1. Jose is correct that section 7 is unconstitutional. Any contention that the residence condition enhances the administrative effectiveness of the Public Assistance Act. To the contrary, all of the evidence is to the effect that many of the burdensome budgetary and administrative problems which are currently encountered by welfare officials in the demeanor of the public aid program would be substantially alleviated by the removal of this bottleneck in the processing of applicants.
“Only the constitutional test of equal protection is not satisfied by considerations of minimal financial expediency alone. To be sure, the State may reduce or even eliminate entirely welfare payments if it chooses to conserve resources in this fashion; it may turn …show more content…
State laws which impose discriminatory burdens upon the entrance or residence of aliens lawfully within the United States conflict with this constitutionally derived federal power to regulate immigration, and have accordingly been held invalid. Judgments holding statutory provisions unconstitutional were affirmed where respondents had a constitutional right to travel from one state to another and the challenged laws, which penalized the exercise of that right based on an impermissible classification, were unconstitutional where they were not necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest. If a law has no other purpose than to chill the assertion of constitutional rights by penalizing those who choose to exercise them, then it is patently unconstitutional. A state may legitimately attempt to limit its expenditures, whether for public assistance, public education, or any other program. But a state may not accomplish such a purpose by invidious distinctions between classes of its citizens without violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Protection …show more content…
At the core of the alien's due process rights is the right to notice of the nature of the charges and a meaningful opportunity to be heard, as in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 6 S. Ct. 1064, 30 L. Ed. 220, 1886 U.S. LEXIS 1938 (U.S. 1886) “The law itself to be mediocre on its face and impartial in appearance, still, if it is used and administered by public government agency with an evil eye and an unequal hand, so as practically to create unfair and illegal discriminations between persons in similar circumstances, material to their rights, the defense of equal justice is even within the ban of the