• 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

Flyersfan314

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
232
Reaction score
47
Location
South Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
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?
 
It was always my belief that any country's constitution, whether the US or Switzerland, should be updated. Laws that were made 300 years from now aren't very useful these days, and the US obsession with their constitutuion makes a very valuable document, so it would be the best if the US constitution serve the interests of the current US people, not US citizens that lived 300 years ago. Just my opinion on how the US constitution should be served on the US citizens
 
It was always my belief that any country's constitution, whether the US or Switzerland, should be updated. Laws that were made 300 years from now aren't very useful these days, and the US obsession with their constitutuion makes a very valuable document, so it would be the best if the US constitution serve the interests of the current US people, not US citizens that lived 300 years ago. Just my opinion on how the US constitution should be served on the US citizens

That's why there's an amendment process.
 
I wouldn't worry too much about SS and the Constitution right now. After the 2012 election it will be much more clear what's going to happen as related to the relationship between those. If RP or Romney gets elected, SS will probably go out the window because it's not clearly stated as absolutely necessary in the constitution, whereas if Obama retains the Presidency it will remain prevalent because the constitution doesn't expressly forbid it, and it's perceived as something that is "necessary and proper", at least that's my guess as to how it's justified. So either way, the response of the next President will align it with the Constitution.
 
It was always my belief that any country's constitution, whether the US or Switzerland, should be updated. Laws that were made 300 years from now aren't very useful these days, and the US obsession with their constitutuion makes a very valuable document, so it would be the best if the US constitution serve the interests of the current US people, not US citizens that lived 300 years ago. Just my opinion on how the US constitution should be served on the US citizens

There actually are several countries where the Constitution is routinely updated (France comes to mind). However, most of those countries (at least in the western world) utilize a very different legal philosophy than do the US or Great Britain. Of course we have the amendment process here, but it's cumbersome, and in our current political climate, a Constitutional amendment is probably very nearly an impossible thing.

Having said all of that (and this is to the OP), there's really no good reason to believe that Social Security is unconstitutional.
 
There actually are several countries where the Constitution is routinely updated (France comes to mind). However, most of those countries (at least in the western world) utilize a very different legal philosophy than do the US or Great Britain. Of course we have the amendment process here, but it's cumbersome, and in our current political climate, a Constitutional amendment is probably very nearly an impossible thing.

Having said all of that (and this is to the OP), there's really no good reason to believe that Social Security is unconstitutional.

Thank you. American obviously did not read my post about how amendments are impossible because of the political climate. I believe it is technically unconstitutional because the government does not explicitly receive that right tin the constitution. I agree laws made 300 years ago don;t do an adequate job of protecting my life and liberty. We should have a constitutional convention. In the end I am more concerned about what benefits society whether it may be constitutional or not. The constitution is not a Bible.
 
Thank you. American obviously did not read my post about how amendments are impossible because of the political climate. I believe it is technically unconstitutional because the government does not explicitly receive that right tin the constitution. I agree laws made 300 years ago don;t do an adequate job of protecting my life and liberty. We should have a constitutional convention. In the end I am more concerned about what benefits society whether it may be constitutional or not. The constitution is not a Bible.

A constitutional convention right now would destroy us. Wayyyyy too much politicking going on for something like that. If the cons/libs can't even make up their minds re the debt ceiling how the hell are they going to keep it together to make the whole government work? Besides, we are freakin long winded these days. Documents the lot up on Capitol hill produce make Homer and the Odyssey look like a short story. No, now is not the time to do something like that. As to opening an Amendment, I don't think that process will pretty much ever work again. Republicans and Democrats will never compromise on something that isn't due yesterday, and no one is ever going to be able to present SS or other forms of spending reform as that kind of urgent. It's taking the threat of a default to China to even vaguely pull them together, and they're still walking out on each other. I agree with one thing for sure: the constitution is not the bloody bible. It may be a good idea to follow it's government structure, but that doesn't mean our every waking moment should be defined by it. As Barbossa says in POC 1, they're more like "guidelines" than actual rules. :)
 
That's why there's an amendment process.

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?
 
People need to be wary of what they wish for...Abolish SS and Medicare and in the end it will cost far more...
 
People need to be wary of what they wish for...Abolish SS and Medicare and in the end it will cost far more...

