An understanding completely refuted by Madison, and Jefferson, and Marshall, to name but a few.
It’s broad.
According to you, and the NEA, and the New Deal Democrats.
And since the SSN tax is not levied on just a few, but on all, and it’s based on income, something the people are doing (producing income), then it would never be, in my opinion, declared unconstitutional.
"Declared" by whom?
I don’t know who your candidate is..Romney, Goode, Palin, whoever...but what do you think would happen to their chances if they announced that social security is unconstitutional and they intend to end it?
Ah, now there's the rub, isn't it. In fact, it isn't constitutionality that is driving this constant move towards unlimited government, it's politics.
My sense is that at a minimum they could say only that its constitutionality is contested by some people.
That sort of namby-pamby, mealy-mouthed lack of leadership is how we got to where we are.
Difference; not refutation.
Besides, it is illogical to cite the enumerated powers of Section 8, when the general welfare IS ALREADY one of the enumerated powers in Section 8.
According to you It is broad because of the definition of the word "general", a point that was not lost on Hamilton.
declared..by whom By you, apparently.
the rub It would be silly to declare something unconstitutional that has been declared constitutional and is a part of the fabric of the culture.
mealy-mouthed Speaking facts is mealy-mouthed?
Answer me this, EV: How much cash does your campaign for the presidency have on hand. Since this is a required reporting, I doubt you'd have any problem giving the amount.