When Is Food Stamp A Right

When Does the welfare become a right its limited.

This is a Old piece I post some time ago no matter if its 5 years ago the fact around it are the same .

This is about Food Stamps and when does the benefit or uses of welfare become a right. Oddly enough there does come a point when welfare does become a legal right for a American Citizens.

This a is Cut about a debate I got into on the web / internet a few years back I have rewrote it form where what used to be Soda Head , http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/cruel-house-republicans-vote-to-cut-off-fo... Note the account was shut down after I posted this so the link is now no good or not longer active!

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=4002#_ftn2 see other work cited

Defunding is one thing Taking them unjustly is another for those that have it. , To Some degree Food stamps is a right. Study Points, For Veterans or active duty Military Air Force Marines Navy Army families

Republicans Vote to Cut Off Food for 170,000 VETS and 3.8 Million Americans
The non-partisan CBO estimated that, “H.R. 3102 would make several changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and extend its authorization for three years. In its May 2013 baseline, CBO projected that spending for SNAP would total $764 billion over the 2014-2023 period. Relative to that baseline, we estimate that enacting H.R. 3102 would reduce direct spending by $39 billion over the 2014-2023 period…The estimate is based on the assumption that the legislation will be enacted near the start of fiscal year 2014. Under CBO’s baseline, we project SNAP participation to decline from 48 million people in an average month in fiscal year 2014 to 34 million in 2023.”

The reforms that Republicans are touting in the nutrition bill have nothing to do with nutrition. They are all about making sure that fewer needy people have access to food. According to NPR, “The welfare reform bill said that able-bodied adults without dependents could get only three months of food aid in a three-year period unless they had a job or were in a state job-training program. Since the recession, states have been given waivers so that unemployed adults can keep getting food stamps.”

During the debate before the vote, Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said, “Anyone who votes for this bill is voting to hurt his or her own constituents.”Republican Rep. Peter King (R-NY) said that it’s not a good bill, “I just think on balance it’s not a good bill. Against the whole backdrop of a government shutdown, I just think it’s too much.”

The Republican passed bill cuts will end food assistance for 1.8 million low-income seniors and people in low-income working families, 170,000 veterans, 210,000 children will loses their school lunches, and, “2 million to 4 million poor jobless individuals who live in areas of high unemployment, even if they want to work and are willing to take a job or participate in a training program.”

The Senate already promised to kill this bill. Democrats in the body refuse to consider these inhumane cuts.

House Republicans have once again shown that their capacity for cruelty is unlimited, and they have no qualms about denying veterans food, or children school lunches in order to reaffirm their twisted

.

End Article

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When Does the welfare become a right. Yes to some degree such benefits are and its a very limited a right. The Context of the point for this is due Process. Here is what you can do.

You can file counter suit. Meaning you can file law suit. Civil Claims. Here are some pointers. Number One to file a claim you have up to two / 2 years If your food stamps have taken without a hearing prior to the halting or ending according to administrational law Meaning prior to a hearing if benefits are thus terminated or Stopped or denied benefits if you actively have them with a hearing .

Back Ground Case law and federal law.

The federal Law starts more or less with U.S. Title 42 u.s.c Section 1983 for sure, Back ground studding of other laws to make the point where and how liability starts views one can read Section {1985?} and {1986?}, which is in some like ness of the standards set with the Civil rights Act 1871 when two / 2 or more seek to conspire to deprive, Government Liable in federal Court for seeking to conspire to deprive.



Fact case law from the A.C.L.U Union Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires an evidentiary hearing before a recipient of certain government benefits (welfare) can be deprived of such benefits. The individual losing benefits is not entitled to a trial, but is entitled to an oral hearing before an impartial decision-maker, the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, and the right to a written opinion setting out the evidence relied upon and the legal basis for the decision.[1] The case was decided 5-3. <a

Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970)
In Goldberg v. Kelly (1970), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a state could not terminate welfare benefits without first giving the recipient the opportunity for an evidentiary oral hearing.

