Is Social Security Constitutional?

[CuteOldGuy]

I know the following is a lengthy article, but it concisely and accurately describes how the Social Security system is unconstitutional. Fascinating read. Here it is:

EDITOR’S NOTE: On August 14, 1935, the Social Security Act was signed by FDR. The following article, originally published in 2005, examines the Act and the entire system of Social Security, from a Constitutional perspective.

by Bob Greenslade, The Price of Liberty

After President Bush put forth his proposal to “partially privatize” Social Security, newspapers across the country inundated the American people with editorials and articles defending the present system. The Chicago Sun-Times called Social Security “the most successful government program ever to be invented.” Since most Americans, including the staff at the Sun-Times, blindly assume that the federal government was granted the constitutional authority to establish this so-called retirement/insurance program, the origin of Social Security is rarely discussed. In the author’s opinion, if the media was functioning as government watchdogs, as opposed to government lapdogs, it would be asking a question that goes beyond any proposal to partially privatize Social Security. Was the federal government granted the constitutional authority to establish Social Security or is it just another usurpation of power?

When Franklin Roosevelt and his New Dealers were contemplating Social Security in the early 1930′s, they were faced with a problem. Roosevelt, then governor of New York, identified this problem several years earlier in his “States Rights” address of March 2, 1930:

“As a matter of fact and law, the governing rights of the states are all of those which have not been surrendered to the national government by the Constitution or its amendments.”

After asserting that Congress had the power to legislate concerning Prohibition because that power had been given to them by the 18th Amendment, he continued by stating:

“[T]his is not the case in the matter of a great number of other vital problems of government, such as the conduct of public utilities, of banks, of insurance, of business, of agriculture, of education, of social welfare, and of a dozen other important features. In these Washington must not be encouraged to interfere.” [OP Note: Here FDR recognizes that certain areas were left up to the states to determine, absent a Constitutional Amendment. It would appear that at this time, FDR would have determined that SS would be unconstitutional.]

The reason the federal government “must not be encouraged to interfere” was because it lacked the constitutional authority to interfere. Not only had the States not surrendered these powers, but they did not vest the federal government with any general authority over them.

After becoming President, Roosevelt quickly changed his tune and pushed for an unparalleled expansion of federal power.

Following his election in 1932 and the implementation of his New Deal policies, much of Roosevelt’s legislation was challenged as unconstitutional and struck down by the Supreme Court. A majority on the Court, who had been appointed by Republicans, began declaring cornerstones of the New Deal unconstitutional in 5-4 decisions. The New Dealers were frantic. In 1934, Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins expressed concern to Supreme Court Justice Harlan Stone that the social security system they were devising would be declared unconstitutional. Stone replied — “[t]he taxing power of the Federal Government, my dear, the taxing power is sufficient for everything you want and need.”

Justice Stone was not referring to the Sixteenth Amendment, the so-called income tax Amendment. He was referring to the taxing provision found at Article I, Section 8, Clause 1. This provision grants Congress the power “[t]o 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.”

At this point, you are probably asking yourself a question. If Social Security is a legitimate retirement/insurance program as the politicians and the media claim, then what do taxes “to pay the debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States” have to do with the constitutionality of Social Security?

The answer can be found in the opening clause of the Social Security Act of 1935. It is entitled as “[a]n Act to Provide for the General Welfare.” Since the federal government lacked the constitutional authority to compel the people of the several States to participate in a federal retirement or insurance program, Roosevelt and his New Dealers had to structure Social Security as an excise tax under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1. They inserted the general welfare verbiage to make it appear as if the federal government was exercising a legitimate constitutional power. [Note: excise taxes fall in the class of indirect taxes and are synonymous with privilege taxes. As such, they can be avoided by not taking the privilege. This means that excise taxes are voluntary taxes]

Immediately after the Social Security Act was passed, various provisions of the Act were challenged as unconstitutional and reached the Supreme Court in 1937. In the case of Helvering v. Davis, the Court, in a 5-4 decision, sustained the constitutionality of the Act as an excise or income tax under the general welfare provision cited above.

Based on the Social Security plan devised by the New Dealers, employees would not making contributions into a retirement or insurance program. They would be paying a “special income tax” which would be deducted from their wages and paid to the federal government by the employer. This excise tax is imposed on the employee for the so-called “privilege” of being employed by an employer. Under Social Security, working as an employee for an employer became a federal privilege and subject to taxation.

