Motion for residency requirements for welfare recipients fails to reach floor

[gorja]

Motion for residency requirements for welfare recipients fails to reach floor
MAYVILLE, N.Y. — Chautauqua County legislators had hoped to send a message to Albany regarding more stringent residency requirements for welfare benefits, but they'll have to wait until next year after a lack of support kept the motion off the floor Wednesday evening.

Supporters of the motion say 80 percent of the county budget goes toward funding welfare programs. They say an influx of out-of-state residents receiving the benefits costs the county hundreds of thousands of dollars.

At the last minute, two legislators pulled their signatures from the motion, opting to discuss it next year.

http://buffalo.twcnews.com/content/n...o-reach-floor/

This is from the Clarence Bee Out of the Past

50 Years Ago
Feb. 6, 1964

Clarence’s Supervisor, Edward K. Van Kuren, and the Town Board have passed a resolution asking for another chance at a residency requirement. Stating that the cost of welfare in New York State has been rising at a rapid rate, the Town Board is hoping that Governor Rockefeller will not again defeat it. Supervisor VanKuren notes New York is virtually asking these people to come by the scores and settle here. Residency laws would prohibit out-of-staters from moving in today and starting their welfare collections tomorrow.

[nogods]

Thankfully Rockefeller didn't waste the legal fees it would have cost to defend an unconstitutional residency requirement.

[NY The Vampire State]

Where in the Constitution does it say freebies will be handed out from off the backs of others?


And dont say "Promote the general welfare" .

Fifty years later and still dealing with the same bull****. Amazing

Vankuren is/will be rolling in his grave.

[nogods]

Where in the Constitution does it say freebies will be handed out from off the backs of others?


And dont say "Promote the general welfare" .

Fifty years later and still dealing with the same bull****. Amazing

Vankuren is/will be rolling in his grave.

Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969)

[NY The Vampire State]

Thats not the Constitution dingbat.


The law sucks and needs to be changed. I need some fresh air after dealing with you. I think im going to take my bike around the neighborhood tonight. The plows havent been out.

And Vankuren' s request was five years before this case was decided. Nothing "illegal" about what he did.

[nogods]

Thats not the Constitution dingbat.


The law sucks and needs to be changed. I need some fresh air after dealing with you. I think im going to take my bike around the neighborhood tonight. The plows havent been out.

And Vankuren' s request was five years before this case was decided. Nothing "illegal" about what he did.

Apparently you slept through the 8th grade civics class on how our system is structured.

In 1969 the SCOTUS held that residency requirements to qualify for welfare benefits are unconstitutional. Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969)

In 1967 the SCOTUS held that prohibitions on interracial marriage are unconstitutional. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)

Both types of laws remain unconstitutional to this day because under the Constitution the Supreme Court is the final arbiter.

Had New York State enacted a residency requirement the state would have wasted a lot of money setting up and defending a system that would have been declared unconstitutional when the case reached the Supreme Court in 1969.

If you don't like the way it is why don't you write George and Tom and Ben a letter suggesting they enact a law revoking the authority of the Supreme Court because you don't like its decisions.

[NY The Vampire State]

You don't get it. Look at the big picture for once instead of regurgitating party rhetoric.


Shapiro V Thompson says that a residency requirement is a violation of equal protection under the law.

BUT.....

When the government takes the fruit from one person who climbed the tree to get it and then gives it to a person who stood on the ground the whole time, that's not equal protection under the law either. The person who climbed the tree is left with the raw end of an unequal law. So without a residency requirement, welfare becomes even more of a one sided gimmick and equal protection under the law becomes almost non existent. I have read the constitution front to back and still don't recall seeing where it outlines that the government must steal from some to supplement others. Its actually all thanks to your Demon-crat pal FDR, probably number three on the worst presidents list behind Obama & Carter. If you wanted to know when the country took a turn for the worse read up on FDR.


On a separate but related note: Cuomo's tax free zones are a clear violation of the Equal Protection Under the Law (14th Amendment). I wish more people would realize this.

[dtwarren]

Thats not the Constitution dingbat.


The law sucks and needs to be changed. I need some fresh air after dealing with you. I think im going to take my bike around the neighborhood tonight. The plows havent been out.

And Vankuren' s request was five years before this case was decided. Nothing "illegal" about what he did.

You obvoiusly did not read the decision. The decision was based on the Court's application of two constitutional rights.