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.
 
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.

Id like to see the face of some of the dummys that are supporting the teaparty and are truly clueless about what it means to them...and theres tons of them
 
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?

1. Government is not the only mechanism for retirement insurance. One could also argue since you removed a large portion of citizen responsibility to save for retirement, you just stunted their growth in being able to manage this themselves. You can be for retirement insurance, and not for it instituted by government. You'd have to get PUBLIC support, not political support.

2. If its unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional. circumventing the constitution out of convience makes it meaningless. Ammendments too hard? Well, yeah, that's for a reason! As it turns out, people want power, and if you leave the gate open, which that does, they happily storm the gate. Please keep the wall up, it was put there for a reason.
 
We should have a constitutional convention. In the end I am more concerned about what benefits society whether it may be constitutional or not.

Which is an ethical trap.

Why, because it's your own personal belief, that it's better. And others, do not share that belief.

What you are doing is placing your own personal desire, above that of the constitution, which as you note is preventing you from trumping someone ELSE'S personal belief (namely that they dont' want SS). The entire point of it is to prevent things like that.

You see that clearly, you put your own belief, over anothers belief, and then trumped their freedom. That is the root of evil in government. Your belief has no more or less merit than mine, when it comes to my freedoms. We're supposed to jointly agree to that, and work from there. By circumventing the constitution, it opens the door for anything goes. It's why we have such a bitter political situation right now...
 
Last edited:
1. Government is not the only mechanism for retirement insurance. One could also argue since you removed a large portion of citizen responsibility to save for retirement, you just stunted their growth in being able to manage this themselves. You can be for retirement insurance, and not for it instituted by government. You'd have to get PUBLIC support, not political support.

2. If its unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional. circumventing the constitution out of convience makes it meaningless. Ammendments too hard? Well, yeah, that's for a reason! As it turns out, people want power, and if you leave the gate open, which that does, they happily storm the gate. Please keep the wall up, it was put there for a reason.

I agree with you in both of these points, to a large extent- I think this country needs to go back to the days when people saved up for retirement once they matured enough to plan ahead in their lives. Back then, people didn't have to worry about SS or retirement benefits as much- they made their own destiny by saving up enough to make sure they were comfortable. I also agree that the Amendment process is difficult for a reason- since the days of the constitutional convention, the Founding Fathers had the intent of preventing political fads from controlling the country. That's the point behind the rigidity of the constitution- it prevents idiots from doing idiotic things to our country. I like supporting those who need support as much as the next man, but to a certain extent it's just a question of getting some backbone and working for your daily bread. I love being lazy as much as the next guy, but I also like to see food on the table at every meal, and if that means some overtime so be it. People need to learn to work so they are using their own hard-earned money at the super market, and not every other tax payer's.
 
any citizen who wants to abolish ss and medicare while giving tax breaks to the wealthy and to the corporations is anti american.

Tax breaks have nothing to do with whether Medicare and Social Security are legitimate government functions.
 
Many people work hard and still cannot save enough for retirement. Look at the rising cost of living and health care. Public retirement plans are not as reliable as we have seen through this recession and past corruption like Enron. For those of you saying that SS creates people that rely on it for retirement, you are wrong. SS is not big enough to be a retirement fun, it is supplemental to help with cost of living. Without SS we would have major problems socially and economically.

Having the constitution prohibit something that is a benefit to we the people is also meaningless. The constitution was written nearly 250 years ago. How would a convention be forcing my personnel belief? Many people would have a say.
 
Having said all of that (and this is to the OP), there's really no good reason to believe that Social Security is unconstitutional.
Except for the fact that nothng in the Constitution gave Congress the power to create it.
 
In addition amendments are hard to pass but not for the right reasons. They are hard to pass not because they would take away the rights of citizens but because of special interests and politicians who are more concerned with being elected. Our forefathers never saw this day coming.
 
In addition amendments are hard to pass but not for the right reasons. They are hard to pass not because they would take away the rights of citizens but because of special interests and politicians who are more concerned with being elected. Our forefathers never saw this day coming.