A similar standard was applied to employers. Under Social Security, employers would not be making matching contributions into a retirement or insurance program for their employees. They would pay a separate excise tax for the privilege of having employees in their employ. Thus, under Social Security, the act of employing employees was made a federal privilege and subject to taxation.

Under the Helvering v. Davis decision, the Court basically declared that Congress has the subjective authority, unrestrained by the judiciary, to declare what constitutes the general welfare irrespective of whether that determination corresponds to the specific legislative grants of power contained in the Constitution. Not only was this contrary to the principles of limited government and enumerated powers, which are the foundation of the Constitution, but it was also contrary to the constitutional meaning of the general welfare phrase.

In the author’s opinion, the Supreme Court, in 1937, was simply looking for a way to expand federal power and escape FDR’s threat to restructure the Court. Since the Constitution does not grant the Supreme Court the constitutional authority to define the extent of the powers granted to the federal government or amend the Constitution from the bench by changing the meaning of words, this matter remains, in the author’s opinion, unresolved. Therefore, it is important to re-examine this issue and establish the true meaning of the general welfare phrase as it relates to Social Security.

In sustaining Social Security under the general welfare provision, the Court failed to perform a basic function. It neglected to establish the constitutional meaning of the words contained therein. A review of a standard dictionary shows that the words “general” and “welfare” are defined as follows:

“General. 1: involving or applicable to the whole. 2: involving, relating to, or applicable to every member of a class, kind or group.”

“Welfare. 1: the state of doing well, esp. in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being or prosperity.”

The word welfare is derived from the words “well” and “fare” and means a “state of faring well” or “well being.” When the Framers used the word welfare in the Constitution, they were using it in this context. They were not referring to government social aid programs like Social Security. These programs were virtually unknown to the Framers and would have been classified, in the language of the day, as a form of “poor relief.” Thus, the common definition of the general welfare phrase, as it was used in the Constitution, was “the whole group’s well being.”

The other words that need to be put in constitutional context are the words “United States.” These words, as they appear in the founding documents, do not refer to a geographical territory or a single nation. The phrase “United States” was the name of the compact or union that was established between the several States when they adopted the Articles of Confederation. When the Framers drafted the present Constitution, they retained the term because the document was a continuation and expansion of the old constitution. Thus, the words “United States” specifically refer to the several States in their united or collective capacity. [i.e., the States united]

If the words “general welfare” and “United States” are put in their proper context, then the general welfare provision grants Congress the power “[t]o lay and collect Taxes… to provide for the… group well being of all the United States.” The “entire group” being referenced is not the people, as comprising a single nation, but the several States in their united capacity. Since the Constitution is a compact or contract between the several States, and the States are only united within the scope of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, this composition of the general welfare provision is in totally harmony with the intent and construction of that document.

Alexander Hamilton sustained this fact in his writings on the Constitution. In Federalist No. 83, he reduced this principle to a single sentence:

“The United States, in their united or collective capacity, are the OBJECT to which all general provisions in the Constitution must necessarily be construed to refer.” [Emphasis not added]

The general welfare clause, being but a part of a general provision of the Constitution, applies solely to the States “in their united or collective capacity.” If the Constitution had established a social compact or union between the American people, and they were the object of the general powers delegated to the federal government, then it would have been an absurdity to reference the States, in their united capacity, as the object of the general welfare phrase. In addition, if the Constitution had been established for the well being of the American people, then that same people would have been the “whole group” referenced in the general welfare phrase.

Based on the above definitions, Social Security should have been struck down because Congress used a provision of the Constitution that applied to the States, in their united capacity, and unconstitutionally applied it to the people. When Congress inserted the words “[a]n Act to Provide for the General Welfare” at the beginning of the Social Security Act, that body took a clause that granted Congress the power “[t]o lay and collect Taxes… to provide for the… group well being of all the United States” and twisted it into a power that granted Congress the power to tax and appropriate money for the general welfare generally. This was a gross usurpation of power.

The American people should never lose sight of the fact that the individual States are not united generally. They are united specially. In other words, the States are only united within the scope of the limited powers delegated to the federal government. When the States are operating within these powers through their agent, the federal government, they are identified as the United States and the general welfare provision applies to them collectively. The opposite applies when the States are not operating within the delegated powers. Outside of the delegated powers, the States are known as the several States and are independent sovereign entities. Thus, Congress cannot have broad power to declare what constitutes the general welfare because the States are not united generally.

