US: Worry over Shariah law in Idaho jeopardizes child support

[webfact]

Worry over Shariah law in Idaho jeopardizes child support
By KIMBERLEE KRUESI and DAVID CRARY

BOISE, Idaho (AP) — The U.S. has spent years leading negotiations toward an international treaty that would make it easier for single parents worldwide to collect child-support payments.

But families across the country could be stuck with the cumbersome existing system after legislators in a single state rejected the deal because, they said, it could allow Islamic law to influence American courts.

The move by Idaho threatens an effort involving dozens of nations that set out more than a decade ago to improve procedures that have made it difficult, sometimes impossible, for parents' to get the money.

Idaho leaders now face pressure to reverse their decision and have called a special legislative session, which begins Monday and will cost taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars each day.

Experts and families around the U.S. are watching closely, especially those among the 150,000 active international child-support cases involving about $600 million annually.

Worries about the spread of Shariah have surfaced in several states in recent years, often resulting in proposals to restrict the use of foreign law in state courts.

Opponents dismiss these bills as anti-Islamic fear-mongering. They say Shariah has never trumped U.S. state or federal law.

Supporters, meanwhile, say the legislation protects states' rights in an increasingly globalized world.

Foreign law bans have been introduced this year in 17 states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Nine states have passed them, and a bill in Mississippi was recently signed into law.

Until now, the debate had been academic. But when nine lawmakers on an Idaho House panel last month killed a bill required as part of the state-by-state ratification process, it jeopardized the international effort as well as the state's entire child-support collection and payment system.

Idaho's special session will focus solely on legislation related to the treaty. The governor and others want to overcome concerns of opponents who say it could require the state to enforce rulings made in other nations under Islamic law.

"There are other countries listed in the treaty — France, Belgium — that have recognized Shariah courts as quasi-courts," Republican state Sen. Sheryl Nuxoll told the committee last month.

State and federal officials say such worry is baseless because language in the treaty outlines states' rights to reject deals that do not uphold basic American-style standards of legal fairness.

The state-level pressure also includes huge losses for Idaho triggered by the rejection. About $46 million in federal funds are tied to the legislation, along with access to payment processing systems that include automatic payroll deductions.

Without that system, Idaho leaders will need to find a new way to process the state's 155,000 child-support cases, which involve about $205 million annually.

"It's scary to think about not getting those payments," said Yvonne Stoneburner, a single mom just outside Boise.

Stoneburner receives child-support payments for one of her two young children from her ex-boyfriend in Texas and relies on the automatic system. "I'm lucky. I've never had a missed payment," she said.

The Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support is unusual for multi-nation deals in that it requires signoff from all 50 states. It was set up that way because child-support collection in the U.S. is the responsibility of state governments, not federal authorities. It piggybacks on a state-by-state approval system for domestic child-support policy that has long been in place.

The Health and Human Services Department says 28 states have passed their treaty compliance bills, and measures have cleared the legislature and are awaiting governors' signatures in five others.

Meg Haynes, a senior associate with the Center for the Support of Families and an expert on international child support, said she's never seen a state miss a mandatory bill deadline until now. She declined to speculate whether the U.S. might find a way to ratify the treaty if Idaho refused to reconsider, saying: "I want to be an optimist."

The treaty seeks to improve a scattershot system in which states draft agreements with foreign countries. During a hearing before a House Ways and Means subcommittee, the director of Michigan's child-support office, Marilyn Stephen, said the treaty would be a big improvement, since settlements under such procedures often took years to arrange.

Member nations have been ratifying the treaty since five years of negotiations concluded in 2007, and HHS officials say concerns over Shariah are misguided.

Vicki Turetsky, commissioner of the department's Office of Child Support Enforcement, issued a memorandum last month explaining states' protections against foreign rulings they consider unjust.

Eileen Stack, who oversees New York state's child-support enforcement program, said many families seeking payments across borders would benefit from the treaty, especially those that cannot afford to hire an attorney in another country.

"It is very difficult," she said, "to get acknowledgement of U.S. orders in countries without an agreement."
___

Crary reported from New York.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-05-15

[Seastallion]

I never would have thought that the hometown of Hawkeye Pierce would have such redneck attitudes.

