Budgeting decisions, the last time I checked, belong to the legislative branch on both the national level and in all 50 states. Why, then, is a court even involved in this case, which seeks to overturn the budgeting decisions of the Maryland legislature? Does this not violate the notion of separation of powers?

Attorneys for a group of immigrant children dropped from the state's medical assistance program because of budget cuts asked Maryland's highest court yesterday to restore the benefits.

But an attorney for the state said that courts do not have the authority to override budget decisions made by lawmakers and that Maryland was justified in cutting a state-funded medical assistance program for recent legal immigrants.

Last year, Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R) decided to cut $7 million from the program that provided heath care for about 4,000 pregnant women and children classified as permanent legal residents for less than five years.

In response, attorneys for 13 sick children -- ranging in age from 2 to 17 and suffering from a variety of health problems, including asthma, West Nile virus, a crippling hip disorder and a rare blood disease -- sued the state, asking that benefits be restored.

In January, a Montgomery County Circuit Court judge granted a preliminary injunction, opening the way to reinstate the children's health-care benefits. The state, however, was granted a stay, pending appeal, from the Court of Special Appeals. The matter was then taken up by the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals of Maryland. The seven-judge panel heard arguments yesterday and will issue a written decision.

I thought that federal law required that immigrants be self-supporting, and not on the government dole, as a condition of staying here. Perhaps we need to reinstitute that requirement as part of our “comprehensive immigration reform” package. But setting that matter aside, Maryland is acting in a manner consistent with the Federal government’s decision (dating back to the Clinton administration) to exclude aliens in the country less than five years from federal medical programs such as Medicaid. This has been upheld on the federal level, and there is therefore no legitimate reason for ruling that the state action is invalid.

Now one can question the wisdom of such a budgetary decision, though I believe most Americans would support policies like this if asked. But even if one decides the legislatureÂ’s action is unwise, that does not equate with unconstitutional.

Posted by: Greg at 05:07 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 420 words, total size 3 kb.