On Takings, Taxes, and Entitlements

I agree with most of the article. However, as a social security recipient, I do not feel guilty for collecting after so many years of putting into the system. I would much rather have put the money into a private account. Hell, they could have just returned to me the money they collected from me with a modest interest and let me invest it. I wouldn't ask for another dime.

What I do object to is the myriad number of citizens and non-citizens (e.g. illegals) who slip in and receive SS benefits, mostly through SSI.

I couldn't agree more with the authors stance on "Kelo."

The Kelo decision is troubling at a deeper level for it disregards the purpose not only of our Constitution but the core of our governance.

For example: you and I have the right to defend ourselves against those who wish to do us harm. Since we have that right, we can empower our government to that on our behalf. Hence, we create law enforcement to carry out self-defense on our behalf as it provides defense for those who are weakest.

But, we do not have the right to covet our neighbor's property and rob him of it by trickery or by force. Since we do not have that right, we cannot empower our government to do that on our behalf. And if we cannot empower the government to take property, our government most certainly cannot, on its own volition, do it whenever it pleases.

Now doesn't the Fifth Amendment give government the right to take property for public use? Absolutely not! Government has no rights - only we do. The Fifth, like all other Amendments, upholds our rights. Certainly government needs property but our rights are supreme. If government needs property for the public good, then it must provide us not only with compensation but DUE PROCESS. Read the amendment in its entirety:

[No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or PROPERTY, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.]

Notice that this is one big run-on sentence and it is purposely written that way to thread together a common concept: due process. So not only must you be compensated but the government has to give you the same process due as if you're facing execution or imprisonment. It's the big three. Therefore private property is a right that government cannot cavalierly toss aside by only considering what they owe you for moving expenses. More importantly, the Constitution gives government limited, enumerated powers; and nowhere is it stated that goverment can confiscate property. The Fifth clearly limits taking for public use, at the consent of the governed, only after due process and compensation is given - which infers the people own the property, not government. Socialists need not apply.

So government cannot simply declare property condemned or better suited for a better class of tax payer. That's not due process. Further, property put to public use has to have a legitimate public use, i.e. one that serves the function of government. Getting more tax dollars is not a 'Necessary and Proper' function of government.

This ties in to our compensation for working. Our labor is a combination of our life, liberty and property. Academically, taxation that does not have anything to do with the 'Necessary and Proper' function of government is unconstitutional. But I seriously doubt that will ever fly in today's legal academia.

How did we get into this mess? The Left's victory in moral equivalence. Take the term "Thou shall not kill". To the person who is God-fearing, taking a life means not only punishment in this world, but in God's Kingdom as well - which is much worse. That's what keeps us from murder even if we know we won't get caught. But take God out of the picture, and those become just words; words which the professional wordsmiths can twist and shape to mean anything they want. Hence abortion. Hence physician-assisted suicide. What the wordsmiths of the Supreme Court did with Kelo was to take the term "Public Use" and twist it into "anything that remotely benefits the public, but mostly if it helps government" abomination.

The Court lost its moral compass with respect to our history, the purpose of our Union and the God-fearing footing of our laws. But most importantly, it puts the needs of government above the right if the people, the individual. And that is truly the problem. Sorry for the rant.

The justices who decided in favor of Kelo sometime in their lives obviously smoked too many kilos.

Although I agree with some of your statements, I find your overall conclusion to be wrong, that taxes, which you call, "taking" is wrong; I also take umbrage with your dismissal of the Constitutional legitimacy of social security.
The stated goals of the Constitution are among others:"...promot[ing] the general Welfare, and secur[ing] the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity," and nowhere does it say that you CANNOT create a social security program so one cannot say it is against the rules of that noble document. In fact one of the enumerated powers is "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execeution the foregoings powers and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States..." Now if promoting the general Welfare IS in fact one of the goals, as the Constitution says it is, and our elected leaders deem Social Securtiy, which has prevented among other programs another national depression by stemming massive consumption based cyclical unemployment, to be "necessary and power" to create and carry out the implementation of the program it is well within their rights to do as such.