[khwaibah]

I never would have thought that the hometown of Hawkeye Pierce would have such redneck attitudes.

Idaho is just one step from the loony farm.

[NeverSure]

"The state-level pressure also includes huge losses for Idaho triggered by the rejection. About $46 million in federal funds are tied to the legislation, along with access to payment processing systems that include automatic payroll deductions.

Without that system, Idaho leaders will need to find a new way to process the state's 155,000 child-support cases, which involve about $205 million annually."

So, the Feds give the state money and systems and then use that money as blackmail to push an agenda. The Feds don't have any money they don't first take away from people including the states so they are using Idaho's tax revenues to blackmail Idaho.

Passing this treaty would remove highly effective and long standing state sovereignty in this matter. This is another push by the federal government to usurp power. The US was formed as a republic of states, not a democracy so that the smallest states wouldn't be ruled by the bigger states. Each state has the same number of senators in the senate regardless of population. This is an attempt to do an end run around that founding principle.

Hang in there Idaho.

[Credo]

Go ahead hang in there Idaho, but please find something other than child support payments to do it on. Please.

[BudRight]

I don't understand how US administrators could enforce judgements from foreign courts that may not have the same standards of due process (or even if they do!). In particular, what's to stop people in signatory countries from concocting accusations of paternity/maternity, ruling against the "father/mother" when they have never even been to that country (perhaps failing to appear and exonerate themselves due to the costs involved), and then find their wages garnished to pay for it a kid in Albania or El Salvador? Intention and effect are almost never the same. It seems an invitation for massive fraud under the guise of helping children.

[impulse]

So, the Feds give the state money and systems and then use that money as blackmail to push an agenda. The Feds don't have any money they don't first take away from people including the states so they are using Idaho's tax revenues to blackmail Idaho.

........

Hang in there Idaho.

I'm rooting for Idaho on this one.

But if the federal government hadn't stepped in, blacks in Alabama and Mississippi still wouldn't have the right to vote.

[50baht]

I never would have thought that the hometown of Hawkeye Pierce would have such redneck attitudes.

Hawkeye was from Crabapple Cove, Maine.

[ezzra]

I never would have thought that the hometown of Hawkeye Pierce would have such redneck attitudes.

Hawkeye Pierce lived in a much better times, where dose despicable mongrels cave dealers

were not in existence yet,,, this is now a very, very different world we live in...

[wwest5829]

"The state-level pressure also includes huge losses for Idaho triggered by the rejection. About $46 million in federal funds are tied to the legislation, along with access to payment processing systems that include automatic payroll deductions.

Without that system, Idaho leaders will need to find a new way to process the state's 155,000 child-support cases, which involve about $205 million annually."

So, the Feds give the state money and systems and then use that money as blackmail to push an agenda. The Feds don't have any money they don't first take away from people including the states so they are using Idaho's tax revenues to blackmail Idaho.

Passing this treaty would remove highly effective and long standing state sovereignty in this matter. This is another push by the federal government to usurp power. The US was formed as a republic of states, not a democracy so that the smallest states wouldn't be ruled by the bigger states. Each state has the same number of senators in the senate regardless of population. This is an attempt to do an end run around that founding principle.

Hang in there Idaho.

We saw the same with highway funds being withheld. You still oppose mandatory seat belt laws?

Re read, currently each state has to work out a possible deal to get child support from a foreign parent. The main issue is the children not getting support because the foreign courts do not have 50 different agreements in dealing with U.S. states. I believe the battle over states rights versus the interests of all U.S. citizens has been settled some time ago. Best not to shoot oneself in the foot over an imaginary fear.

[ToddinChonburi]

A stolen passport will now be worth much much more. Careful how you play guys, could cost you big time.

[Chicog]

Sharia law is pretty stingy when it comes to child support.

But they also tend to give the children to the father.

[NeverSure]

So, the Feds give the state money and systems and then use that money as blackmail to push an agenda. The Feds don't have any money they don't first take away from people including the states so they are using Idaho's tax revenues to blackmail Idaho.

........

Hang in there Idaho.

