend several annual and bi-annual conferences on them, including in-depth instruction when Minnesota changed from the Hortis/Valento formula to the PICS formula.
As I've said, I'm not the biggest fan and could list at least a dozen things I think should be changed, but this is not one of them, purely because of the practical implications of any such change as people here seem to be proposing.
By the way, you should be commended. You sound like a wonderful mom that cares deeply about her children's best interests.
Posted on June 18 at 12:16 p.m.
So how do you propose the law is changed?
I'm genuinely curious, as while I disagree with a lot of Minnesota's child support laws, the ramifications of changing this one would be an even bigger burden than keeping it as is.
Posted on June 18 at 9:59 a.m.
The specific statute Ms. Frerichs refers to is not responsible for the problem. The statute does not automatically stop support from being collected from incarcerated individuals. In order to get their child support stopped, individuals faced with incarceration must actively petition the court for a modification, just like anyone who becomes laid off or receives a decrease in their income.
Please think about this practically. An incarcerated individual makes, at most $1/hr, and doesn't start earning any of it until about 6 months into their sentences. How on earth are they supposed to pay any child support on that? If even the minimum is ordered, by the time they get out, they'll be so far in arrears, they'll never be able to pay it back and will waste even more county and state resources in collections.
I disagree with a lot of child support laws, but your anger is misplaced here.
Posted on June 17 at 9:11 p.m.
Yep, it's the Democrats who are pushing religion and big government onto the country. Sure.
I mean, who are they to oppose the marriage amendment, prayer in schools, displaying the Ten Commandments on government property, teaching creationism or Intelligent Design in public schools, and the like.
Posted on June 17 at 9:04 p.m.
It appears Ms. Frerichs misunderstands the statute. Minn. Stat. Section 518A.42 gives Judges statutory guidelines to determine one's ability to pay and calculate the statutory minimum basic support amount. It does not exempt individuals from their child support obligations during an incarceration or forgive any amounts ordered or in arrears prior to incarceration. It also does not prohibit child support payments Ordered from an incarcerated individual. Subdivision 3 merely states that the guidelines set out in subdivisions 1 and 2 (described above) do not apply to an obligor who is incarcerated at the time support is Ordered.
https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stat...
Posted on June 7 at 6:47 p.m.
Mel, that's an opinion, not a fact.
My most accounts, no one really knows how much oil exists in ANWR, and most informed estimates range around a 10-year supply. It's not enough to lower our gas prices and not worth destroying an entire ecosystem over. Our country is needlessly addicted to oil and consuming at an alarming rate. Drilling in ANWR would be nothing but a quick fix. We should be researching an inventing alternative fuel sources to reduce our dependence on oil, period.
I'd be willing to consider the possibility if anyone can point me to credible, non-biased sources showing how drilling in ANWR would reduce our dependence on oil, reduce prices, and help the environment, however, I guarantee you such doesn't exist.
Posted on June 7 at 2:48 p.m.
Please educate yourself on what drilling in ANWR really means before you spout such drivel.
Page 1 of 12 | Next
Posted on June 27 at 9:17 a.m.
freda,
Except the Constitution doesn't say that due process is only a right guaranteed to citizens. In fact, it specifically refers to "people."
Read the Bill of Rights. I think you'll find it enlightening.
On A true supporter of the U.S. constitution