Helvering V. Davis and no SSA for You!

After reading the kind comments from my friend Dave Bean, over at My Green Hell, I set out to find a little about Helvering v. Davis. Because when he said not to forget about it, I figured it might be a good idea to see what it was I shouldn't forget. I don't mind admitting I am ignorant on a subject the first time I hear about it, but it is down-right embarrassing if it comes up again and I still am dumbfounded. So I set out the pound my naivety into submission and learn something about this case. I also thought that I would drop a few links here for others who might want to learn a little more about Social Security and its history.

I have to warn you though, it gets as ugly as homemade soap.

First article I found was this one, over at LewRockwell.com (added to side bar) . This article gives an interesting perspective of events surrounding the trial and the author reflects their impact on the outcome. Good read.

Go here to see the certiorari, for Helvering v. Davis, which contains the “Opinion of the Court”.

The problem is plainly national in area and dimensions. Moreover, laws of the separate states cannot deal with it effectively. Congress, at least, had a basis for that belief. States and local governments are often lacking in the resources that are necessary to finance an adequate program of security for the aged. This is brought out with a wealth of illustration in recent studies of the problem. [n9] Apart from the failure of resources, states and local governments are at times reluctant to increase so heavily the burden of taxation to be borne by their residents for fear of placing themselves in a position of economic disadvantage as compared with neighbors or competitors. We have seen this in our study of the problem of unemployment compensation. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, supra. A system of old age pensions has special dangers of its own if put in force in one state and rejected in another. The existence of such a system is a bait to the needy and dependent elsewhere, encouraging them to migrate and seek a haven of repose. Only a power that is national can serve the interests of all.

I can't help but wonder if the written decision, being rife with stupidity, was not some covert signal that some executive arm twisting was going on(such as that mentioned in the Lew Rockwell article). I mean come on, the final sayers on the intent of the laws of the Constitution wrote THAT decision which is completely at odds with other rulings this same court had handed out prior to this one; all it was missing was – ' The opinion of this court can best be summed by those hallowed words – "From each according to his ability. To each according to his need."

I also found Flemming V. Nestor, another court case that reaffirms that the citizen has no right to Social Security. Here it is quoted in brief:

2. A person covered by the Social Security Act has not such a right in old-age benefit payments as would make every defeasance of "accrued" interests violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 608-611.

(a) The noncontractual interest of an employee covered by the Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits are based on his contractual premium payments. Pp. 608-610.

(b) To engraft upon the Social Security System a concept of "accrued property rights" would deprive it of the flexibility and [363 U.S. 603, 604] boldness in adjustment to ever-changing conditions which it demands and which Congress probably had in mind when it expressly reserved the right to alter, amend or repeal any provision of the Act. Pp. 610-611.

The 1960's ruling is not a shift in this set of justice's outlook. Prior case rulings from these Stalinists show where they stand.

It is bad enough that fork tongued collectivist dogma sold the idea, then they turn around and throw despotism in the stew for spice - “It's Great Uncle's now, you have no right to it. Whatever it is deemed you require, your benevolent dictators may bestow upon you at that time.”

If you aren't pissed off, you aren't paying attention. Don't know who said that, but it's the truth.

Thanks again Dave for pointing out that case. One more grain of knowledge in my tiny packet of sand. ;-)