You further state "...it is equally unjust for the government to seize one person's income and give it to another person" since we pay the military with taxes is their employment also "unjust?" How would we fund the employment of state workers, or the government at all for that matter, without taxes? Borrowing? How would we pay that back? Surely you cannot be suggesting that compulsory taxes, all of which "forcibly" take a persons money and give it to someone else, are illegitimate. That makes you sound like a utopian (a hallmark of liberalism); people are not and history have not been willing to give up their money, even for the enumerated powers, without putting a "gun to their head." Now I think entitlement programs for the most part are totally ridiculous morally and fiscally, but they are all constitutionally sound. Eminent domain has more wiggle room. I generally agree with this site and it's authors, but I must respectfully disagree with your overall conclusion that there should be no coercion in government policy in this essay. That is the raving of a loopy Utopian Libertarian. Men (and women) as James Madison pointed out, are not angels, so they often must be forced by the government to do the correct thing, i.e. paying taxes, fighting for the country via the draft etc. I also take issue with your idea that there was some overall "vision" for the correct way of reading the Constitution that the Founding Fathers all had. History proves that their bitter divides on that issue make today's partisan politics look tame. Oh well though, I'd still take a Utopian libertarian over a Utopian Marxist like Obama. Perhaps I am also reading this article incorrectly, and I would be more than happy to listen to any error in my interpretation of this article, or the logic of this response. Thank you and keep up the good work American Thinker!

"take property away from a group of working-class homeowners and give it to a private development corporation for use as part of a government-approved "economic revitalization" project"

Isn't this idea behind Centrism, governmental private development.?

George S. Don't be sorry. You're absolutely right.

Obama's Windfall Profits Tax scheme will not only confiscate money from the oil companies, it will also confiscate money from the hundreds of thousands of Americans who own land that is producing oil and receive royalties from that production.

Additionally, the Oil Producing States collect oil production taxes and those receipts will be substantially reduced under an Obama Oil Confiscation Tax.

Furthermore, the Oil Producing States own lands within their state that produce oil and the state receives royalty on that production.

An Obama Oil Confiscation Tax impacts far more than the oil companies.

Obama's Windfall Profits Tax scheme will not only confiscate money from the oil companies, it will also confiscate money from the hundreds of thousands of Americans who own land that is producing oil and receive royalties from that production.

Additionally, the Oil Producing States collect oil production taxes and those receipts will be substantially reduced under an Obama Oil Confiscation Tax.

Furthermore, the Oil Producing States own lands within their state that produce oil and the state receives royalty on that production.

An Obama Oil Confiscation Tax impacts far more than the oil companies.

.

VOTE FOR THE FAIRTAX!!!!!!

.

I'm going to pull my hair out!
Eminent domain is wrong? Ok...
"The most significant era of eugenic sterilization was between 1907 and 1963, when over 64,000 individuals were forcibly sterilized under eugenic legislation in the United States.[43] A favorable report on the results of sterilization in California, the state with the most sterilizations by far, was published in book form by the biologist Paul Popenoe and was widely cited by the Nazi government as evidence that wide-reaching sterilization programs were feasible and humane,"(Wikipedia,n.d.).

People, none of this stuff is new. Our government has trepassed against us in ways that are far more damning then eminent domain and Social Security. Although wonderful arguments citing Constitutional provisions can be made, many of our leaders stop honoring the Constitution more then a century ago.

Side note: The Eugenics movement in the U.S. is the most under appreciated part of our history, we are still feeling the effects of it today. If you claim to be an informed American, read and study about Eugenics for it is the secret history of this county. It will show you why the Democratic Party is dangerous and why B.H. Obama is bad for this country!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
http://www.princeton.edu/~tleonard/papers/Womenswork.pdf

Jerry:

SSI payments do not come out of SS funds; they come out of the general fund. This perception is due to the fact that the SS Administration administers the SSI program.

