Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentLaw & Ethics · 1 decade ago

does this break the 14th amendment...why?

Shapiro v. Thompson (1969)

Thompson and her children had been denied state public assistance (welfare) following her move to Connecticut because of a one-year residency requirement. She brought suit against Shapiro, the Welfare Commissioner, in District court. Thompson claimed that the residency requirement impeded her "right to travel," a precedent which was established in the Supreme Court case U.S. v. Guest. She also claimed that this residency requirement was a violation of her rights under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

Questions to consider before making your decision:

What is the purpose of the one-year residency requirement?

If every person in a state is subject to the same requirement, can the equal protection clause be applied in this case?

How does the right to travel fit into this case?

Is the granting of public assistance (welfare) a state action, or conversely, is the withholding of public assistance a state action?

3 Answers

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    The purpose of the one year residency is so that people dont start moving all over the place. It easy to get lost in the systems thus the reason for the law. Notice the word systems, because each state has its own laws for welfar.

    Welfar has a set of standards which requires you to meet in order to receive it. If you fail to meet the said standards, then your claim is denied. So can the equal protection clause be applied in this case. Your answer is no because each case is handled on a case bye case standard. Needs vs wants.

    Welfar is a hand up not a hand out so the right to travel fits into this case if said person can show that they are moving up.

    If we did this case in 1969, I would say that its a form of granting. In todays time its a form of withholding. Todays times being that money in the bank only makes more money. Its better to decline over and over until you have to pay because they will either give up, or you will make a said amount off the money you had to give out.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Nobody knows until the USSC rules.

    If it's state money, the Constitution says (in the 9th and 10th) that the federal government has no business butting in. However, we all know they're going to, and since you can't use the 9th and 10th to predict their behavior, how should we know what they'll do?

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    do your own homework

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.