05-24-2016, 02:47 AM
Oh. I love living in Missouri. You see, unlike some things.....they can't just make up law as they go on this one, because the very next stop is a court room where the law is the first thing looked at.
Now, here in Missouri.....(did I mention I love my state?) we foresaw such tyrannical nonsense and thought well ahead to addressing stupid ideas like this. Yes, indeed, we have. I use 'we' loosely of course, since this fine State Constitution of ours was written a year or two before I joined the state as a citizen.
However..it has some GREAT clauses...like the Imprisonment for Debt clause.
Source
Now, I have no intention of defaulting on my student loans, but if that were to happen through some life circumstance? I'd welcome the opportunity to run up as the test case and test just where the rights of my state of residence end vs. the Feds idea of making things up as they play along.
Yes..indeed...few states are as clear to make that fight as this one. It would be worth the hassle, just not worth defaulting to trigger.
Now, here in Missouri.....(did I mention I love my state?) we foresaw such tyrannical nonsense and thought well ahead to addressing stupid ideas like this. Yes, indeed, we have. I use 'we' loosely of course, since this fine State Constitution of ours was written a year or two before I joined the state as a citizen.
However..it has some GREAT clauses...like the Imprisonment for Debt clause.
Quote:Section 11. That no person shall be imprisoned for debt, except for nonpayment of fines and penalties imposed by law.
Source: Const. of 1875, Art. II, § 16.
(1951) Section 462.430, authorizing attachment for contempt for failure to surrender assets to estate, held not unconstitutional as against contention it authorizes imprisonment for debt. Zeitinger v. Mitchell (Mo.), 244 S.W.2d 91.
(1976) Held that imprisonment for contempt is proper remedy for failure to comply with court order for maintenance and child support when person disobeying order has intentionally placed himself in a position which made compliance impossible. State ex rel. Stanhope v. Pratt overruling Coughlin v. Ehlert, 39 Mo. 285 (1866). State ex rel. Stanhope v. Pratt (Mo.), 533 S.W.2d 567.
Top
Source
Now, I have no intention of defaulting on my student loans, but if that were to happen through some life circumstance? I'd welcome the opportunity to run up as the test case and test just where the rights of my state of residence end vs. the Feds idea of making things up as they play along.
Yes..indeed...few states are as clear to make that fight as this one. It would be worth the hassle, just not worth defaulting to trigger.