Is Social Security Constitutional?

Liberty Filter ^ | John Attarian

[Conservative Coulter Fan]

Book: Social Security: False Consciousness and Crisis

Is Social Security Constitutional? (My Thread)

Six Misconceptions About Social Security

General Welfare Clause

[Disambiguator]

Is Social Security Constitutional?

Is the Pope Jewish?

Are soccer fans well-behaved?

Does a bear use the restroom in a shopping mall?

Is Henry Waxman about to be voted the sexiest man of 2004?

[Sgt_Schultze]

Bumping

[J. Semper Paratus]

Does gravity not suck...?

Did Dale Earnhardt drive Yugos...?

Are the French leaders smart...?

Are the Chinese our friends...?

Was Bill Clinton a great American...?

NO !

[Disambiguator]

LOL.

[Conservative Coulter Fan]

Bump!

[Charles Henrickson]

. . . the Constitution should be interpreted conservatively, according to the intent of the Framers. . . . the federal government could not intervene in economic or local matters, and the Tenth Amendment – "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" – narrowly confined its legitimate activities. So the New Deal was invalid.

Precisely so.

[Protagoras]

There are a bunch of Freepers running around on this site supporting SS.

[Conservative Coulter Fan]

During his lecture at the University of Alabama, Scalia spoke against ignoring the Founding Fathers' original intent, such as by ruling that capital punishment is "cruel and unusual punishment." Or adding rights not enumerated in the Constitution, such as the right to an abortion.

"If you want that right, pass a law," Scalia said. "If you don't want that right, don't pass a law. That's flexibility. If you want change, all you need is a legislature and a ballot box." (Source: Supreme Court justice warns against ignoring Constitution's original intent)

[Conservative Coulter Fan]

Well, I’m not one of them and I’ll be the first to challenge them to defend the largest federal program in exstence, a compulsory program that forcibly confiscates money from citizens against there will, a program that takes contol over our lives with respect to our retirement, a program that operates like a pyramid scheme, and a program that violates the law of land and a program that will collapse unless the government cuts benefits (SCOTUS ruled in 1960 that wehave no rights regarding payroll taxes) or economically ruinous tax inceases.

[KC_for_Freedom]

You're right. But the question is one of political will and political pragmatism. The defense of a program that is used today by hundreds of thousands of voters and is included in retirement plans today by even more voters should not be difficult. It is really for those who realize the program is not constitutional to devise a way to discard it that would pass inspite of these huge numbers supporting it.

Now, privitization is such a plan. First a little privitization, then more privitization, then finally hey, you should have control over how much of your money is invested from your paycheck, to the last step, people voluntary opting out. Now that you have forced me to divulge Bush's complete plan, you can see why democrats want to stop privitization at all costs.

[Protagoras]

That pretty much sums it up.

Most of these people are trolls who use old sign-up dates. One person is running around saying Bush is using this as a campaign donation payback scam. Her screen name is LPM1888.

[T.L.Sink]

You are right in quoting Scalia, "If you want that right,
pass a law." That is exactly what people thru the congress
did. I find it ironic that we conservatives who hate to
see unelected, unaccountable judges in the Judiciary
arbitrarily overturn the Legislative (which reflects the
will of the people) are willing to overlook such a
decision when it suits personal ideology. Social Security
was (and is) so much a part of the fabric of American
society that there can't be any serious debate about its
existence. Even the most conservative Republicans only
want to REFORM it, not dismantle it. Rather than have
a pseudo-debate about a 1935 law, we should think about
the future and how to improve things for the next
generation. Or perhaps we should revisit Dred Scott and
waste time arguing about that decision.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Hell, there are Freepers who support no knock warrants, "civil forfeiture", abortion, and every facet of the WOD no matter who unconstitutional, intrusive, or just flat wrong.

[Protagoras]

Hell, there are Freepers who support no knock warrants, "civil forfeiture", abortion, and every facet of the WOD no matter who unconstitutional, intrusive, or just flat wrong.

Yep, and I spend a fair amount of time exposing them.

[Ken H]

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;"

It is interesting to note that in Helvering v. Davis, the phrase "general Welfare of the United States" does not appear. The only term used is "general welfare".

