2) In order to encourage states to adopt the Common Core, an elementary educational initiative prescribing a universal curriculum and more rigorous math and language skills standards, Congress in 2016 revised several federal laws. These revisions authorized the Secretary of Health and Human Services to deprive states of up to 100% of federal funding for Medicaid if the state refused to adopt Common Core. Medicaid is a health insurance program for the poor that is administered by the states but is funded jointly by the states and the federal government. The revisions to the laws did not establish a specific date by which states would have to adopt the common core standards, only requiring states to have adopted Common Core within a “reasonable time period” or be subject to the funding cuts. By the end of 2016, the Texas state legislature had not adopted Common Core, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services issued an order depriving Texas of all federal funding for Medicaid, which in 2017 was 18 billion dollars and was approximately 20% of the Texas state budget for 2017. In the space provided below, write a one-paragraph response that answers whether the Supreme Court, in light of the precedent(s) we have read, would have held the action of the Secretary of Health and Human Services to be unconstitutional, and on what grounds. If you think the Court would uphold the action of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, you should consider and respond to the obvious constitutional objections to the actions of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. In your response, you should consider the reasoning of at least one Supreme Court precedent discussed in class and identify the provision of the Constitution this action might violate.
2) In order to encourage states to adopt the Common Core, an elementary educational initiative prescribing a universal curriculum and more rigorous math and language skills standards, Congress in 2016 revised several federal laws. These revisions authorized the Secretary of Health and Human Services to deprive states of up to 100% of federal funding for Medicaid if the state refused to adopt Common Core. Medicaid is a health insurance program for the poor that is administered by the states but is funded jointly by the states and the federal government. The revisions to the laws did not establish a specific date by which states would have to adopt the common core standards, only requiring states to have adopted Common Core within a “reasonable time period” or be subject to the funding cuts. By the end of 2016, the Texas state legislature had not adopted Common Core, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services issued an order depriving Texas of all federal funding for Medicaid, which in 2017 was 18 billion dollars and was approximately 20% of the Texas state budget for 2017. In the space provided below, write a one-paragraph response that answers whether the Supreme Court, in light of the precedent(s) we have read, would have held the action of the Secretary of Health and Human Services to be unconstitutional, and on what grounds. If you think the Court would uphold the action of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, you should consider and respond to the obvious constitutional objections to the actions of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. In your response, you should consider the reasoning of at least one Supreme Court precedent discussed in class and identify the provision of the Constitution this action might violate.
Oh no! Our experts couldn't answer your question.
Don't worry! We won't leave you hanging. Plus, we're giving you back one question for the inconvenience.
Submit your question and receive a step-by-step explanation from our experts in as fast as 30 minutes.
You have no more questions left.
Message from our expert:
Hi and thanks for your question! Unfortunately we cannot answer this particular question due to its complexity.
We've credited a question back to your account. Apologies for the inconvenience.
Your Question:
2) In order to encourage states to adopt the Common Core, an elementary educational initiative prescribing a universal curriculum and more rigorous math and language skills standards, Congress in 2016 revised several federal laws. These revisions authorized the Secretary of Health and Human Services to deprive states of up to 100% of federal funding for Medicaid if the state refused to adopt Common Core. Medicaid is a health insurance program for the poor that is administered by the states but is funded jointly by the states and the federal government. The revisions to the laws did not establish a specific date by which states would have to adopt the common core standards, only requiring states to have adopted Common Core within a “reasonable time period” or be subject to the funding cuts. By the end of 2016, the Texas state legislature had not adopted Common Core, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services issued an order depriving Texas of all federal funding for Medicaid, which in 2017 was 18 billion dollars and was approximately 20% of the Texas state budget for 2017.
In the space provided below, write a one-paragraph response that answers whether the Supreme Court, in light of the precedent(s) we have read, would have held the action of the Secretary of Health and Human Services to be unconstitutional, and on what grounds. If you think the Court would uphold the action of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, you should consider and respond to the obvious constitutional objections to the actions of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. In your response, you should consider the reasoning of at least one Supreme Court precedent discussed in class and identify the provision of the Constitution this action might violate.
