My Internal Conflict with SS and the Constitution

liblady said:

any citizen who wants to abolish ss and medicare while giving tax breaks to the wealthy and to the corporations is anti american. i'd like to see the faces of the tea partiers when they no longer get their medicare and ss.

Click to expand...

Oh my! Anti-American? ROFLMAO!!! I guess liblady is yet another person who prefers to have no Constitution or rule of law.

LesGovt said:

Just a couple points of interest about your comments:

1. "the constitution doesn't forbid it," Per the authors of the Constitution, that which is not authorized by the Constitution cannot be done by the Federal Government. That is what they said about the Constitution prior to the Bill of Rights, which included the following amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

2. Again, per the authors of the Constitution, the "necessary and proper" clause did not provide for any authority for the Federal Government, but only provided for the means to implement the enumerated powers. No insurance nor any retirement plan was part of the enumerated powers; therefore, the "necessary and proper" does not apply.

3. The only way the next President can align Social Security with the Constitution would be to have the law repealed.

Click to expand...

The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Click to expand...

That sounds pretty much to me like Congress has the power to make laws which are necessary and proper for carrying into execution that which the Constitution has laid out for it. So now I will show that the constitution has laid out that the Congress may pass a law such as SS

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Click to expand...

Welfare is defined as "welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being."
SS provides for the prosperity of those who get it...if Congress has deemed it necessary for their prosperity that they get SS, then it's constitutionally accurate.

Proud South Korean said:

It's too cumbersome and with the extreme partisan politics dominating the US political landscape, became nearly impossible to pass any amendment. When was the last amendment passed?

Click to expand...

Too cumbersome to follow the law?

[/COLOR]

Belgarath said:

That sounds pretty much to me like Congress has the power to make laws which are necessary and proper for carrying into execution that which the Constitution has laid out for it. So now I will show that the constitution has laid out that the Congress may pass a law such as SS

Welfare is defined as "welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being."
SS provides for the prosperity of those who get it...if Congress has deemed it necessary for their prosperity that they get SS, then it's constitutionally accurate.

Click to expand...

Madison said that using the first clause of Article I, section 8, the way you describe is an "absurdity." There are others who agreed with him. Here what a few said on the matter:

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? 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 nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of 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, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare." The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury," etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation! - James Madison, Federalist No. 41

Mr. GEORGE NICHOLAS, in reply to the gentlemen opposed to the clause under debate, went over the same grounds, and developed the same principles, which Mr. Pendleton and Mr. Madison had done. The opposers of the clause, which gave the power of providing for the general welfare, supposed its dangers to result from its connection with, and extension of, the powers granted in the other clauses. He endeavored to show the committee that it only empowered Congress to make such laws as would be necessary to enable them to pay the public debts and provide for the common defence; that this general welfare was united, not to the general power of legislation, but to the particular power of laying and collecting taxes, imposts, and excises, for the purpose of paying the debts and providing for the common defence, — that is, that they could raise as much money as would pay the debts and provide for the common defence, in consequence of this power. The clause which was affectedly called the sweeping clause contained no new grant of power. To illustrate this position, he observed that, if it had been added at the end of every one of the enumerated powers, instead of being inserted at the end of all, it would be obvious to any one that it was no augmentation of power. If, for instance, at the end of the clause granting power to lay and collect taxes, it had been added that they should have power to make necessary and proper laws to lay and collect taxes, who could suspect it to be an addition of power? As it would grant no new power if inserted at the end of each clause, it could not when subjoined to the whole. - Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 16, 1788

But the rhetoric of the gentleman has highly colored the dangers of giving the general government an indefinite power of providing for the general welfare. I contend that no such power is given. They have power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States." Is this an independent, separate, substantive power, to provide for the general welfare of the United States? No, sir. They can lay and collect taxes, &c. For what? To pay the debts and provide for the general welfare. Were not this the case, the following part of the clause would be absurd. It would have been treason against common language. Take it altogether, and let me ask if the plain interpretation be not this — a power to lay and collect taxes, &c., in order to provide for the general welfare and pay debts. - Edmund Randolph, Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 17, 1788

If the intent was to be able to raise and spend money for anything that was considered for the "general welfare," then why have an enumeration of authorities. After all, wouldn't "provide for the general welfare and common defense" cover everything?" According to your theory, all of the rest of Article I, section 8, was totally superfluous. And, notice how many things deal directly with the "common defense" of the country. If the first clause usage of "general welfare" covers unlimited subjects, wouldn't "common defense" cover all things dealing with defense? But, they added clauses about an Army and a Navy. They also had ones for militia and for forts and magazines. And, finally, as Madison stated above, a similar clause was used in the Articles of Confederation, but the government certainly had little authority under the Articles. One of its biggest issues was raising funds to operate the government and that is why the first clause of Article I, section 8 even exists.

