• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

My Internal Conflict with SS and the Constitution

Catawba said:
"The constitutionality of the Social Security Act was settled in a set of Supreme Court decisions issued in May 1937."
Social Security Online
Click to expand...

Thank you for furnishing me with the site. Now, which decision said that Social Security is constitutional and what words expressly say it is? By the way, I am familiar with the site you have chosen and I have looked at the cases. I did not find it, but maybe you can show me where it says so. Thanks.
 
Flyersfan314 said:
Answering #2 first, no they dont. SS has always been reliable. Young people have to worry.

Social security has reduce individual savings; this indicates that people are either invesitng or spending more money.
http://ntj.tax.org/wwtax/ntjrec.nsf/0/ca8799163acbc9e985256863004b1f34/$FILE/v49n2151.pdf
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how any of this strengthens (or is even consistent with) your argument.
 
LesGovt said:
Thank you for furnishing me with the site. Now, which decision said that Social Security is constitutional and what words expressly say it is? By the way, I am familiar with the site you have chosen and I have looked at the cases. I did not find it, but maybe you can show me where it says so. Thanks.
Click to expand...

"Two Supreme Court rulings affirmed the constitutionality of the Social Security Act.

Steward Machine Company v. Davis, 301 U.S, 548[24] (1937) held, in a 5–4 decision, that, given the exigencies of the Great Depression, "[It] is too late today for the argument to be heard with tolerance that in a crisis so extreme the use of the moneys of the nation to relieve the unemployed and their dependents is a use for any purpose narrower than the promotion of the general welfare". The arguments opposed to the Social Security Act (articulated by justices Butler, McReynolds, and Sutherland in their opinions) were that the social security act went beyond the powers that were granted to the federal government in the Constitution. They argued that, by imposing a tax on employers that could be avoided only by contributing to a state unemployment-compensation fund, the federal government was essentially forcing each state to establish an unemployment-compensation fund that would meet its criteria, and that the federal government had no power to enact such a program.

Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937), decided on the same day as Steward, upheld the program because "The proceeds of both [employee and employer] taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal-revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way". That is, the Social Security Tax was constitutional as a mere exercise of Congress's general taxation powers."

Social Security (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Constitutionality of SS has not been successfully challenged in the Supreme Court since that ruling in 1937.

Glad I could help you! :sun
 
Last edited:
Flyersfan314 said:
Then you haven't read what I have typed. People save less due to SS, that money doesnt go into thin air.
Click to expand...

Your statements about what people do because of SS or what they would do without it are conjecture.

People are insufficiently concerned with their future retirement security now and we haven't seen any compelling indication they'd behave differently without the expectation of the meager SS returns.
 
It is a FACT people are saving more because of SS. I showed you the case study. I may be able to get more.

People are insufficiently concerned with their future retirement security now and we haven't seen any compelling indication they'd behave differently without the expectation of the meager SS returns.
Click to expand...

For younger this is true because the economy is so bad and SS has problems down the road, but people who are in their 50s will receive SS.
 
Catawba said:
The supreme court has ruled SS constitutional for the last 76 years under both parties. :sun
Click to expand...

yes. because it is a tax.

however, that's not really what was under discussion. what was under discussion was the point that the Supreme Court has also ruled you have no legally binding right to a single dollar from Social Security. Congress could pass the "Screw Catawba Act" tomorrow and you would never see a dime and have no legal recourse.

...There has been a temptation throughout the program's history for some people to suppose that their FICA payroll taxes entitle them to a benefit in a legal, contractual sense... Congress clearly had no such limitation in mind when crafting the law. Section 1104 of the 1935 Act, entitled "RESERVATION OF POWER," specifically said: "The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to the Congress." Even so, some have thought that this reservation was in some way unconstitutional. This is the issue finally settled by Flemming v. Nestor.

In this 1960 Supreme Court decision Nestor's denial of benefits was upheld even though he had contributed to the program for 19 years and was already receiving benefits. Under a 1954 law, Social Security benefits were denied to persons deported for, among other things, having been a member of the Communist party. Accordingly, Mr. Nestor's benefits were terminated. He appealed the termination arguing, among other claims, that promised Social Security benefits were a contract and that Congress could not renege on that contract. In its ruling, the Court rejected this argument and established the principle that entitlement to Social Security benefits is not contractual right...​
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
"Two Supreme Court rulings affirmed the constitutionality of the Social Security Act.

