Is Social Security Constitutional?

Free Republic | 1-19-05

[Conservative Coulter Fan]

Article One, Section Eight of the United States Constitution limits the Federal Government to twenty Enumerated Powers or “areas.” None of these powers include the Federal Government taking responsibility for the retirement of citizens, getting into the business of retirement, especially by taking money from Americans against their will and forcing them into a government run system that operates like an illegal pyramid scheme.

Some defenders of Social Security contend that the General Welfare Clause in Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution, “…to promote the general welfare,” is in fact clear evidence of the constitutionality of Social Security. While this view is widespread, to say the least, James Madison in Federalist Papers Forty-One & Forty-Two clearly rebuffed such a contention explaining the General Welfare Clause was just a summary of the twenty Enumerated Powers rather than a blanket power as critics of the Constitution, at the time, had argued.

Its worth noting that defenders of Social Security are basing the constitutionality of the largest program in existence on what Madison called a “misconstruction” used by critics who attacked the Constitution. Madison explained, “For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural or more common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify by an enumeration of the particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity ... what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions and disregarding the specifications which limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the general welfare?”

So if Social Security is unconstitutional, hence illegal, why shouldn’t the debate over “reform” center on this grave matter? Shouldn’t it be abolished if indeed the Federal Government has no legal authority to operate such a program?

[RightOnline]

I see that you are one who chooses to muddy the discussion with "facts".

How dare you................

[Melas]

Yep. I'm saying that if SS were ended, bang, gone, that the state legislatures would panic that it would cost them money. No doubt in my mind at all.

[LPM1888]

An education in what, playing fantasy politics?

Ping me when you get the Supreme Court to find Social Security to be unconstitutional. Otherwise you're just a waste of time.

[Ken H]

Who is doing the clear comprehending?

You agreed that Hamilton was naming restrictions, yet you interpret his words to mean that he would accept a universal federal pension plan as within the limitations of the Constitution.

If you use your expansive view of the gW Clause, then Congress can deem just about anything a matter of national concern. That is not what Hamilton was saying.

[LPM1888]

I reject the law. I rejected other laws as well, some of which were "interpreted" as proper when in fact they were wrong.

Now I understand. Does the warden know you're posting from the computer in the prison library?

[Hank Rearden]

Three-quarters of what this Big Stupid Government does isn't Constitutional.

[Racehorse]

Me:  "providing for the General Welfare"

You:  It doesn't say provide, it says promote.

You are correct.  But, I'm the one who mistyped that, not Tacticalogic.

There is nothing about promoting something that implies paying for it.

Spending a little time with your Chamber of Commerce or your City Council may change you mind. :-)

[tacticalogic]

Yep. I'm saying that if SS were ended, bang, gone, that the state legislatures would panic that it would cost them money. No doubt in my mind at all.

And do you think creating that kind of dependence on federal programs for something the states could do themselves promotes the General Welfare of the nation?

[Wolfie]

Constitutional? Oh man, that's rich. Like it matters.

[mad_as_he$$]

Along with many other the government programs.

[Protagoras]

Personal insults are no substitute for rational discourse son.

I answered all your questions on this topic with no comment on your part except insults. Now it's time for you to defend your questions, and answer a few.

Please defend the Social Security system. Please address my answers. Please read the article in Investors Business Daily today by Dr. Thomas Sowell on this whole subject.

[Melas]

And do you think creating that kind of dependence on federal programs for something the states could do themselves promotes the General Welfare of the nation?

Nope, but it doesn't matter. I can still say with certainty that if SS were challenged on constitutional grounds, that the 28th Amendment constitutionalizing SS would be ratified by all 50 states overnight. It's almost as sure as the sun rising.

[tacticalogic]

Nope, but it doesn't matter. I can still say with certainty that if SS were challenged on constitutional grounds, that the 28th Amendment constitutionalizing SS would be ratified by all 50 states overnight. It's almost as sure as the sun rising.

Well at least we wouldn't be pretending that we're "promoting the General Welfare" when an objective examination of the situation says we aren't. If that doesn't matter either, then the "Constitutional Republic" is a farce.

[LPM1888]

Obviously you have no understanding of humor.

You have purposefully not responded to my questions while trying to redirect the discussions. Why should I respond to your questions if you won't answer mine? Try all you want it won't work.

Here is a letter-to-the-editor I found in today's local paper. It should give you an idea of what kind of resistance changing Social Security is going to face. When senior citizens start preparing for civil unrest there is trouble on the horizon.

Letters to the editor
January 21, 2005
Need straight talk on Social Security

President Bush has started messing around with Social Security benefits.

My wife and I are retired professionals, and we depend in large part on our Social Security benefits each month. Ten years ago, we were quite comfortable with our retirement, but now it buys about half of what it did then.

There are many seniors drawing Social Security who form a very stable base of income for whatever community they live in.

This money was withheld from our paychecks during our most productive years by federal law. These funds were to be held in a trust fund by Social Security. But for many years the government has looted the trust fund by many billions, leaving IOUs in their place.

Smart politicians for many years have correctly held that our Social Security checks are a sacred cow, or "the third rail," and for good reason.

If the present administration places our monthly checks in harm's way or reduces benefits, it will be like pouring gas on a fire and will give a whole new meaning to civil unrest. And Iraq and all his self-made blunders will fade away overnight.

With the money spent on our ill-fated war in Iraq, our many programs could have been set straight. We have two grandsons fighting in Iraq and one 53-year-old son-in-law who did two tours with the Marines in Vietnam.

Here is the link to the letter.

http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/opinion/html/6AC6BA8B-85C4-454A-A53F-AB85AD3994E3.shtml

[Protagoras]

I answered all your questions specifically. Please address each one that you think I did not and the reasons why.

And you won't answer questions because your position is untenable. So you cite opinion letters by old people.

The entire letter is nonsensical made up BS by some liberal. Do you want to debate each lie in the letter and each liberal point which you support?

Do you believe the stuff in that letter? If so, you are a liberal.

[Melas]

Well at least we wouldn't be pretending that we're "promoting the General Welfare" when an objective examination of the situation says we aren't. If that doesn't matter either, then the "Constitutional Republic" is a farce.

A farce? No, our Republic is not a farce.

Is our Republic perfect? No, our system is not perfect. There are many flaws, and this is likely one of them.

We'll never achieve perfection, on any scoreboard, but so far, we have the best system I've ever seen.

[LPM1888]

I answered all your questions specifically. Please address each one that you think I did not and the reasons why. And you won't answer questions because your position is untenable. So you cite opinion letters by old people.

You haven't answered any of them. You tactics are so obvious it's pitiful.

Do you believe the stuff in that letter?

I believe that when senior citizens are ready for massive civil unrest there is going to be a major battle. Privatizing Social Security isn't going to work, if it is enacted the Democrats will control all three legislative branches by 2009. Is that what you really want?