• 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!

Are Medicare and Social Security Constitutional?

Are Social Security and Medicare Constitutional?

  • Medicare ONLY Is Constitutional

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Social Security ONLY is Constitutional

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • BOTH Medicare and Social Security are Constitutional

    Votes: 13 56.5%

  • NEITHER are Constitutional

    Votes: 10 43.5%
  • Total voters
    23
Bigfoot 88

Bigfoot 88

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2011
Messages
2,027
Reaction score
1,169
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
When asking this, I am not inquiring on whether a court ruled these programs Constitutional.

Rather, using your knowledge of the Constitution, do you believe one or both of these are Constitutional?

The outcome of this poll will be interesting. I hope for a good discussion below.
 
Helix said:
Helvering v. Davis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Well, I assume you would say that Social Security is Constitutional because of the "general welfare clause"?

According to the opinion in your link:

"Congress may spend money in aid of the 'general welfare'...There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views...The line must still be drawn between one welfare and another, between particular and general. Where this shall be placed cannot be known through a formula in advance of the event...The discretion belongs to Congress, unless the choice is clearly wrong, a display of arbitrary power, not an exercise of judgment. This is now familiar law."

I would have to disagree with the Court's view of this clause. Notice that the general welfare phrase is in the first line. Using the standard of the court, that phrase can mean just about anything Congress wants it to mean. But that would make the rest of Article 1, Section 8, illogical and pointless. I don't think the wise writers, being the sharpest lawyers in the country, would be so foolish. For if Congress receives a broad grant of limitless power, what is the point of the following enumerated points? For example, establishing post offices and post roads furthers the general welfare. Therefore we can infer and understand that the first line is not a grant of power, rather a directive of how to use the powers immediately following. In other words, the patent office would be eligible for the general welfare of the whole country, and not just Virginia. Social Security isn't one of the enumerated powers, even if it does further the general welfare, though I don't believe it does.

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

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...

I defer to James Madison:

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.

[...]

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?
Click to expand...

And George Mason:

"I will suppose a case. Gentlemen may call it an impossible case, and suppose that Congress will act with wisdom and integrity. Among the enumerated powers, Congress are to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, and to pay the debts, and to provide for the general welfare and common defense; and by that clause (so often called the sweeping clause) they are to make all laws necessary to execute those laws. Now, suppose oppression should arise under this government, and any writer should dare to stand forth, and expose to the community at large the abuses of those powers; could not Congress, under the idea of providing for the general welfare, and under their own construction, say that this was destroying the general peace, encouraging sedition, and poisoning the minds of the people? And could they not, in order to provide against this, lay a dangerous restriction on the press? It appears to me that they may and they will. And shall the support of our rights depend on the bounty of men whose interest it may be to oppress us? That Congress should have the power to provide for the general welfare of the Union, I grant. But I wish a clause in the Constitution, with respect to all powers which are not granted, that they are retained by the states. Otherwise, the power of providing for the general welfare may be perverted to its destruction... Unless there be some express declaration that every thing given is retained, it will be carried to any power Congress may please.

~George Mason, June 14, 1788
Click to expand...
 
Likely not, in reality, if the letter of the Constitution, as preceded by the Articles of Confederation, was followed.
 
Taxation for the general welfare. I am a republican and I do not like these programs (I think thy should be heavily reformed, not repealed, as the republicans have no alternate solutions), but I think they are constitutional. I guess you could call me a Justice Roberts.
 
Absolutely yes both are constitutional. However, one can certainly express other solutions to the programs.

Would anyone decide we should tie the gray haired citizens healthcare payor to working FT at fast food into their 90's to secure health insurance?

- Google Scholar

Read the ruling ... it will not be reversed.
 
Last edited:
Dagger said:
Taxation for the general welfare. I am a republican and I do not like these programs (I think thy should be heavily reformed, not repealed, as the republicans have no alternate solutions), but I think they are constitutional. I guess you could call me a Justice Roberts.
Click to expand...

"General welfare" was a term that applied to the separate states as a "friendship", if you will, and did not imply that federal monies would or should be used for federal social welfare programs. The powers delegated to the feds were defense/ declaration of war, and regulation of commerce. The *general welfare* of the states was to insure equal treatment and liberties of all who lived within the union, but travelled from state to state.
 
lizzie said:
"General welfare" was a term that applied to the separate states as a "friendship", if you will, and did not imply that federal monies would or should be used for federal social welfare programs. The powers delegated to the feds were defense/ declaration of war, and regulation of commerce. The *general welfare* of the states was to insure equal treatment and liberties of all who lived within the union, but travelled from state to state.
Click to expand...

When I said general welfare I wasn't talking about the welfare of the recipients of these programs I was referring to the taxpayers who are paying more because of the people who do not have healthcare.
 
Bigfoot 88 said:
When asking this, I am not inquiring on whether a court ruled these programs Constitutional.

Rather, using your knowledge of the Constitution, do you believe one or both of these are Constitutional?

