Michigan Votes Forum

Discuss issues, ideas and legislation related to the Great Lake State.
Welcome to Michigan Votes Forum Sign in | Join | Help
in Search
Latest post 04-14-2010 11:47 PM by joemaflage. 3 replies.
Page 1 of 1 (4 items)
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  • 01-01-2001 12:00 AM

    2009 Senate Bill 941 (Establish arrest warrants welfare ban procedures )

    Introduced in the Senate on October 22, 2009

    Click here to view bill details.
  • 10-28-2009 10:33 AM In reply to

    Re: 2009 Senate Bill 941 (Establish arrest warrants welfare ban procedures )

    This sounds like a good bill. As long as there is a provision (unlike the no-fly list) for someone to easily appeal.

  • 04-14-2010 10:48 PM In reply to

    Re: 2009 Senate Bill 941 (Establish arrest warrants welfare ban procedures )

     

    I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

    This proposed law may violate the due process rights of welfare recipients under Goldberg V Kelly.

    URL:

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0397_0254_ZO.html

    BRENNAN, J., Opinion of the Court

    SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

    397 U.S. 254
    Goldberg v. Kelly
    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
    No. 62 Argued: October 13, 1969 --- Decided: March 23, 1970

    The question for decision is whether a State that terminates public assistance payments to a particular recipient without affording him the opportunity for an evidentiary hearing prior to termination denies the recipient procedural due process in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
    ....
    The constitutional issue to be decided, therefore, is the narrow one whether the Due Process Clause requires that the recipient he afforded an evidentiary hearing before the termination of benefits. [n7] The District Court held [p261] that only a pre-termination evidentiary hearing would satisfy the constitutional command, and rejected the argument of the state and city officials that the combination of the post-termination "fair hearing" with the informal pre-termination review disposed of all due process claims.
    ....
    While post-termination review is relevant, there is one overpowering fact which controls here. By hypothesis, a welfare recipient is destitute, without funds or assets. . . . Suffice it to say that to cut off a welfare recipient in the face of . . . "brutal need" without a prior hearing of some sort is unconscionable unless overwhelming considerations justify it.
    ....
    Welfare recipients must therefore be given an opportunity to confront and cross-examine the witnesses relied on by the department.
    ....
    Finally, the decisionmaker's conclusion as to a recipient's eligibility must rest solely on the legal rules and evidence adduced at the hearing.
    ...
    Affirmed.

  • 04-14-2010 11:47 PM In reply to

    Re: 2009 Senate Bill 941 (Establish arrest warrants welfare ban procedures )

     Since many of these people have children with them at least part of the time nad are likely the working poor will you let them opt out of paying into a system that they can not take part so they are not taxed to pay for a program that only benefits other poor people.

    Equal protection under the law comes to mind? Could you at least tie bar this to equal parenting legislation so that those who are trying to be parents have a fighting chance and those who really run away form children are the ones who are starved under this legislation?

Page 1 of 1 (4 items)
Powered by Community Server (Commercial Edition), by Telligent Systems