Amendments are hard to pass not only for the reasons you say, but also because the Forefathers did see this day coming. They had a suspicion that one day politics would be engulfed in the politics of politics- the insane constant campaigning and fads that politicians engage in to get re-elected. They even said at the time they created the Constitution that they were purposefully making it hard to change so that the core values of the USA would be unchanged regardless of what it weathered in the future, short of such a huge need for change that it united the people sufficiently that they would probably approve of whatever it was their representatives chose to change. It's an assurance for the continuation of the true values of the American society and the American dream.
 
The core values of the USA have changed, or at least the meaning of those core values. I was a little hasty with my statement, our forefathers did see some political rivalries but not to the point where we are so gridlocked we are endangering our entire economy. I think our situation we have now is worse than they thought it would be. However this is all conjecture on my part. I just want to do what is practical and I think not having SS would do a lot of damage to our society. Its not that I am not concerned with the constitutionality of it its that I am concerned of how as an individual I should decide. It is a personnel conflict for me. One slide is slippery slope the other would do harm to many individuals.
 
The core values of the USA have changed, or at least the meaning of those core values. I was a little hasty with my statement, our forefathers did see some political rivalries but not to the point where we are so gridlocked we are endangering our entire economy. I think our situation we have now is worse than they thought it would be. However this is all conjecture on my part. I just want to do what is practical and I think not having SS would do a lot of damage to our society. Its not that I am not concerned with the constitutionality of it its that I am concerned of how as an individual I should decide. It is a personnel conflict for me. One slide is slippery slope the other would do harm to many individuals.

Most are afraid because they cannot imagine a better system could be conceived. Whatever gave them such a notion is anyone's guess. I say, it hasn't been tried. A good question is, why? Who gains by not developing a better protection against the laziness of the common man? This is the fundamental reason for having SS in the first place. It is assumed that people are too lazy and too short-term minded to see to their own retirement. A 7% payroll tax for SS is obviously far too much for an "insurance" program, and it does not have the earning capacity of the market. The US govt gains the most by having, in it's greedy little hands, a large portion of American wealth. This is quite dangerous as has been proven over the years. The mismanagement of SS surpluses is alarming, and it is astounding to me that anyone would continue to support this system.
 
Most are afraid because they cannot imagine a better system could be conceived. Whatever gave them such a notion is anyone's guess. I say, it hasn't been tried. A good question is, why? Who gains by not developing a better protection against the laziness of the common man? This is the fundamental reason for having SS in the first place. It is assumed that people are too lazy and too short-term minded to see to their own retirement. A 7% payroll tax for SS is obviously far too much for an "insurance" program, and it does not have the earning capacity of the market. The US govt gains the most by having, in it's greedy little hands, a large portion of American wealth. This is quite dangerous as has been proven over the years. The mismanagement of SS surpluses is alarming, and it is astounding to me that anyone would continue to support this system.

An interesting point. I was talking with someone about SS the other day and they raised an interesting point- not everyone is able to get a job with a high enough income to make enough money, beyond the bills and food and rent/mortgage, to put enough away for retirement. SS gives them that needed money so they aren't stuck between working into their 80's or going into poverty-stricken homelessness...While it is clearly true that SS provides money to lazy people, would it be worth gutting the program and watching the hard-working people who rely on SS because their wages are insufficient become so poor they can't even afford to try and live the American dream anymore? Maybe it's better that people rely partially on SS and are able to hold a job, then that they have to lose everything they've worked for because it's a cold, cruel world out there where people hate big government more than they are compassionate for the people who need big government.
 
I wouldn't worry too much about SS and the Constitution right now. After the 2012 election it will be much more clear what's going to happen as related to the relationship between those. If RP or Romney gets elected, SS will probably go out the window because it's not clearly stated as absolutely necessary in the constitution, whereas if Obama retains the Presidency it will remain prevalent because the constitution doesn't expressly forbid it, and it's perceived as something that is "necessary and proper", at least that's my guess as to how it's justified. So either way, the response of the next President will align it with the Constitution.

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.
 
Having said all of that (and this is to the OP), there's really no good reason to believe that Social Security is unconstitutional.

Why do you say that?
 
In the end I am more concerned about what benefits society whether it may be constitutional or not. The constitution is not a Bible.

If this is the case, why have a constitution? If it means nothing, it is worth nothing. Should we just end the rule of law? Is that what you really desire?
 
Back
Top Bottom