On Mar 22, 9:05*am, Earl Evleth wrote:
On 22/03/10 16:45, in article
,

"Jigsaw1695" wrote:

Two Supreme Court rulings affirmed the constitutionality of the Social
Security Act.

* * * Steward Machine Company v. Davis, 301 U.S, 548[22] (1937) held, in a
5*4 decision, that, given the exigencies of the Great Depression, "[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 narrower than the promotion of the
general welfare". The arguments opposed to the Social Security Act
(articulated by justices Butler, McReynolds, and Sutherland in their
opinions) were that the social security act went beyond the powers that were
granted to the federal government in the Constitution. They argued that, by
imposing a tax on employers that could be avoided only by contributing to a
state unemployment-compensation fund, the federal government was essentially
forcing each state to establish an unemployment-compensation fund that would
meet its criteria, and that the federal government had no power to enact
such a program.

* * * Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937), decided on the same day as
Steward, upheld the program because "The proceeds of both [employee and
employer] taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal-revenue taxes
generally, and are not earmarked in any way". That is, the Social Security
Tax was constitutional as a mere exercise of Congress's general taxation
powers.

You clearly don't understand the merits of the various challenges.

This challenge is not like Social Security... it is not a tax. Rather,
the federal government is requiring you to purchase a good or service
from a third party. Additionally, the Constitution requires that both
houses of Congress act on the bill in the same manner... that is not
the case here the voting procedure was different.

Instead of getting legitimate reform, we will now have a bill that
will be tied up in the courts for years and years.

But what is most shocking, that in the more than 2000 pages of this
bill... it doesn't even spell out the benefit... it defines three
levels of insurance... but those will be defined later by some
"panel". That is shameful.

jay
Mon Mar 22, 2010