I suppose you could argue that excess SS contributions go into the general fund, and therefore some pay for SSI.

Great article. I never thought of Social Security in those terms but Mr. Warshawsky is correct. My Social Security does not go into my own account. It's there for everyone to stick their hands into. Like the government does.
While eminent domain stays no one can feel safe in owning a house. According to eminent domain we don't own houses.
And I guess it never occurred to Obama that if oil companies are taxed, then gas prices will go up. It doesn't take an economic genius to figure that out. Either Obama is incredibly naive or he doesn't care how much money we pay for gas. I go with the latter.

Thank you Mr. Warshawski. Government economic redistribution significantly reduces the motivation of our citizens to work and save in their own self-interest. Clearly we all are hurt. What we need to do as a nation is have a constitutional amendment that caps aggregate taxation for all public purposes, at all levels of government (Federal, State, and Local), and outlaws unfunded mandates. Without an overall reasonable limit on all taxation, our freedom is simply a myth. Democratically imposed slavery is as heinous as any other form.

Lex,
I respect what you say, but there are a few flaws to your reasoning. As your righting shows you to e a thoughtful individual, I trust you will take my comments in the constructive way that I intend them.
First of all, there are three parts to the Constitution; the preamble, the articles, and the amendments. The preamble exists to explain broad purpose of the Constitution, the articles exist to define the powers granted by the Constitution, and the amendments exist to modify the original document. The phrase "promote the general Welfare" exists in the preamble, and so gives no power. The methods of promoting the general welfare are spelled out in the enumerated powers listed in the articles and the amendments. Some of the powers granted for this purpose are the power to build post roads, the power to protect patents and copy rights, and the power to regulate trade. In like regard, the preamble spells out as a purpose "provide for the common defence." Article 1 then gives Congress the power to raise, train, and arm an army and a navy and grants them certain limited powers over the state militias. Article 2 gives the President the power of Commander in Chief. See? Purpose stated in the preamble, powers granted in the articles. You will find the initial powers that were granted to Congress in Article 1, Section 8. The law making power you reference is the final clause of that section. In other words, they had the power to make laws to enact the powers granted to them in Section 8 (plus any additional powers future amendments granted them.)
Secondly, you say that "nowhere does it say that you CANNOT create a social security program so one cannot say it is against the rules of that noble document." This is not accurate. I refer you to the 10th Amendment - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." In other words, if the Constitution doesn't say the can do it, they can't do it. Yes, as you say, there is a certain amount of wiggle room; for example the Constitution grants Congress the power to create an army and a navy but does not specifically grant the power to create a marine corps or an air force. However, in the language of the day, army and navy encompassed the entirety of a nation's military. When you assigned army personnel to support the navy, you had marines, and of course, air power did not yet exist. Likewise, we understand that a free press also includes the electronic media.
Thirdly, Mr. Warshawsky does not challenge the legitimate purposes of the federal government. For example, I have the right to defend myself and my property. Therefore, I can grant the government the power to exercise that right on my behalf. This is the purpose of the military. Now, if I grant them the authority to raise a military to defend me, I must also grant them the means to pay for that. When I served, I certainly needed to be trained, needed equipment to do my job, and needed to be able to provide for my family. This is a legitimate use of taxes. Now, I realize that some people don't see the need for a military; after all, we've been doing our job pretty well for the last two centuries; but the Constitution we live under clearly grants this power. If they don't like it, they have three options: move to a nation that has no military, gather enough likeminded souls to amend the Constitution to disallow a military, or vote Democrat. But as long as we choose to live in the US, and as long as the Constitution remains in force, we grant the government the authority to levy taxes to fund its legitimate powers. The problem is the funding of illegitimate powers. That is to say, when we collectively grant the government the power to do what we don't have the right to do, or when we don't collectively grant the government the power to exercise our rights on our behalf (that is to say, we don't grant them the authority in the Constitution) but they seize the power anyway.