I don't expect you to agree with this assessment. I also don't expect you to refute it with evidence. I have found that people are entrenched in their opinions on this topic whether they are grounded in fact or not. I just need to express the facts on this subject from time-to-time and now I have.

LesGovt said:

Too cumbersome to follow the law?

Click to expand...

That's pretty much the argument.
Seems to me that if whatever they wanted to do was SO important and SUCH a good idea that passing an amendment would be simply enough.

I looked over all of Section 8, including both the apparent thesis statement and the supporting principles and all I can say is that if Madison is correct that the elastic clause isn't meant to be used for such situations as SS, that was some of the worst writing I've ever seen. They teach you from the earliest grades that a thesis statement can't be too vague, just as it can't be too specific. The writers of the constitution, assuming they meant the meaning you indicate, must have been exhausted, confused, or just plain having a bad day when they wrote that section. I'm sorry: but it says very specifically:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

Click to expand...

Nowhere in that thesis does it state the power to do all that according to the below options
Nor does it say that there shall be any limitations in number, size, or variety of provisions for defense or welfare.
I can understand exactly what it is your arguing- that if the thesis was meant to be taken as is, the list below would be useless. I'm just saying that the writing is absolutely dreadful, and that I utterly agree with the President using that as the elastic clause, as a totally viable loophole. I would too if I were in his position, since as far as I am concerned that loophole makes what he is doing entirely constitutional. It's neither his fault nor responsibility if the Founds left a gaping hole for him to work with.

Belgarath said:

I looked over all of Section 8, including both the apparent thesis statement and the supporting principles and all I can say is that if Madison is correct that the elastic clause isn't meant to be used for such situations as SS, that was some of the worst writing I've ever seen.

Click to expand...

Not at all. Madison's argument regarding the common defense/general welfare clause isn't tied to the Elastic Clause.

Nor does it say that there shall be any limitations in number, size, or variety of provisions for defense or welfare.

Click to expand...

If your interpretation is correct, you must then explain the inclusion of the 16 clauses between the first and the last.
Specifically, if, inherent in the common defense/general welfare clause is the power to do anyhting regarding the common defense/general welfare, why was it necessary to specifically give Congress the power to raise armies and a navy?

Belgarath said:

I looked over all of Section 8, including both the apparent thesis statement and the supporting principles and all I can say is that if Madison is correct that the elastic clause isn't meant to be used for such situations as SS, that was some of the worst writing I've ever seen. They teach you from the earliest grades that a thesis statement can't be too vague, just as it can't be too specific. The writers of the constitution, assuming they meant the meaning you indicate, must have been exhausted, confused, or just plain having a bad day when they wrote that section. I'm sorry: but it says very specifically:

Nowhere in that thesis does it state the power to do all that according to the below options
Nor does it say that there shall be any limitations in number, size, or variety of provisions for defense or welfare.
I can understand exactly what it is your arguing- that if the thesis was meant to be taken as is, the list below would be useless. I'm just saying that the writing is absolutely dreadful, and that I utterly agree with the President using that as the elastic clause, as a totally viable loophole. I would too if I were in his position, since as far as I am concerned that loophole makes what he is doing entirely constitutional. It's neither his fault nor responsibility if the Founds left a gaping hole for him to work with.

Click to expand...

I am not sure why anyone would question the words of Madison, Pendleton, Randolph, and Nicholas, but maybe someone today could have more incite into the drafting of the Constitution than those of the day or even those who were actually there. It baffles me, but many things baffle me.

Also, if the "general welfare" clause is all-empowering, why was the Constitution amended to offer this ditty:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

While all the other clauses of Article I, section 8 apparently are to be considered as nothing more than superfluous information, are we also to consider Amendment X as meaningless since it would not negate an all-powerful Federal authority.

Please explain your thoughts on what looks evident to me that there is a complete contradiction in the facts as compared to your argument. Secondly, does it really matter what the Constitution says? If yes, why? If no, why not?

