70 likes | 229 Views
Child Rights & Remedies Fall 2012. Class 6. Review of Class # 5. Remedies – the Default Rule Specificity and 42 USC 1983 Griswold – FLI, Right of Privacy Roe v. Wade Casey – 3 restrictions and “undue burden” Whitner. Note on Constitutional Analysis. Reaching Strict Scrutiny
E N D
Child Rights & RemediesFall 2012 Class 6
Review of Class # 5 • Remedies – the Default Rule • Specificity and 42 USC 1983 • Griswold – FLI, Right of Privacy • Roe v. Wade • Casey – 3 restrictions and “undue burden” • Whitner
Note on Constitutional Analysis Reaching Strict Scrutiny • Fundamental Liberty Interest • Suspect Class and Equal Protection (Discr.) • If SS: compelling state interest and no less restrictive alternative • If not SS: might be “Heightened Scrutiny” • If not SS or HS: Rational Relation
The Checklist * Federal Constitutional Standards: 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 10th, 14th FLI or suspect class, SS/undue/HS/RR • Federal Statute Supremacy (Int. Commerce) or Federal $ Condition • Federal Rule • State Constitution (Higher Floor? E.g. Casey) • State Statute • State Rule
Entitlements: Defending a Federal Floor • Townsend v. Swank U.S. (1971) Illinois: No AFDC for kids if they are in college
Bowen v. Gilliard(1987) 483 U.S. 587 • “Deeming” and family income • AFDC for Mom + 8 = $227/month (8th child yields $10/month) • Dad pays $43 for #7 • NC subtracts $43, not $10
AFDC to TANF • Personal Responsibility … Act of 1996 • Saenz v. Roe U.S. (1999) • 1992 California law limiting welfare level to previous state’s allowance for first 12 months in California; 1996 PRA OKs