When even a Judge recognizes that common sense should prevail, but isn't willing to do anything about it, courts start to be pretty useless.
I believe in logic first, but it looks like a judge trying not to punish the innocent.
"They are not bound by state law"
That's not really true, the US Constitution has a different interpretation, the state still has rights and areas of responsibility.
And specifically as to federal law, the US Constitution is crystal clear on this matter:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Go get the Social Security Act -- a federal law -- declared beyond the powers of the federal government (not going to happen), and you'll have a coherent argument. Until then, you're just speaking nonsense.
And before you tiresomely drag out the full faith and credit clause, try looking it up and actually reading about it.
On the contrary, you can find a very clear, unambiguous statement that such certificates are not controlling in the SSA's policy documents[1]:
"Give the court's declaration of death based on a presumption great weight depending on the supporting evidence, but is not controlling. The number holder may not be presumed dead for purposes of Social Security until he or she has been missing for 7 years and the presumption of death is not rebutted as instructed in GN 00304.050A.1., in this section."
And this isn't just about him wanting to be declared alive -- the Social Security Administration is going to want back the benefits it paid out, and it's going to want to sue him and his family to get them, not the other way around.
> Well, it's a might bit hard for the SSA to collect if the guy is not alive.
For that matter, do you remember what you wrote just a few hours ago?
> Has it occurred to you that the text of the Social Security Act probably predicates the life/death status of a person on the determination made by the state?
I don't care if he's legally dead in Ohio. I was never arguing about that. It is, in fact, entirely irrelevant to any point I've been making.
Whatever argument you think you're having with me is all in your head.
I get the feeling you haven't read it or how the Federal law might try to declare him alive. You also seem to have decided to go insulting to defend your point. The SSA will have to initiate action and this will be a loser for any Federal official all the way around.
A lot of state court actions can be appealed to federal courts as violations of Bill of Rights. Surely being called dead when you are not violates a few of these http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
A good solution could be to create a new legal identity for the person in question rather than trying to undo the death ruling. This could also be used to account for the Social Security benefits already paid out and such.
After all, this is not a matter of life and death. It's a question entirely of bureaucracy. So "common sense" isn't applicable: the real question is not "is this guy dead" (he isn't, obviously) but "how to rectify this fact with existing systems".
He is alive. Recognize that.
Will he (or his family) go broke because of some law that shouldn't apply? Then make him exempt. Will he go broke because of some law that should apply? Then lead him to a bankrupcy court. Anyway, he's alive, and he's still himself.
Reversing the man's death status will hurt innocent people badly. In particular, it would force his abandoned wife and children to pay back the Social Security benefits they claimed after he disappeared.
The real problem is with the Social Security Administration rules. They should not force the woman and her children to give back the money. I suppose the ideal situation is that the man is dead as far as the SSA is concerned.
Honestly, I am totally unsympathetic with this man. He abandoned his family. He abandoned them and was dead to them. He should have just stayed dead. No driver's license? Tough shit, asshole.
When someone is discovered alive, obviously that should automatically reverse their 'death status' - not to mention that they do not forfeit rights as a citizen because they were thought dead.
Instead of even thinking about the legal issues you are making this about your own emotional reaction to what a bad man he is and how bad the government supposedly is.
That is a pretty big hurdle to have to jump through!
He seems likely to be roughly about that age now... and he's apparently done just fine for many, many years without a SS# or drivers license, so I'm wondering what exactly is precipitating this (likely high-risk request) and collecting SS benefits is what's staring at me.
If he is proven to be alive then the keeping him legally dead is obviously absurd.
His return means that his ex-wife has to pay back the money then claim it from him. Which he'll probably never pay because he doesn't have it either.
Ideally the government should ask the man to pay back the money, the judge would have no issue granting his request then.
I'm betting you're the kind of person that gets really annoyed about 'activist judges' when a judge does act in a way that you disagree with.