70 Year Magazine Archive

Welfare and the Court

by Ernest van den Haag

Share this story

In a recent decision the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional the residence requirements imposed by several states on welfare recipients. The Justice who wrote the decision was quoted in the New York Times as reasoning that to require a period of residence from applicants for welfare payments would reduce their ability to travel across state lines, while the Constitution requires that people be free to travel throughout the United States.

The reasoning is silly. The Constitution does prohibit the construction of obstacles to travel by local governments (I’m not sure whether the Federal Government could create obstacles, and under what circumstances); but it does not impose on any government the affirmative duty to provide people with the means of travel or relocation. Rich and poor must be allowed to travel. But if you don’t have the money to do so, the government does not have to give it to you. Nor does the government have to make arrangements to facilitate your travel, as long as it does not deliberately hinder travel or relocation.

Comments

Advertisement

Advertisement