Tomania Case Study

This case has been brought before the Supreme Court of Tomania by a group of citizens who formerly received cash assistance from the our state’s government. Recently, this cash assistance program, aimed primarily at the poor, was terminated by a law that passed through the Senate and the Assembly, with the blessings of the Governor and Speaker of the Senate. Following this, the group of citizens previously mentioned brought a lawsuit against the new law, claiming that Tomania’s shelter system alone does not satisfy Article 17 of the State Constitution, which requires us to “care for the needy.” However, Article 17 is clearly ambiguous, and the government argues that their shelters are sufficient under the Constitution. This will be the first

As a last line of defense between them and complete corruption and greed, we must rule that “care for the needy” includes more than just a shelter system, but cash assistance in order to provide the poor with the ability to maintain rent, provide for their children, and work towards some semblance of a stable life. To back up this argument, I will first lay out the facts of the case, as well as the relevant laws. Following this, I will explain the theory behind my decision, going into detail on legitimacy theory, and analyzing how it applies to this particular case. Finally, I will briefly discuss some opposing views before concluding with an examination of the implications that this decision will have on future court cases. While court officials may be appointed rather than elected, that does not exempt us from determining right from wrong, and when others in power fail to do so, it is our responsibility to step up and protect those without a

This theory is concerned with the role that courts should play in a democratic society. More specifically, legitimacy theory supports the idea that courts have an obligation to protect minority groups that have little or no representation in the legislature. Here, not only are poor people not being represented by their elected officials, but they are being actively targeted out of greed lack of compassion. While we judges may not have been elected, in the face of such blatant corruption it is our duty to defend the people to the best of our ability, within the boundaries of what is allowed by the Constitution. And so, with Article 17 having been written in such an ambiguous manner, I am in agreement with the plaintiffs that its command to “care for the needy” should be interpreted more broadly than the Governor has determined with this new law. While a shelter system does provide some level of care, it is not enough to satisfy Article 17. Cash assistance is necessary to provide the least fortunate among us, families especially, with the ability to keep themselves and their children safe, healthy, and motivated to do all that they can to improve their situation. Pulling that safety net out from under them like this law has was a grossly immoral action on that part of our state legislature, leaving many citizens on the brink of eviction and fearful for their future. The