Yes, the Constitution matters- it is the primary source of our knowledge regarding where the government is supposed to go. At least theoretically speaking, it's an extremely well written document that covers most of the bases on how we are to build our government.
I think that Amendment X is not a contradiction- what it is saying is that those issues which are not critical to the immediate welfare or benefit of the people should be handled by the states- the issue of homosexual marriage is a perfect example. While clearly the government has decided that marriage is an issue it should play a part in, nowhere in the constitution does it have any kind of mandate as to who can marry. The power to decide who marries is neither delegated to the US nor prohibited by it to the states- therefore it should be decided by the states. I believe immigration and abortion fall under that same category. My guess, though obviously I was not there at the time, is that perhaps those 16 (I think you said that's how many) examples were just that- examples. They were things that the government should handle, but they were also kind of a measure- a way of knowing whether something fell under the constitution or not. That would be my best guess, because if the Founders wrote that loophole and didn't expect people to tap it, they were less clever than I give them credit for.

Since the first congress we have had an ever expanded interpretation of our constitution. Whether you agree with it or not SS has become a cornerstone to supplement peoples private retirement funds. If we repealed it because of a text book view of the constitution we would be doing more damage than good. This would go against the spirit of the constitution. The amendment process is so corrupted by politics and special interests we would never be able to get one through even if the amendment would be a good thing for the American people. In addition the SCOTUS ruled that SS was constitutional and we have not needed to do that. At this point that ruling has allow many people to become reliant on SS as a buffer against increasing healthcare costs and the rising cost of living.

I agree that the writing of constitution could have been more specific, but I believe this is a cause of disagreements between our many forefathers on how government should work.

There are private funds that can be more profitable than SS but not as secure. Could you list some of the ideas you mentioned earlier (stock market, 401k, ect.?)?

Belgarath said:

Yes, the Constitution matters- it is the primary source of our knowledge regarding where the government is supposed to go. At least theoretically speaking, it's an extremely well written document that covers most of the bases on how we are to build our government.
I think that Amendment X is not a contradiction- what it is saying is that those issues which are not critical to the immediate welfare or benefit of the people should be handled by the states- the issue of homosexual marriage is a perfect example. While clearly the government has decided that marriage is an issue it should play a part in, nowhere in the constitution does it have any kind of mandate as to who can marry. The power to decide who marries is neither delegated to the US nor prohibited by it to the states- therefore it should be decided by the states. I believe immigration and abortion fall under that same category. My guess, though obviously I was not there at the time, is that perhaps those 16 (I think you said that's how many) examples were just that- examples. They were things that the government should handle, but they were also kind of a measure- a way of knowing whether something fell under the constitution or not. That would be my best guess, because if the Founders wrote that loophole and didn't expect people to tap it, they were less clever than I give them credit for.

Click to expand...

Guess? You have provided your opinion. I wish you would provide a bit of proof for your theory. Examples? Can you provide any evidence anywhere that say these were examples? Sorry, but you are now grasping for straws.

I believe that you know that your theory is not based on any facts, but only your desire to have big government so they can provide whatever you might want them to provide. Someday, I wish someone would provide a bit of proof for their theories. Let me now find some quotes on either limited government and/or enumerated powers.

Questions for you to ponder. No answer is needed:

1. Why was a Constitutional Convention held in 1787? Please don't say to form a government as they had a government.
2. At the beginning of the Convention, Edmund Randolph presented the Virginia Plan. He provided a list of defects of the Articles of Confederation. What were those defects?
3. If the Federal Government has the authority to enact virtually any legislation, why have we had 28 amendments to the Constitution? For example, why didn't Congress just pass a bill that said the slaves were free and women could vote?
4. If Congress has the constitutional authority to enact virtually any legislation, why do we have the Supreme Court of the United States and judicial review?
5. In Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice Marshall declared that the Supreme Court had judicial review. In order to find some law unconstitutional and null and void, what did he say had to exist for that to be done?

Back in a bit with some more pertinent info from the Founders and others of their generation.

