LS185Unit10Assignment_.docx LS185 1.Would this case apply to Mr. Times case? Why or w

LS185Unit10Assignment_.docx    LS185   1.Would this case apply to Mr. Times case? Why or why not?   In the case of Goldberg v Kelly, it was established that state and federal government agencies could only remove welfare benefits after a pre-termination hearing. During a pre-termination hearing, welfare recipients have the opportunity to confront witnesses before an impartial adjudicator. In Mr. Times case, he was not offered any type of notice and/or hearing in order to question witnesses or address the allegations against him that resulted in his benefits being revoked due to these claims. The case of Goldberg v Kelly, which took place in NY was established because families receiving welfare benefits were stripped without any notice beforehand and without the opportunity for a hearing- this was found to be a violation of their Constitutional rights. This case applies to Mr. Times because instead of gathering any evidence or investigating, his benefits were terminated without any further action and his benefits were taken away contrary to the due process of law.   2.Does it matter that the kind or type of social service or welfare benefits in question are different in the two cases? Why or why not?  The Constitution requires state and federal governments to give notice and an opportunity to be heard before they act in such a way as to deny a citizen of interest in life, liberty, or property. It does not matter that the case of Goldberg v Kelly and Mr. Times are different. The idea that each case involve