As an original matter, my opinion is irrelevant. This thread asked if Social Security is Constitutional. Of course it is. Any discussion of the original matter is an exercise in mental masturbation. The law has been interpreted and those of us who do not like an activist judiciary should accept the law.
Is Free Republic an exercise in mental masturbation?
What is our mission? Free Republic is dedicated to reversing the trend of unconstitutional government expansion and is advocating a complete restoration of our constitutional republic.
Do you believe we should appoint Supreme Court justices who will apply a strict constructionist view of the Constitution, and adhere to the original intent of the Founders? If so, on what basis do we determine which justices fit that description?
Edited for accuracy.
The law has been interpreted and those of us who do not like an activist judiciary should accept the law.
I reject the law. I rejected other laws as well, some of which were "interpreted" as proper when in fact they were wrong.
The problem is that you do support an "activist judiciary" as this thread proves. I can quote Madison all day long on the General Welfare, which wasn't a power...just a summary of the 20 enumerated specifics, however, SCOTUS in all the glory of judicial activism ruled that Social Security was in fact Constitutional using the General Welfare Clause..."to promote the general welfare."