LesGovt said:

1. Why was a Constitutional Convention held in 1787? Please don't say to form a government as they had a government.
2. At the beginning of the Convention, Edmund Randolph presented the Virginia Plan. He provided a list of defects of the Articles of Confederation. What were those defects?
3. If the Federal Government has the authority to enact virtually any legislation, why have we had 28 amendments to the Constitution? For example, why didn't Congress just pass a bill that said the slaves were free and women could vote?
4. If Congress has the constitutional authority to enact virtually any legislation, why do we have the Supreme Court of the United States and judicial review?
5. In Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice Marshall declared that the Supreme Court had judicial review. In order to find some law unconstitutional and null and void, what did he say had to exist for that to be done?

Back in a bit with some more pertinent info from the Founders and others of their generation.

Click to expand...

Disregarding the pointless personal comments and degrading frustrations, I’ll actually answer some questions
1. The AOC was far to weak- as I recall, Shay’s Rebellion showcased that.
2. I don’t know the whole damn list, but I know off the top of my head he wanted increased checks and balances. Later, as the governor of Virginia, he begged the future US to accept it though, so I’m not sure which side you’re arguing from.
3. Two reasons that I know of easily: 1. The Southern representatives would never have accepted it. 2. Slaves were a great source of labor- in reality, the only reason Lincoln even made the Civil War about slaves was the South was irreparably lost, and the North needed a rallying cause.
4. The Supreme Court can rule laws unconstitutional and it has the final say on constitutionality- it’s opposing check is it has no power to enforce it’s decisions. But as long as we respect the constitution, the Supreme Court can overrule the Congress.
5. I’m not sure what you’re referring to here, but my best guess is the principle that the Supreme Court can overrule the Congress.

Flyersfan314 said:

Since the first congress we have had an ever expanded interpretation of our constitution. Whether you agree with it or not SS has become a cornerstone to supplement peoples private retirement funds. If we repealed it because of a text book view of the constitution we would be doing more damage than good. This would go against the spirit of the constitution. The amendment process is so corrupted by politics and special interests we would never be able to get one through even if the amendment would be a good thing for the American people. In addition the SCOTUS ruled that SS was constitutional and we have not needed to do that. At this point that ruling has allow many people to become reliant on SS as a buffer against increasing healthcare costs and the rising cost of living.

I agree that the writing of constitution could have been more specific, but I believe this is a cause of disagreements between our many forefathers on how government should work.

There are private funds that can be more profitable than SS but not as secure. Could you list some of the ideas you mentioned earlier (stock market, 401k, ect.?)?

Click to expand...

I would agree that people have bastardized the meaning of the Constitution. On this we agree. Repealing that which is unconstitutional would cause some hardship for some, if it were not appropriately planned and phased out.

Being constitutional is going going against the spirit of the Constitution. Surely you jest. The amendment process is the correct path for altering the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The supreme law of the land says that to alter it, you must amend the Constitution. Are you saying that the Constitution is either not the supreme law or that we should ignore the rule of law? Or, are you suggesting both?

Tyranny whether coming from a single despot, from a majority, or from a Court is still tyranny and should never occur. The decisions regarding aspects of the Social Security Act were not based on the Constitution and the intent of its authors, but were done for politically expedient reasons. Here is an interesting read on the subject:

Is Social Security Constitutional? – Tenth Amendment Center

When you say, "There are private funds that can be more profitable than SS but not as secure. Could you list some of the ideas you mentioned earlier (stock market, 401k, ect.?)?", to whom were you speaking? A gentleman in another thread suggested the following concept:

1. If you like SS, you stay with the program as is, regardless of your current age or status.
2. If you wish to opt out, you may do so, but 1% of your income goes to the public Social Security plan and then you can invest the rest as you please. The 1% goes to the public funds and does not return to the individual who opted out.

The reason the person said that this was a viable plan was the 1% supposedly makes up enough dollars for those who drop out. I cannot verify that as it was his plan and not mine. Personally, I would like to see the entire program ended. While it won't matter to me, as I am retired, I would like to see the individual have his or her own account and purchase T-bills, Certificates of Deposits, or approved mutual funds. The mutual funds should need to have diversification in types of mutual funds, growth vs. income vs. international, etc. and should be purchased equally through more than two companies. The concept is to minimize the risk.

For younger people, if they began this at 16 and did it until they retired, they could amass quite a sum of money due to better returns on investment. Second, it is their money and if they die before taking the funds out, the funds go to the person's heirs. Social Security may go to the spouse, but that's it. A separate program of insurance could be found privately to deal with disabled folks.

