When FDR sold the country the Social Security bill of goods he argued that we were going to contribute into an insurance pool .But he knew it was unconstitutional under the "reserve clause" of the Constitution (the 10th Amendment) for the Federal Government to compel people to do it .The Constitution NEVER authorized the national government to operate a social insurance system.

So when social security was introduced all language about insurance was stripped from the legislation even though it was still publicly argued as an insurance scheme. Thomas Eliot, the author of the bill, later confessed that he had deliberately made the bill confusing ..“Lest the court take judicial notice of the way officials were trying to sell the program, administrators believed it was imperative to keep the language sufficiently opaque.” The taxing and benefit clauses were separated in the bill so it would not appear that they were linked.

So although it was sold repeatedly as an insurance program in which our Social Security tax constituted a premium that, guaranteed us an absolute right to receive benefits in our old age.....it was designed as a welfare program. FDR privately boasted “We put those payroll contributions there so as to give contributors a legal, moral and political right to collect their pensions,” ..... “With those taxes, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program.”

Social Security has survived SCOTUS challenges specifically because the government has consistently argued that it isn't and never was an insurance plan.It was upheld in Helvering v. Davis (1937).At the time SCOTUS was under pressure with the threat of FDR packing the court. Under that duress the court conveniently overlooked the obvious and tap danced around the consitutional questions to confirm the legality of Social Security . We've payed into the Pozi Scheme ever since.

Social Security survived SCOTUS challenges because it was constructed in such a way that FDR could argue that it was NOT an insurance policy. It was challenged under the 10th Amendment Reserve Clause because there is NO constitutional authority for the Federal Government to run an insurance policy .

speechlesstx

We now have the definitive answer on the constitutionality of Obamacare courtesy of Roland Burris:

Yep, it's right there under the "health and welfare" clause.

excon

Hello Steve,

If intelligence were a requirement for congress more'n HALF of 'em would fail. You don't want me to talk about some of the stupid guys YOU got, do you?

excon

ETWolverine

Well there's stupid and then there's prevarication.

Buris is trying to justify something unconstitutional by creating a new clause in the Constitution that isn't actually written there. This isn't stupidity, excon. It's an out-and-out lie about what the Constitution says in order to justify something that can't be justified.

Yes, Buris is indeed stupid. And yes, there are plenty of people who are stupid in Congress. (Some of them even become vice presidents. And before you say it, yes, both Biden and Quale can be said to fit the bill.) However, in this case Buris' stupidity lies in his assumption that nobody will check what the Constitution actually says when he makes a statement like that one.

Elliot

speechlesstx

ex, I don't think stupid is the word for this guy.

paraclete

by all means Ex let us talk about some of the stupid people outside of the USA, surely there has been enough said about the stupid people in it