A couple week's back I asked you to consider Chief Justice John Roberts recent ruling on the Affordable Care Act and what his motivation may have been for deciding as he did.
This week - since you will be looking at social welfare policy among other things - I want to return to that decision, or at least its consequences. One of the decisions made by the court was that state could not be punished for not expanding Medicaid. States like Texas - which tend to provide few services to the poor - have no interest in expanding Medicaid and may even seek to restrict it.
I want you to look at the conflict between the national government and the Texas government regarding this social welfare issue - what level of health care ought to be provided to the poor - and detail it as best you can. What does this tell us about the current state of affairs between the national and state governments regarding social welfare policy?