Belgarath said:

Disregarding the pointless personal comments and degrading frustrations,

Click to expand...

May I please see some evidence that proves what you have said?

LesGovt said:

Guess? You have provided your opinion. I wish you would provide a bit of proof for your theory. Examples? Can you provide any evidence anywhere that say these were examples? Sorry, but you are now grasping for straws.

I believe that you know that your theory is not based on any facts, but only your desire to have big government so they can provide whatever you might want them to provide. Someday, I wish someone would provide a bit of proof for their theories.

Click to expand...

I perceive these comments as a slight against my arguments, a false assumption based on my arguments and a frustrated complaint which could have easily been reworded as a polite request. And I'm just getting warmed up. I am going to ask once, very nicely: please debate professionally and formally. If you agree with me, you obviously can be more informal as you will not be presenting rebuttal against my statements or trying to present a new point. But when you are responding negatively against a statement I have made, I would strongly recommend you be less personal, and cut straight to the point. Thank you in advance for your cooperation, both I and everyone else you will ever debate against appreciate it.

The spirit of the constitution is not about amendments its about its intention to provide liberty and happiness to all its citizens. I support an amendment solidifying SS. LessGovt many of you suggestions are a good idea but they dont provide the same guaranteed payments like SS. People do still invest and should invest in these things even with SS. Yes there can by tyranny by the majority, as our forefathers had many legitimate concerns about. However I would not call SS that majority tyranny. Rights are not being taken away.

Belgarath said:

Disregarding the pointless personal comments and degrading frustrations, I’ll actually answer some questions
1. The AOC was far to weak- as I recall, Shay’s Rebellion showcased that.

Click to expand...

Exactly, it was far too weak. Shay's Rebellion was one of the things that happened that pushed some to want to make changes. Were any of the weaknesses tied to retirement plans, insurance for health, retirement, disability, welfare, education, etc.?

Belgarath said:

2. I don’t know the whole damn list, but I know off the top of my head he wanted increased checks and balances. Later, as the governor of Virginia, he begged the future US to accept it though, so I’m not sure which side you’re arguing from.

Click to expand...

Here is Randolph's list of defects straight from Madison's Notes on the Convention:

Mr. RANDOLPH then opened the main business. [Here insert his speech [FN5] including his resolutions.] (Mr. R. Speech A. to be inserted Tuesday May 29) [FN6] He expressed his regret, that it should fall to him, rather than those, who were of longer standing in life and political experience, to open the great subject of their mission. But, as the convention had originated from Virginia, and his colleagues supposed that some proposition was expected from them, they had imposed this task on him. He then commented on the difficulty of the crisis, and the necessity of preventing the fulfilment of the prophecies of the American downfal. He observed that in revising the foederal system we ought to inquire 1. [FN7] into the properties, which such a government ought to possess, 2. [FN7] the defects of the confederation, 3. [FN7] the danger of our situation & 4. [FN7] the remedy.

1. The Character of such a government ought to secure 1. [FN7] against foreign invasion: 2. [FN7] against dissentions between members of the Union, or seditions in particular states: 3. [FN7] to procure to the several States, various blessings, of which an isolated situation was incapable: 4. [FN7], [FN8] to be able to defend itself against incroachment: & 5. [FN7] to be paramount to the state constitutions.

2. In speaking of the defects of the confederation he professed a high respect for its authors, and considered them, as having done all that patriots could do, in the then infancy of the science, of constitutions, & of confederacies,- when the inefficiency of requisitions was unknown-no commercial discord had arisen among any states-no rebellion had appeared as in Massts.-foreign debts had not become urgent-the havoc of paper money had not been foreseen-treaties had not been violated-and perhaps nothing better could be obtained from the jealousy of the states with regard to their sovereignty.

He then proceeded to enumerate the defects:

1. [FN9] that the confederation produced no security against foreign invasion; congress not being permitted to prevent a war nor to support it by their own authority-Of this he cited many examples; most of which tended to shew, that they could not cause infractions of treaties or of the law of nations, to be punished: that particular states might by their conduct provoke war without controul; and that neither militia nor draughts being fit for defence on such occasions, inlistments only could be successful, and these could not be executed without money.

2. [FN9] that the foederal government could not check the quarrels between states, nor a rebellion in any, not having constitutional power nor means to interpose according to the exigency: 3. [FN9] that there were many advantages, which the U. S. might acquire, which were not attainable under the confederation-such as a productive impost- counteraction of the commercial regulations of other nations-pushing of commerce ad libitum-&c &c.

