buying the poor rights

If you won the lottery, and were feeling magnanimous, I would suggest that you start a foundation that would serve the poor.

I was thinking, hypothetically, whether a foundation would be the best way to spend the zillion dollars, or whether it would be better spent compelling the government, thru the courts, to act on it's responsibility to the underprivileged. Probably the latter because once the zillion dollars was spent there would be no infrastructure in place to keep an underprivileged class from reasserting itself. There doesn't seem to be any other way to compel the government to act decisively.

With the current political climate in America you'd not get anywhere in extending social programs. The shift to the right is significant and from the looks of things is going to be here for a while.

Dov, it is no responsiblity on part of those lawyers to establish substantial rights for the poor. However, you could fling the money on faces of those legislators filibustering all day long in the congress and tell them you are not satified with the status quo of the poor and expect some changes. When you notice those bald legislators show a snigger and double themselves up to pick up the money, you get the message that money finally works.

Underprivileged
Dov, where in the constitution or amendments thereto does it state that the government has a responsibility "to act on it's responsibility to the underprivileged." I am not opposed to helping these people, but what makes it mandatory for the government to do so?

Whom exactly do you think would pay, if you COMPELLED the government? The taxpayers, of course. I still think that it is very charitable of you to be so concerned about the underprivileged. Your zillion dollars would do very nicely in helping the unfortunate.

Texan- Welcome to A2K! Sounds like we are in agreement on this issue.

Let's see what Dov has to say. I also don't see how the court system could compel the government to do this. I think voters is the only way to go. :wink:

I think it is possible for the Supremes to essentially back up a local law or court decision and say that the people of the US have a RIGHT to adequate housing, etc. They have a record that indicates this may be possible. Consider their decisions about racial integration in the south. One of them, I believe the black Supreme Court Justice, said something like "90 years is enough" for the issue of deliberate speed in guaranteeing civil rights of blacks in the south especially their voting rights. I use this example as an illustration of the fluidity and organic growth of the Constitution occasionally against the current will of the people.

No, sorry, the United States Supreme Court can't just back up local laws.

The Supreme Court has very limited jurisdiction. They just don't (and can't) get involved in every single thing out there. The states are left with things like traffic laws, local criminal laws (e. g. there are different penalties for murder in Texas and Oregon, which is how it should be), etc.

The Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction in matters of federal law.

What's federal law?
Among other things:
* interstate commerce
* civil rights
* treaties with other nations
* federal agencies, like the IRS and OSHA
* matters mentioned in the Constitution

The Supreme Court also has what's called appellate diversity jurisdiction. This occurs when a matter has happened which can be reasonably connected to more than one state AND the amount in controversy exceeds a certain figure (I think it's now $100,000; it was $20,000 at one time).

This is stuff like:
* a car accident in Massachusetts occurs between a Mass. and Connecticut driver, and someone is killed
* a contract for the sale of land is breached between persons residing in two different states (note that the Uniform Commercial Code does not apply because it is a sale of land)

In any event, it's very rare that the Supreme Court starts out with jurisdiction. In actuality, the appellate part is what's most important - the examples above start out in US District Court. If appealed, they go to the US Circuit Court. If appealed again, they go to the US Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court can also tackle instances wherein states are in conflict. But again this is a matter of federal jurisdiction. Just because 2 states have differing speed limits doesn't mean the Supreme Court has or wants jurisdiction. Rather, the states conflicts thing is used when states argue about federal matters, like interstate trucking requirements.

The Supreme Court can also refuse to hear a case, even if there is jurisdiction. This is called refusing certiorari.

The reason why the US Supreme Court ruled on voting rights isn't because of adding rights where there weren't any. Rather, it was because voting rights are Constitutionally-based and therefore there is federal jurisdiction.

And the "90 years is enough" quote - I couldn't find it, but I suspect it's in reference to Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas (US Supreme Court, 1954), given that the dates would work out (the Voting Rights acts came 10 years afterwards). The "black Supreme Court justice" you're referring to is apparently Thurgood Marshall, who was the first black Supreme Court justice, but not the only one (the other is Clarence Thomas, who is currently on the court). See: http://www.nathanielturner.com/educationhistorynegro27.htm for info on the Brown case, which Marshall argued as an attorney for Brown; he wasn't appointed to the court until later.

jespah's just so smart

I'm unclear why this is a 'poor' issue. No one is guaranteed any of these things. I am not guaranteed health care, or housing, or food - whether I work or don't or make a million dollars. We have the right to pursue those things, but in America thay are not rights in and of themselves. Ona governmental level, the welfare system was a bandaid for this issue and we can see how well that works. I'm also positive that I don't want to be taking home less and less to feed, house, and care for everyone else. Someone's going to be paying for all this in the end - and it's already me.

People knock welfare in the US a lot. They should try living in nations with no social security. It might not work to the degree that Americans would like but a society devoid of any social security is a pretty sad place. It means handicapped people have to beg on the streets because even when life deals the type of lemon that precludes work there is no safety net.

Everyone in America seems to think they are supporting others through their taxes. It's a fanciful notion and it ignores that there is a return of the investment in the social contract. It ignores that one might not wish to live in a society in which the misfortunate have no recourse but to beg at stoplights. Paying for the "deadweight" is a nice sounding rhetorical complaint but if the "deadweight" were not taken care of they'd be visible in the streets fending for themselves. Since Americans are among the poeples who most complain at the mere sight of the poor, taking care of them can be construed as an investment in the esthetics of the society you live in. One might not be satisfied with it but then again people never are. Even in America, where the return on your investment is one of the best that exists worldwide.