I'm rooting for Idaho on this one.

But if the federal government hadn't stepped in, blacks in Alabama and Mississippi still wouldn't have the right to vote.

I agree but that was a domestic US issue not involving foreign citizens or foreign law. The feds do have the right to enforce civil rights.

This proposed treaty would allow people who aren't citizens residing in foreign countries to enforce foreign law against US states. I hope that NEVER happens. It's unconstitutional and I think it would be thrown out by the Supreme Court if it even gets passed.

[Johpa]

I never would have thought that the hometown of Hawkeye Pierce would have such redneck attitudes.

Idaho, especially North Idaho, is the location of the spiritual home of the modern white supremacy movement at Hayden Lake, the Aryan Nation. Although the Aryan Nation was taken down by the Federal government, Idaho and neighboring Montana still host a whole lot of very extremist right-wing citizens. It is also the location of Ruby Ridge, home of right wing martyr Randy Weaver. These people make the modern Tea Party of Ted Cruz and the Koch brothers look centrist by comparison.

[BudRight]

I never would have thought that the hometown of Hawkeye Pierce would have such redneck attitudes.

Idaho, especially North Idaho, is the location of the spiritual home of the modern white supremacy movement at Hayden Lake, the Aryan Nation. Although the Aryan Nation was taken down by the Federal government, Idaho and neighboring Montana still host a whole lot of very extremist right-wing citizens. It is also the location of Ruby Ridge, home of right wing martyr Randy Weaver. These people make the modern Tea Party of Ted Cruz and the Koch brothers look centrist by comparison.

Your post has more weasel words than an episode 'Dr. Oz.' and if by 'right-wing' you mean 'live in the woods and hunt' then yes and so what?

[Publicus]

"The state-level pressure also includes huge losses for Idaho triggered by the rejection. About $46 million in federal funds are tied to the legislation, along with access to payment processing systems that include automatic payroll deductions.

Without that system, Idaho leaders will need to find a new way to process the state's 155,000 child-support cases, which involve about $205 million annually."

So, the Feds give the state money and systems and then use that money as blackmail to push an agenda. The Feds don't have any money they don't first take away from people including the states so they are using Idaho's tax revenues to blackmail Idaho.

Passing this treaty would remove highly effective and long standing state sovereignty in this matter. This is another push by the federal government to usurp power. The US was formed as a republic of states, not a democracy so that the smallest states wouldn't be ruled by the bigger states. Each state has the same number of senators in the senate regardless of population. This is an attempt to do an end run around that founding principle.

Hang in there Idaho.

So, the Feds give the state money and systems and then use that money as blackmail to push an agenda. The Feds don't have any money they don't first take away from people including the states so they are using Idaho's tax revenues to blackmail Idaho.

Idaho ranks 7th highest among the states in bucks it gets back from Washington. In other words, for every $1 Idahoans pay in taxes to Washington, they get back $1.61 in federal funds. Forty-three states do not have that particular sweetheart deal.

Idaho in fact ranks 33rd among states least dependent on federal revenue as a part of its budget, which leaves Idahoans pretty dependent on bucks from Washington in their everyday lives. The state of Idaho does not pay federal taxes as a state, its residents do right on up to its governor.

For a state that in 2004 voted 69% for GW Bush and in 2012 voted 65% for Romney, that would mean more than Mitt's 47% of takers happen to live there.

There's nothing unconstitutional about the feds withholding funding to a state government or its contractor to get a given state(s) government to comply with a federal law, a treaty, a court order.

This is due primarily to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment's post Civil War guarantee of the equal protection of the law, which was a constitutional statement on state's rights, i.e., there aren't any. In this treaty, equal protection affects each dependent child of separated parents as determined by a court of law.

Idaho had best throw in the towel on this one too. A pile of money says they're doing that now.

[NeverSure]

"and the Fourteenth Amendment's post Civil War guarantee of the equal protection of the law, which was a constitutional statement on state's rights, i.e., there aren't any."

You are hugely mistaken.

The first ten amendments to the US Constitution are collectively called "The Bill of Rights". They were written and ratified after the Constitution was written because the founders were concerned about state and individual rights. They enshrine in the Constitution exactly what you say there aren't any of - states' rights.