The outcome of this poll will be interesting. I hope for a good discussion below.
Click to expand...

by virtue of the fact that both are taxes.

the expenditure in Medicare... I'm not sure I would argue for that. Regardless, some form of it is here to stay. SS benefits are really just a negative tax rate.
 
While I see there has been much good in both SS and medicare, there has also been plenty of bad.
Our Federal Government is in no way chartered to engage in charity!
As good as any of the results may be, they are still acting outside their charter.
 
Government has the power to collect taxes & fees to fund programs that care for the welfare of the people.

The People have the power to vote in or our politicians that support such programs that we like.

Medicare & Social Security is no more or less unConstitutional than using tax-dollars to build a new road or maintain an existing bridge.
 
cpwill said:
by virtue of the fact that both are taxes.

the expenditure in Medicare... I'm not sure I would argue for that. Regardless, some form of it is here to stay. SS benefits are really just a negative tax rate.
Click to expand...
But the tax money can only be used for the carrying out of the enumerated powers.

Thunder said:
Government has the power to collect taxes & fees to fund programs that care for the welfare of the people.

The People have the power to vote in or our politicians that support such programs that we like.

Medicare & Social Security is no more or less unConstitutional than using tax-dollars to build a new road or maintain an existing bridge.
Click to expand...

This may be what you prefer, but has no historical grounding.

If you read the enumerated powers I listed on the front page...those are the things that the Federal government is allowed to do. Roads are one of them, healthcare/retirement funds are not.
 
why is it Constitutional for govt. to use tax-dollars to build roads?

to build schools?

to pay cops, firemen, teachers?

to fund an army & navy?

to pay for libraries?

same reason its Constitutional for govt. to fund pension plans & health insurance.
 
Thunder said:
why is it Constitutional for govt. to use tax-dollars to build roads?

to build schools?

to pay cops, firemen, teachers?

to fund an army & navy?

to pay for libraries?

same reason its Constitutional for govt. to fund pension plans & health insurance.
Click to expand...
Read the darn document, please.

For roads: To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

Army and Navy:
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;

There is no Federal government authority for cops, firemen, and teachers, or libraries.

I cannot believe you are continuing to post your ignorance with such confidence.
 
Thunder said:
why is it Constitutional for govt. to use tax-dollars to build roads?

to build schools?

to pay cops, firemen, teachers?

to fund an army & navy?

to pay for libraries?

same reason its Constitutional for govt. to fund pension plans & health insurance.
Click to expand...

You're mixing a few values here also confusing federal with state governments. The federal government builds federal roadways. For state roads the feds do some grants to the states that the states use (combined with their own tax receipts). Schools are funded by the states helped by funding to the states from the feds. Same with cops, firemen and teachers - though those are primarily funded exclusively by the state and county governments. Libraries are state/county government unless they are federal libraries.

Army/Navy? Really? That's an obvious answer.

As for constitutionality, considering you're talking about the federal constitution, pension plans and health insurance are a state thing. There's still a constitutional question about those being federal powers (though the SS issue has pretty much been settled by the SCOTUS).
 
Thunder said:
no mention of an Airforce there huh?

looks like we'll have to scrap the whole thing.
Click to expand...

No need for the sarcasm.

The Air Force is part of the armed forces. The planes are simply a type of equipment. Don't be ridiculous.
 
longview said:
While I see there has been much good in both SS and medicare, there has also been plenty of bad.
Our Federal Government is in no way chartered to engage in charity!
As good as any of the results may be, they are still acting outside their charter.
Click to expand...
An alternative view. The "return" rate to the contributor never exceeds 1% and is guaranteed by the federal government(dependent upon it's solvency of course). The SSI program follows none of the rules that private companies must follow such as solvency, cash on hand rules, and private companies may not make guarantees not found in contract. In contrast, private retirement plans while dependent on the market tend to have ten year lock in rates of between 2.5-6% with some variance either way in between, but always show a better return than SSI benefits AND can be collected at age 59 versus having to wait till 65 with SSI. As well, medicare/medicaid have the stingiest payment levels and the most denials of any medical plans, only Aetna, a horrid private company comes close.

The difference is that SSI/Medicare taxes are compulsory whereas a person must seek out some form of private retirement plan and those companies must engage in the highest of fiduciary practices by U.S. law or face dire monetary or criminal penalties. So, I do not believe there is any good in SSI however I can see that it is impossible to get rid of these programs without doing great economic damage to both individuals in the systems and the U.S. as a whole.

To constitutionality, I don't see how it is constitutional TBH. It is not a power found within the enumerated constitutional provisions, and does not fit the general welfare clause when one pairs it to the federalist/anti-federalist papers and only throught the most loose of interpretations of tax powers could one find the justification for these programs. The "general welfare" clause was originally intended to be that which facilitates things all individuals gain from, this pertains to infrastructure(commerce), defense(all need it but no ONE can provide it), trade regulation BETWEEN the states and not UPON them, etc. I feel that while these programs are unconstitutional in the strictest sense there is no way to eliminate them in the forseeable future.
 
