When The Supreme Court Rule Social Security (& Health Care) Constitiutional

Discussion in 'Politics' started by mascale, Mar 25, 2010.

  1. mascale
    Offline

    mascale VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    Messages:
    4,033
    Thanks Received:
    210
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +453
    Anyone wonders if the fourteen state Attorney Generals will be fined in fact for bringing frivoulous anti-healthcare lawsuits to the federal courts of the United States.

    The real fact is that in the United States, even Ronald Reagan conceded that there is in fact, Constitutional, Social Security. The old Hamiltonian concept of "Implied Powers" still operates. Below, the Social Security Administration even has an article about it.

    Social Security Online

    At the outset, there were apparently three famous cases that went all the way to the Supreme Court:

    "On May 24, 1937 the Supreme Court handed down its decision in the three cases. Justice Cardozo wrote the majority opinion in the first two cases and he announced them on what was, coincidentally, his 67th birthday. (See sidebar on Justice Cardozo.)

    Mirroring the situation in Congress when the legislation was considered, the old-age insurance program met relatively little disagreement. The Court ruled 7 to 2 in support of the old-age insurance program. And even though two Justices disagreed with the decision, no separate dissents were authored. The unemployment compensation provisions, by contrast, were hotly disputed within the Court, just as they had been the focus of most of the debate in Congress. The Court ruled 5 to 4 in support of the unemployment compensation provisions, and three of the Justices felt compelled to author separate dissents in the Steward Machine case and one Justice did so in the Southern Coal & Coke case.

    Justice Cardozo wrote the opinions in Helvering vs. Davis and Steward Machine. After giving the 1788 dictionary the consideration he thought it deserved, he made clear the Court's view on the scope of the government's spending authority: "There have been statesman in our history who have stood for other views. . .We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision. The conception of the spending power advocated by Hamilton . . .has prevailed over that of Madison. . ." Arguing that the unemployment compensation program provided for the general welfare, Cardozo observed: ". . .there is need to remind ourselves of facts as to the problem of unemployment that are now matters of common knowledge. . .the roll of the unemployed, itself formidable enough, was only a partial roll of the destitute or needy. The fact developed quickly that the states were unable to give the requisite relief. The problem had become national in area and dimensions. There was need of help from the nation if the people were not to starve. 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 [other] than the promotion of the general welfare."

    And finally, he extended the reasoning to the old-age insurance program: "The purge of nation-wide calamity that began in 1929 has taught us many lessons. . . 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. . . 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."

    In the above, anyone might guess that all kinds of illnesses, that spread from state to state, are germane to the role of Central Governnent.

    The attorney generals are complaining that the federal government is forcing the purchase of products. The federal government is mostly only forcing the choice of differing products, as opposed to single-payer choices under Medicare.

    With the likely exceptions of Scalia and Thomas, the Supreme Court is not likely to be so insane that it will rule that the single payer options under Medicare are OK, but that an actual choice among federally sanctioned, qualifying plans, is not allowed in America!

    "Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
    (Americans can even choose among casinos, with slot machines ,on lands of many nations! Shiny metal trinkets are coveted by millions, Governor of California to the contrary(?)!)
     
  2. SpidermanTuba
    Offline

    SpidermanTuba BANNED

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,101
    Thanks Received:
    258
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    New Orleans, Louisiana
    Ratings:
    +258
    Republicans will just bitch no matter what. If we had passed a single payer public plan, they'd be bitching the plan isn't privatized enough.
     
  3. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,324
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,054
    It's all about fund raising and political power, gaining seats. The GOP, long ago, gave up any semblance of doing the right thing.
     
  4. manu1959
    Offline

    manu1959 Left Coast Isolationist

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Messages:
    13,761
    Thanks Received:
    1,625
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    california
    Ratings:
    +1,626
    didn't some democrats vote against the bill.....
     
  5. mascale
    Offline

    mascale VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    Messages:
    4,033
    Thanks Received:
    210
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +453
    Representing the true Conservative Christians of America, of the more 17th Century values, the Amish are generally exempted from Social Security, and maybe from national Health insurance coverage. Some Democrats, by comparison, may have otherwise expected a more inclusive coverage, or even a single-payer plan: But it is the Anti-Conservative, GOP Christians, who are religiously opposed to compassion, and especially in the case of Illegal Immigrants!

    All seriouslness aside, The Supreme Court will not extend the religious exemption to Social Security, allowed for the Amish, to the matter of non-Amish employees of the Amish. Had the Amish-man who took the case to the Supreme Court, In fact known how much the "Constitutional Right," was going to cost: In fact, then he would not have done so! Paying the employer portion would have made the far greater sense, as it were.

    The lowest tax courts then use even that to hold that even though the COLA can be challenged, (and on the religious basis, (and even though the Pythagorean Theorem--of the Greater gods and goddesses of Greece--may have helped get Jesus condemned to death, at the start); and that even though government witnesses agree that a remedy is required: Still no religious exemption can be allowed to the tax for Social Security, solely on that basis.

    The U. S. Federal Government has a well-established basis for becoming the central provider in all kinds of matters that engage all the states.

    "Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
    (NAFTA even allows the Tennessee Bourbon Whiskey is "Intellectual Property," no doubt on which the courts can all agree, if not always worldwide!)
     
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2010

Share This Page