[WOSG]

“Why isn’t Perry asking that question [constitutionality of SocSec] in public as well?”

Because the horse left that barn 70 years ago.

In his book Fed Up Perry does make points wrt unconstitutionality/dubious constitutionality of the new deal stuff. But its not a core argument in a campaign because the constitutionality of things are decided by the Supreme Court. If it’s unconstitutional, you need to convince SCOTUS, president cant change that no matter his opinion.

You THEN have the question of how a program that has been in existence for 70 years and which is being counted on by millions for retirement can be amended, fixed or eliminated. They dont want to be screwed out of the benefits they were ‘promised’. Complaining about Social Security and pointing out its flaws, without being clear about what your fix is, only hands the Democrats a club in the campaign - “oh, you want to kill grandpa”.

So the REAL question that needs to be answered is:
WHAT IS YOUR SOLUTION TO FIX THE FLAWS AND CRAFT A BETTER SOLUTION?

Perry will not be afraid to point out that the Constitution does limit the Federal govt, and will, if the nominee, be the first nominee in a long time to make that case:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbV8AUvOEWI&feature=relmfu

[cc2k]

WOSG wrote:

Because the horse left that barn 70 years ago.

In his book Fed Up Perry does make points wrt unconstitutionality/dubious constitutionality of the new deal stuff. But its not a core argument in a campaign because the constitutionality of things are decided by the Supreme Court. If it’s unconstitutional, you need to convince SCOTUS, president cant change that no matter his opinion.

You THEN have the question of how a program that has been in existence for 70 years and which is being counted on by millions for retirement can be amended, fixed or eliminated. They dont want to be screwed out of the benefits they were ‘promised’. Complaining about Social Security and pointing out its flaws, without being clear about what your fix is, only hands the Democrats a club in the campaign - “oh, you want to kill grandpa”.

1. I guess I really need to get a copy of "Fed Up" and read it.
2. It is important to know where candidates for President stand on issues of Constitutionality of things. It gives some insight into the type of judicial nominations they are likely to make.
3. The only way to convince SCOTUS to overturn a precedent like that is to have a POTUS with good constitutional roots appoint some strict constructionists to the SCOTUS bench. The ones we have now obviously won't rule any other way.
4. There's nothing that says that Congress can't repeal something if they believe its either ineffective or unconstitutional. It doesn't have to take a ruling from SCOTUS to get rid of a bad law.
5. The Democrats will always tell Grandma and Grandpa that Republicans want to kill them. If Republicans don't propose a fix, it will be their fault that Social Security and Medicare are doomed to insolvency and failure. If they do propose a fix, the Democrats will say there is no problem and Republicans want to eliminate the program. Fear is the only weapon they have, and they will wield that and scare seniors no matter what Republicans propose. It's important that Republicans propose something sound that people understand will work, so that the Dems look foolish when they try to play the scare tactics.
6. I do think it would help in the public discourse to point out issues of constitutionality and the actual limits on the federal government. It also helps to point out that the issues that the Dems try to use to divide people against each other are issues that the federal government shouldn't even be involved in. When was the last time you got into an argument with a liberal about a post office or a patent? Get the Congress out of this stuff and move the arguments to the states and local governments. There are advantages to that. People in different situations can come up with different solutions, and people can "vote with their feet," if all else fails and move to a state or locality which is more in harmony with their personal beliefs.