Steward Machine Company v. Davis, 301 U.S, 548[24] (1937) held, in a 5–4 decision, that, given the exigencies of the Great Depression, "[It] is too late today for the argument to be heard with tolerance that in a crisis so extreme the use of the moneys of the nation to relieve the unemployed and their dependents is a use for any purpose narrower than the promotion of the general welfare". The arguments opposed to the Social Security Act (articulated by justices Butler, McReynolds, and Sutherland in their opinions) were that the social security act went beyond the powers that were granted to the federal government in the Constitution. They argued that, by imposing a tax on employers that could be avoided only by contributing to a state unemployment-compensation fund, the federal government was essentially forcing each state to establish an unemployment-compensation fund that would meet its criteria, and that the federal government had no power to enact such a program.

Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937), decided on the same day as Steward, upheld the program because "The proceeds of both [employee and employer] taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal-revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way". That is, the Social Security Tax was constitutional as a mere exercise of Congress's general taxation powers."

Social Security (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Constitutionality of SS has not been successfully challenged in the Supreme Court since that ruling in 1937.

Glad I could help you! :sun
Click to expand...

cpwill has provided an important part of the answer. To cover the rest, I think we can agree that the original intent of the "general welfare and common defense" did not include any such definition that included any specific grant of power other than to tax. Justice's Cardozo's decisions were not consistent with original intent.

Secondly, the cases you presented both dealt with the power of taxation and not the authority for spending. The first clause of Article I, section 8 provides for the authority of taxation and it puts no limits on the amount to be raised. Therefore, the cases were decided correctly regarding the power of taxation. Justice Cardozo overreached his authority when he stated that they could pass such legislation during a "crisis." I cannot find anything in the Constitution that says that things that are normally unconstitutional can become constitutional during a "crisis." I believe that most liberals will become upset with you and Cardozo as this same argument has been used for the constitutionality of Homeland Security and the laws enacted for its use. In addition, if a law can be constitutionally passed because of a crisis, wouldn't that law be ended once the crisis has ended?
 
Catawba said:
Social Security Act of 1935:

"The act created a uniquely American solution to the problem of old-age pensions. Unlike many European nations, U.S. social security "insurance" was supported from "contributions" in the form of taxes on individuals’ wages and employers’ payrolls rather than directly from Government funds. The act also provided funds to assist children, the blind, and the unemployed; to institute vocational training programs; and provide family health programs. As a result, enactment of Social Security brought into existence complex administrative challenges. The Social Security Act authorized the Social Security Board to register citizens for benefits, to administer the contributions."
Our Documents - Social Security Act (1935)
Click to expand...

Right, but where in the law is there a clear indication of a contract? Suppose the government decided not to pay out anymore SS benefits. Would anyone then have legal grounding to sue the feds?

Furthermore, I see nothing in the Act that actually creates legal penalties (i. e. exposure to lawsuits) for the government should it use SS taxes for something other than SS.
 
cpwill said:
Congress could pass the "Screw Catawba Act" tomorrow and you would never see a dime and have no legal recourse.
Click to expand...


LOL! Be sure and let me know when that happens. Until then, as it has been for the last 76 years, SS is Constitutional as upheld by the Supreme Court under the rule of law. :sun
 
solletica said:
Right, but where in the law is there a clear indication of a contract? Suppose the government decided not to pay out anymore SS benefits. Would anyone then have legal grounding to sue the feds?

Furthermore, I see nothing in the Act that actually creates legal penalties (i. e. exposure to lawsuits) for the government should it use SS taxes for something other than SS.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the GOP will nail that claim to their platform for the 2012 elections. Should go over big with the only remaining large voting demograhic they had in the last presidential election. I think they should go for it! Your time would be better spent convincing them. Best of luck to you! :sun
 
Catawba said:
LOL! Be sure and let me know when that happens. Until then, as it has been for the last 76 years, SS is Constitutional as upheld by the Supreme Court under the rule of law. :sun
Click to expand...

no one ever said it wasn't. it is, after all, a tax. you just don't have any right to any benefits. because it is, after all, a tax.
 
cpwill said:
no one ever said it wasn't. it is, after all, a tax. you just don't have any right to any benefits. because it is, after all, a tax.
Click to expand...

Would you cite the Supreme Court decision that ruled SS benefits for all the workers that paid into the system to be unconstitutional?
 
Catawba said:
Would you cite the Supreme Court decision that ruled SS benefits for all the workers that paid into the system to be unconstitutional?
Click to expand...

