Steps Developed By Jimmy Gaines Against Carmi Welfare Department

" One day is non sufficient time for Gaines and his counsel to research and prepare to vie the original and legal issues involved or to prepare to interrogation Endicott and her supervisor on the critical factual issues discussed below, -- i.e. whether Baines has 'cohabited' with Ms. Bayley (as opposed to gentle occasion everyy in sexual relations with her) and whether Ms. Bayley can realistically be characterized as a substitute source of support.

under(a) the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunities Act (PRA), the AFDC program was canceled and replaced with the TANF program. tally to Nice & Trubek, "Congress eliminated the federal statutory entitlement requiring narrates to provide AFDC benefits to all eligible individuals, and the procedural entitlement requiring states to grant disgruntled beneficiaries an opportunity for a fair hearing before a state authorisation." The Carmi benefit department can, therefore, be expected to argue that Gaines under PRA and applicable state welfare law no longer has each stead subject to the Due Process Clause because a former entitlement has been replaced with an entirely discretionary TANF benefit.

However, neither the constitutionality of PRA nor of the TANF program has moreover been decided. It is unclear whether Congress has the power to eliminate the requirement that state agencies observe minimal standards of procedural due process. Moreover, in PRA, Nice

Greene v. McElroy (Supreme coquet no citation).

Nice & Trubek read that the Supreme Court has generally "distinguished between turn to burdens [on the exercise of one's constitutional rights] and indirect incentives," such as "refusals to subsidize" proscribed behavior. In this case the effects on Gaines' constitutional rights arguably fall into the indirect effect category since the hardly impact is the loss of TANF benefits. Nevertheless, Gaines should argue that the local anesthetic welfare agency has failed to offer sufficient justification for its action. In New tee shirt Welfare Rights Organization v. Cahill, 411 U.S. 619 (1973), the Court struck down a state law which denied welfare benefits to illegitimate children because it penalized the children for the sins of the parents.

In this case, the local welfare agency's regulation accomplishes much the same result heretofore though it is directed in the first instance at the father, Mr. Gaines.

It is unclear from the question whether the State has gotten around to complying with this provision. If not, Gaines should argue that alert due process constraints should apply, including reasonable notice of the hearing. Supreme Court precedents are ambiguous. Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 577 (1972), held that a benefit constitutes a airscrew right only if it is so defined in the applicable statute, but Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985), suggested that a state legislative body cannot foreclose or limit the existence of a property right by limiting the procedures for enforcing it. Support for the view that a duly noticed hearing is required

Policy Considerations. Reflecting humans sentiment that too many able-bodied persons remain on welfare and that the welfare system breeds continuing dependency patterns, authorities at all levels no longer pursues the goal of cut down poverty in the United States which in fact has increase in recent decades. Instead public welfare insurance policy is aimed at lowering we
Ordercustompaper.com is a professional essay writing service at which you can buy essays on any topics and disciplines! All custom essays are written by professional writers!