Entry due Tuesday November 12th
I copied the below from the Oyez, Oyez web page:
STEWARD MACHINE COMPANY v. DAVIS
Term:
- 1901-1939
Location: Steward Machine Co.
Facts of the Case
The Steward Machine Company challenged the validity of a tax imposed by the Social Security Act. The Act established a federal payroll tax on employers; however, if employers paid taxes to a state unemployment compensation fund (created by the states subject to federal standards), they were allowed to credit those payments toward the federal tax.
Question
Did the Act arbitrarily impose taxes in violation of the Fifth Amendment or subvert principles of federalism?
Conclusion
In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that the tax under the Social Security Act was a constitutional exercise of congressional power. The Court found that the tax was uniform throughout the states and did not coerce the states in contravention of the Tenth Amendment. The Court took note of recent unemployment statistics from the years 1929 to 1936, maintaining that "[i]t 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 nation responded to the call of the distressed."
The United States government should use tax revenues to support legal residents and citizens of the United States. Without these taxes a large portion of the US citizens would live under the poverty line. Social security protects three groups of people: elderly, the unemployed, and the handicapped. It is imperative to impose a tax on employers so that the unemployed can receive compensation. The social security act made it possible for the government to tax employers to help those in need. Imposing the tax is constitutional, which became evident through the majority opinion in the Steward Machine Company case. Since the tax was constant throughout the states and it did not violate the 5th amendment, it was constitutional. The social security act was a governmental response to those who cried for help. If social security tax revenues were not implemented the trend would continue and more people would become impoverished. The distribution of wealth in the United Sates today is still extremely uneven, but it would be even worse if social security did not exist.
ReplyDelete-Ben Key-Comis
In my opinion, a tax should be in place in order to collect money for the unemployed, handicapped, and elderly. I believe this because those that are less fortunate should have compensation. I agree that those who are unemployed and aren’t looking for a job shouldn’t be able to receive unemployment compensation. But, for those who are in search for a job should have money to live a decent life. In our constitution it says all people should be given the right to life, liberty, and property. In order for this to happen the government needs to provide aid to those unable to work or those who can’t find work. Taking a look at our countries history shows that unemployment is inevitable. It is improper to make those unable to work suffer. Social security is in place to provide people with necessities and medical care. Social security isn’t a plan for retirement, but rather a crutch for those who deserve it. Before social security elderly people relied on there families very heavily after retirement. Many people were left sick and hopeless. With social security the elderly now can take care of themselves more efficiently. Elderly, unemployed, and handicapped are all given an opportunity to have a source of capital through social security.
ReplyDelete-Jake Sontag
Roy Faigenbaum ~
ReplyDeleteFirst off, I do not believe that the United States of America should be permitted to use taxpayer money to provide Social Security to those that are simply permanent residents of the United States, due to the fact that it means these individuals are not citizens, so they likely have not been paying into the system for too long because of the length of time required as a legal resident of the United States does not permit immediate citizenship. However, I do believe in the idea of the system for Citizens of the U.S. Although I do not entirely agree with the proportions of who pays what and how much everyone does receive, I believe that the idea of Social Security is a positive one. As per the legality of the measure, I do agree with the Supreme Court's decision that Social Security is Constitutional, because it is both a power of Congress, but especially because it is the same for each and every state, and it differs by person, not state.
~ Roy Faigenbaum
The United States Government should use tax revenues to support legal residents and US citizens. Without this tax, the handicapped, elderly and unemployed would be at great risk of becoming impoverished. It is harder for these people to make money because of their current or permanent states, and I believe it is part of every citizen’s duty to give a little of their earnings towards helping them. I do think that the requirements to receive these tax benefits must be very strict, in order to eliminate free loaders. For example one must be very active and spending most of their time searching for a job if they apply for unemployment. I also think the elderly handouts must increase with age as life expectancies go up and medicine technology. In terms of the tax itself there should be a slight increase in tax on the wealthy, but it should be a percentile of a persons earnings so that it isn’t too much for the poor and not too little for the rich, who can afford it. I think this was constitutional because it promotes the general welfare like the preamble suggests. But I do not think paying a tax for ones state should give a credit towards paying the federal tax. This is a direct violation of the constitution in that it suggests that states have more power than the federal government.
ReplyDelete-Kevin O’Neill
I believe that tax revenues should be used to support the elderly, handicapped, and unemployed citizens and legal residents of the US through Social Security. Because there are less fortunate people in the US this needs to be in effect. Although thought unconstitutional by some, the Constitution states that every citizen has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; therefore, making this Constitutional. Prior to Social Security the people listed above relied greatly on their families who ended up not being able to take care of them. With putting social security in affect, it gave these people a chance to survive. By looking at what has caused America’s debt since 1970, Social Security has hardly impacted the debt at all, it is mostly Medicare. However, boundaries must be set on who is truly eligible for Social Security. For the elderly, the age in which one receives Social Security must be changed since people are living longer. For the unemployed, one must be actively seeking a job to get Social Security money, if they are not, then they are not entitled to it. I think that Social Security as a whole is necessary and Constitutional; however, it is in need of a few minor changes.
ReplyDeleteIf social security and the use of tax revenues did not exist, our economy and, more importantly, country would be incredibly worse then it is today. Although I do not believe that free handouts should be made out to just anyone, I do believe there are those in need of some sort of compensation for their special circumstances. I believe it is vital for this countries success socially to look out for legal citizens of the United States, and for the well-being of the country, legal residents. For example, if someone is out of work and not searching for a job because they find that they will make more money collecting a welfare check then actually working, they should not get that money. However, if a person is truly unemployed or of special needs, meaning they cannot support for themselves on their own, then that person has the right to collect some sort of compensation in order to live a life that they should be able to live. In regards to the Social Security Act, it was constitutional as it gave the means to people in need of help that help, as well as being just to the states as it was the same for all.
ReplyDelete-Charlie Corcoran
The United States should not use tax revenues to support legal residents and citizens socially. Under FDR’s New Deal, several programs were put in place to benefit the people and help the country recover from unemployment and depression. The intentions of Social Security were to provide people with money for retirement and compensations for the handicapped. However, nowadays, Social Security has become very mismanaged and unfair. This can be attributed to those who haven’t paid as long as others and wind up with the same benefits. These people are usually those who have not been residents for long (or citizens). For this reason, citizens who pay into Social Security receive the same benefits as a resident who may have paid into Social Security for a few years. It might be beneficial to change Social Security and choose a path where it either just provides benefits to citizens or proportionally provides benefits to both citizens and residents. Transitioning to proportional systems, we learned that there is a cap on the Social Security Act that makes people above a certain income pay the same tax rather than proportionally taxing people. This obviously skews the tax more beneficial to the rich. As regards to the Constitutionality of the Social Security Act, I do not agree with the ruling of the Steward Machine Case. I believe Social Security was created in good faith and potentially provides good for the people, however I am unsure of its Constitutionality. Under no section of the Constitution does it say Social Security system can be set in place, etc. Though on most matters I believe in broad construction of the Constitution, as our founding fathers believed it was important to keep the constitution relevant, I respond with strict construction ideology in this instance. I believe the general welfare clause is used too loosely and thus Social Security may not provide welfare to everyone (including the hundreds, thousands, and millions of people who don’t pay or receive a fair amount of money) but only a selective few.
ReplyDelete~Pete Warsinske
I believe that the United States Social Security Act is constitutional. The government should be able to tax Americans to help support the elderly, handicapped and unemployed. These people should receive aid from the government because it is extremely difficult for them to work and take care of themselves. For the elderly that have retired they do not have income and throughout their working years they have paid into the retirement system and should be taken care of by a program that they have put their own money into. For the handicapped I strongly believe that they should receive aid whether they are mentally handicapped or physically. My aunt receives aid from the government that she 100% needs because many of the programs are expensive. Handicapped people might also have debilitating weaknesses that do not let them work and take care of themselves as well. The unemployed should also receive aid from the government. People who are not able to work because they cannot get a job need a source of income to survive. I also think that regulations should be strictly enforced so that people do not take advantage of the system. For people that take advantage of the system and take money that they do not need they should be prosecuted because it is fraud and stealing which are against the law. I strongly believe that these programs should be put into place to help those in need but should also be carefully monitored so that people who receive the money deserve it and qualify.
ReplyDelete- Stephen DePietto
Yes, the United States Government should use tax revenues to support legal residents and citizens. This is constitutional because the United States is a Federal Republic. A Federation is: “A political entity characterized by a union of partially self-governing states or regions under a central (federal) government.” Therefore, since The United States of America is a union made up of individual states under a central government, the government should have the right to support the states; if that support includes taxing for the greater good of the country, then it should be legal.
ReplyDeleteThe ruling of The Stewart Machine Company v. Davis declared that a tax imposed by the Social Security Act (SSA) was constitutional. Those imposed taxes “…promote the general Welfare…” as said in the ruling of the case and in the Preamble of the Constitution. In addition, if there were no funding programs (including the SSA) for those in need (i.e. – elderly, unemployed, and handicapped), poverty in the US would be considerably higher. Citizens, or legal residents, who are either incapable or unable to find work, would not have a fair chance at life, liberty, and property guaranteed by the Constitution. Therefore, the imposed taxes by funding programs is constitutional because it is an attempt to help those in need, and thus help the country as a whole.
- Nicky Friedman
I believe that tax revenues through out the United States should be used to benefit the elderly, handicapped and unemployed citizens who are United State citizens through the social security act. The constitution is interpreted many different ways. Although some believe to be unconstitutional, the pursuit of happiness, liberty and a right to life is promised for every citizen through the constitution. Therefore the Social Security act and the ability to compensate for citizen’s special circumstances is constitutionally correct. If a person is truly unemployed and cannot work a job because a major disability or special needs, that person deserves some sort of boost to help them live a life they enjoy. Or is a person gets laid off because of a disability, that person should receive temporary support from the government. The social security act gives U.S. citizens a chance to get back on their feet, without it our country would loose its backbone. So many people rely on it today and without it the United States would not function. Although it’s hard to decipher handouts and genuine help, welfare is a lot of peoples stable income and without it, thousands of unemployed people would not be able to take care of their family and themselves.
ReplyDeleteSam Lewis
I believe that social security is a valuable asset that is highly beneficial to American citizens. It provides reassurance to a broad spectrum of workers, including those who are elderly, unemployed, or handicapped. Most importantly, it offers financial support to workers in unfortunate circumstances; for instance, if a stockbroker is laid off, he or she will be temporarily supported by social security while they search for new employment. That being said, I believe that social security should be accessible not only citizens, but to legal residents as well. Although they are not considered true citizens, why should they be deprived the right of social security? If they contribute to our economy, and work just as hard as any other true citizen, than they should permitted equal benefits. If legal residents are denied this right they become more susceptible to being impoverished or in debt, and believe that is unconstitutional.
ReplyDelete-Peter Hoover
The Federal government has the responsibility to protect the citizens’ rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not to provide citizens with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Nobody wants poverty in the nation or wants people to suffer, but it is not the government’s responsibility to end this suffering. As far of the tax being constitutional, the case of Steward Machine Company V. Davis was obviously controversial due to the 5-4 vote. I believe that the government using tax revenues to support citizens was constitutional, but has been interpreted to an extreme today. With the middle class shrinking in the nation today and the lower-class growing, the government is spending exponentially more money simply providing and handing out these rights to people, rights which the government is solely meant to protect.
ReplyDeleteIt is a difficult issue to approach due to the fact that, as American citizens, we want to look out for one another. I believe that someone who is unemployed and searching for a job, he or she not receive government money. These people will have no desire to find a job if the government is continuing to provide for them. “If you give a man a fish, he will have a meal. If you teach a man to fish, he will have food forever.”
The government should, however, help those people who truly need assistance, such as the handicapped or elderly. This distinction is a difficult one to make, which makes this issue so controversial.
-McCarthy
Over the last month we learned about cases in which the Justices in the Supreme Court of the United States abused and adapted the Supreme Law of the Land based on their personal views. For those situations there was not much to argue when regarding the constitutionality of the rulings made by the Supreme Court. It was clear that most powerful court of the Judicial branch was over exceeding its powers, specially when deciding over implications of the 14th Amendment. However, for the last few classes, the subject matter changed to Social Security. Unlike the 14th Amendment, the Social Security existence is not perfectly spitted out in the Constitution and it seems that its constitutionality completely depends of the interpretation of the Justices in the court. Interesting enough, Justices could argue both ways on Social Security without infringing upon provisions in the Constitution and its intents. The General Welfare clause in the Preamble can be understood in so many ways and in some extent what are the limitations placed on the National Government in order to “promote the the general Welfare”? Thus, in some level, that is the question to be answered, does creating a Social Security System is an abuse of the Preamble of the Constitution? Personally, I believe it is not. I think the United States Government can use tax revenues to support socially, both legal residents and citizens of the country. In this capitalist world we live today, there are certainly those who cannot provide for themselves and there is hardly much that they can do about it. Thus I believe that no one should have to live a miserable life and the Supreme Court is right to stand beside the national government; it can help those who needed it. However, as I mentioned, we live in a capitalist society, so practically speaking, it is important that the Social Security system becomes a self-supporting one, so that the United States of America can maintain its spending under control.
ReplyDelete-Ana Alvarenga
The United States Government should use tax revenues to support legal residents and citizens of he country. Although, many would argue otherwise I strongly believe that imposing tax is constitutional. If there is one thing that America is most known for it is freedom. Many people come to this country in hopes to start a better life. However, how can they do this if they are not financially supported? It would be unjust not to help those in search for employment. As for the handicapped and the elderly, they should without a doubt supported. If a person is Handicapped they are either physically or mentally unable to work, therefor should be given financial support in order to live a healthy life. Similarly, the elderly are at an age where they are able to work anymore and should not have to only depend on their families to support them. If America did not help the unemployed there would be way too many people living in poverty. It is only right that people of America be taxed in order to better the lives of people in need.
ReplyDelete- Olivia Smith
The United States Government has to abide by the interpretation of the Constitution in order to serve the people. Controversy lies over the topic deciding if the United States Government should use tax revenues to support socially both residents and citizens of our country. In my opinion; yes, the government needs a tactic to collect money from people to support not only programs and schools, but aid the citizens that make up our population. In order to do such things a tax must be collected in a reasonable way, therefore taxing the rich 30% and anyone not considered rich 5% would be quite unfair. A median must be met pleasing both sides, which lead to the establishment of the Social Security Act under the FDR administration part of the “New Deal”. The act created the Social Security System that was intended to help the elderly, poor, and unemployed. In the case Seward Machine Company v. Davis, Steward Company claimed that if employers paid taxes directly to state unemployment compensation funds, they were allowed to use that as payments for federal tax. The court deemed that the Social Security Act was a “constitutional excise of congressional power” which pertained to all states in the United States; which meant that Steward Company lost the case because it did not go against the constitution. I concur with the statement of the court claiming that activity under FDR’s “New Deal” was Constitutional. One of the reasons why it’s constitutional is that unemployment was very high in the years 1929-1936 reaching a crisis and that not only did it affect the poor, but the economy as a whole. It is the obligation of our government to respond to the crisis and use our nation’s wealth the relive the unemployed and poor to promote general welfare. As a nation we have to work together to promote prosperity which means helping people obtain jobs. When someone is educated and healthy hopefully they will not need to rely on the government, and become independent.
ReplyDelete-Austin Zaepfel
The United States Government has to abide by the interpretation of the Constitution in order to serve the people. Controversy lies over the topic deciding if the United States Government should use tax revenues to support socially both residents and citizens of our country. In my opinion; yes, the government needs a tactic to collect money from people to support not only programs and schools, but aid the citizens that make up our population. In order to do such things a tax must be collected in a reasonable way, therefore taxing the rich 30% and anyone not considered rich 5% would be quite unfair. A median must be met pleasing both sides, which lead to the establishment of the Social Security Act under the FDR administration part of the “New Deal”. The act created the Social Security System that was intended to help the elderly, poor, and unemployed. In the case Seward Machine Company v. Davis, Steward Company claimed that if employers paid taxes directly to state unemployment compensation funds, they were allowed to use that as payments for federal tax. The court deemed that the Social Security Act was a “constitutional excise of congressional power” which pertained to all states in the United States; which meant that Steward Company lost the case because it did not go against the constitution. I concur with the statement of the court claiming that activity under FDR’s “New Deal” was Constitutional. One of the reasons why it’s constitutional is that unemployment was very high in the years 1929-1936 reaching a crisis and that not only did it affect the poor, but the economy as a whole. It is the obligation of our government to respond to the crisis and use our nation’s wealth the relive the unemployed and poor to promote general welfare. As a nation we have to work together to promote prosperity which means helping people obtain jobs. When someone is educated and healthy hopefully they will not need to rely on the government and will be able to become independent.
ReplyDelete-Austin Zaepfel
The constitution states that the government must act for the good of the people, including the disabled. The tax revenues make sure that when there are people who are disabled have some sort of support when they are no longer able to do there job, or they can not find an appropriate job. This is constitutional because it is to help the people that need it. It can be said that it is taking away some peoples money but in the world we are living in now, many people are using the money to support there families because of job losses and accidents. It is good that this tax was put in place for the people that truly need it.
ReplyDelete~Emily
I believe that social security, employed by the United States government, is constitutional. The United States' constitution states that it is one of the government's jobs to promote general welfare. Not only is social security constitutional, but it also helps elderly, unemployed, and handicapped citizens of the United States. However, I do not think it is constitutional to give social security benefits to people who are not legal citizens of the United States of America. Citizens in the United States directly impact the well being of the country, therefore I do not think that new immigrants should be able to gain the benefit of social security.
ReplyDelete-James Funderburg
As it is set up now, government tax revenues should not be used to as support for legal citizens. The 1933 New Deal set forth by president FDR was put in place because of the Great Depression. Due to extreme circumstances, people needed money and jobs in order to not only save themselves, but also to rescue our economy. However present day social security is very poorly run, and therefore taken advantage of by many people. These people are receiving funding from the government, but are making no effort to find a job or get off welfare. In the 1930's people wanted jobs where as now a days people just want to collect free tax payer dollars. I believe that the New Deal was constitutional because the programs that were created were in order to help people achieve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. However now a days, Welfare and Social Security need to be re-evaluated in order to cut out the people who are taking advantage of the system. The idea to help people in need of assistance is very good, and constitutional in itself, but we need to formulate a better way of achieving that idea. As it is set up now, we should not be giving tax revenue to legal citizens because it is giving money to people who are not making efforts to better themselves or their country, and there for do not deserve our (tax payers) money.
ReplyDelete-Troy Bernier
I feel that the U.S. Government should use tax revenues to support the unemployed, handicap, and the elderly. This plan helps those who cannot help themselves, but is misinterpreted by some as a free pass. The only true problem I have with tax revenue benefits is people who truly abuse the system and take what is not rightfully theirs. The Census Bureau reported last year that 108 million American citizens were receiving at least one “means-tested benefit” and that 101 million Americans work full time. The fact that the amount of full time workers is lower than benefit-receiving citizens is why the system is not working. Until the people who abuse the system cease to take advantage of our government’s way of helping its citizens, tax revenue benefits will always be problematic. There are people who do use them properly though, who actually cannot find work or are under different circumstances. For example, my older brother was volunteering for an Americorps program called City Year for two years, where he was being paid around 900 dollars a month. So he applied and received food stamps for those two years because he was not able to support himself on his own while still doing good for society.
ReplyDeleteHelping the handicap, and elderly is also very important to assist those who are not able to support themselves on their own. More specifically, veterans fall under both of these categories, and it is only fair that we protect the health of those who protected us at one point. Also, it is ethical to give benefits to handicap citizens because not only do they lead a much more expensive and medically challenging life than regular citizens do, but some mentally or physically could not survive on their own without help. I feel that as an American citizen it is only right and human to help those who cannot possibly help themselves. Overall, I feel that the tax revenue benefit system would work for our country if the people who abused the system would no longer do so.
Sarah Rogers
I believe that the Government should help our citizens in any way possible because in simple words, the Government is a representation of the people. Since this is the case, if the people are struggling, the government is failing at its job. I believe that this is the reason that social security should exist because after all, everyone would like to know that if something goes wrong in their life, the government of the United States will be there to pick them back up. I think we need to change how we do social security to prevent people taking advantage of it but the idea of social security is a good one. We should work to make sure that people have an incentive to get off programs such as welfare and also make sure that the people using those programs are not just doing so to get free money but because the genuinely need the help. Whether or not this is constitutional is a harder question for me. I have to side with the justices of the Supreme Court on this one even though the Constitution does not directly say anything about social security. These justices are supposed to be people who we can trust to interpret the law fairly and in a way that will benefit the American people the best while staying in line with the constitution. Therefore, I put my trust in their decision because quite frankly, I can see both sides of the argument and I’m not sure I know enough about the situation to make a decision completely on my own.
ReplyDeleteJay Allen
I think the United States Government should use tax revenues to support legal residents and US citizens. The needs of the elderly, the unemployed and the handicapped should be met. Supporting these entities are important because they are still citizens of the United States, thus making Social Security constitutional, because all citizens have the right to life, to the pursuit happiness and to liberty and furthermore, this compensation is parallel to the idea of General Welfare Clause. Citizens who are unable to perform certain tasks because of mental or physical hindrances, and are therefore unable to support themselves should clearly be entitled to receiving the tax revenues. As well as the elderly who have been paying into the system for a long time and deserve it. However, these tax revenues should not be taken advantage of by citizens who are not in need. Specifically, those who are unemployed but are not actively seeking a job should not be eligible.
ReplyDelete-M. Denton :)
The Government of the United States has to carry out their constitutional duties of interpreting the constitution for the public welfare of its people. For this reason, I believe that F.D.R.’s “New Deal” strategy was constitutional and right despite the controversy that it brought. This “Deal” was responsible for creating the Social Security Act; intended to help people that are considered socially poor, elderly, and/or unemployed. One controversy that stirred form this act was the Seward Machine Company (SMC) case. The SMC appealed the social security act saying it was unconstitutional. The court ruled, saying it was constitutional because of its purpose to “promoted the general Welfare” of the people as stated in the Preamble of the Constitution. This act ensured that people unable to make a living would be supported, and an act that was self-sustaining to benefit an expanding economy. President F.D.R took office during the Great depression, a time period of very high unemployment and a crumbling economy, therefore a tax for unemployed was in the interest of both the country’s people and its economy. The Social Security Act provides a structured aid for those who are incapable of living a healthy life in a way that is constitutional and supports the economy that this country is so dependent on.
ReplyDelete-Isiah Nunez
During F.D.R’s presidency, America was going through the single worst economic time in American history, the Great Depression. He found himself in charge of a country that was falling to shambles and he was tasked with fixing it. When he created the “New Deal” he was attempting to improve the lives of individuals of our nation. As written out by our founding fathers in the Preamble to the Constitution, the National Government is tasked with the job of “promoting the general welfare”. While it remains vague, it is my belief as well as that of F.D.R. that this clause gives the government the responsibility of maintaining a standard for American life. It is the combination of the moral decision making behind it as well as the fact that the Preamble inferred to it that make me feel that F.D.R’s decision to tax the people was in fact constitutional because money would be needed before the government could provide help to its citizens. On the personal side I again support the plan in the fundamental reasoning that helping one’s neighbors in need is both the pious and human thing to do. It is a fact of society that not everyone can provide for themselves whether they be disabled or elderly or merely those unable to find an income. The institution of the “New Deal” was smart not only because the government should take care of these citizens because it is the morally right thing to do, but because it is outlined as their duty in the United States Constitution
ReplyDelete-Chris Zaffanella
The United States government and officials have many jobs but most importantly they must do, under their constitutional powers, what is best for the people of this country. Personally, I believe that collecting taxes from working people to support citizens and legal residents of the United States is acceptable. The taxes being collected also fund new schools, new streets, etc. which benefit everyone, even those who are being taxed. The New Deal included the Social Security Act, which was intended to benefit the citizens of our country, which is Constitutional. The Social Security Act collects payroll taxes to support America’s unemployed, elderly, and handicapped citizens. For example if you take the Steward Machine Company vs. Davis case, the way social security was being collected was questioned whether or not it was constitutional. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court voted that collecting taxes directly to a state unemployment compensation fund was constitutional. This was during the time of the great depression and the country was in the worst economic state it had ever faced. The United States government had to find a way to collect money to support every, or most citizens that couldn’t find a way to support themselves. FDR’s “New Deal” did that in a Constitutional way by collecting a fair amount of money from those whom are well enough off to support themselves and can afford to pay these taxes. In more recent news, whether or not social security is constitutional is not the question, most people can agree that it is, however now we face the issue of the amount the country should be allowed to tax an individual. Under the constitution, our government and highest officials are obligate and expected to do what is best for the people and be able to adjust and make changes when the country is in a crisis. In this situation it was the governments obligation to find a way to support the people in need and adjust to the crisis going in the country during the 1930’s.
ReplyDelete-Troy Pierre-Louis
I believe that the Social Security Act is Constitutional. I understand that the Constitutionality of the national government forcing the states to collect taxes is questionable; however, I think that our government's job is to work for the betterment of it's people. During Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal program, the United States was reacting from the effects of the Great Depression. In oder to provide help to the people, FDR created a number of programs, one of which was the Social Security Act; the act was not passed for the betterment of a Corrupt Government, but was instead intended to "provide for the general welfare". With this in mind, the belief that the Social Security Act was and is Constitutional, for it is the governments job to support and provide for it's people, and this act simply creates a system with which those in need are supported. The national government is the highest power, and it is obligated to do what is best for the nation, especially during a time of crisis. The needs of the elderly, handicapped, and unemployed should be met by the government, for our nation must support each other at all cost.
ReplyDelete-Julia Allyn
The use of Social Security by the U.S. Government can be viewed in different ways. Social Security when used properly is very beneficial and constitutional. However, many freeloaders take advantage of Social Security and miss-use it. Social security was put in place by F.D.R. in 1933 in order to provide for those that are physically or mentally unable to provide for themselves. This provides an income for handicapped, elderly or unemployed citizens that are unable to keep a steady income. On paper this idea seems flawless. However, in our country today there are many citizens that are cheating the system and making sufficient incomes by not working or even seeking work. This is extremely unfair to those that truly need these services in order to live their daily lives. I believe that Social Security is a very helpful and constitutional law that was put in place. However, there needs to be more government regulation on who exactly is receiving social services.
ReplyDelete-Brendan Moloy
I believe that the US Social Security Act is constitutional. The purpose of the SSA is to provide for the general welfare of citizens. There are people in this country that have certain circumstances that qualify them for support, and I believe that they deserve help. People that are handicapped, unemployed, and elderly are very deserving of the care from this program. I have close relatives that are both mentally and physically handicapped, and it would be practically impossible for them to make a living without the Social Security Act. I have seen first hand the impact of this program, and how vital it is to the lives of this country. I believe that for those that truly need this, this program is completely necessary. However I also believe that the qualifications for aid should be stricter. There are too many people that solely rely on the SSA, that have the ability to find and keep a job. These people are receiving free handouts, and are completely undeserving of this aid. Other than this exception, I think that this program is completely constitutional and necessary to this country.
ReplyDelete-Mary Corcoran
In 1932, President Franklin D. Roosevelt took control of our Nation in a time of despair and tragedy caused by the Great Depression. It was the worst financial crisis our nation had ever faced. As a result of the economic crisis, President Roosevelt created the New Deal in order to put Americans back into jobs and fix the nation as a whole. On August 14th, 1935, President Roosevelt singed the Social Security Act into law. It was incorporated with the New Deal. The Social Security Act was established in order to “provide for the general welfare by establishing a system of Federal old-age benefits, and by enabling the several States to make more adequate provision for aged persons, blind persons, dependent and crippled children, maternal and child welfare…” In the time of the Great Depression, the American people needed this support from the National government. Even in 2014, I believe the American people as a whole need to receive national support. Although it may seem wrong and unconstitutional for the states to tax the people, it is only benefiting our nation and helping those that cannot provide for themselves. This is no way hurts the country, but rather helps our people. The National government is looking out for the general welfare of all the people, which is fully constitutional. The American people are in no way losing their constitutional rights by providing for the protection of those in need.
ReplyDelete-Olivia Good
At this time Franklin D. Roosevelt's "New deal" programs were certainly unconstitutional, the executive branch does not have the power entrusted to them to create and determine laws. That power was reserved for the legislative branch of government, but at this time as a country we were in such a critical state the government had to make some radical decisions to help our people recover. As far as the current period of time we aren't in such a detrimental state that we cannot sustain ourselves but our government should still put some sort of emphasis on social security. Perhaps the amount of equity drawn from people's paycheck should be reduced and instead that could be drawn from other branches such as cuts in military spending or reducing tax cuts that occur in the wealthy bracket of America. Of course these are just ideals that i'm sure could hold some stature in helping our country but as far as our government is concerned I feel like they would rather stricken the blue collar middle class level population then damage their political ties with the small percentage of rich. In other words, yes our government must withhold the people with some help just in case we are in need because that is their job, but we are creating a cyclic process in the way we are performing this now.
ReplyDeleteI think that the Social Security act is constitutional. This is because the act is protected under the elastic clause which carries out laws that are 'necessary and proper' which this certainly is to some people. Without it, more of our country would be in debt. Yes, we have a lot of national debt currently, but that is not all caused by things such as medicare and social security. There are certain programs that could be removed to get the government back to its budget. It is also constitutional because it helps to promote the general welfare, where people who couldn't necessarily support themselves are able to do that. However, the argument could be made that the SSA is unconstitutional because in most caes the rich pay less taxes than someone with a middle class job or who is poor, which can defeat the purpose of how SSA works, considering it is most likely is helping someone in the middle class or the poor. If taxes were lowered, some unnecessary programs cut out of the national 'budget' I think our country would be on the right track in being able to provide what the people in need in the most fair manner.
ReplyDeleteAnna Flaherty
DeleteI believe the Social Security act is unconstitutional. While I fully support what it does for the handicapped etc, I believe imposing this tax on citizens through the Federal government is not the way to do so. 4 of the 5 judges who ruled on this act believed it was unconstitutional and infringed upon the rights of the people. The act was ratified by use of the preamble as constitutional support for the act. The "general welfare" of others is something that was interpreted as the federal government needing to step in and help the less fortunate. I believe this is morally correct, but not constitutionally. The matter of public aid programs should be up of the state, in which its citizens can vote on whether or not they wish to employ this act. Had there been a section in the United States Constitution describing that the Federal government was responsible for this, then the SSA would be more widely accepted than it is currently. During the time of the New Deal, an act that forced the
ReplyDeleteI believe the Social Security act is unconstitutional. While I fully support what it does for the handicapped etc, I believe imposing this tax on citizens through the Federal government is not the way to do so. 4 of the 5 judges who ruled on this act during the Steward Machine Co. Case believed it was unconstitutional and infringed upon the rights of the people. The act was ratified by use of the preamble as constitutional support for the act. The "general welfare" of others is something that was interpreted as the federal government needing to step in and help the less fortunate. I believe this is morally correct, but not constitutionally. The preamble was not written to be interpreted under as law when it was written. The preamble was written as an introduction to the United States Constitution, and I also believe the social security act is within violation of the 5th Amendment, which was also brought up in court by the prosecution.
ReplyDeleteThe matter of public aid programs should be up of the state, in which its citizens can vote on whether or not they wish to employ this act. Had there been a section in the United States Constitution describing that the Federal government was responsible for this, then the SSA would be more widely accepted than it is currently. During the time of the New Deal, an act that forced the country to finally help the less fortunate was needed; however, the manner is which FDR achieved this was very hazy. He appointed judges who agreed with him, further showing that FDR himself knew that this act, while necessary, was against the Constitution. Public welfare systems, including Obamacare, should be up to the matters of the state, such as the healthcare system Mitt Romney created during his time as Governor of Massachusetts. While identical to Obamacare, the way in which it was brought into law made it up to the people to decide if they would like to waive their right to this tax in order to help others.
The problem with this, is that those that are most able to pay into social security, have found ways to circumvent it. With lawyers and senators on their sides, social security has become a burden on the middle class more than any other, which is not what the act had intended. During the time of the New Deal, it was the middle class that had been hit the hardest, and so it was its goal to aid them. While now, it is the middle class paying aid to the lower class, while the upper class has found a way to only pay the same amount as the middle class. Had this act been employed the way it was intended to, the morality behind it I fully support. Overall, I believe the SSA is unconstitutional because of its reliance on the preamble as constitutional support, its forcing of a federal tax on individual states regarding matters of the state, as well as the way in which the act has been manipulated in recent years.
-Elizabeth Hosage
Tax revenue is the income that is gained by governments through taxation. Individual income taxes and payroll taxes accounted for 82 percent of all federal revenues in fiscal year 2010. Corporate income taxes contributed another 9 percent. Excise taxes, estate and gift taxes, customs duties, and miscellaneous receipts (earnings of the Federal Reserve System and various fees and charges) made up the balance. The government can use these tax revenues to stimulate the economy and carry out there responsibilities i.e. making roads etc. Although the government can use the tax revenues to carry out its duties there are some controversies on if the government should use tax revenues to support socially, both legal residents and citizens of the United States of America. The United States experienced this during an era called the “new deal”. The New Deal was a series of domestic programs enacted in the United States between 1933 and 1936, and a few that came later. They included both laws passed by Congress as well as presidential executive orders during the first term (1933–37) of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Examples of these organizations includes Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) which protected farmers from price drops by providing crop subsidies to reduce production, educational programs to teach methods of preventing soil erosion, Civil Works Administration (CWA) provided public works jobs at $15/week to four million workers in 1934, Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) Sent 250,000 young men to work camps to perform reforestation and conservation tasks. Removed surplus of workers from cities, provided healthy conditions for boys, provided money for families and the Federal Emergency Relief Act (FERA) 1933 distributed millions of dollars of direct aid to unemployed workers.
ReplyDeleteSince most of the tax revenues are collected from peoples incomes many believe that the government should not use their money to pay for the well-being of people who are not working as hard as they are. But according to the public welfare doctrine of the preamble of the United States constitution the government can use the tax revenues to pay i.e. pensions for the welfare of the nation’s old aged people, handicapped and the unemployed because although these people are willing to work to earn an income they are unable to because of reasons they cannot control hence they should be taken care of.
Another Kushaina
Thanks for sharing, it looks interesting!
ReplyDelete