Why are Tea Partiers opposed to having a safety net?

[TakeAStepBack]

Why are Tea Partiers opposed to having a safety net?

Social Security was actually declared unconstitutional (rightfully so, as it is) by the first circuit court of appeals back in 1937. In two related cases, Davis v. Boston Mane R. Co. (89 F.2d 386) and Davis v. Edison Electric Illuminating Co. of Boston et al. (89 F2d 393), the court ruled the social security Act unconstitutional. According to the court, the act, which contained numerous titles establishing benefits for the aged, unemployed and dependent children, and imposed two new taxes, an excise tax on employers and a special income tax on employees, was unconstitutional on a variety of grounds.

One in particular was that the social security act violated the "general welfare" clause of the Constitution, in that SS taxes were paid by some for the SPECIFIC benefits of others. In doing so, the act did not promote the general welfare of all, but the specific welfare of some.

To counter this claim, the govt. argued that the tax and benefit provisions of the SSA were in no way related. The taxes were "true" taxes, paid unrestricted into the US treasury (which they are, the pay in, in no way guarantees benefits later. Congress can simply change their mind and continue to collect the tax). for the general support of govt. They claimed that SS taxes were enacted for the sole purpose of raising revenue and were not earmarked for any particular purpose.

Actually, if you look carefully at the formula used to calculate SS benefits, you'll see that benefits are determined not by amount paid in taxes - as insurance plans would - but by how much you earn in wages. So in truth, SS was two separate programs - one defined benefit pension and the other a payroll tax (excise tax on employers, inncome tax on employees)- that coincidentally just happen to be passed at the same time under the same name.

The exact opposite of what the public was fed to buy into the program. the first circuit court saw right through the ploy. It correctly observed, "Congress has not an unlimited power of taxation; but is limited tospecific objects - the payment of the public debt (not its creation), and the providing of the common defense and general welfare. A tax, therefore, laid by congress for neither of these objectives, would be unconstitutional, as an excess of its legitimate authority,"

The court went on to state:

" A tax, in the general understanding of the term, and as used in the constitution, signifies an exaction for the support of govt. The word has never been thought to connote the expropriation of money from one group for the benefit of another, The exaction cannot be wrested out of its setting, denominated an excise for raisingrevenue and legalized by ignoring its purpose as a mere instrument for bringing about a desired end. To do this would be to shut our eyes to what all others than we can see and understand.
In further observation the court:

"If the act is carried out as planned by congress...it amounts, in effect, to taking the property of every employer for the benefit of a certain class of employees. The entire plan, viewed as a whole, is an attempt to do indirectly what congress can not to directly, and to assume national control over a subject clearly within jurisdictionof the states."

The supreme court reversed this decision. Of the myriad of grounds established by the first circuit court, only two were brought to the supreme court. Which they ignored and declared SSA constitutional. One was the act sought to raise revenue. Repeating that the SSA was actually two separate acts passed under the same name at the same time.

In short form, the act is completely unconstitutional and over steps the boundaries established by the constitution in laying taxation for specific benefits received by some and paid for by others, and also breask the general welfare clause of the constitution. This is a state as enumerated by the constitution taken over by congress in a roughshod fashion to meet the end results of a desired goal. In the end, it is a burden and should be voluntary in basis at worst and left tot he states at best.

 

[eflatminor]

.

 

[P@triot]

Delete duplicate post

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Social Security was actually declared unconstitutional (rightfully so, as it is) by the first circuit court of appeals back in 1937. In two related cases, Davis v. Boston Mane R. Co. (89 F.2d 386) and Davis v. Edison Electric Illuminating Co. of Boston et al. (89 F2d 393), the court ruled the social security Act unconstitutional. According to the court, the act, which contained numerous titles establishing benefits for the aged, unemployed and dependent children, and imposed two new taxes, an excise tax on employers and a special income tax on employees, was unconstitutional on a variety of grounds.