There are other facts that disprove a broad interpretation of the general welfare provision. In order for Congress to have extensive and indefinite power to tax and appropriate money for the general welfare, the federal government would first have to have been granted total power over both domestic and foreign affairs. In Federalist Essay No. 45, James Madison, who is recognized as the father of the Constitution, provided a blueprint of the Constitution when he distinguished the external powers granted to the federal government from the domestic powers reserved to the States:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part; be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

Since the constitutional powers of the federal government are few and do not extend to internal or domestic affairs, the federal government cannot have unspecified and indefinite power to tax and appropriate money for the general welfare. That government has no general legislative authority to do anything concerning the life, liberty or property of the people of the several States. Thus, domestic social aid programs like Social Security are nothing but a usurpation of power because they violate these constitutional principles.

In Federalist Essay No. 41, Madison, in discussing the limited powers delegated to the federal government, stated that they could be reduced to 6 categories of powers:

“That we may form a correct judgment on this subject, it will be proper to review the several powers conferred on the government of the Union; and that this may be more conveniently done they may be reduced into the different classes as they relate to the following different objects: 1. Security against foreign danger; 2. Regulation of intercourse with foreign nations; 3. Maintenance of harmony and proper intercourse among the States; 4. Certain miscellaneous objects of general utility; 5. Restraint of the States from certain injurious acts; 6. Provisions for giving due efficacy to all these powers.”

Since Social Security cannot be placed into any of these 6 categories of power, to sustain this domestic social aid program as a valid exercise of power under the general welfare provision was nothing short of an unconstitutional power grab by the federal government.

Even Supreme Court Justice Story, whose 1833 commentaries on the Constitution helped form the basis for the 1937 decision upholding Social Security referenced above, recognized that the federal government lacked the constitutional authority to establish these programs. In his analysis of the general welfare provision, Justice Story stated that the federal government had not been granted the authority to meddle with the “systems of education, the poor laws, or the road laws, of the states.”

If the federal government did not have the constitutional authority to institute domestic social aid programs like Social Security in 1833, as acknowledged by Justice Story, and did not have the authority in 1930, as acknowledged by President Roosevelt, then how could Congress have acquired this power in 1935? Since the Constitution had not been amended, there can only be one conclusion. The federal government, acting through its political appointees in the Supreme Court, simply opened the door for a new interpretation of the general welfare provision that deleted words, changed the meaning of the words, and was absent of the basic limitations incorporated into the Constitution by the Founders. In short, the Court re-wrote the Constitution from the bench and handed Congress almost unlimited power to tax and spend so long as it cites the general welfare provision as the constitutional authority for the legislation.

The present debate over President Bush’s plan to “partially privatize” Social Security is nothing but a debate over which usurpation of power is best for the federal government. The method will be different but the result will be the same. The American people will continue to be taxed for the so-called privilege of working as an employee or employer under the guise of contributing to a constitutionally authorized retirement/insurance program. Since the federal government’s power under the general welfare provision applies to the States collectively, not the people generally, taxing the American people to fund this unconstitutional social aid program is just another usurpation of power.

Now that is a clear explanation of what the "General Welfare" clause REALLY means! Thanks for the education!

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010...onstitutional/

[Yssup Rider]

Yawwwnnnnnnn.


another bloviation from the prince of LIES.

[CuteOldGuy]

Didn't read it, did you, Assup? Too many big words. That's why I try to post pictures. I want you to be able to participate here. And not sound so stupid.

[JD Barleycorn]

One thing that people today have to understand is that SS in 1935 did not apply to everyone. It applied to widows, orphans, and the elderly. It was, as the article said, paid for by a tax on workers and employers. This excluded the self employed, farmers, artists, professionals (doctors, lawyers, architects, etc). The rich did not pay into SS. Over the years, up to the 1970s, SS added one class after another until everyone (except professional bureacrats in Washington DC) was included. The age to collect SS was set so that a slight majority of the citizenry would be dead before they collected. That is about the set up but what about the constitutionality....the idea that the government could collect money from the many for the benefit of the few stretched over years does not sit well and does not pass the smell test. If it is legitimate then couldn't the government start a housing fund and everyone will be provided a shelter of some sort by the time they reach the age of 40 years. If only the people in New Jersey could get a shelter now, they would be very happy. I have to go back to James Madison wrote the Constitution. As a Congressman he was presented a bill that would tax the citizens to obtain money for the relief (welfare) of Revolutionary War survivors. The war had ended almost 25 years earlier and the troops were getting older. Madison looked at the bill very carefully. He finally spoke to the assembled Congress and told them that it was a noble idea and it was good but....he could find nothing in the Constitution that "allowed" the government to do it. The bill was defeated.

