Calling Con Law experts: help me understand full constitutionality of Social Security

[Shanti Mama]

I'd like to be as knowledgeable as possible about this in the coming days. Could someone who knows their stuff help me understand the other side of the argument and why it's false?
Thanks in advance,
Shanti Mom

[elleng]

1. History

http://www.ssa.gov/history/court.html

'The constitutional basis of the Social Security Act was uncertain. The basic problem is that under the "reserve clause" of the Constitution (the 10th Amendment) powers not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved for the States or the people. When the federal government seeks to expand its influence in new areas it must find some basis in the Constitution to justify its action. Obviously, the Constitution did not specifically mention the operation of a social insurance system as a power granted to the federal government! The Committee on Economic Security (CES) struggled with this and was unsure whether to claim the commerce clause or the broad power to levy taxes and expend funds to "provide for the general welfare," as the basis for the programs in the Act. Ultimately, the CES opted for the taxing power as the basis for the new program, and the Congress agreed, but how the courts would see this choice was very much an open question. . .

It is too late today for the argument to be heard with tolerance that in a crisis so extreme the use of the moneys of the nation to relieve the unemployed and their dependents is a use for any purpose than the promotion of the general welfare."'


IMO, you may ignore last 4+ paragraphs of the following.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/attarian7.html

[Shanti Mama]

2. Thanks very much, elleng

It's actually pretty simple, then. It's a states' rights issue.
After reading the piece at the link, I'm less inclined to just assume that SS is constitutional. It's long and accepted existence makes it seem so, but there are interesting arguments that run counter.
Interesting history... again, thanks.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. that last website is a crap resource.

[Major Nikon]

5. Agreed. The entire article is silly claptrap

It takes historical facts and distorts their meanings to a degree that is simply ridiculous. In the early 1930's the USSC has a narrow majority that can only be described as partisan hacks that based their decisions on political obstructionism rather than the rule of law (much as it is today). The consequences of such a court is disastrous. The USSC has the power to invalidate every single law that congress passes. Only a complete idiot would see abuse of that power as a good thing.

[Shanti Mama]

7. Thanks. Any better sources?

I really want to understand the who ha that's going on today?

[Luminous Animal]

3. What makes funding the military constitutional?

"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...

Neither common Defence or the general Welfare has had a constitutional challenge because the power lies with Congress to decide both.

[mmonk]

6. +1