But this does not mean that there are no boundaries to the permissible area of State legislative activity. There are. And none is more certain than the prohibition against attempts on the part of any single State to isolate itself from difficulties common to all of them by restraining the transportation of persons and property across its borders. ... The duty to share the burden, if not wholly to assume it, has been recognized not only by State governments, but by the Federal government as well. ... Whatever may have been the notion then prevailing, we do not think that it will now be seriously contended that because a person is without employment and without funds he constitutes a 'moral pestilence'. Poverty and immorality are not synonymous.
-- Edwards v. California
Justice Byrnes was surely FDR's least influential nomination, though he had a rich political life (including as a segregationist) off the Court. This 1941 case is perhaps his most important opinion, even if it is probably not that well known. It should be, especially given it being representative of the time, putting forth sentiments they could describe as "simple and are not disputed." [But, they surely were, and continue to be .. the very nature of what promoting the general welfare truly entails.] Congress had every power and responsibility to deal with economic problems and inequalities once deemed left to the states, if they could be dealt with by government at all. And, states themselves could not stay blind to national problems, or refuse to do their share.
The ruling also gave some basic respect to the poor. It was in fact in response to what might be called "anti-Joads" laws. Such laws tried to reduce the flow of indigents into states, especially California, thus one movie representing the time showed people unable to supply $50 being blocked entry. Recent efforts comparable to this now deemed unconstitutional measure (blocking interstate commerce of people or the national privilege and immunity of travel) is to discriminate against new residents in respect to public assistance. This too, for similar reasons, has been deemed unconstitutional.
Justice Douglas, showing signs of his later sentiments, concurred (with the support of two others) on the broader (or rather more individual rights) ground of interstate travel. Justice Jackson agreed but went further, focusing on a group an 19th Century ruling labeled a "moral pestilence," a sentiment many probably still share. He focused on discrimination against the poor:
It is here that we meet the real crux of this case. Does 'indigence' as defined by the application of the California statute constitute a basis for restricting the freedom of a citizen, as crime or contagion warrants its restriction' We should say now, and in no uncertain terms, that a man's mere property status, without more, cannot be used by a state to test, qualify, or limit his rights as a citizen of the United States. 'Indigence' in itself is neither a source of rights nor a basis for denying them. The mere state of being without funds is a neutral fact-constitutionally an irrelevance, like race, creed, or color.
The sentiment, which was later applied to other constitutional rights such as criminal defense and voting rights by the Court as a whole, in my core concern here. I admit to not focusing on economics in political discussions, since I have a certain bias toward other things. But, economic well being is obviously core to enjoying rights just as many traditionally focused on property being core to being an independent citizen. The 24A underlines the danger of tying economic status to rights by removing the possibility of poll taxes before one had the right to vote. And, attempts to require state authorized identification that amount to the same thing recently was attacked in the courts.
The opinion noted the argument in support of the laws it attacked. States have to pay via services and public assistance when masses of poor people come into their borders. But, such is the nature of the beast, the Court argued. Congress as a whole has the power to deal with the issue ... individual states cannot interfere with such national matters involving interstate movement. Furthermore, travel is an intimately American right, including between states. Unenumerated or not. Rights are not free from costs. But, costs cannot be used to unlegitimately limit rights.
The principle has not be consistently applied. Given my interests, one that stands out is selective funding of childbirth. The national government has put a thumb on the scales, favoring the health and moral choices of certain groups that find abortion generally immoral. This is so even if the health of the woman is seriously at stake. The Supremes have upheld such discrimination, saying it is not limiting the right to choose. There is no right to government assistance ... the person was poor, and the government did not make her such. California did not make Edwards poor either. But, it was not allowed to limit his rights as a result of his indigency.
Basic government services, especially those growing out constitutional rights, are also not to be denied because of poverty. Thus, the Supremes has blocked attempts to charge for divorces when the individuals involved cannot avoid the fee. The government also allows bankruptcy fees to be paid in small installments. And, of course, one has a right to a criminal defense attorney (for crimes with a certain minimum sentence) if one could not afford one. The rights are ours ... they cannot be denied based on poverty. Perhaps, one day, health care also will be deemed a basic right, one that follows this principle.
Economic inequality if attacked in almost as many ways as it arises. Thus, as Edwards recognized, there now was deemed a national obligation for things like Social Security. Since there remains an ethos that anyone can get ahead, if they work hard and so forth, the principle has a certain stopping point. Though many are loathe to consider "class" in America, many would admit they believe economic inequality at some point is legitimate. No communism here! Still, the distance between the haves and have nots (underlined by contrasts between salaries of heads of corporations and "normal" folk) is remarkable.
As is the truly amazing amount of poverty remaining in this nation. This is so especially in respect to those that do not meet the usual (often racial) stereotypes of what "poor" means. Our place vis-a-vis the rest of the developed world is especially depressing. Likewise, the self-repeating nature of economic inequality deserves more focus than usually given. In an age where Social Security and progressive taxation is under attack, perhaps it is not surprising this is underdiscussed.
Thus, studies like "Market Failures Mean The Poor Still Pay More" remain all the more valuable. This is surely the case when "pay more" means "unable to pay at all." The net effect is that "mere state of being without funds" turns into denial of rights many of us take for granted. Money becomes a "source of rights" that many deem should be universal. If this is "American," I question the definition.
And, as with structural racial discrimination, the state has some role in preventing and dealing with such inequality. The ways this will be done is unclear, is surely complex, but recognizing the problem is surely fundamental. Does the current bunch so recognize? How many would have joined the unanimous ruling of Edwards v. California?