On ein particular was that the social security act violated the "general welfare" clause of the Constitution, in that SS taxes were paid by some for the SPECIFIC benefits of others. Ini doing so, the act did not promote the general welfare of all, but the specific welfare of some.

To counter this claim, the govt. argued that the tax and benefit provisions of the SSA were in no way related. The taxes were "true" taxes, paid unrestricted into the US treasury (which they are, the pay in, in no way guarantees benefits later. Congress can simply change their mind and continue to collect the tax). for the general support of govt. They claimed that SS taxes were enacted for the sole purpose of raising revenue and were not earmarked for any particular purpose.

Actually, if you look carefully atthe formula used to calculate SS benefits, you'll see that benefits are determined not by amount paid in taxes - as insurance plans would - but by how much you earn in wages. So in truth, SS was two separate programs - one definedbenefit pension and the other a payroll tax (excise tax on employers, inncome tax on employees)- that coincidentally just happen to be passed at the same time under the same name.

The exact opposite of what the public was fed to buy into the program. the first circuit court saw right through the ploy. It correctly observed, "Congress has not an unlimited power of taxation; but is limited tospecific objects - the payment of the public debt (not its creation), and the providing of the common defense and general welfare. A tax, therefore, laid by congress for neither of these objectives, would be unconstitutional, as an excess of its legitimate authority,"

The court went on to state:

" A tax, in the general understanding of the term, and as used in the constitution, signifies an exaction for the support of govt. The word has never been thought to connote the expropriation of money from one group for the benefit of another, The exaction cannot be wrested out of its setting, denominated an excise for raisingrevenue and legalized by ignoring its purpose as a mere instrumentfor bringing about a desired end. To do this would be to shut our eyes to what all others than we can see and understand.

In further observation the court:

"If the act is carried out as planned by congress...it amounts, in effect, to taking the property of every employer for the benefit of a certain class of employees. The entire plan, viewed as a whole, is an attempt to do indirectly what congress can not to directly, and to assume national control over a subject clearly within jurisdictionof the states."

The supreme court reversed this decision. Of the myriad of grounds established by the first circuit court, only two were brought to the supreme court. Which they ignored and declared SSA constitutional. One was the act sought to raise revenue. Repeating that the SSA was actually two separate acts passed under the same name at the same time.

 

[DiamondDave]

More government money than ever before is thrown at 'entitlement' or 'safety net' programs, yet the problems don't improve no matter how many agencies or programs are created.. so the solution is to throw MORE money at it??

And this is with it going even WAYYYYY beyond 'necessities', with no entitlement junkies getting cell phones, transportation, etc.. and yet we have ones getting assistance who have money to buy cable tv, computers, video games, sports equipment, movie tickets, restaurant food, you name it..

It is the entitlement mantra that is the problem, not charities or the charitable giving of earners or the 'evil rich'

 

[DiamondDave]

More government money than ever before is thrown at 'entitlement' or 'safety net' programs, yet the problems don't improve no matter how many agencies or programs are created.. so the solution is to throw MORE money at it??

And this is with it going even WAYYYYY beyond 'necessities', with no entitlement junkies getting cell phones, transportation, etc.. and yet we have ones getting assistance who have money to buy cable tv, computers, video games, sports equipment, movie tickets, restaurant food, you name it..

It is the entitlement mantra that is the problem, not charities or the charitable giving of earners or the 'evil rich'

 

[eflatminor]

As many as it takes I guess.

So why has voluntary charity proven inadequate?

Before the days of forced charity through government confiscation, it worked beautifully.

You mean back when people could grow their own food and relied on horses to get around?

Tells us exactly how the transition from horse to horseless transportation negates the legitimacy of private charity. While you're at it, enlighten us as to what growing one's own food for one's own consumption has a damn thing to do with charity.

 

[eflatminor]

As many as it takes I guess.

So why has voluntary charity proven inadequate?

Before the days of forced charity through government confiscation, it worked beautifully.

You mean back when people could grow their own food and relied on horses to get around?

Tells us exactly how the transition from horse to horseless transportation negates the legitimacy of private charity. While you're at it, enlighten us as to what growing one's own food for one's own consumption has a damn thing to do with charity.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Social Security was actually declared unconstitutional (rightfully so, as it is) by the first circuit court of appeals back in 1937. In two related cases, Davis v. Boston Mane R. Co. (89 F.2d 386) and Davis v. Edison Electric Illuminating Co. of Boston et al. (89 F2d 393), the court ruled the social security Act unconstitutional. According to the court, the act, which contained numerous titles establishing benefits for the aged, unemployed and dependent children, and imposed two new taxes, an excise tax on employers and a special income tax on employees, was unconstitutional on a variety of grounds.

One in particular was that the social security act violated the "general welfare" clause of the Constitution, in that SS taxes were paid by some for the SPECIFIC benefits of others. Ini doing so, the act did not promote the general welfare of all, but the specific welfare of some.

To counter this claim, the govt. argued that the tax and benefit provisions of the SSA were in no way related. The taxes were "true" taxes, paid unrestricted into the US treasury (which they are, the pay in, in no way guarantees benefits later. Congress can simply change their mind and continue to collect the tax). for the general support of govt. They claimed that SS taxes were enacted for the sole purpose of raising revenue and were not earmarked for any particular purpose.

Actually, if you look carefully at the formula used to calculate SS benefits, you'll see that benefits are determined not by amount paid in taxes - as insurance plans would - but by how much you earn in wages. So in truth, SS was two separate programs - one defined benefit pension and the other a payroll tax (excise tax on employers, inncome tax on employees)- that coincidentally just happen to be passed at the same time under the same name.

The exact opposite of what the public was fed to buy into the program. the first circuit court saw right through the ploy. It correctly observed, "Congress has not an unlimited power of taxation; but is limited tospecific objects - the payment of the public debt (not its creation), and the providing of the common defense and general welfare. A tax, therefore, laid by congress for neither of these objectives, would be unconstitutional, as an excess of its legitimate authority,"

The court went on to state:

" A tax, in the general understanding of the term, and as used in the constitution, signifies an exaction for the support of govt. The word has never been thought to connote the expropriation of money from one group for the benefit of another, The exaction cannot be wrested out of its setting, denominated an excise for raisingrevenue and legalized by ignoring its purpose as a mere instrumentfor bringing about a desired end. To do this would be to shut our eyes to what all others than we can see and understand.

In further observation the court:

"If the act is carried out as planned by congress...it amounts, in effect, to taking the property of every employer for the benefit of a certain class of employees. The entire plan, viewed as a whole, is an attempt to do indirectly what congress can not to directly, and to assume national control over a subject clearly within jurisdictionof the states."

The supreme court reversed this decision. Of the myriad of grounds established by the first circuit court, only two were brought to the supreme court. Which they ignored and declared SSA constitutional. One was the act sought to raise revenue. Repeating that the SSA was actually two separate acts passed under the same name at the same time.

In short form, it is unconstitutional and an over reach of power not granted by the constitution. At worst it should be voluntary participation and at best, left to the states entirely.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Social Security was actually declared unconstitutional (rightfully so, as it is) by the first circuit court of appeals back in 1937. In two related cases, Davis v. Boston Mane R. Co. (89 F.2d 386) and Davis v. Edison Electric Illuminating Co. of Boston et al. (89 F2d 393), the court ruled the social security Act unconstitutional. According to the court, the act, which contained numerous titles establishing benefits for the aged, unemployed and dependent children, and imposed two new taxes, an excise tax on employers and a special income tax on employees, was unconstitutional on a variety of grounds.

One in particular was that the social security act violated the "general welfare" clause of the Constitution, in that SS taxes were paid by some for the SPECIFIC benefits of others. Ini doing so, the act did not promote the general welfare of all, but the specific welfare of some.

To counter this claim, the govt. argued that the tax and benefit provisions of the SSA were in no way related. The taxes were "true" taxes, paid unrestricted into the US treasury (which they are, the pay in, in no way guarantees benefits later. Congress can simply change their mind and continue to collect the tax). for the general support of govt. They claimed that SS taxes were enacted for the sole purpose of raising revenue and were not earmarked for any particular purpose.

Actually, if you look carefully at the formula used to calculate SS benefits, you'll see that benefits are determined not by amount paid in taxes - as insurance plans would - but by how much you earn in wages. So in truth, SS was two separate programs - one defined benefit pension and the other a payroll tax (excise tax on employers, inncome tax on employees)- that coincidentally just happen to be passed at the same time under the same name.

The exact opposite of what the public was fed to buy into the program. the first circuit court saw right through the ploy. It correctly observed, "Congress has not an unlimited power of taxation; but is limited tospecific objects - the payment of the public debt (not its creation), and the providing of the common defense and general welfare. A tax, therefore, laid by congress for neither of these objectives, would be unconstitutional, as an excess of its legitimate authority,"

The court went on to state:

" A tax, in the general understanding of the term, and as used in the constitution, signifies an exaction for the support of govt. The word has never been thought to connote the expropriation of money from one group for the benefit of another, The exaction cannot be wrested out of its setting, denominated an excise for raisingrevenue and legalized by ignoring its purpose as a mere instrumentfor bringing about a desired end. To do this would be to shut our eyes to what all others than we can see and understand.

In further observation the court:

"If the act is carried out as planned by congress...it amounts, in effect, to taking the property of every employer for the benefit of a certain class of employees. The entire plan, viewed as a whole, is an attempt to do indirectly what congress can not to directly, and to assume national control over a subject clearly within jurisdictionof the states."

The supreme court reversed this decision. Of the myriad of grounds established by the first circuit court, only two were brought to the supreme court. Which they ignored and declared SSA constitutional. One was the act sought to raise revenue. Repeating that the SSA was actually two separate acts passed under the same name at the same time.

In short form, it is unconstitutional and an over reach of power not granted by the constitution. At worst it should be voluntary participation and at best, left to the states entirely.

 

[DiamondDave]

More government money than ever before is thrown at 'entitlement' or 'safety net' programs, yet the problems don't improve no matter how many agencies or programs are created.. so the solution is to throw MORE money at it??

And this is with it going even WAYYYYY beyond 'necessities', with no entitlement junkies getting cell phones, transportation, etc.. and yet we have ones getting assistance who have money to buy cable tv, computers, video games, sports equipment, movie tickets, restaurant food, you name it..

It is the entitlement mantra that is the problem, not charities or the charitable giving of earners or the 'evil rich'

 

[P@triot]

Delete duplicate post

 

[eflatminor]

.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Why are Tea Partiers opposed to having a safety net?

Social Security was actually declared unconstitutional (rightfully so, as it is) by the first circuit court of appeals back in 1937. In two related cases, Davis v. Boston Mane R. Co. (89 F.2d 386) and Davis v. Edison Electric Illuminating Co. of Boston et al. (89 F2d 393), the court ruled the social security Act unconstitutional. According to the court, the act, which contained numerous titles establishing benefits for the aged, unemployed and dependent children, and imposed two new taxes, an excise tax on employers and a special income tax on employees, was unconstitutional on a variety of grounds.

One in particular was that the social security act violated the "general welfare" clause of the Constitution, in that SS taxes were paid by some for the SPECIFIC benefits of others. In doing so, the act did not promote the general welfare of all, but the specific welfare of some.

To counter this claim, the govt. argued that the tax and benefit provisions of the SSA were in no way related. The taxes were "true" taxes, paid unrestricted into the US treasury (which they are, the pay in, in no way guarantees benefits later. Congress can simply change their mind and continue to collect the tax). for the general support of govt. They claimed that SS taxes were enacted for the sole purpose of raising revenue and were not earmarked for any particular purpose.

Actually, if you look carefully at the formula used to calculate SS benefits, you'll see that benefits are determined not by amount paid in taxes - as insurance plans would - but by how much you earn in wages. So in truth, SS was two separate programs - one defined benefit pension and the other a payroll tax (excise tax on employers, inncome tax on employees)- that coincidentally just happen to be passed at the same time under the same name.

The exact opposite of what the public was fed to buy into the program. the first circuit court saw right through the ploy. It correctly observed, "Congress has not an unlimited power of taxation; but is limited tospecific objects - the payment of the public debt (not its creation), and the providing of the common defense and general welfare. A tax, therefore, laid by congress for neither of these objectives, would be unconstitutional, as an excess of its legitimate authority,"

The court went on to state:

" A tax, in the general understanding of the term, and as used in the constitution, signifies an exaction for the support of govt. The word has never been thought to connote the expropriation of money from one group for the benefit of another, The exaction cannot be wrested out of its setting, denominated an excise for raisingrevenue and legalized by ignoring its purpose as a mere instrument for bringing about a desired end. To do this would be to shut our eyes to what all others than we can see and understand.
In further observation the court:

"If the act is carried out as planned by congress...it amounts, in effect, to taking the property of every employer for the benefit of a certain class of employees. The entire plan, viewed as a whole, is an attempt to do indirectly what congress can not to directly, and to assume national control over a subject clearly within jurisdictionof the states."

The supreme court reversed this decision. Of the myriad of grounds established by the first circuit court, only two were brought to the supreme court. Which they ignored and declared SSA constitutional. One was the act sought to raise revenue. Repeating that the SSA was actually two separate acts passed under the same name at the same time.

In short form, the act is completely unconstitutional and over steps the boundaries established by the constitution in laying taxation for specific benefits received by some and paid for by others, and also breask the general welfare clause of the constitution. This is a state as enumerated by the constitution taken over by congress in a roughshod fashion to meet the end results of a desired goal. In the end, it is a burden and should be voluntary in basis at worst and left tot he states at best.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Social Security was actually declared unconstitutional (rightfully so, as it is) by the first circuit court of appeals back in 1937. In two related cases, Davis v. Boston Mane R. Co. (89 F.2d 386) and Davis v. Edison Electric Illuminating Co. of Boston et al. (89 F2d 393), the court ruled the social security Act unconstitutional. According to the court, the act, which contained numerous titles establishing benefits for the aged, unemployed and dependent children, and imposed two new taxes, an excise tax on employers and a special income tax on employees, was unconstitutional on a variety of grounds.

One in particular was that the social security act violated the "general welfare" clause of the Constitution, in that SS taxes were paid by some for the SPECIFIC benefits of others. Ini doing so, the act did not promote the general welfare of all, but the specific welfare of some.

To counter this claim, the govt. argued that the tax and benefit provisions of the SSA were in no way related. The taxes were "true" taxes, paid unrestricted into the US treasury (which they are, the pay in, in no way guarantees benefits later. Congress can simply change their mind and continue to collect the tax). for the general support of govt. They claimed that SS taxes were enacted for the sole purpose of raising revenue and were not earmarked for any particular purpose.

Actually, if you look carefully at the formula used to calculate SS benefits, you'll see that benefits are determined not by amount paid in taxes - as insurance plans would - but by how much you earn in wages. So in truth, SS was two separate programs - one defined benefit pension and the other a payroll tax (excise tax on employers, inncome tax on employees)- that coincidentally just happen to be passed at the same time under the same name.