SS is not going away. It will likely die very loudly and messily about 20 years from now when the output far exceeds the input. Benefits will have to be cut and taxes will have to be raised. Only then will the pressure cause a change. I think the best thing that each of us can do is to assume that SS will not be there for us. Create your own retirement fund, pension plan, or savings. Get your primary home paid off and stay out of debt. Find something that you can make money from that you can do, and want to do, when you're in your 70s.

[Yssup Rider]

Is that what you learned in JUCO?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Is that what you learned in JUCO?

JD learned to get on the government tit , right after his momma kicked him off hers!

[timpage]

One of three opinions issued by the SCOTUS on May 24, 1937 regarding the constitutionality of social security. Yet, 75 years later, idiots like COG continue to ponder the issue and act like there is something to discuss.....get over it.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES




NO. 910.--OCTOBER Term 1936
Guy T. Helvering, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and William M. Welch, Collector of Internal Revenue for the District of Massachusetts, The Edison Electric Illuminating Company of Boston, Petitioners,

vs.

George P. Davis, Respondent.

On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

[May 24, 1937.]



Mr. Justice Cardozo delivered the opinion of the Court.


The Social Security Act (Act of August 14, 1935, c. 531, 49 Stat 620, 42 U. S. C., c. 7, (Supp.) ) is challenged once again.
In No. 837, Steward Machine Co. v. Davis,--U.S.--, decided this day, we have upheldthe validity of Title IX of the act, imposing an excise upon employers of eight or more. In this case Titles VIIIand II are the subject of attack. Title VIII lays another excise upon employers in addition to the one imposed by Title IX (though with different exemptions). It lays a special income tax upon employees to be deducted from their wages and paid by the employers. Title II provides for the payment of Old Age Benefits, and supplies the motive and occasion, in the view of the assailants of the statute, for the levy of the taxes imposed by Title VIII. The plan of the two titles will now be summarized more fully.
Title VIII, as we have said, lays two different types of tax, an "income tax on employees", and "an excise tax on employers." The income tax on employees is measured by wages paid during the calendar year. Section 801. The excise tax on the employer is to be paid "with respect to having individuals in his employ", and, like thetax on employees, is measured by wages. Section 804. Neither tax is applicable to certain types of employment, such as agricultural labor, domestic service, service for the national or state governments, and service performed by persons who have attained the age of 65 years. Section 811 (b). The two taxes are at the same rate. Sections 801, 804. For the years 1937 to 1939, inclusive, the rate for each tax is fixed at one per cent. Thereafter the rate increases of 1 per cent every three years, until after December 31,1948, the rate for each tax reaches 3 per cent. Ibid. In the computation of wages all remuneration is to be included except so much as is in excess of $3,000 during the calendar year affected. Section 811 (a). The income tax on employees is to be collected by the employer, who is to deduct the amount from the wages "as and when paid". Section 802 (a). He is indemnified against claims and demands of any person by reason of such payment. Ibid. The proceeds of both taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal-revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way. Section 807 (a). There are penalties for nonpayment. Section 807 (c).
Title II has the caption "Federal Old-Age Benefits." The benefits are of two types, first, monthly pensions, and second, lump sum payments, the payments of the second class being relatively few and unimportant.
The first section of this title creates an account in the United States Treasury to be known as the "Old-Age Reserve Account". Section 201. No present appropriation, however, is made to that account. All that the statute does is to authorize appropriations annually thereafter, beginning with the fiscal year which ends June 30, 1937. How large they shall be is not known in advance. The "amount sufficient as an annual premium" to provide for the required payments is "to be determined on a reserve basis in accordance with accepted actuarial principles, and based upon such tables of mortality as the Secretary of the Treasury shall from time to time adopt, and upon an interest rate of 3 per centum per annum compounded annually." Section 201 (a). Not a dollar goes into the Account by force of the challenged act alone, unaided by acts to follow.
Section 202 and later sections prescribe the form of benefits. The principal type is a monthly pension payable to a person after he as attained the age of 65. This benefit is available only to one who as worked for at least one day in each of at least five separate years since December 31, 1936, who has earned at least $2,000 since that date, and who is not then receiving wages "with respect to regular employment." Sections 202 (a), (d), 210 (c). The benefits are not to begin before January 1, 1942. Section 202 (a). In no event are they to exceed $85 a month. Section 202 (b). They are to be measured (subject to that limit) by a percentage of the wages the percentage decreasing at stated intervals as the wages become higher. Section 202 (a). In addition to the monthly benefits, provision is made in certain contingencies for "lump sum payments" of secondary importance. A summary by the Government of the four situations calling for such payments is printed in the margin. (1)
This suit isbrought by a shareholder of the Edison Electric Illuminating Company of Boston, a Massachusetts corporation, to restrainthe corporation from making the payments and deductions called for by the act, which is stated to be void under the Constitution of the United States. The bill tells us that the corporation has decided to obey the statute, that it has reached this decision in the face of thecomplainant's protests, and that it will make the payments and deductions unless restrained by a decree. The expected consequences are indicated substantially as follows: The deductions from the wages of the employees will produce unrest among them, and willbe followed, it is predicted, by demands that wages be increased. If the exactions shall ultimately be held void, the company will haveparted with moneys which as a practical matter it will be impossible to recover. Nothing is said in the bill about the promise of indemnity. The prediction is made also that serious consequences willensue if there is a submission to the excise. The corporation and its shareholders will suffer irreparable loss, and many thousands of dollars will be subtracted from the value of the shares. The prayer is for an injunction and for a declaration that the act is void.
The corporation appeared and answered without raising any issue of fact. Later the United States Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the United States Collector for the District of Massachusetts, petitioners in this court, were allowed to intervene. They moved to strike so much of the bill as has relation to the tax on employees taking the ground that the employer not being subject to tax under those provisions, may not challenge their validity, and that the complainant shareholder, whose rights are no greater than those of his corporation, has even less standing to be heard on such a question. The intervening defendants also filed an answer which restated the point raised in the motion to strike, and maintained the validity of Title VIII in all its parts. The District Court held that the tax upon employees was not properly at issue, and that the tax upon employers was constitutional. It thereupon denied the prayer for an injunction, and dismissed the bill. On appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, the decree was reversed, one judge dissenting. --F. (2d) --. The court held that Title II was void as an invasion of powers reserved by the Tenth Amendment to the states or to the people and that Title II in collapsing carried Title VIII along with it. As an additional reason for invalidating the tax upon employers, the court held that it was not an excise as excises were understood when the Constitution was adopted. Cf. Davis v. Boston & Maine R. R. Co.,--F. (2d)--, decided the same day.
A petition for certiorari followed. It was filed by the intervening defendants, the Commissioner and the Collector, and brought two questions, and two only, to our notice. We were asked to determine: (1) "whether the tax imposed upon employers by Section 804 of the Social Security Act is within the power of Congress under tile Constitution", and (2) "whether the validity of the tax imposed upon employees by Section 801 of the Social Security Act is properly in issue in this case, and if it is, whether that tax is within the power of Congress under the Constitution." The defendant corporation gave notice to the Clerk that it joined in the petition, but it has taken no part in any subsequent proceedings. A writ of certiorari issued.
First: Questions as to the remedy invoked by the complainant confront us at the outset.
Was the conduct of the company in resolving to pay the taxes a legitimate exercise of the discretion of the directors? Has petitioner a standing to challenge that resolve in the absence of an adequate showing of irreparable injury? Does the acquiescence ofthe company in the equitable remedy affect the answer to those questions? Though power may still be ours to take such objections for ourselves, is acquiescence effective to rid us of the duty? Is duty modified still further by the attitudeof the Government, its waiver of a defenseunder section 3224 of the Revised Statutes, its waiver of a defense that the legal remedy is adequate, its earnest request that we determine whether the law shall stand or fall? The writer of this opinion believes that the remedy is illconceived, that in a controversy such as this a court must refuseto give equitable relief when a cause of action in equity is neither pleaded nor proved, and that the suit for an injunction shouldbe dismissed upon that ground. He thinks this course should be followed in adherence to the general rule that constitutional questions are not to be determined in the absence of strict necessity. In that view he is supported by Mr. Justice BRANDEIS Mr. Justice STONE and Mr. Justice ROBERTS. However, a majority of the court havereached a different conclusion They find in this case extraordinary features making it fitting in their judgment to determine whether the benefits and the taxes are valid or invalid. They distinguish Norman v. Consolidated Gas Co.,--F. (2d) --, recently decided by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, on the ground that in that case, the remedy was challenged by the company and the Government at every stage of the proceeding, thus withdrawing from the court any marginal discretion. The ruling of the majority removes from the case the preliminary objection as to the nature of the remedy which we took of our own motion at the beginning of the argument. Under the compulsion of that ruling, the merits are now here.
Second: The scheme of benefits created by the provisions of Title II is not in contravention of the limitations of the Tenth Amendment.
Congress may spend money in aid of the "general welfare". Constitution, Art. I, section 8; United States v. Butler, 297 U. S. 1, 65; Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, supra. There have been greatstatesmen in our history who have stood for other views. We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision. United States v. Butler, supra The conception of the spending power advocated by Hamilton and strongly reinforced by Story has prevailed over that of Madison, which has not been lacking in adherents. Yet difficulties are left when the power is conceded. 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. There is a middle ground or certainly a penumbra in which discretion is at large. The discretion, however, is not confided to the courts. The discretion belongs to Congress, unless the choice is clearly wrong, a display of arbitrary power is not an exercise of judgment. This is now familiar law. "When such a contention comes here we naturally require a showing that by no reasonable possibility can the challenged legislation fall within the wide range of discretion permitted to the Congress." United States v. Butler, supra, p. 67 Cf. Cincinnati Soap Co. v United States, May 3,1937,--U. S.--; United States v. Realty Co. 163 U. S. 427, 440; Head Money Cases, 112 U. S. 580, 595. Nor is the concept of the general welfare static. Needs that were narrow or parochial a century ago may be interwoven in our day with the well-being of the nation. What is critical or urgent changes with the times.
The purge of nation-wide calamity that began in 1929 has taught us many lessons. Not the least is the solidarity of interests that may once have seemed to be divided. Unemployment spreads from state to state, the hinterland now settled that in pioneer days gave an avenue of escape. Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell, 290 U. S. 398, 442.Spreading from state to state, unemployment is an ill not particular but general, which may be checked, if Congress so determines, by the resources of the nation. If this can have been doubtful until now, our ruling today in the case of the Steward Machine Co. supra, has set the doubt at rest. But the ill is all one or at least not greatly different whether men are thrown out of work because there is no longer work to do or because the disabilities of age make them incapable of doing it. Rescue becomes necessary irrespective of the cause. The hope behind this statute is to save men and women from the rigors of the poor house as well as from the haunting fear that such a lot awaits them when journey's end is near.
Congress did not improvise a judgment when it found that the award of old age benefits would be conducive to the general welfareThe President's Committee on Economic Security made an investigation and report, aided by a research staff of Government officers and employees, and by an Advisory Council and seven other advisory groups. (2) Extensive hearings followed before the House Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance. (3) A great mass of evidence was brought together supporting the policy which finds expression in the act. Among the relevant facts are these: The number of persons in the United States 65 years of age or over is increasing proportionately as well as absolutely. What is even more important the number of such persons unable to take care of themselves is growing at a threatening pace. More and more our population is becoming urban and industrial instead of rural and agricultural. (4) The evidence is impressive that among industrial workers the younger men and women are preferred over the older. (5) In time of retrenchment the older are commonly the first to go, and even if retained, their wages are likely to be lowered. The plight of men and women at so low an age as 40 is hard, almost hopeless, when they are driven to seek for reemployment. Statistics are in the brief. A few illustrations will be chosen from many there collected. In 1930, out of 224 American factories investigated, 71, or almost one third, had fixed maximum hiring age limits; in 4 plants the limit was under 40; in 41 it was under 46. In the other 153 plants there were no fixed limits, but in practice few were hired if they were over 50 years of age. (6) With the loss of savings inevitable in periods of idleness, the fate of workers over 65, when thrown out of work, is little less than desperate. A recent study of the Social Security Board informs us that "one-fifth of the aged in the United States were receiving old age assistance, emergency relief, institutional care, employment under the works program, or some other form of aid from public or private funds; two-fifths to one-half were dependent on friends and relatives, one-eighth had some income from earnings; and possibly one-sixth had some savings or property. Approximately three out of four persons 65 or over were probably dependent wholly or partially on others for support." (7) We summarize in the margin the results of other studies by state and national commissions. (8) They point the same way.
The problem is plainly national in area and dimensions. Moreover laws of the separatestates cannot deal with it effectively. Congress, at least, had a basis for that belief. States and local governments are often lacking in the resources that are necessary to finance anadequate program of security for the aged. This is brought out with a wealth of illustration in recent studies of the problem.(9) Apart from the failure of resources, states and local governments are at times reluctant to increase so heavily the burden of taxation to be borne by their residents for fear of placing themselves in a position of economic disadvantage as compared with neighbors or competitors. We have seen this in our studyof the problem of unemployment compensation. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, supra. Asystem of old age pensions has special dangers of its own, if put in force in one state and rejected in another. The existence of such a system is a bait to the needy and dependent elsewhere, encouraging them to migrate and seek a haven of repose. Only a power that is national call serve the interests of all.
Whether wisdom or unwisdom resides in the scheme of benefits set forth in Title II, it is not for us to say. The answer to such inquiries must come from Congress, not the courts. Our concern here as often is with power, not withwisdom. Counsel for respondent has recalled to us the virtues of self-reliance and frugality. There is a possibility, he says, that aid from a paternal government may sap those sturdy virtues and breed a race of weaklings. If Massachusetts so believes and shapes her laws in that conviction must her breed of sons be changed, he asks, because some other philosophy of government finds favor in the halls of Congress? But the answer is not doubtful. One might ask with equal reason whether the system of protective tariffs is to be set aside at will in one state or another whenever local policy prefers the rule of laissez faire. The issue is a closed one. It was fought out long ago. (10) When money is spent to promote the general welfare, the concept of welfare or the opposite is shaped by Congress, not the states. So the concept be not arbitrary, the locality must yield. Constitution, Art VI, Par. 2.
Third: Title II being valid, there is no occasion to inquire whether Title VIII would have to fall if Title II were set at naught.
The argument for the respondent is that the provisions of the two titles dovetail in such a way as to justify the conclusion that Congress would have been unwilling to pass one without the other. The argument for petitioners is that the tax moneys are not earmarked, and that Congress is at liberty to spend them as it will. The usual separability clause is embodied in the act. Section 1103.
We find it unnecessary to make a choice between the arguments and so leave the question open.
Fourth: The tax upon employers is a valid excise or duty uponthe relation of employment.
As to this we need not add to our opinion in Steward Machine vs. Davis, supra, where we considered a like question in respect of Title IX.
Fifth: The tax is not invalid as a result of its exemptions.
Here again the opinion in Steward Machine Co. v. Davis supra says all that need be said.
Sixth: The decree of the Court of Appeals should be reversed andthat of the District Court affirmed.


Ordered accordingly.

Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS and Mr. Justice BUTLER are of opinion that the provisions of the Act here challenged are repugnant to the Tenth Amendment, and that the decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals should be affirmed.

Footnotes:

(1) (1) If through an administrative error or delay a person who is receiving a monthly pension dies before he receives the correct amount the amount which should have been paid to him is paid in a lump sum to his estate [Section 203 (e) 1.
(2) If a person who has earned wages in each of at least five separate years since December 31, 1936 and who has earned in that period more than $2,000, dies after attaining the age of 65, but before he has received in monthly pensions an amount equal to 3 percent of the "wages" paid to him between January 1, 1937 and the time he reaches 65 then there is paid in a lump sum to his estate the difference between said 3 percent and the total amount paid to him during his life as monthly pensions [Section 203 (b)].
(3) If a person who has earned wages since December 31, 1936 dies before attaining the age of 65, then there is paid to his estate 3 percent of the "wages" paid to him between January 1, 1937 and his death [Section 203 (a)].
(4) If a person has, since December 31, 1936 earned wages in employment covered by Title II, but has attained the age of 65 either without working for at least one day in each of 5 separate years since 1936 or without earning at least $2,000 between January 1, 1937 and the time he attains 65, then there is paid to him [or to his estate, Section 204 (b)], a lump sum equal to 3 percent of the "wages" paid to him between January 1, 1937 and the time he attained 65 [Section 204 (a)].
(2) Report to the President of the Committee on Economic Security 1935.
(3) Hearings before the House committee on Ways and Means on H. R. 4120, 74th congress 1st session; Hearings before the Senate Committee on Finance on S. 1130, 74th congress 1st Session.
(4) See Report of the Committee on Recent Social Trends 1932, vol. 1, pp. 8, 502: Thompson and Whelpton, Population Trends in the United States, pp. 18, 19.
(5) See the authorities collected at pp. 54-62 of the Government's brief.
(6) Hiring and Separation Methods in American Industry, 35 Monthly Labor Review, pp 1005, 1009.
(7) Economic Insecurity in Old Age(Social Security Board, 1937), p. 15.
(8) The Senate Committee estimated, when investigating the present act, that over one half of the people in the United states over 65 years of age are dependent upon others for support. Senate Report, No. 628, 74th Congress, 1st Session, p. 4. A similar estimate was made in the Report to the President of the committee on Economic Security, 1935, pg. 24.
A report of the Pennsylvania Commission on Old Age Pensions made in 1919 (p. 108) after a study of 16,281 persons and interviews with more than 3,.500 persons 65 years and over showed two fifths with no income but wages and one fourth supported by children; 1.5 per cent had savings and 11.8 per cent had property.
A report on old age pensions by the Massachusetts Commission on Pensions (Senate No. 5, 1925, pp. 41, 52) showed that in 1924 two thirds of those above 65 had, alone or with a spouse, less than $5,000 of property, and one fourth had none. Two thirds of those with less than $5,000 had income of less than $1,000 were dependent in whole or in part on others for support.
A report of the New York State Commission made in 1930 (Legis. Doc. No. 67. 1930, p. 39) showed a condition of total dependency as to 58 per cent of those 65 and over and 62 per cent of those 70 and over.
The national Government has found in connection with grants to states for old age assistance under another title of the social security Act (Title I) that in February, 1937, 38.8 per cent of all persons over 65 in Colorado received public assistance, in Oklahoma the percentage was 44.1, and in Texas 37.5. In 10 states out of 40 with plans approved by the Social Security Board more than 25 per cent of those over 65 could meet the residence requirements and qualify under a means test and were actually receiving public aid.
(9) Economic Insecurity In Old Age, supra, chap. VI, pg. 184.
(10) IV Channing, History of the United States, p. 404 (South Caroline Nullification): 8 Adams, History of the United States (New England Nullification and the Hartford Convention).