Goldberg capped a trio of decisions expanding federal welfare rights. King v. Smith, 392 U.S. 309 (1968), had held that a state may not limit Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) to families headed by married couples. Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), struck a one-year welfare residency requirement as violating the right to interstate travel. In Goldberg, the Court went beyond scrutinizing the particulars of state welfare programs to articulate the general proposition that welfare enjoys the same legal protection as other property. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldberg_v._Kelly" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...</a>

The plaintiffs in Goldberg v. Kelly were New York City residents who had been cut from the welfare rolls or were about to be. Under agency rules, they could discuss the proposed termination with a caseworker, submit a written protest and have a supervisor review the decision. A hearing, however, was available only after benefits ended. This, the Court held, was unconstitutional.

Writing for the six-to-three majority, Justice William Brennan noted that welfare benefits are ‘‘a matter of statutory entitlement for persons qualified to receive them,’’ adding that ‘‘it may be realistic today to regard welfare entitlements as more like ‘property’ than a ‘gratuity’’’ (Here cited to Charles A. Reich’s, ‘‘The New Property’’). Thus, the prohibition against deprivation of property without due process of law contained in the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution applies to benefits termination.

‘‘Due process of law’’ in this situation requires a pre-termination hearing because of the danger that if aid is terminated pending resolution of a controversy over eligibility, a person who is actually eligible may lose the ‘‘very means by which to live while he waits.’’ The hearing, however, need not be the equivalent of a full-dress trial, but should reflect the needs of the agency and the abilities of the average welfare recipient. The court then articulated a set of ‘‘minimum procedural safeguards,’’ namely, (1) timely notice, giving reasons for the proposed termination; (2) a hearing at which recipients can speak, confront adverse witnesses, and be assisted by counsel (although counsel need not be provided); (3) an impartial decision maker; and (4) a reasoned decision resting on evidence adduced at the hearing.

In its original area of welfare law, the force of Goldberg v. Kelly has been blunted. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 abolished AFDC, replacing it with block grants to states. Indeed, the statute specifies that it creates no federal entitlement to welfare in favor of individuals, leaving the scope of entitlements to state law. Additionally, the Court has retreated from Goldberg’s trial-like vision of administrative due process in such cases as Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976).

Nevertheless, the ‘‘procedural due process revolution’’ started by Goldberg v. Kelly continues. ‘‘Fair hearings’’ are now an established element of the administrative landscape and the importance of statutory and administrative rights—the ‘‘new property’’—is beyond dispute.

AMY SHAPIRO

References and Further Reading

Davis, Martha F. Brutal Need: Lawyers and the Welfare Rights Movement, 1960–1973. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1993.
Mashaw, Jerry L. Due Process in the Administrative State. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1985.
Michelman, Frank I., Welfare Rights in a Constitutional Democracy, Washington University Law Quarterly (1979): 659.
Reich, Charles A., The New Property, Yale Law Journal 73 (1964): 733.
Cases and Statutes Cited
Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970)
King v. Smith, 392 U.S. 309 (1968)
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976)
Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969)
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105 (1996)

You can fight back Pro Se, Articles 1 Section 9 No ExPost Facto Law or Bills of Attainder Shall be Passed. Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

Any court filing Sign it Pro Se
Writ of Mandamus, Notice: The respondent in this action is a non-lawyer and is moving forward in propia persona. Hanes v. Kerner (92 S Ct 594) pro se pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicality; prose litigants" pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers. Jenkins v. McKeithen (456 US 411 421 (1969); Picking v. Penna Ry. Co (151 Fed 2nd 240); Pucket v. Cox (456 Fed 2nd 233); Haines v. Kerner, et.al. (429 F. 2d 71 (1972)); Conley v. Gibson (355 US 41, 45-6 (1957)); Dioguardi v. During (139 F. 2d 774 (1948))

recover Lawyer fees filing pro se
Pickholtz v. Rainbow Technologies,
284 F. 3rd 1365 (2002).

Acording to Aclu, No Tort Notice is needed prior to filing suit if based on Constitutional grounds. , which is the 1st Amendment rights of the Petiton, As for court cost , Check your states Bill of right , this is Indiana , Section 12. Openess of the courts, Speedy trial

Section 12. All courts shall be open; and every person, for injury done to him in his person, property, or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law. Justice shall be administered freely, and without purchase; completely, and without denial; speedily, and without delay , Section 20. Civil cases--Right of trial by jury

Section 20. In all civil cases, the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Updated in response to the news about Trumps recent Admin or Government seeks cuts in Food stamps June 2017 see on twitter.


https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/when-food-stamps-right-how-can-i-fight-back-bruce...