Ugh! Poor Lex! Another unfortunate victim of the "general welfare" trap. One of the Founders that he quotes, Madison, was one of the many who said the "general welfare" clause is restricted by the parameters of the Constitution itself. I believe thats the purpose of the 9th and 10th Amendments. Since Social Security is a federal program not specifically "enumerated" in the Constitution it is unconstitutional. If a federal retirement program is deemed necessary by the people, then the Constitution should be amended accordingly. If the so called "general welfare" clause were interpreted the way Lex interprets it, then it would justify just about anything the government choses to do. The U.S. Constitution is a treatise on limited government, not unlimited government.

He also asks how we are supposed to pay for all these wonderful government workers if we don't tax. Well, maybe it's because people like Lex deem any program promoting the "general welfare" to be constitutional. If we didn't have all these unconstitutional entitlement programs then we wouldn't need all those bureaucrats to implement them. And all those people might have real jobs in the private sector. Instead, they would be contributing to our society rather than leeching off it.

Also, it is not the governments business to force its citizens to do the "correct" thing. There is something called religion that does that and that's a private responsibility that the government in a free society has no business promoting. The government is not our moral compass. This isn't Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia.

Finally, Lex's most cringing error of all is his notion that liberty is "Utopian." I must admit that's the first time I've ever heard liberty referred to as being utopian. Liberty is the natural state of mankind. It's as natural as the oxygen we breathe. Hence, the term "natural rights." A term you no doubt have come across in reading people like Madison and Jefferson. That's why its so precious and must be defended at all costs. I don't find anything "raving" or "loopy" about that. Name one other "idea" or "concept," utopian or otherwise, that private citizens actually volunteer to fight and die for. The men and women of our armed forces risk their lives for things like liberty and freedom and their country. Not for their government. Not for the "general welfare." Not for utopian concepts like equality or equal outcome.

Lex...

You show a complete lack of understanding of what the Constitution is and does. Makes me wonder whether you are a victim of government schools or liberal professors. Or both?

In Article One, the Constitution details exactly what Congress is permitted to do - any taxes or spending not directly related to that list of powers granted by the people to the government is ipso-facto extra-constitutional.

Mr. Warshawski...

Thank you for one of the elegant and powerful descriptions of libertarianism (classical liberalism) I've read. Unfortunately, both major parties takes neither the Constitution nor the principles upon which the U.S. was founded seriously any more.

Great read and excellent observations. Unfortunately it can be reduced to the following. Im' afraid we are the complacency to apathy stage.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government.
It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."
The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence:
from bondage to spiritual faith,
from spiritual faith to great courage,
from courage to liberty,
from liberty to abundance,
from abundance to selfishness,
from selfishness to complacency,
from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency,
from dependency back to bondage.
Alexander Tyler 1747-1813 most commonly attributed to
"The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic"
by Alexander Fraser Tytler Lord Woodhouselee (1748-1813) (Scottish judge and historian at Edinburgh University)
However, this has also been attributed to Benjamin Disraeli, Alexis de Tocqueville, R. G.
LeTourneau and others.

The concept of "personal responsibility vs collective responsibility for persons" is THE difference between conservatives and liberals. But, your positive reference to past Justice O'Connor is the reason for this note.

I am not the scholar that you and many of your readers are. But you can correct me if my recollections are wrong.

You have cited one of past Justice O'Connor's decisions. Was she the one who decided to permit further "affirmative action" at the U Of Michigan Law School with the proviso that we should not expect such permissive decisions to continue forever and that such privilege may reasonably expire in say twenty years or so? Certainly a politically correct decision, but it furthered a questionable Supreme practice which bolstered Kelo.

Does this "time related exception" interpretation permit deviation from the literal interpretations of our Constitution? I did not realize that "time" and the concept of "expiration" was expressed in the Constitution. I thought our founders accommodated the potential need for time and experience related changes to an amendment process in the hopes of some National consensus to contribute to "law and order" among our diverse law-lay public. I do understand that many of our Justices consider that our Constitution is a "living" instrument, THE basis of our "law" which DOES permit "new" ideas and concepts of "justice" to trump the literal interpretation ... to accommodate their view of necessary progress.

Does such a practice render our "laws" at question until some "court" decides the "specifics" in EACH interpretation? That is, does such a concept mean that ALL of our "laws" are at reasonable issue such that the common man may not reasonably trust his personal interpretation to guide his daily lawful actions ... or even those interpretations of his personal, schooled lawyer? As ex VEEP Gore once opined, his questionable actions should not be judged because they were NOT an issue specifically decided by some past Court. And this practice is supposed to lead us, collectively, toward a more lawful society ... or a more litigious one(?) But it does further our collective responsibility for those persons the Court deems worthy of redress. EdB

There's a minor error here: so far the social security tax is only imposed on wages and salaries, not incomes, which also include rents, dividends, interest, and capital gains. Of course, as Social Security goes further in the hole Congress will surely turn its avaricious eyes to this source of revenue.

Also unmentioned here is the effect of programs like Social Security creating dependency on government, not to mention the fact that all federal welfare programs violate the plain language of the Bill of Rights: the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

Bruce Campbell, thanks for that quote! I hadn't heard it before, and it's a fine one.

ArkAshamed, the SS tax is also imposed on "net earnings from self-employment" which includes the net income from a sole proprietorship, the taxpayer's distributive (whether distributed or not) share of partnership income, royalties, director's fees, etc. That means, as we all know, that small business owners are hardest hit by increases in the SS tax.

This article is right on. It's also more or less what libertarians and libertarian-conservatives have been saying for about 40 years. This could have come from the Cato Institute or the Heritage Foundation.

Unfortunately, such sentiments have not taken hold with the electorate, except for maybe about 5 minutes in the 80's.

All we can do is keep telling the truth, I guess, like this article, and hope some of it sticks.

Are we slaves? No. We are just serfes who work for a Grand Senior (Government) up to half a day every day. After taking our money Grand Senior distributes alms among beggars whom he impoverished. As to 'expropriate and redistribute' it is a very popular idea in Soviet Union, and Russia continues do the same except of the fact that now their Grand Senior distributes expropriated wealth among their cronies.

Lex seems to put social security together with avoiding a depression. economists are finally beginning to understand that FDR's Great Society (socialist0 program did not pullus out. The man resonsible for ending the Great Depression was Adolph Hitler. Check the US unemployment rate in 1939 if you doubt!

To those who cite the 'General Welfare' clause to justify government's entitlement programs, there is an argument that refutes that in its entirety:

Short Answer: What's the point of Article I enumerating Congress' powers if they can cite the General Welfare clause?

Longer Answer: When the Constitution was set to be ratified, the state of Virginia was the last holdout. Virginia was afraid that the Tenth Amendmendment afforded Congress a loophole to assume extra-constitutional powers. The Tenth Amendment states:

[The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people]

While this is a good thing because it states that government cannot assume powers not specifically enumerated to it, it does not prevent government from EXPANDING powers that it does have under Article I. In other words, it may plant an enumerated power as the 'seed' to grow a libery-robbing tree. In order to counter this, Madison proposed what would become the Ninth Amendment:

[The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.]

The basic premise is: if government expands, the People's rights and liberties shrink as Government can only grow at the expense of liberty. But the Ninth states that nothing shall deny or disparage the rights of the people. Since by definition government expansion disprages the rights of the people, it will now violate the Constitution. Loophole closed.

Lex,
To some of us promoting the general welfare means creating a field of opportunity not a field of entitlement. The Federal Governmet could have accomplished the same RE: Social Security by having a planned movement towards private acounts starting in the 1940's. Lord knows the subsequent management of the system politco's of all brands has been atrocious as it usually is with these underperformers. This is great pool of money to pread around not to be used for the general welfare, you can not make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. So we can yak about the general welfare all we want, the reality is it is not that just another pool of money to spent without regard to the future genral welfare.