[CJ7]

Im not going to read it for no other reason than the length of the article.. but if its talking about honest, hard working people putting a part of their check in an account week after week, year after year, decade upon decade, and the fucking government being able to use the account as they see fit, then tell everyone the account will go broke in the not too distant future, then Hell yes, its unconstitutional

[Jackie S]

Since I am 66, I will choose to start drawing what ever benefits are owed to me next year. I was going to wait until 69, but decided on 67.

Since the past five years have been my largest earnings, I will garner a nice little bonus each month on top of what I make.

And yes, I know that I will give much of it right back in taxes, but I don't give a shit. I have been paying in since age 14,

Personally, I don't care about anything in any of these articles. I will be dead and gone before the real catastrophe hits, so I will get mine while the getting is good.

By the way, I will probably spend my SS benefits on my ATF. I find a certain type of poetic justice in that.

[CJ7]

By the way, I will probably spend my SS benefits on my ATF. I find a certain type of poetic justice in that.

Ho-etic justice I that case ..

[jbravo_123]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

SS is not going away. It will likely die very loudly and messily about 20 years from now when the output far exceeds the input. Benefits will have to be cut and taxes will have to be raised. Only then will the pressure cause a change. I think the best thing that each of us can do is to assume that SS will not be there for us. Create your own retirement fund, pension plan, or savings. Get your primary home paid off and stay out of debt. Find something that you can make money from that you can do, and want to do, when you're in your 70s.

Yeah this. I'm a long ways away from being able to retire, so I pretty much just plan for my retirement as if I'm going to get 0 SS benefits. If I get some, cool, but at this point nothing's going to change until the entire system pretty much crashes.

Part of the problem is that it's simply a political death knell for any politician who tries to touch it. It's going to take a combination of benefit reductions and tax increases to even begin to fix things, so you're talking about making older people (who tend to actually go out and vote) angry for you cutting their benefits and increasing taxes, making everyone else who votes, angry.

There's no magic solution to this that's not going to involve someone getting buttfucked some way so of course no politician wants to fall on their sword over it and they just kick the can down the road for the next guy to deal with and hope it doesn't blow up in their face while they're in office.

[Yssup Rider]

oddly, no retort from Whiny the lying sack of shit.

Was this SCOTUS opinion published before or after President Obama impeached President Nixon?

Seems like it was...

[JD Barleycorn]

Just to stay up with it, old opinions are revisited all the time in schools. Were they right or were they wrong? Was it okay to decidet that slavery was legal or should they have decided otherwise? Write in 1500 words how you would have decided based on what previous precedents.

Good thing the SCOTUS does revisit some of those old cases.

[i'va biggen]

Why is that?

[JD Barleycorn]

Because we might still have slavery, segregation, the income tax back to the Civil War, and warrantless searches of our mail, phone calls, and Internet. These were all overturned by a court decision.