I know there are many that are uninformed or misinformed about the facts of Social Security. Some people believe they have a "right" to their Social Security check since they paid into it their whole lives. The fact is, you have no rights to that money. It is not your property. At any time, the federal government can increase your payment, decrease your payment, and even deny your payment. There is no "lock box", there is no guarantee, and there never has been. Social Security is a welfare program, it is not an insurance. Insurance would imply you have a contractual right to the benefits - you do not. And for you "Tea Party" folks...It should be obvious by reading the flemming v nestor decision, that political affiliation can be cause for the government to deny your Social Security welfare benefits.
Quoted Text
Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 (1960), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 1104 of the 1935 Social Security Act. In this Section, Congress reserved to itself the power to amend and revise the schedule of benefits.
Ephram Nestor challenged this Section after he was denied Social Security payments as a deported member of the Communist Party. He argued that a contract existed between himself and the United States government, since he had paid into the system for 19 years.
Nestor, an alien, became eligible for Social Security payments in 1955. In July 1956 he was deported for having been a member of the Communist Party from 1933 to 1939. Section 202(n) of the Social Security Act provided for the termination of Social Security payments when an alien is deported for being a member of the Communist Party.
Opinion of the Court
The Court ruled that no such contract exists, and that there is no contractual right to receive Social Security payments. Payments due under Social Security are not “property” rights and are not protected by the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The interest of a beneficiary of Social Security is protected only by the Due Process Clause.
Under Due Process Clause analysis, government action is valid unless it is patently arbitrary and utterly lacking in rational justification. This provision of §202(n) is not irrational; it could have been justified by the desire to increase the purchasing power of those living in America, because those living abroad would not spend their payments here.
http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html |
Logged
