![]() ![]() ![]() Property without due process of law, nor shall any person be deniedĮqual protection of the laws. Person shall be deprived of life, liberty or Of the whole and the burdens of the state ought to be fairly distributed among its citizens. All laws, therefore, should be made for the good Laws for good of whole - Burdens to be equally distributed - Due process - Equal protection - Discrimination - No right to abortion granted.Īll free governments are instituted for the protection, safety, and happiness of the people. People, is sacredly obligatory upon all.’’ The same for our posterity, we do declare that theĮssential and unquestionable rights and principles hereinafter mentioned shall be established, maintained, and preserved, and shall be of paramount obligation in all legislative, judicial and executive proceedings.Īlter Constitution - Constitution obligatoryĭeclare that ‘‘the basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and alter their constitutions of government but that the constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an ARTICLE IĭECLARATION OF CERTAIN CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND PRINCIPLESĮffectually to secure the religious and political freedom established by our venerated ancestors, and to preserve Transmit the same, unimpaired, to succeeding generations, do ordainĪnd establish this Constitution of government. Looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and to Religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and The state of Rhode Island, grateful to Almighty God for the civil and We, the people of this State which state shall henceforth be known as In addition to giving content and direction to the study of administrative constitutionalism, this history enriches legal scholarship in three ways: (1) it provides context for the “new federalism” revolution of the last decades of the twentieth century (2) it opens up new questions about today’s “uncooperative federalism” and (3) it helps explain the penurious protections that today’s equal protection jurisprudence offers the poor.CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND Administrative equal protection thus continued to operate as a meaningful constraint on state action - and in fact helped remake the administration of American poor relief in the late twentieth century - but remained hidden from view. There the Supreme Court affirmed the poor claimants’ victory in the court below, but rejected the lower court’s equal protection holding in favor of one grounded in the agency’s novel statutory interpretation. Both developments are visible in the landmark case King v. They saw their constitutional arguments take on new life, however, as welfare rights advocates (including former agency personnel) wielded them in court. In the mid 1960s, as the agency became embroiled in battles over school desegregation, administrators deftly recharacterized their constitutional interpretation as a statutory one. ![]() When paired with the agency’s control over generous federal subsidies, this interpretation had tangible consequences: administrators challenged some of the era’s most restrictive state welfare laws and, in the process, spread the notion that poor Americans had constitutional rights, including under the Fourteenth Amendment. Through the 1940s and 1950s, agency lawyers developed and applied a nondeferential rationality model of equal protection to assess state welfare rules. In the late 1930s, when federal courts appeared reluctant to vindicate equal protection claims, the federal Social Security Board (later to become part of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare) took a more active role via its administration of federal grants for state-run public welfare programs. The Article’s argument is based on a story of change over time. These interpretations are particularly important because of their interplay with cooperative federalism - specifically, with states’ ability to exercise their traditional police power after accepting federal money. Drawing on original historical research, I document and analyze what I call “administrative equal protection”: interpretations of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause in a key federal agency at a time when the Clause’s meaning was fiercely contested. This Article intervenes in a burgeoning literature on “administrative constitutionalism,” the phenomenon of federal agencies - rather than courts - assuming significant responsibility for elaborating the meaning of the U.S. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |