A teabagger judge has found SS unconstitutional

[CTLawGuy]

It is 2017 and America has fallen under a teabagger presidency and of course a teabagger DOJ. Some RW group had filed a lawsuit challenging SS under the tenth amendment that ended up in front of a sympathetic federal judge in the federal district court in Alaska.

After the Judge's ruling, the teabagger president is psyched! "I've always hated SS, but repeal has never been realistic with the spineless way congress is. But now, a judge has declared it unconstitutional, and all I have to do is tell the DOJ not to appeal, and SS will be gone forever thanks to this judge and the 10th Amendment. No need to pass a law through congress-nice and easy."

Then, the teabagger president lets the deadline to appeal pass and SS is forever relegated to the history books....

Now, DU, my question for you is, is what the teabagger president has done an ethically sound, legitimate exercise of his presidential power in your opinion?

[Turbineguy]

1. That sounds about right.

All the money in the fund will be given to those who can show over $1 billion in net worth. Teabaggers will cheer the news.

[baldguy]

2. No. This is an unethical abuse of power.

But then SS is clearly Constitutional, just as DADT is clearly unConstitutional.

[cutlassmama]

5. +1 clearly

[CTLawGuy]

19. are you a lawyer?

NOTHING is clearly unconstitutional or constitutional until the US Supreme Court says it is. Without their guidance, even lawyers cannot tell definitively, they can only guess.

[Mass]

3. All that to defend the DOJ's decision to oppose the DOMA ruling?\nt

[vaberella]

7. DOMA or DADT?! n/t

[Mass]

8. DOMA. At least, he posted this in the DOMA thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x474742

[vaberella]

10. Okay b/c I thought this was in relation to the DADT ruling which stated DADT was unconstitutional.

n/t

[CTLawGuy]

20. so you would be cool with a nobody teabagger judge taking away your SS?

Think about that before you're so dismissive of me or what the administration has done here.

[tularetom]

4. You're making a point here aren't you?

[NJmaverick]

6. Good luck with these efforts

logic and reason seem to struggle when challenged by raw emotion

[vaberella]

9. Depends.

The issue here is a not really a civil right, it's just a right written by politicians while the other is infringing on the lives and rights of people to exercise all aspects or advantages given to them as American citizens---basically not to be persecuted for gender, sex, (sexual orientation), race and so forth.

[NJmaverick]

11. The issue is the legal requirement for the Justice Dept to act as the United State's lawyer

a lawyer can't not defend a client because they don't like what they are accused of.

[AngryAmish]

12. Lawyers refuse clients all the time

Mostly based on payment.

But to your point - California did not appeal the finding that Prop 8 was unconstitutional. They don't have to appeal everything. It is a tradition, a good tradition. But sometimes that can be ignored.

[vaberella]

15. Well in this case the client is the Constitution. I don't think they can really "NOT" defend it. nt

[joeglow3]

22. Not government attorneys.

You are talking about private sector lawyers.

[Hosnon]

13. I think it should largely be left to the discretion of the President.

Of course, by not supporting a bright-line rule, I cede the ability to argue later on that the President is required to defend legislation (as in your hypothetical).

I think it is a good check on the legislature and judiciary for the President to have the choice. And as the President is directly (for the most part) elected by the citizens of the country, we can be confident he or she won't do anything too out of the mainstream (such as not challenging a ruling that SS is unconstitutional).

[vaberella]

16. You don't mean that.

And I say this because if a Republican president is in power and you say that any freak in charge would repeal all the good that's in this nation such as SS, medicaid, medicare and so on.

[Hosnon]

17. I don't think I understand your post. nt.

[happyslug]

14. The problem is Social Security is a STATE Program

When Social Security was set up, there was an open question as to its Constitutionality, so what Congress did was two fold. First Congress passed the Social Security Tax. The power to tax is clearly stated in the Constitution and thus can NOT be declared unconstitutional (You can call the Social Security Tax an Income Tax, but the Amendment to the Constitution clearly makes it constitutional).

Then, Congress asked EVERY state to designate the Federal Government as the STATE's Agent in regard to Social Security. In Simple terms Social Security is a State program run by the Federal Government, independent of any federal constitutional area of cover.

Notice, the two are NOT connected, if a State decides to drop out of Social Security, the Citizens of that state can NOT get Social Security BUT STILL HAVE TO PAY THE SOCIAL SECURITY TAX.

After Social Security was passed, every state passed a law granting the Federal Government the Authority to provide Social Security. Thus the Federal Courts to strike down Social Security (and that includes Social Security Disability, added in the early 1950s, and Supplemental Security Income, SSI, added in the early 1970s), Social Security must be strike down on some provision that restricts the STATES not the Federal Government.

Yes, FDR anticipated people like the tea party and set up Social Security is such a way that to strike it down means ruling that the STATES can not set up something like Social Security NOT that the Federal Government AND that the Social Security tax will be collected even if Social Security would be ruled to be unconstitutional.

[Milo_Bloom]

18. Injured parties could take it up for the president.

In the case of social security, the above scenario would be impossible, since there would be hundreds of millions of potential plaintiffs who could take the lawsuit further.

In the case of DADT, it would require someone to come forth with some type of EVIDENCE that makes it more probable than not that removing the policy would HARM them.

[rasputin1952]

21. Scenario:

"SS has been determined to be unconstitutional, and, by extensional, Medicare as well. Immediately, all SS payments are cut, null and void, as are all Medicare benefits."

We'd like to thank those who placed their 7.5% of their paychecks into he system for many years, as of this point, you have nothing. Good Luck!