I feel the same way, and am hence taking only the lawful benefits, as specified by the Social Security Administration. I would wager that no one here at Free Republic would ever advocate taking anything but their lawful benefits.
But I suspect that you attach some unusual meaning to the word "lawful." Would you please elucidate?
Regards,
Social Security itself is a program for which there is no delegated power.
This is why those who argued to the Court that it should be okay painted the Law, the Constitution, that forbade it as a tradition, and not Law.
If the Law is a mere tradition then other traditions can be substituted in its place.
If it is a Law the Court’s hands would be tied.
To demonstrate the abeyance of the FDR era Court I need only turn to Marshall in Marbury.
In Marbury he references the Original Right of those who made the Constitution a Law when they Ratified it. He wrote that this exercise established permanent principals associated with it.
He also discussed why review may be proper, noting that because of the oath of office, which demands fidelity to the Law (which is only what was agreed to by those with the lawful power to ratify it), the Court is obligated by that oath to stand by the Constitution rather than acts of government.
(Fun fact: having justified review only because of the oath, and having said that it would be, in light of making them take that oath, worse than a solemn mockery to then require the Court to close its eyes to the Constitution and only see statute he does in fact admit that officials in other departments — Congress and POTUS — take the oath too. So let me ask you: wouldn’t it be worse than a solemn mockery to require others to close their eyes to the Constitution and only see the opinions of the Court?)
Here’s the rub: an obligation that arises only because of an oath requiring fidelity is NOT a power to justify infidelity, of making **** up as they go along as the modern Court has done.
The Court plays absolutely no role in amending the Constitution and the permanent principals established by exercise of the original right are the Law, not just the mere appearance of words on paper as is the current “official” view.
The Law is not a tradition.
It has not been amended to make Social Security lawful.