There is no Constitutional requirement that individual states must accept monies offered by the federal government to support needs affecting their citizens. However, given the challenging budgetary and fiscal realities that most states face today, the acceptance of federal aid is something that is a given, and is rarely turned away. Do you believe that states have a responsibility to turn away federal funding when conditions attached are fundamentally at odds with the beliefs of a majority of members of a given state legislature? Should states increase taxes and increase user fees (among other revenue generators) to compensate for funds declined from Washington? Do states fundamentally lose integrity when they accept money for projects, programs, and processes with conditions attached with which they fundamentally disagree?© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 25, 2018, 6:09 am ad1c9bdddf
The Power to Say No
While it is true that there exists no constitutional requirement in which individual states must accept financial support offered by the federal government so as to support the needs affecting their citizens, the aspect of being at odds with the majority of members of a given state legislature and subsequently turning away such monies is questionable and I believe that the interest of the citizens ought to be a ...
The expert states rejection of federal assistance to uphold beliefs.
I would like to know the elements of affirmative action as it applies to public and private sectors and the interaction with the Title VII requirements of equal employment opportunity. For example, what employers are subject to affirmative action, what those plans require the employer to do, and what happens if the employer doesn't meet the plan. I realize that AA is made to help repair discrimination against previously discriminated groups but would like a broader understanding.View Full Posting Details