Helvering v Davis

[Conservative Coulter Fan]

You've heard it said that "perception is reality." Those that see the program for what it is (including unconstitutional) must aim to change the perception of the program from a secure safety net to the correct perception (reality) that the program is compulsory, demographically defected, operates like an illegal pyramid scheme, is unconstitutional, symbolizes big government as the largest federal program (around 1/4 of the federal budget), is unfair, doesn't allow choice, makes the government responsbile for retirement rather than individuals, etc., etc.

Do you think the majority of Americans have ever been exposed to those arguments, have really listened and heard such a case against the program, or have even considered a world without social security? Do you think people who watch CNN, or CBS, or ABC, or read the Washington Post, have ever been exposed to such? I believe the answer is "No!" across the board. So before we compromise by moving away from our core principles and abandon our conviction, I believe that first we must make an effort to convince the majority of Americans to side with our cause rather than looking for a partial solution that will ultimately not achieve our ends unless it is pursued as only part of a series of incremental steps.

Furthermore, we should consider the rule of law. If I'm arguing about the constitutionality of the program itself, as a violation of the Constitution, which I see as the centerpiece of the republic, the law of the land, then why should I simply submit on the idea that the "mob rules" given the majority hasn't ever heard my case?

You are correct, opponents of Bush's social security reform are fond of the idea that his ultimate endgame is the privatization of Social Security and they most certainly would seize on our words to launch their assault, but I heard a more interesting take on that dynamic of the debate. I cannot recall exactly, but someone was saying that Bush's endgame, prepared by Rove, was in making the public switch from looking to democrats as protectors of social security to making republicans the protectors. Is it true? Are we so sure that he shares our end? Its all speculation at this point and presently, you are correct, and he couldn't just come out to declare our end his end without a media firestorm and a flurry of attacks.

Let me be clear that I would back Bush's plan, since it is the the best our of a list of bad choices. Workers are better off getting to put some of money into PRAs, which would be made up of a list of fairly conservative, safe mutual funds and by the time the workers move closer to retirement, the money is then put in bonds, thus, protecting their money with interest that will not be as great, but is reasonable. We know that historically the market has returned 7 to 7.5% returns, which would be better than the current .5% to 1% you receive under social security. I don't need to enumerate the plan, but considering the proposals out there...I'd back this one.

[Conservative Coulter Fan]

Your tone was nothing short of condescending and you owe it to the falisty of your argument. See, I do complain about the unelected, unaccountable judges in the Judiciary. In fact, I'm arguing that the court deemed Social Security "constitutional" on what can be at best called a "misinterpretation." In order for us to overcome the problem I've raised, constitutionality, we would need an amendment to the Constitution effectively expanding the enumeration of powers under Article 1, Section 8. We've never had such an amendment. We've merely had the court, in a 1937 case, issue a judicial fiat to that effect. As you can read above, the author believes that the court was essentially doing so merely to preserve itself and stave any further action by FDR to alter the court or expand it. I would say that abolishing the program would be the greatest improvement for the future generations.

[KC_for_Freedom]

Do you think people who watch CNN, or CBS, or ABC, or read the Washington Post, have ever been exposed to such? I believe the answer is "No!" across the board

Of course not, the vast majority of pro-democrats believe SS is a redistribution of wealth and they are collectively for it. the problem is that even conservative republicans believe that "they should get back what they put in". and as such are not likely to listen to arguements starting out saying the program is unconstitutional. There is a reason that SS has been dubbed the "third rail" of politics, "touch it and you are dead". I have talked to these republicans and even when they know they stand to take out much more than they put in, they somehow believe that the money has an IOU with their name on it. Thats why wholesale fixing, (including termination ) won't fly.

As far as Rove having a republican take over in mind, he may. I have not studied this guy, but democrats certainly think he thinks like this. I would not like much having our work for conservatives simply gettin us a collectivist with a different letter after his name.

Of course some privatization is better than the current system, besides it will spur investment in the market and lead (unfortunately for the democrats) in people believing they have an account growing in wealth which is theirs. This "wealth effect" precedes a country prosperity. Not a bad deal eh?

The stock market historically has done even better than you stated, more like 8 % per year.

[Conservative Coulter Fan]

I wonder if it would at all be possible to solicit the opinion of Justice Scalia on this debate, the case, and see where he comes down.