Supreme Court Denies Fouth Amendment Protection of Welfare Reciplicantshttp://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/opinion/28wed2.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/opinion/28wed2.html This ruling allows the corporate welfare state to treat dependants like subjects. How can the poor in this country get ahead, when if they are able to accumilate capital, the government cuts off there benefits? I feel, as a libertarian socialist, that the state should stay out off providing for it's residents in the first place. If however they do decide to concern themselves with the social welfare of there citizens, which is there right under the U.S. constitution (as all powers not delegated to the federal government, or prohibited under state law, are given the states), it should consist of subsidees given to private and or faith based organizations. For if buisnesses may receive corporate welfare, why then can't charities receive social welfare?