Craven, here people do beg on the streets. They beg at stoplights - at a rate of 50% of stoplights over the 10 miles I travel to work. These people do not always represent the actual poor population. Many of them make a few hundred dollars a day and are shakedown artists.

The solution to 'deadweight' is not supporting them and their children and their childrens children. In the projects in my neighborhood, there is no return on investment. My cousin's friend had a child, that child was my friend, she had two children - the first when I was 14. I asked her why she was keeping the baby, why she was dropping out of high school even though they had an expectant mothers program, why she didn't get a job after she had the second one and she was getting waivers from welfare for day care so she could pursue employment. "Why the hell would I? I live for free, all my money is spending money and anyone can live here if I want them to. No one ever checks." Three generations of the same 'deadweight'. This is not a one girl mentality - this is a community mentality. The people who truly need help do not get it. The people who bilk the system will have more children they cannot feed because they get more money for each additional child. Whether they feed that child is another story. I saw this and continue to see this everyday. I'm certainly not against feeding people, but the current system is an absolute joke.

It would not be my aim to say "As long as I can't see them they are being taken care of". The truly handicapped, the truly needy, are not. The current system does not work.

Again, I do not feel that this is a 'poor' issue. As I stated, there is no one in this country who is guaranteed these things. I lived a very long time without healthcare even though I worked full time. But then, my friend went to school on a federal grant and had Mass Health simply because she did not want to work - completely a free ride. There wasn't any more to it, work was just "too much" while taking 2 classes a semester. She dropped out and now wants unemployment. I can't wait to see if she gets it. Sickening. I am supporting this with every hour I work. I know my examples aren't paying for it. And they never will.

I am going to refer back to all your wonderful answers when I have the time this evening. A few things pop out. It COULD be inferred by the 10th Amendment (or is it the 9th) that people have the right to social welfare. I would be interested in the reaction of the Supremes regarding the social welfare of the New Deal. The very issue seems to defy some of the points you bring out about the limitations you suggest. You also seem to deny the very existence of social evolution and how it can be backed by binding law. I think also the extent of the power of the Supremes is also here falsely diminished. To my knowledge, as a layman, anything of the nature of a rule or law or regulations and more can be the business of the Supreme Court if it contradicts the Constitution. This is vast reach in my opinion. I'll get back to you this evening.

Thing is, I'm not a layman. This is how federal jurisdiction works. We can all say, colloquially, "I'll take that all the way to the Supreme Court!" but the FACT is that many things aren't within the Court's purview. That's just the way it is. If jurisdiction is to be obtained, the Supreme Court has to hang its hat on something - the Constitution, federal law, an act of Congress - something. The Court just doesn't make jurisdiction out of whole cloth.

The New Deal (generally) was federal law. And actually, quite a bit of it was challenged in federal court, and a lot of it was struck down. I'm not denying social evolution but the bottom line is that the Court doesn't step in unless it can - and it can't always step in. Nor does it want to. There are many, many, many petitions to the United States Supreme Court every single year. They are not all heard. Most of them are remanded back to lower courts because either the Court sees there is no sufficient federal question or the matter has already been settled.

Here's the Constitution: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html

I think you're thinking of Amendment IX

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

It's very vague (deliberately so) and may or may not apply.

I've seen them. But America is not a microcosm of the world. We are the world richest country and by a very large margin. In a comparison with the world average the begging you reference is insignificant, I had to laugh because it was otherwise sad.

I agree that the current system is a joke, but not for the same reasons you think it is. in any case my point was not even picked up on so I'll drop this till I can articulate it more clearly.

I believed your point to be that the American system of dealing with the poor is better than everywhere else and we should be happy that social programs are what they are because they keep people from begging on the streets.



My argument is that I don't see it as an investment. I see it as another broken governmental bandaid that rewards sloth and denies the truly needy.

So, laugh your head off, but the original point of the post was America. It sad to say 'Well, it's not as bad as everywhere else, so that makes it OK". As we were exclusively talking about America, the reference to begging in America is not insignificant. If we were discussing global issues and solutions, it would be a different story.

I don't get upset too often, but this dam concept of "entitlement" that some people have is one of my sore spots. To get off the "entitlement that the government owes me" sub-thread, insurance is another example.

Employers contractwith an insurance company to cover their employees. In this contract, the employer and the insurance company agree in writing what is and what is not covered and the cost thereof. Now comes along an employee who's claim is turned down because it is not a covered test or procedure or whatever. The employee screams and demands that his claim be covered and bad mouths the insurance company because the insurance company did as it was contracted to to with the employer.

Well, soon enough complaints pour in and senators and representatives are contacted. These noble men and women agree with the employees because they are the voters and that is all that counts in their book. Right? Now it goes to Washington and from there we have seen many times that insurance companies come under attack for doing what they were contracted to do.

"I should have coverage for that test or procedure. Entitlement breeds unproductivity, laziness and a zillion other ills that plague our country, but mostly it upsets me because I pay for this waste that lowers the values, mores and other ills of our great country.

We are entitled to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Everything else we must earn by diligence and hard work Period!

Nan-a-Nan-a

Oh, how I agree with that, Texan. Problem is that the above concept is "politically incorrect". People have been sold a bill of goods that they are "entitled" to this or that. (Even the word "entitlement" wants to make me puke).

Texan, I worked in insurance for many years (including legal defense) and know from whence you speak, oh yeah.