I believe that both are constitutional for their orginally stated purposes, based on the 16th amendment power to tax income from all sources, yet neither program has really worked as intended. The fact is that many citizens now pay no other federal payroll taxes except for SS/Medicare.

Much tinkering with the SS law has made the benefits lose pace with the real cost of RETIRED living and the recent changes to the way that the CPI is determined cheated the system considerably. SS still generates a massive surplus that is borrowed and spent on other things, medicare is among them. Both systems need constant adjustment to keep them actuarially sound and to maintain the intended level of benefits.

As the life expectancy increases the payroll tax rates and/or the SS/medicare benefit ages must be adjusted. There is also the possibility of "means testing" the SUPPLIMENTAL retirement income paid, perhaps no more SS should be paid than to allow for a maximum total annual retirement income of 250% of the maximum SS benefit.

Medicare has so many parts now that I am unsure what the real deal is with it now. If PPACA allows (requires?) insurance for everyone by a "private" medical plan then why not add medicare folks to the normal pool, let them "pick" a plan and let them be subsidized with the medicare payroll tax and a percentage (2% to 8%?) of their SS and private retirement funds?
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
I believe that both are constitutional for their orginally stated purposes, based on the 16th amendment power to tax income from all sources, yet neither program has really worked as intended. The fact is that many citizens now pay no other federal payroll taxes except for SS/Medicare.

Much tinkering with the SS law has made the benefits lose pace with the real cost of RETIRED living and the recent changes to the way that the CPI is determined cheated the system considerably. SS still generates a massive surplus that is borrowed and spent on other things, medicare is among them. Both systems need constant adjustment to keep them actuarially sound and to maintain the intended level of benefits.

As the life expectancy increases the payroll tax rates and/or the SS/medicare benefit ages must be adjusted. There is also the possibility of "means testing" the SUPPLIMENTAL retirement income paid, perhaps no more SS should be paid than to allow for a maximum total annual retirement income of 250% of the maximum SS benefit.

Medicare has so many parts now that I am unsure what the real deal is with it now. If PPACA allows (requires?) insurance for everyone by a "private" medical plan then why not add medicare folks to the normal pool, let them "pick" a plan and let them be subsidized with the medicare payroll tax and % of their SS and private retirement funds?
Click to expand...
Medicare only has two government parts, parts A and B. Part A comes straight from payroll taxes and no further effort need be applied but it pays almost nothing, B is a slightly expanded optional fee which is limited in scope but still pays more than A. All other parts are individual policies approved by CMS to be sold by private companies which must comply with all regulations issued by that board, it's not complicated if you take them one at a time and read into the details. What happens is that medicare pays it's portion of the bill and the other optional parts supplement the rest up to obligations.

Again though, under tax powers.....I'm thinking you are of the same opinion it has to be based upon a loose interpretation of the 16th amendment but is possible to justify with that.
 
Thunder said:
no mention of an Airforce there huh?

looks like we'll have to scrap the whole thing.
Click to expand...

This is why originalists are almost always wrong. The Constitution is not a shackle meant to keep us in 1787.

Where in the Constitution is the power given to the President to purchase land, or to go to war to acquire it? Yeah, you just invalidated everything West of the Mississippi river and Florida.
 
rocket88 said:
This is why originalists are almost always wrong. The Constitution is not a shackle meant to keep us in 1787.

Where in the Constitution is the power given to the President to purchase land, or to go to war to acquire it? Yeah, you just invalidated everything West of the Mississippi river and Florida.
Click to expand...

GREAT POINT!!

where did Congress get the power for the Louisiana Purchase and Seward's Folly?

it sure ain't in the USC. Looks like we have to give it all back.
 
rocket88 said:
This is why originalists are almost always wrong. The Constitution is not a shackle meant to keep us in 1787.
Where in the Constitution is the power given to the President to purchase land, or to go to war to acquire it? Yeah, you just invalidated everything West of the Mississippi river and Florida.
Click to expand...

It was meant as a shackle to limit federal power.
 
rocket88 said:
This is why originalists are almost always wrong. The Constitution is not a shackle meant to keep us in 1787.

Where in the Constitution is the power given to the President to purchase land, or to go to war to acquire it? Yeah, you just invalidated everything West of the Mississippi river and Florida.
Click to expand...

I already pointed out how silly the Air Force comment was. The Constitution is what it says it is. Indeed it is not meant to shackle us, we the people, but it IS meant to shackle the federal government. Statements like yours, are simply dishonest or uninformed.

There is no power in the Constitution for the President to purchase land. There should have been an amendment to the Constitution, and probably would have been, for something of that importance and necessity.

So while you may want to disregard the truth of the Constitution because it suits you, it won't make you correct.
 
Libertarians remind me of Creationists. They love to take the literary word and accept no substitutes as if they are all constitutional scholars and know more than anyone else on the subject. Know it all political banter.

They also seem to have a direct relationship with every founding father and know exactly what each one was thinking at the time.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom