Why did a federal judge overturn California's ban on welfare for illegal immigrants?

Question

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition_187

In 1994, 58% of California voters approved a ballot proposition to ban welfare for illegal immigrants.

A Federal judge overturned this state law on 14th Amendment grounds by stating that it denied illegal immigrants the "equal protection" of the law.

He is of course referring to an amendment that was not legitimately passed by Congress (they voted not to seat an opponent of the amendment after he had been seated to get enough votes) and was not legally ratified (there was a kidnapping in Tennessee, fraud in Oregon, and intimidation of former Confederate states). Nor was the amendment understood during the first 50 years it was on the books to grant any such power (which is self-evident).

So, why is a judge using the 14th Amendment to grant rights to illegal immigrants to get welfare?

Answer 1

Because he's a liberal.

Answer 2

It also banned education of illegal immigrants.

There had been a US supreme ct case on that, and only the US Supreme Court or a constitutional amendment can change it. I think the US Supreme Court should, since in the 'time of plenty' when boomers were all working and seemed a long way from needing the services they were paying into, the services were generally extended in a 'we have so much fashion' to all. Now that we are facing deficits where those who paid into the programs won't get the benefits, and a 'good education' can't be had by our own kids in their own schools, education needs to be rethought as a 'basic right'. However, the case on Prop 187 was never appealed even though it was passed precisely to create a case to let the Supreme Court rethink the education issue. Then the Governor who didn't appeal it was recalled in a first ever state recall, and the Governator, who at least is better on this topic than others available (and originally supported Prop 187) was put in.

That is why the laws in Arizona and Oklahoma to limit benefits don't cover education, and the one in Arizona specifically says it bans all benefits 'not required under federal law'. THAT law has been upheld by a lower court and an appelate court in the same federal court circuit California is in. THAT means that an identical law to Arizona's, passed by referendum in California should at least pass in the lower courts.

Answer 3

If a federal court finds that a state amendment, law, or policy violates federal law or the Constitution, then a federal court can void the amendment, at least insofar as the case before the court is concerned (sometimes, the reach is farther, especially if the Supreme Court is involved, but this is rare unless two circuit courts have reached incompatible decisions). The legal basis is provided by the Supremacy Clause, which is in Article VI, paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." The Supremacy Clause defines the federal government and the Constitution as having jurisdiction over the states. This was first demonstrated in McCulloch v. Maryland, in which it was determined that the state of Maryland could not collect a tax from a federally-controlled bank.

Answer 4

Because the awful truth is that the federal government is denying the states the power to take care of a problem. Like it or not, most of these laws passed by states and local governments in an attempt to curb illegal immigration will be shot down by the feds after being brought to light by the ACLU. It's a terrible shame, but we elected them....

Answer 5

Immigration laws are enacted and Legislated by the Federal Government and Federal Legislators, It is not a function of the State. Many Neo/cons are dancing around and proclaiming Victory by new Legislation enacted by different States Anti immigration legislation that will be rule Unconstitutional by the Federal Courts, For the Same legal rational.

Answer 6

It seems to me that we are being governed more and more by the courts and this should worry people because even though I think that our government is too big at least they can't pass a law with out some debate and we can call our Representative and voice our opinion. With the courts we have one person or maybe three or four people making the decision and we have no input . This is one more way that we are losing control of our country.

Answer 7

Cause it generates more money for the city to be recycled back into cali's economy. Think about, instead of illegal immigrants that save all there money and move back to mexico without a trace. Now you have a way of tracking then via welfare checks, and force that money to be put back into the economy and make immigration able to catch these guys easier. Wheres there a paper trial, there a target at the end of the road.

Answer 8

This is judicial tyranny. All the more reason to elect Conservatives. Have you noticed that not one single liberal cause has been embraced by the voters in the last 50 years? but many have been forced on the public through judicial fiat.

Answer 9

Because he is a liberal judge, the hell with what the people want the hell with what the law says. He is trying to get the illegal vote for Clinton.

Answer 10

If the judge is worried about the law, then he should be for deporting all the illegals out of the U.S.