The majority held that the waiting period requirement is unconstitutional because it "has a chilling effect on the right to travel." Id. at 336. The majority also held that the provision was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because the denial of relief to those resident in the State for less than a year is not based on any permissible purpose, but is solely designed, as "Connecticut states quite frankly," "to protect its fisc by discouraging entry of those who come needing relief." Id. at 336-337.

[NY The Vampire State]

You obvoiusly did not read the decision. The decision was based on the Court's application of two constitutional rights.

You obviously didn't read post #7

Welfare is not a RIGHT.

[WNYresident]

This part?

On a separate but related note: Cuomo's tax free zones are a clear violation of the Equal Protection Under the Law (14th Amendment). I wish more people would realize this.

[dtwarren]

You obviously didn't read post #7

Welfare is not a RIGHT.

First you are not arguing for its abolition, you are arguing for a residency requirement which has already been determined to be unconstitutional.

Secondly NY Constitution Article XVII provides:

Section 1. The aid, care and support of the needy are public concerns and shall be provided by the state and by such of its subdivisions, and in such manner and by such means, as the legislature may from time to time determine.

You need to understand why things are as they are in order to formulate a plan for change.

[NY The Vampire State]

You need to understand why things are as they are in order to formulate a plan for change.

Now that's funny coming from your mouth. Like I said, you wont get it until you LOOK OUTSIDE THE BOX!



Now, I got whats going on. Just take a look around.... these are the facts of why your system is failing.... Mega municipal, state and federal debt, a county government that cannot meet basic obligations like road repair but continues funding of Shakespeare in the Park and other feel good crap, school districts out of money, producers leaving NY while takers come in flocks, "election" of a turd like De Blasio to run our largest city, taxes that go up at least 3%-5% EVERY year, gimme mentality, 100% of sales tax to medicaid, NYS PENSION BOMB TICKING, scaffold and tort laws which create skyrocketing comp costs,a new healthcare system more broken then the last one, abuse of the state disability system, abuse of welfare, buying cigarets, lottery tickets, booze and strippers with food stamps, allowing people who have committed an illegal act against the US, a free pass and citizenship for absolutely nothing except a vote for the democrat party... I can go on.

Feel free to add to this list.

[NY The Vampire State]

I'm dumbfounded that a few of you can continually come on here and defend and support a broken system like welfare or even government in general. Is what we are experiencing success? Its not even a party thing at this point. Its about keeping USA's head above water.


Its just like the response I get when it comes to fixing school budget problems.

"well NYS has a law and we cannot change the pensions"


So it comes down to 1 of 3 things (and this applies to welfare too)

1) You let the schools sink
2) You fix the corrupt law.
3) You admit that we have no intention of fixing the problem because you like the way it is and will look to the taxpayers to fill the void untill option 1 happens anyway.

Which one is it?

[FMD]

It's number one.

By the way, the US is bankrupt, now we must bankrupt the people. We do that by raising taxes, and eliminating jobs, or forcing down wages.

But because it's not happening fast enough we need to speed this up!

So we invent this bill, and fill it with hundreds of pages. Then we make the regulations for it thousands of pages long! We make it so complex that no one, not even those who wrote it, can understand it. Then we tell the people that we must pass it in order to see what's in it!

People are stupid, we shall call it the affordable healthcare act, this way it sounds nice and people will accept it.

Instead of making things affordable we make them more expensive for the masses, sure a few people will make out but the majority will have to pay more, and they will pay more, because if they refuse to participate we will fine them.

If that doesn't work we will seize 'their' homes.

This isn't about providing a comfortable living for anyone, it's about bankrupting the people. Remember the nation is already bankrupt. And the world is already bankrupt, now we must bankrupt the person. The individual.

It's you, the individual vs them, the govt. regardless of what position they hold in govt, you are not the same as them...case in point, which PROVES a citizens life has LESS value than that of a govt employee or money.

You go on national tv, and kill someone. You'll be out in 15, 10 with good behavior.
You walk into a bank, using a piece of paper, make no threats, show no weapon and demand they empty the drawer, that's 25 to life.

You defend yourself against a police officer, or kill a police officer, death sentence/life in prison.

You kill your annoying neighbor you might get 10 years...

Do you see the pattern here? You as a citizen has less value than a govt employee, or money.

[FMD]

Now given that your life is worth less than theirs, why would they listen to you? Your nothing to them! Animals get more protection under the lAw than you do!