I already cited the relevant case. the government is free to give SS benefits to whomever it chooses, in whatever amount it chooses. or, on the flip side, it is also free to deny SS benefits to whomever it chooses, in whatever amount it chooses. and it can change it's mind for any reason at any time.
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
Perhaps the GOP will nail that claim to their platform for the 2012 elections. Should go over big with the only remaining large voting demograhic they had in the last presidential election. I think they should go for it! Your time would be better spent convincing them. Best of luck to you! :sun
Click to expand...

The GOP would never support legislation that would actually hold them accountable for how to spend taxpayer money.

They would, at best, only support a "mock" bill that would appear to create stronger enforcement of SS fund management, while in reality doing nothing.

Though silly from the perspective of liberals, this practice of creating illusions is extremely effective for GOP voters--they always buy it!

The GOP does the same thing on the undocumented worker issue, i. e. talking tough (and convincing gullible GOP voters in the process), but in reality ensuring that their tough talk is merely rhetorical BS and not anything that would compromise their standing among their corporate sponsors, who like undocumented labor.
 
cpwill said:
I already cited the relevant case. the government is free to give SS benefits to whomever it chooses, in whatever amount it chooses. or, on the flip side, it is also free to deny SS benefits to whomever it chooses, in whatever amount it chooses. and it can change it's mind for any reason at any time.
Click to expand...

And which party would be stupid enough to do that? I've got my guess. :sun
 
Catawba said:
And which party would be stupid enough to do that? I've got my guess. :sun
Click to expand...

at this point it's not a matter of which party will be stupid enough to do it, it's will either party be brave enough to do it early so that we can control it; or - failing that - which party will happen to be in control when we are forced to.
 
solletica said:
The GOP does the same thing on the undocumented worker issue, i. e. talking tough (and convincing gullible GOP voters in the process), but in reality ensuring that their tough talk is merely rhetorical BS and not anything that would compromise their standing among their corporate sponsors, who like undocumented labor.
Click to expand...

the Justice Department recently has sued two states (Arizona and Alabama) for actually cracking down on illegal immigration.

remind me again which party runs those two states, and which runs the Administration?
 
cpwill said:
at this point it's not a matter of which party will be stupid enough to do it, it's will either party be brave enough to do it early so that we can control it; or - failing that - which party will happen to be in control when we are forced to.
Click to expand...

The program is solvent to 2036, which leaves plenty of time to raise the FICA cap to repay the debt owed to it from the General fund. There is no SS crisis. :sun
 
Sure social security is constitutional. It is just two things- taxing and spending. Those are the very first powers the constitution gives the Congress- the taxing and spending clause. Article 1, section 8, clause 1.
 
the program is only solvent to 2036 if the US General fund produces trillions in surpluses starting next year.

in reality-land, however, the general fund isn't going to do that, and Medicare will drag SS down with it in or around 2020.
 
cpwill said:
the program is only solvent to 2036 if the US General fund produces trillions in surpluses starting next year.

in reality-land, however, the general fund isn't going to do that, and Medicare will drag SS down with it in or around 2020.
Click to expand...

That just means that they either need to reduce the benefits or increase FICA slightly or increase the age at which you qualify, not like bang, it's gone, everybody panic.
 
we do need to reduce SS Benefits, and probably increase the age of qualification (say, to 70). Or, we could reform it in such a manner as to actually allow our low income workers to retire financially independent. but frankly, we could probably get away with just reducing the growth of benefits and increasing the age of qualification.

Medicare, however, is a different beast. that will require a much deeper level of structural reform, and it will need it Very Soon.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
Medicare, however, is a different beast. that will require a much deeper level of structural reform.
Click to expand...

Fundamentally that requires addressing the skyrocketting cost of medical care. So far, the only way other first world countries have managed to do that has been single payer or a strong public option. If we want to try something else first, now is the time because we only have a few years before we really have no choice but to go single payer, or at elast for a public option.
 
teamosil said:
Fundamentally that requires addressing the skyrocketting cost of medical care. So far, the only way other first world countries have managed to do that has been single payer or a strong public option
Click to expand...

no, that is mistaking costs for expenditures. the single-payer systems have proven able to restrict expenditures, but due to the political incentives involved, it has proven extremely difficult for them. Britain, for example, is now openly rationing surgeries.

what is needed is a way to reduce expenditures by the process of lowering and holding down costs so that we lose less in terms of access.

fortunately, we have a number of experiences that demonstrate how to go about doing that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom