Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Protagoras
Social security is unconstitutional because of the 10th amendment, despite all the pols who have twisted the meaning to allow it.

Amendment X.
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.

Since the "general welfare" clause delegates power to the Congress to provide for the general welfare of the United States, the 10th Amendment doesn't apply. Tha's the short answer. The long answer is contained in this opinion of the Supreme Court:

CHAS. C. STEWARD MACH. CO. v. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548 (1937)

Here is how FindLaw summarizes the jurispurdence on Social Security:
Social Security Act Cases .
--Although holding that the spending power is not limited by the specific grants of power contained in Article I, Sec. 8, the Court found, nevertheless, that it was qualified by the Tenth Amendment, and on this ground ruled in the Butler case that Congress could not use moneys raised by taxation to ''purchase compliance'' with regulations ''of matters of State concern with respect to which Congress has no authority to interfere.''

Within little more than a year this decision was reduced to narrow proportions by Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, which sustained the tax imposed on employers to provide unemployment benefits, and the credit allowed for similar taxes paid to a State. To the argument that the tax and credit in combination were ''weapons of coercion, destroying or impairing the autonomy of the States,'' the Court replied that relief of unemployment was a legitimate object of federal expenditure under the ''general welfare'' clause, that the Social Security Act represented a legitimate attempt to solve the problem by the cooperation of State and Federal Governments, that the credit allowed for state taxes bore a reasonable relation ''to the fiscal need subserved by the tax in its normal operation,'' since state unemployment compensation payments would relieve the burden for direct relief borne by the national treasury.

The Court reserved judgment as to the validity of a tax ''if it is laid upon the condition that a State may escape its operation through the adoption of a statute unrelated in subject matter to activities fairly within the scope of national policy and power.''

Good night, no minds will be changed here.

I don't expect to change anyone's mind. I'm just explaining what is right.

48 posted on 12/12/2003 7:11:47 PM PST by Looking for Diogenes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]


To: Looking for Diogenes
You are just explaining what is incorrect.

But you are correct about one thing, no one who has a clue about the constitution will have their mind changed by your post.

50 posted on 12/12/2003 9:24:28 PM PST by Protagoras (Vote Republican, we're not as bad as the other guys.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies ]

To: Looking for Diogenes
No, not "what is right", rather what is the tradegy of overapplication of "stare decisis"!
68 posted on 12/16/2003 12:17:01 PM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies ]

To: Looking for Diogenes

Since the "general welfare" clause delegates power to the Congress to provide for the general welfare of the United States, the 10th Amendment doesn't apply.

I don't expect to change anyone's mind. I'm just explaining what is right.

No. What you are explaining is a lie that has been promoted as the truth. If you knew your history you would have never posted that 1937 decision as a serious decision. You would know that the decision was not made freely, but rather out of intimidation (more like extortion) of the court by FDR.

71 posted on 12/16/2003 12:34:40 PM PST by PhilipFreneau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson