Comments on: Is Social Security Constitutional?

By: johnInNYS

johnInNYS — Mon, 22 Apr 2013 01:40:42 +0000

As I read the quotes from Federalist 41 below, Madison’s view is that “provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States” is a general statement to be limited by the enumerated powers that follow. Madison says it better than I could in this part of Federalist 41 below:

“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.”

John

By: The Robert Scott Bell Show a Post 9/11 Perspective, Jon Rappoport, Surveillance State, Brainwashed Masses, Trading Liberty for Security, Liam Scheff Official Stories Deal, Official Lies, Gangrene Remedies, Gingko Gratitude, EMF Detox, Medical Holocaust, C

Tue, 11 Sep 2012 15:10:48 +0000

[...] Is Social Security Constitutional? http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/08/13/is-social-security-constitutional/ [...]

By: The Robert Scott Bell Show a Post 9/11 Perspective, Jon Rappoport, Surveillance State, Brainwashed Masses, Trading Liberty for Security, Liam Scheff Official Stories Deal, Official Lies, Gangrene Remedies, Gingko Gratitude, EMF Detox, Medical Holocaust, C

Tue, 11 Sep 2012 15:05:43 +0000

[...] Is Social Security Constitutional? http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/08/13/is-social-security-constitutional/ [...]

By: Is Social Security Constitutional? | Fist A Goat.com

Is Social Security Constitutional? | Fist A Goat.com — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 00:29:10 +0000

[...] http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/08/13/is-social-security-constitutional/ [...]

By: Sam

Sam — Sun, 21 Aug 2011 20:56:27 +0000

i dont know but i need to know if i did a report about the debate of keeping social security would i be able to find anything in the constitution to back me up if u have an answer email me at cheyanne.schenkel@yahoo.com

By: My Internal Conflict with SS and the Constitution

My Internal Conflict with SS and the Constitution — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 22:02:21 +0000

[...] 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. [...]

By: Douglass Bartley

Douglass Bartley — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 16:04:13 +0000

This was indeed a good article. I note that the roots of Helvering were planted in the notorious Butler v. United States a year earlier where the court, in effect, held that the General Welfare Clause gave Congress carte blanche. Your readers may be interested that I am in the midst of publishing a treatise "The Kiss of Judice: The Constitution Betrayed" found in installments at http://douglassbartley.wordpress.com/. All are welcome to visit and comment on the material.

By: NeilBJ

NeilBJ — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 20:03:38 +0000

I agree with TextualistDude. Here is my take on the general welfare "clause".

If the general welfare clause is interpreted such that almost any excercise of government power is deemed constitutional, then the general welfare clause is being interpreted contrary to the intent of the Constitution, which is to limit the power of the federal govenment. Any interpretation of the Constitution that would increase the power of the federal governmnet ought to raise a red flag, and such an interpretation should come under rigorous scrutiny.

The Constitution grants the federal government certain enumerated powers. It is a stretch to class the general welfare clause as an enumerated power. It is merely a statement of purpose that grants no power by itself.

By: Brad Lee Barnhill

Brad Lee Barnhill — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 06:49:34 +0000

The reason that the Social Security Act of 1935 is constitutional as written, is that it applies only to aliens seeking permanent residency for the purposes of employment, or to citizens to seek to receive a benefit payable in federal funds. See 42 USC 405(c)(2)(B)(i) (I) and (II). Because of this, citizens cannot be forced to participate, and many do not. Also, see 42 USC 433(a), which states, "The President is authorized (subject to the succeeding provisions of this section) to enter into agreements establishing totalization arrangements between the social security system established by this subchapter and the social security system of any foreign country," Congress cannot grant authority to the President to enter into what amount to treaties. Therefore, the SS Act is limited to that part of the United States "without" the states of the Union party to the Constitution.

By: Tim

Tim — Sun, 15 Aug 2010 21:45:44 +0000

A ‘privilege’ tax does not equate with a ‘voluntary’ tax. What is voluntary is the luxury good, not the tax.