These are rights that trump the federal government.

The founders ended this guarantee of states' rights with the last of these, the Tenth Amendment which reads as follows, emphasis mine. Note that the Bill of Rights is short and sweet and to the point carrying a simple message against the federal government in favor of the people and the states:

Amendment X

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

[Publicus]

Yep, the Tenth Amendment complements the first nine. It does not contradict them.

The Fourteenth Amendment, adopted three years after the Civil War ended, in 1868, established a direct connection between each citizen and the Constitution and took a huge dump on the roundly and soundly defeated notion of state's rights.

The Tenth Amendment does not contradict the treaty making power of the federal government nor does it give each state an option to deny the federal government in its exercise of the 14th Amendment as it affects each citizen of each and every state.

A state government pays no taxes to Washington, each resident of the state pays individual taxes to Washington to include each member of the state government right on up to the governor. Idaho is prohibited making its own foreign policy either, as doing so might contradict or deviate from the foreign policy and treaties made by Washington.

Equal protection of the law under the US Constitution in this instance applies to each individual dependent child a judge in a court of law has determined receive financial support from a separated parent.

Ideology is an unfortunate brain disease that stands in the way of this being realized.

[NeverSure]

Yep, the Tenth Amendment complements the first nine. It does not contradict them.

The Fourteenth Amendment, adopted three years after the Civil War ended, in 1868, established a direct connection between each citizen and the Constitution and took a huge dump on the roundly and soundly defeated notion of state's rights.

The Tenth Amendment does not contradict the treaty making power of the federal government nor does it give each state an option to deny the federal government in its exercise of the 14th Amendment as it affects each citizen of each and every state.

A state government pays no taxes to Washington, each resident of the state pays individual taxes to Washington to include each member of the state government right on up to the governor. Idaho is prohibited making its own foreign policy either, as doing so might contradict or deviate from the foreign policy and treaties made by Washington.

Equal protection of the law under the US Constitution in this instance applies to each individual dependent child a judge in a court of law has determined receive financial support from a separated parent.

Ideology is an unfortunate brain disease that stands in the way of this being realized.

I don't think you even read the OP. Treaties have to be ratified by 2/3 of the states. Thus the feds don't have the power to just make a treaty.

NOW the feds are trying to blackmail a state into ratifying a treaty by threatening to withhold federal funds. That's not going to fly. Whether a state decides to ratify a treaty is a sovereign decision.

There are two causes of action which will each prevail before the Supreme Court if actions are brought. The first is that foreign courts can't have jurisdiction inside the US. That would incite a revolution. The second is the freedom FROM religion which would nullify anything a court operating under a religion would do.

Hang in there, Idaho.

[Publicus]

Yep, the Tenth Amendment complements the first nine. It does not contradict them.

The Fourteenth Amendment, adopted three years after the Civil War ended, in 1868, established a direct connection between each citizen and the Constitution and took a huge dump on the roundly and soundly defeated notion of state's rights.

The Tenth Amendment does not contradict the treaty making power of the federal government nor does it give each state an option to deny the federal government in its exercise of the 14th Amendment as it affects each citizen of each and every state.

A state government pays no taxes to Washington, each resident of the state pays individual taxes to Washington to include each member of the state government right on up to the governor. Idaho is prohibited making its own foreign policy either, as doing so might contradict or deviate from the foreign policy and treaties made by Washington.

Equal protection of the law under the US Constitution in this instance applies to each individual dependent child a judge in a court of law has determined receive financial support from a separated parent.

Ideology is an unfortunate brain disease that stands in the way of this being realized.

I don't think you even read the OP. Treaties have to be ratified by 2/3 of the states. Thus the feds don't have the power to just make a treaty.

NOW the feds are trying to blackmail a state into ratifying a treaty by threatening to withhold federal funds. That's not going to fly. Whether a state decides to ratify a treaty is a sovereign decision.

There are two causes of action which will each prevail before the Supreme Court if actions are brought. The first is that foreign courts can't have jurisdiction inside the US. That would incite a revolution. The second is the freedom FROM religion which would nullify anything a court operating under a religion would do.

Hang in there, Idaho.

From the OP: The Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support is unusual for multi-nation deals in that it requires signoff from all 50 states. So this treaty is not a two-thirds deal which under the best of circumstances is always a very high mountain to ascend.

Twenty-eight states have approved the treaty with another five saying they are in the process of approving it, which is 28+5=33 and a long way from 50 of 50. If you or I went 50 for 50 in a baseball season we'd be in Cooperstown (instead of Thailand ).

The federal government will need to do what it can do to get all 50 states aboard the treaty.

I remind the gentleman that is is not illegal and it is not unconstitutional for the feds to withhold from a state, which per se does not pay taxes, federal funds if a given state does not comply with federal government policies or priorities. This is accomplished under the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of the equal protection of the law to each and every citizen/resident, to include dependent children.

State sovereignty in the US can sound good to people on the right but it doesn't square with reality, not since the Civil War especially.

[JDGRUEN]

Some posters needs to post a few more pages to win the argument.

TVF members are allowed to post on any subject -- the question is - should they ?

People from the U.K. and EU countries do not have a clue what America is about - Internally ... no recognition of how things work in America or why?

America Broke Away from British Rule for a Reason -- called Freedom.

Edited May 17, 2015 by JDGRUEN

[Publicus]

Maybe some Americans should stop posting altogether because their posts could tend to embarrass the vast majority of Americans.

The vast majority being the great rest of us.

So what could be good for the goose probably would be good for the gander.

Fair is fair after all.

[NeverSure]

The vast majority of Americans support new and up to date gun and ammunition laws in the US. Only the extremists oppose in the absolute new and improved laws to better regulate gun ownership or possession.

"The vast majority of Americans support new and up to date gun and ammunition laws in the US."

That would be of course except for the 100 million adult American gun owners. That tiny group is in the extreme and doesn't count, right, LOL?

I think you are a "vast majority of one" - in your own mind.

[NeverSure]

State sovereignty in the US can sound good to people on the right but it doesn't square with reality, not since the Civil War especially.

LOL. Idaho has to sign due to its sovereignty and that has the feds stumped. Try again.

[NeverSure]

This is accomplished under the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of the equal protection of the law to each and every citizen/resident, to include dependent children.

LOL. What is equal about one group of people having to be subjected to foreign laws when others aren't? What is equal about one group of people being subject to laws that are made in religious courts when the rest of the people receive their Constitutional protection against establishment of any one religion?

This proposal is so unconstitutional that the Supreme Court will laugh it out of town.

[ubonjoe]

A off topic post has been removed.

[Publicus]

One single committee of the Idaho House of Representatives is creating a right wing bogus stink over the treaty which the Idaho state Senate passed unanimously and which the Republican party Governor Butch Otter supports by calling a special session of the Republican controlled state legislature to get the bill past a clatch of right wing extremists in the Idaho House.

In 2007 the US Senate for instance gave its advice and consent to the treaty as requested at the time by Prez Bush. The US House has as recently as 2013 passed several bills to implement the treaty with certain restrictions in the US, none of which express any concern over Sharia law being applied in the United States because there isn't any such concern, even among the lunar Republicans in Washington.

The National Center for State Courts, founded in 1971 by SCOTUS Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, fully supports the treaty and notes that.....

On 3/28/12, Representative Rick Berg (R-ND) introduced HR 4282, the International Child Support Recovery Improvement Act of 2012, which would require states to adopt the 2008 UIFSA amendments verbatim. On 6/5/12, the House approved HR 4282 by a voice vote under suspension of the rules.

On 5/9/13, House Ways and Means Human Resources Subcommittee Chairman Dave Reichert (R-WA) introduced the International Child Support Recovery Improvement Act of 2013 (H. R. 1896) . This bi-partisan legislation mirrors legislation that was unanimously passed by the House in the 112th Congress. On 6/18/13, on a motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, the House approved HR 1896 by a vote of 394 to 27.

http://www.ncsc.org/Services-and-Experts/Government-Relations/Child-Support-Enforcement/International-Treaty-on-Child-Support-Enforcement.aspx

The extreme far out right wing is at it again so we need to be on our toes again on this one too.