4. [FN9] that the foederal government could not defend itself against the [FN10] incroachments from the states.

5. [FN9] that it was not even paramount to the state constitutions, ratified, as it was in may of the states.

3. He next reviewed the danger of our situation, [FN11] appealed to the sense of the best friends of the U. S.-the prospect of anarchy from the laxity of government every where; and to other considerations. He proposed as conformable to his ideas the following resolutions, which he explained one by one [Here insert ye Resolutions annexed.]

Avalon Project - Madison Debates - May 29

I don't see the slightest hint of a defect of not having retirement plans, insurance for health, retirement, disability, welfare, education, etc. Can you see any?

Belgarath said:

3. Two reasons that I know of easily: 1. The Southern representatives would never have accepted it. 2. Slaves were a great source of labor- in reality, the only reason Lincoln even made the Civil War about slaves was the South was irreparably lost, and the North needed a rallying cause.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but I don't see the connection of this with the question I asked. Please let me know if I should further explain my question.

Belgarath said:

4. The Supreme Court can rule laws unconstitutional and it has the final say on constitutionality- it’s opposing check is it has no power to enforce it’s decisions. But as long as we respect the constitution, the Supreme Court can overrule the Congress.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but I don't understand. If Congress has unlimited authority, it can do whatever it wants and it would be constitutional. Again, I ask, why do we have a Supreme Court?

Belgarath said:

5. I’m not sure what you’re referring to here, but my best guess is the principle that the Supreme Court can overrule the Congress.

Click to expand...

Quoting form Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice Marshall said:

"Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently, the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void."

If the Federal Government has unlimited authority, what could possibly be unconstitutional? Also, in the same decision, Chief Justice Marshall said this:

"If, then, the courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply."

How can this be? He said that the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature. If Congress has unlimited authority, how can this be?

Do you see why I am confused about your premises? I await your further responses and evidence that you are correct.

Flyersfan314 said:

The spirit of the constitution is not about amendments its about its intention to provide liberty and happiness to all its citizens. I support an amendment solidifying SS. LessGovt many of you suggestions are a good idea but they dont provide the same guaranteed payments like SS. People do still invest and should invest in these things even with SS. Yes there can by tyranny by the majority, as our forefathers had many legitimate concerns about. However I would not call SS that majority tyranny. Rights are not being taken away.

Click to expand...

Rights are taken away. I believe that I have a right to keep my money; unless, the Federal Government takes it for a constitutional purpose.

Belgarath said:

I perceive these comments as a slight against my arguments, a false assumption based on my arguments and a frustrated complaint which could have easily been reworded as a polite request. And I'm just getting warmed up. I am going to ask once, very nicely: please debate professionally and formally. If you agree with me, you obviously can be more informal as you will not be presenting rebuttal against my statements or trying to present a new point. But when you are responding negatively against a statement I have made, I would strongly recommend you be less personal, and cut straight to the point. Thank you in advance for your cooperation, both I and everyone else you will ever debate against appreciate it.

Click to expand...

I believe I have resubmitted my request in a manner you should find appropriate.

I think your view is legitimate But we as a society benefit from SS. It encourages people to invest and buy goods that help our economy rather than save it up for fear of not having money late in their lives. I understand how you feel your rights are being taken away and I respect that. I think if we could more clearly see the benefits of SS people would see how even if they don;t get a check it benefits them.

Flyersfan314 said:

I think your view is legitimate But we as a society benefit from SS. It encourages people to invest and buy goods that help our economy rather than save it up for fear of not having money late in their lives. I understand how you feel your rights are being taken away and I respect that. I think if we could more clearly see the benefits of SS people would see how even if they don;t get a check it benefits them.

Click to expand...

Should the benefit of society be the guiding principle by which we do everything? And, while you may consider Social Security a benefit to society, there are people who would disagree. We don't see Social Security as a benefit, but rather a poor vehicle for retirement. Plus, it is only a matter of time when Social Security will become a financial drain. I would think we would be much better off if we did the following:

1. Follow the Constitution.
2. Have programs that provide maximum results for the individual.
3. Provide as much freedom as possible to individuals as possible which means that most people need to learn to be responsible for themselves.