Taxes under a progressive system are indeed a taking. No one would say that we do not need some form of civil governmet and no one would say that it is free but would anyoe say that everyone should contribute. SAy would the 50% that contriobute only 3% of the pie say they should contribute more. No they would lobby to pay leess and have that rich guy pay more. So then we have a taking whioch is some on a society throught the power of government actuall being theives. That is what they are no way around it. They don't realize it but theire elected official do. Takings should also be considered with the old nursery rime about the goose and the golden egg. If in fact the promoting the general welfare is a function of government(although not an enumerated power) it does not seem that can be done by squeezing the goose for more golden eggs. That is what is happening in much of the west, but no where but here do so few fpay so much.

To Jal,
I appreciate you respectful and well-reasoned response but I still am inclined to disagree for the following reasons.
Yes, you are correct that the preamble grants no real legitimate authority, and I was unwise to use that citation as support for my argument. I will instead refer to the FIRST of the enumerated powers which states " The congress shall have power- to lay and collect taxes, duties imposts, and excises; to pay the debts provide for the common defense AND general welfare of the United States."[Emphasis added] This clearly makes Social Security, compteletly constitutionally legal as it could be considered part of the general welfare. The Supreme Court has since upheld this interpretation, in Steward Machine Company v. Davis (1937) the court ruled "The clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated [,] is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. ... It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution." Even in the Federalist No. 30 Alexander Hamilton pushes for an expansive view of on the powers of taxation and he was a large supporter of the idea of a more flexible Constitution. The income tax to pay for such programs is also 100% constitutional as the XVI Amendment authorizes it. To seek for its repeal is a legitimate and reasonable course of action, but to claim that it doesn't exist or is illegal for some reason is not.
Also as for my interpretation of Mr. Warshawsky article I am only basing it from what he wrote he said "...it is equally unjust for the government to seize one person's income and give it to another person. A taking, by any other name, is still wrong." He makes no exemptions for the military and so can only assume he is against all taxation to give to someone else. If he or you or anyone, is to make an exception for something he agrees with, such as the military and force everyone to do the same, why can it not be the same rule for something promoting the general welfare, which is also an enumerated power? We can argue over the sagacity of such entitlement programs and I would most likely be inclined to agree with you and Mr. Warshawsky, but I must also acknowledged the constitutional legality of such programs as well.

To Chris,
Please don't malign me or put words in my mouth. I am inclined to agree with you that we SHOULDN'T have these programs. However I am not one to cry "unconstitutional'" whenever something I don't like is passed. As to the "true" nature of the Constitution, I agree that is should be viewed as a document of limited government, but also realize that that view is not the only logical or evident conclusion as many intelligent people disagree and argue very reasonably that point and have from its very inception.
As to your notion that it is not the government's responsibility to care for our other citizens at all or force them to do the right thing, are you against the court and legal system? Isn't it's entire purpose to make sure people are doing the right thing and to be punished if they are not? Also laws protecting workers and consumer's rights and stopping companies from polluting "force" people to do the right thing for the benefit of the citizens, those should be gone too right? Should we all be drinking milk with chalk in it because some companies can make more money that way and want to do that? Is it not the government's job to step in? I also assume you are rabidly pro choice due to the fact that you don't think the government has any business interfering with a person decisions.
Finally, I never said that liberty was loopy; nothing could be further from what I believe. Although the concept of TOTAL liberty is utopian, and if you read John Locke you would know that we give up some liberty and rights to protect other rights and liberties. I was only saying that largely the political party and most major tenants of the political philosophy that is modern day "libertarianism" are loopy and utopian. I mean Ron Paul is a kookoo bird! Total liberty cannot be achieved. Liberty one of the greatest rights we posses, that is why I am a stalwart foe of communism and all forms of fascism, but I do not let my love of liberty cloud my reason. I can name you plenty of concepts that private citizens all over the world have fought for, Liberty yes, but manifest destiny, the master race, the king, justice, love, and good old fashion greed to name a few. I am also amazed by your psychic ability to know what EVERY solider is fighting for.

And John Shuey,
I am no victim of any liberal conspiracy and I wish your wouldn't insult me. I am a very conservative person and I bet you and I agree on most things, even this issue more or less, but I am also fair and balanced and I try to see the other side of the coin. I mean the Supreme Court has ALWAYS upheld MY interpretation of Social Security; surely they are not totally ignorant as to working of the Constitution.

"surely they are not totally ignorant as to working of the Constitution."

There is a book out called "The Dirty Dozen: How Twelve Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom", by Robert Levy and William Mellor that show in fact that the Supreme Court, whether in ignorance or willfully, has not always been on the side of liberty.

Also, fine, even if the Supreme Court says SS is constitutional, it is still clearly a bad program. It worked when lifespans were not much about 65, but now that they are in the mid'70's and climbing, it is not going to last. Fact is, you drop dead at age 65, you and your family receive not one penny of all those years you put it, and that is completely immoral. Were we allowed to privately invest it..and even let's say we were forced to put away something for our old age, starting when we started working, but in private accounts...the chances are we'd have big nest eggs, instead of the NOTHING left of all we've put in over the years; of course, we get the pittance dribbled back out to us which is a fraction of what was put in, at the discretion of the government which can then turn around and tax it again!

Wonderful system.

Bah humbug

Lex seems a fine example of someone with a "sitcom episode" knowledge of the Constitution.

Have you read the Federalist Papers? The collected papers of Madison, Jefferson, Adams (both), Franklin, Washington, Hamilton, Jay, Lee, The Anti-Federalists, Henry...

In short, do you do any of your own investigation, or just accept, sheep-like, whatever those "Black-robed Priests of the Law" vomit up?

IF you had researched a whit, you'd see that wealth transfere was a fear then as now and not something Constitutional.

It reared its ugly puss again during Lincoln's day, hence his speech about "pulling down one man's house to build another man's".

The Three unalienable rights originally were: "Life, Liberty, and Property"... NOT "Pursuit of Happiness". Private Property was to be considered sacrosanct. Stealing my money, earned by my talents, to buy the Blow's vote (no matter the label) is STILL stealing in the same way that Dred Scott was entitled to freedom -- no matter how many SCOTUS voted otherwise. To argue that such a ruling (these aforementioned Takings) is within the scope of the Constitution makes me a slave of the aforemenioned Blow family just as much as it did Dred Scott.

You are taking my Life's Minutes (as expressed in Work, with the unit being dollars) without my consent. Howelse do you define slavery?

To put it another way:
1. We The People created the Constitution.

2. A creator cannot endow his creation with attributes he himself doesn't possess.

3. therfore a creature cannot exceed its creator.

SO:
1. We The People cannot steal our neighbor's stuff

2. As we lend, collectively, our moral authority to our creature: the Constitution, we cannot give it moral authority exceeding what we ourselves possess.

3. therefore, the government cannot CONSTITUTIONALLY steal a person's stuff to give to someone else...

And it doesn't matter if you call it "taxation", "healthcare", "compassion", or "glunk"; it is still not Constitutional... no matter what the Supremes say.

The worst aspect to Kelo for me was the majority agreeing that personal property rights and the protections of the Fifth Amendment were secondary to the "collective good" (IIRC the phrase "collective good"--or perhaps "collective benefit"--was actually used). As far as I'm concerned, a strict adherence to the Constitution is about as collectively good as it gets.

Good luck getting rid of the government-sanctioned thievery otherwise know as Social Security. That one will be with us until the bitter end when we finally collapse under the weight of all our entitlements. The most we can hope for is reform and even that isn't looking good.

The ownership of "private property", meaning the owning land and the buildings on it, is the very essence of what America is about. I realize the lawyers want to twist the meaning of "private property" into something else like, taxes, but we all know the true meaning behind the phrase "private property". Those who are try to change it are the very worst type of human filth.