The exact opposite of what the public was fed to buy into the program. the first circuit court saw right through the ploy. It correctly observed, "Congress has not an unlimited power of taxation; but is limited tospecific objects - the payment of the public debt (not its creation), and the providing of the common defense and general welfare. A tax, therefore, laid by congress for neither of these objectives, would be unconstitutional, as an excess of its legitimate authority,"

The court went on to state:

" A tax, in the general understanding of the term, and as used in the constitution, signifies an exaction for the support of govt. The word has never been thought to connote the expropriation of money from one group for the benefit of another, The exaction cannot be wrested out of its setting, denominated an excise for raisingrevenue and legalized by ignoring its purpose as a mere instrumentfor bringing about a desired end. To do this would be to shut our eyes to what all others than we can see and understand.

In further observation the court:

"If the act is carried out as planned by congress...it amounts, in effect, to taking the property of every employer for the benefit of a certain class of employees. The entire plan, viewed as a whole, is an attempt to do indirectly what congress can not to directly, and to assume national control over a subject clearly within jurisdictionof the states."

The supreme court reversed this decision. Of the myriad of grounds established by the first circuit court, only two were brought to the supreme court. Which they ignored and declared SSA constitutional. One was the act sought to raise revenue. Repeating that the SSA was actually two separate acts passed under the same name at the same time.

In short form, it is unconstitutional and an over reach of power not granted by the constitution. At worst it should be voluntary participation and at best, left to the states entirely.

 

[DiamondDave]

More government money than ever before is thrown at 'entitlement' or 'safety net' programs, yet the problems don't improve no matter how many agencies or programs are created.. so the solution is to throw MORE money at it??

And this is with it going even WAYYYYY beyond 'necessities', with no entitlement junkies getting cell phones, transportation, etc.. and yet we have ones getting assistance who have money to buy cable tv, computers, video games, sports equipment, movie tickets, restaurant food, you name it..

It is the entitlement mantra that is the problem, not charities or the charitable giving of earners or the 'evil rich'..

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Social Security was actually declared unconstitutional (rightfully so, as it is) by the first circuit court of appeals back in 1937. In two related cases, Davis v. Boston Mane R. Co. (89 F.2d 386) and Davis v. Edison Electric Illuminating Co. of Boston et al. (89 F2d 393), the court ruled the social security Act unconstitutional. According to the court, the act, which contained numerous titles establishing benefits for the aged, unemployed and dependent children, and imposed two new taxes, an excise tax on employers and a special income tax on employees, was unconstitutional on a variety of grounds.

One in particular was that the social security act violated the "general welfare" clause of the Constitution, in that SS taxes were paid by some for the SPECIFIC benefits of others. Ini doing so, the act did not promote the general welfare of all, but the specific welfare of some.

To counter this claim, the govt. argued that the tax and benefit provisions of the SSA were in no way related. The taxes were "true" taxes, paid unrestricted into the US treasury (which they are, the pay in, in no way guarantees benefits later. Congress can simply change their mind and continue to collect the tax). for the general support of govt. They claimed that SS taxes were enacted for the sole purpose of raising revenue and were not earmarked for any particular purpose.

Actually, if you look carefully at the formula used to calculate SS benefits, you'll see that benefits are determined not by amount paid in taxes - as insurance plans would - but by how much you earn in wages. So in truth, SS was two separate programs - one defined benefit pension and the other a payroll tax (excise tax on employers, inncome tax on employees)- that coincidentally just happen to be passed at the same time under the same name.

The exact opposite of what the public was fed to buy into the program. the first circuit court saw right through the ploy. It correctly observed, "Congress has not an unlimited power of taxation; but is limited tospecific objects - the payment of the public debt (not its creation), and the providing of the common defense and general welfare. A tax, therefore, laid by congress for neither of these objectives, would be unconstitutional, as an excess of its legitimate authority,"

The court went on to state:

" A tax, in the general understanding of the term, and as used in the constitution, signifies an exaction for the support of govt. The word has never been thought to connote the expropriation of money from one group for the benefit of another, The exaction cannot be wrested out of its setting, denominated an excise for raisingrevenue and legalized by ignoring its purpose as a mere instrumentfor bringing about a desired end. To do this would be to shut our eyes to what all others than we can see and understand.