We are hearing for instance about Sharia law infiltrating the United States, which is old right wing bogeyman. We are hearing about state's rights and state sovereignty as if they were fact or real.

There's the old right wing canard of the federal government and the funding of states as if the states per se paid taxes the same as each individual citizen pays federal taxes, which the states per se do not do, yet the state governments get taxpayer funds directly from Washington.

It is legal and it is constitutional for the feds in Washington to withhold US taxpayer funds from a state when the state interposes itself against the law, foreign policy, the Constitution and the like.

[CMNightRider]

One single committee of the Idaho House of Representatives is creating a right wing bogus stink over the treaty which the Idaho state Senate passed unanimously and which the Republican party Governor Butch Otter supports by calling a special session of the Republican controlled state legislature to get the bill past a clatch of right wing extremists in the Idaho House.

In 2007 the US Senate for instance gave its advice and consent to the treaty as requested at the time by Prez Bush. The US House has as recently as 2013 passed several bills to implement the treaty with certain restrictions in the US, none of which express any concern over Sharia law being applied in the United States because there isn't any such concern, even among the lunar Republicans in Washington.

The National Center for State Courts, founded in 1971 by SCOTUS Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, fully supports the treaty and notes that.....

On 3/28/12, Representative Rick Berg (R-ND) introduced HR 4282, the International Child Support Recovery Improvement Act of 2012, which would require states to adopt the 2008 UIFSA amendments verbatim. On 6/5/12, the House approved HR 4282 by a voice vote under suspension of the rules.

On 5/9/13, House Ways and Means Human Resources Subcommittee Chairman Dave Reichert (R-WA) introduced the International Child Support Recovery Improvement Act of 2013 (H. R. 1896) . This bi-partisan legislation mirrors legislation that was unanimously passed by the House in the 112th Congress. On 6/18/13, on a motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, the House approved HR 1896 by a vote of 394 to 27.

http://www.ncsc.org/Services-and-Experts/Government-Relations/Child-Support-Enforcement/International-Treaty-on-Child-Support-Enforcement.aspx

The extreme far out right wing is at it again so we need to be on our toes again on this one too.

We are hearing for instance about Sharia law infiltrating the United States, which is old right wing bogeyman. We are hearing about state's rights and state sovereignty as if they were fact or real.

There's the old right wing canard of the federal government and the funding of states as if the states per se paid taxes the same as each individual citizen pays federal taxes, which the states per se do not do, yet the state governments get taxpayer funds directly from Washington.

It is legal and it is constitutional for the feds in Washington to withhold US taxpayer funds from a state when the state interposes itself against the law, foreign policy, the Constitution and the like.

Wow, "The Idaho House of Representatives is creating a right wing bogus stink?" Shariah law taking hold in America, is a real threat. Liberals along with Obama, at the helm will either intentionally or through their naivety open the door for this to happen. The only "bogus stink" I detect is coming from the loony left.

[Linky]

Some posters needs to post a few more pages to win the argument.

TVF members are allowed to post on any subject -- the question is - should they ?

People from the U.K. and EU countries do not have a clue what America is about - Internally ... no recognition of how things work in America or why?

America Broke Away from British Rule for a Reason -- called Freedom.

Im glad to hear you will never post about Thailand in a Thai forum and that your views on muslim countries are unfounded and ill informed.

Thanks for the confession.??

[Publicus]

The National Center for State Courts is mainstream America and it supports the treaty and the endorsement of the treaty by the required 50 states.

The US Senate gave its unanimous advice and consent to the treaty in 2007 while not finding anything in it pertaining to Sharia law.

The US House unanimously approved improvements that found nothing in the treaty about Sharia law. In another very recent instance of the US House improving the treaty, the House voted 394 to 27 in favor.

The Republican party controlled Idaho state senate unanimously approved the treaty and the Republican Governor Butch Otter supports it and has called a special session of the Republican controlled state legislature to overcome the small clatch of concocted and invented right wing opposition that is based in right wing extremist politics and purposes only.

This is another big ado about nothing created out of thin air by the lunar far right.