I think private investing is what encourages people to invest and Social Security is a crutch that causes people not to invest. Frugality is a virtue that all too often is not utilized.

Flyersfan314 said:

The spirit of the constitution is not about amendments its about its intention to provide liberty and happiness to all its citizens. I support an amendment solidifying SS. LessGovt many of you suggestions are a good idea but they dont provide the same guaranteed payments like SS. People do still invest and should invest in these things even with SS. Yes there can by tyranny by the majority, as our forefathers had many legitimate concerns about. However I would not call SS that majority tyranny. Rights are not being taken away.

Click to expand...

I believe that private investing far exceeds the benefits of Social Security. First, investing should be a longterm ongoing program and not a put in today, take out tomorrow, and then put in again. Dollar cost averaging works best if money is invested continually for a long period of time. Yes, the market increases and decreases and both are beneficial to dollar cost averaging. If you have a mutual fund account and you invest $100 a month, if the price per share is $25.00, you get 4 shares. If price drops to $10.00 per share, you get 10 shares and that is beneficial. Over time, you win by having prices go up and down. That's how you make money.

As for guaranteed income,, there are funds that do that. In fact, I have two of them.

Belgarath said:

I think that Amendment X is not a contradiction- what it is saying is that those issues which are not critical to the immediate welfare or benefit of the people should be handled by the states- the issue of homosexual marriage is a perfect example.

Click to expand...

This is not what the people of the State Ratifying Conventions said. During their ratifying conventions, seven states sought amendments to the Constitution. The amendments were designed to achieve two purposes. One was to protect the rights of individuals and the other was to ensure that the Federal Government was limited in its authority as had been promised in the conventions. In all seven states, the first proposed amendment was almost an exact version of what became the Tenth Amendment. Hypothetically, the States thought education was a critical issue, but that it did not belong to the Federal Government. The same was true of health care, retirement, welfare, and most other things.

Belgarath said:

While clearly the government has decided that marriage is an issue it should play a part in, nowhere in the constitution does it have any kind of mandate as to who can marry. The power to decide who marries is neither delegated to the US nor prohibited by it to the states- therefore it should be decided by the states.

Click to expand...

I agree and the example you just gave is the same as health care, retirement, welfare, etc.

Belgarath said:

I believe immigration and abortion fall under that same category.

Click to expand...

I agree with abortion. I disagree with immigration. The Constitution authorizes the Federal Government to handle immigration.

Belgarath said:

My guess, though obviously I was not there at the time, is that perhaps those 16 (I think you said that's how many) examples were just that- examples. They were things that the government should handle, but they were also kind of a measure- a way of knowing whether something fell under the constitution or not. That would be my best guess, because if the Founders wrote that loophole and didn't expect people to tap it, they were less clever than I give them credit for.

Click to expand...

I think I missed the loophole. When the people who wrote and/or supported the ratification of the document, their case to the people was that the general welfare clause did not add any authority; except, to raise money through taxes. Raising money to run the government was very important to the Founders and that was made clear by Randolph's listing of defects to the Articles of Confederation. They ardently used this argument to persuade people to vote for ratification. The people then voted for ratification based on their belief that the government was one of limited authority. All of this means that the Federal Govenment is one of limited and defined authority while the states have unlimited authority.

Flyersfan314 said:

My biggest conflict right now is how I do not believe SS (and other programs) to be constitutional but I also believe it is a benefit to society and without it we would have greater problems economical and socially. I am trying to reconcile my beliefs and values. I know the constitution is important but what if it prohibits something good? In this political climate I do not believe we could get an amendment passed; so should we repeal it even if it would bring harm to people? Would this go against the spirit of the constitution?

Click to expand...

The US govt doesn't spend SS money solely on SS. SS taxes are just like any other taxes--money collected by the govt and put into a pot to spend on the programs favored by the PACs and corporations that sponsor the pols.

That's it.

LessGovt you are right on private investment but it does not provide the security of SS. Private investment has to be the primary retirement method of individuals because SS payments are only about 12 grand a year. Yes the benefit of society is how we should do anything. If it doesn't benefit the people the government should not do it. By society I mean "we the people". People wouldn't work less if they did not have SS, they would spend less.

Yes SS will have some problems down the road but they can be remedied. It depends on how many children are being born and how many workers are int he workforce, how much the make, ect.

What two funds do you have?