In further observation the court:

"If the act is carried out as planned by congress...it amounts, in effect, to taking the property of every employer for the benefit of a certain class of employees. The entire plan, viewed as a whole, is an attempt to do indirectly what congress can not to directly, and to assume national control over a subject clearly within jurisdictionof the states."

The supreme court reversed this decision. Of the myriad of grounds established by the first circuit court, only two were brought to the supreme court. Which they ignored and declared SSA constitutional. One was the act sought to raise revenue. Repeating that the SSA was actually two separate acts passed under the same name at the same time.

In short form, it is unconstitutional and an over reach of power not granted by the constitution. At worst it should be voluntary participation and at best, left to the states entirely.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Social Security was actually declared unconstitutional (rightfully so, as it is) by the first circuit court of appeals back in 1937. In two related cases, Davis v. Boston Mane R. Co. (89 F.2d 386) and Davis v. Edison Electric Illuminating Co. of Boston et al. (89 F2d 393), the court ruled the social security Act unconstitutional. According to the court, the act, which contained numerous titles establishing benefits for the aged, unemployed and dependent children, and imposed two new taxes, an excise tax on employers and a special income tax on employees, was unconstitutional on a variety of grounds.

One in particular was that the social security act violated the "general welfare" clause of the Constitution, in that SS taxes were paid by some for the SPECIFIC benefits of others. Ini doing so, the act did not promote the general welfare of all, but the specific welfare of some.

To counter this claim, the govt. argued that the tax and benefit provisions of the SSA were in no way related. The taxes were "true" taxes, paid unrestricted into the US treasury (which they are, the pay in, in no way guarantees benefits later. Congress can simply change their mind and continue to collect the tax). for the general support of govt. They claimed that SS taxes were enacted for the sole purpose of raising revenue and were not earmarked for any particular purpose.

Actually, if you look carefully at the formula used to calculate SS benefits, you'll see that benefits are determined not by amount paid in taxes - as insurance plans would - but by how much you earn in wages. So in truth, SS was two separate programs - one defined benefit pension and the other a payroll tax (excise tax on employers, inncome tax on employees)- that coincidentally just happen to be passed at the same time under the same name.

The exact opposite of what the public was fed to buy into the program. the first circuit court saw right through the ploy. It correctly observed, "Congress has not an unlimited power of taxation; but is limited tospecific objects - the payment of the public debt (not its creation), and the providing of the common defense and general welfare. A tax, therefore, laid by congress for neither of these objectives, would be unconstitutional, as an excess of its legitimate authority,"

The court went on to state:

" A tax, in the general understanding of the term, and as used in the constitution, signifies an exaction for the support of govt. The word has never been thought to connote the expropriation of money from one group for the benefit of another, The exaction cannot be wrested out of its setting, denominated an excise for raisingrevenue and legalized by ignoring its purpose as a mere instrumentfor bringing about a desired end. To do this would be to shut our eyes to what all others than we can see and understand.

In further observation the court:

"If the act is carried out as planned by congress...it amounts, in effect, to taking the property of every employer for the benefit of a certain class of employees. The entire plan, viewed as a whole, is an attempt to do indirectly what congress can not to directly, and to assume national control over a subject clearly within jurisdictionof the states."

The supreme court reversed this decision. Of the myriad of grounds established by the first circuit court, only two were brought to the supreme court. Which they ignored and declared SSA constitutional. One was the act sought to raise revenue. Repeating that the SSA was actually two separate acts passed under the same name at the same time.

In short form, it is unconstitutional and an over reach of power not granted by the constitution. At worst it should be voluntary participation and at best, left to the states entirely.

 

[eflatminor]

.

 

[P@triot]

Delete duplicate post