Earl Warren

Name: Shapiro v. Thompson — Dissent
Author: Earl Warren

Shapiro v. Thompson — Dissent (1969)

Summary

“Shapiro v. Thompson — Dissent”, published in 1969, is a work by Earl Warren. It explores elements such as residence requirements, residence and Congress.

Quotes from Shapiro v. Thompson — Dissent (Earl Warren)

Earl Warren, Shapiro v. Thompson — Dissent (1969)

“ By authorizing residence requirements Congress acted not to facilitate an administrative function but to further its conviction that an impediment to the commercial life of this Nation would be removed by a program of cooperative federalism combining federal contributions with enhanced state benefits. Congress, not the courts, is charged with determining the proper prescription for a national illness. I cannot say that Congress is powerless to decide that residence requirements would promote this permissible goal and therefore must conclude that such requirements cannot be termed arbitrary. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Earl Warren, Shapiro v. Thompson — Dissent (1969)

“ Congress determined that the Social Security Act, containing a system of unemployment and old-age insurance as well as the categorical assistance programs now at issue, was to be a major step designed to ameliorate the problems of economic insecurity. The primary purpose of the categorical assistance programs was to encourage the States to provide new and greatly enhanced welfare programs. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Earl Warren, Shapiro v. Thompson — Dissent (1969)

“ As already noted, travel itself is not prohibited. Any burden inheres solely in the fact that a potential welfare recipient might take into consideration the loss of welfare benefits for a limited period of time if he changes his residence. Not only is this burden of uncertain degree, [5] but appellees themselves assert there is evidence that few welfare recipients have in fact been deterred by residence requirements. See Harvith, The Constitutionality of Residence Tests for General and Categorical Assistance Programs, 54 Calif.L.Rev. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Earl Warren, Shapiro v. Thompson — Dissent (1969)

“ While in Street the Court strains to avoid the crucial constitutional question, here it summarily treats the constitutionality of a major provision of the Social Security Act when, given the Court's interpretation of the legislative materials, that provision is not at issue. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Earl Warren, Shapiro v. Thompson — Dissent (1969)

“ Faced with the competing claims of States which feared that abolition of residence requirements would result in an influx of persons seeking higher welfare payments and of organizations which stressed the unfairness of such requirements to transient workers forced by the economic dislocation of the depression to seek work far from their homes. Congress chose a middle course. It required those States seeking federal grants for categorical assistance to reduce their existing residence requirements to what Congress viewed as an acceptable maximum. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Earl Warren, Shapiro v. Thompson — Dissent (1969)

“ And Congress could have also determined that residence requirements fostered personal mobility. An individual no longer dependent upon welfare would be presented with an unfettered range of choices so that a decision to migrate could be made without regard to considerations of possible economic dislocation. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Earl Warren, Shapiro v. Thompson — Dissent (1969)

“ Aptherker thus contains two characteristics distinguishing it from the appeals now before the Court: a combined infringement of two constitutionally protected rights and a flat prohibition upon travel. Residence requirements do not create a flat prohibition, for potential welfare recipients may move from State to State and establish residence wherever they please. Nor is any claim made by appellees that residence requirements compel them to choose between the right to travel and another constitutional right. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Earl Warren, Shapiro v. Thompson — Dissent (1969)

“ Appelle § suggest, however, that Congress was not motivated by rational considerations. Residence requirements are imposed, they insist, for the illegitimate purpose of keeping poor people from migrating. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Earl Warren, Shapiro v. Thompson — Dissent (1969)

“ See H.R.Rep.No.891, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. (1935) (old-age pensions) ; H.R.Rep.No.201, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. (1935) (aid to the blind) . The congressional decision to allow the States to impose residence requirements and to enact such a requirement for the District was the subject of considerable discussion. Both those favoring lengthy residence requirements [1] and those opposing all requirements [2] pleaded their case during the congressional hearings on the Social Security Act. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Earl Warren, Shapiro v. Thompson — Dissent (1969)

“ Aptheker also involved a flat prohibi ion but in combination with a claim that the congressional restriction compelled a potential traveler to choose between his right to travel and his First Amendment right of freedom of association. ”

Earl Warren

Summary

Quotes from Shapiro v. Thompson — Dissent (Earl Warren)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature