Suppose the Supreme Court were to declare all federal welfare programs unconstitutional.


Suppose further that the Constitution were then amended to grant Congress the power to establish a federal welfare system. What should such a system include? What types of welfare benefits should be allowed? Who would be eligible to receive them? How much should recipients be eligible to receive in the both the short-term and over the course of their lifetime? And how would these welfare benefits be paid for?

None of those things could happen, so why should I hypothesize about them?

I assume what you're asking is, given a free hand, what would be the best system congress could come up with? Whatever system you came up with would be purely theoretical: the combination of ideology and entrenched interests would not let it see the light of day.

The only way meaningful health care reform will occur will be when enough voters (thank god seniors vote in large numbers) get disgusted with the current system and swing their votes to whichever party promises a solution.
The pressure will have to build up before the political kettle whistles, so to speak.

The problem is that social programs, while not required, are not barred by the Constitution. The Constitution basicly allows the legislature to determine what programs should, or should not, be enacted. Since it appears that the strict constructionists and textualists are going to be in the majority soon, the Court would not strike programs as violative of the Constitution because they aren't.

The real question is what the government can, and should, do to stop the corruption and waste that is endemic in the social services paid for by the taxpayers. Few would argue that some programs are necessary to help those who fall through the cracks even though they worked hard and did their best, but there are those who take advantage of the system because the system -- in its present form -- allows laziness and anti-social behavior (i.e. people who are unable to care for a child who have children noonetheless because they know the taxpayers will support them).

__________________
"George W. Bush surrounds himself with smart people the way a hole surrounds itself with a donut." —Dennis Miller

"Suppose the Supreme Court were to declare all federal welfare programs unconstitutional. "


hmmm, that would be a shock to the Fortune 500 companies who took tax breaks and Federal "Aid" to stay in business. Why, JC Watts is even pushing "government handouts" in an infomercial these days.

You would have to stop building stadiums with tax dollars (The Nationals stadium will cost each of us a few bucks) and stop paying Rush a million dollars to sell Florida Orange Juice.....

federal aid = welfare

That's quite a bold statement, considering that the Court has done it before...

In 1935 the Supreme Court unanimously ruled FDR's National Recovery Administration (NRA), the centerpiece of the New Deal, unconstitutional (Schechter v US).

In 1936 the Supreme Court ruled FDR's Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA) unconstitutional (US v Butler).

It is only since the 1937 that the SC, after being initially challenged by FDR's court-packing scheme, has taken an expansionary view of the general welfare clause and allowed the federal government to have powers never imagined by the founding fathers.

As James Madison said...

Yea, but those cases were overturned and there is NO chance that they could be revived. If you check, you will find that those cases didn't rely on the "general welfare" clause of the Constitution which clearly can be read to allow social programs. Instead, the cases relied on the word "property" within the due process clause of the 14th amendment. In short, the cases were nothing more than conservative judicial activism.

The reason it could never happen again is that conservatives are so vocal about their opposition to liberal judicial activism (i.e. relying on the word "liberty" in the due process clause of the 14th amendment) that resulted in fictitious rights like: (1) abortion; (2) sodomy; (3) fundamental rights which include: (a) the right to marry, (b) the right to procreate, etc.; (4) etc. that conservative justices would never go back and repeat what conservative justices in the 30's did. It will never happen.

It is possible that the justices could strike these programs by holding that the "general welfare" clause doesn't permit these programs, but with textualists like Scalia on the bench, and perhaps at the head of it, this distorting interpretation wouldn't take hold.

It is important to remember that social programs, while allowed by the Constitution aren't mandated by it. So, if social programs are ended, it will be the legislature and not the courts doing so.

Someone should have suggested he look to Article 1, Section 8.

__________________
"George W. Bush surrounds himself with smart people the way a hole surrounds itself with a donut." —Dennis Miller

welfare is nothing more than government sanctioned redistribution of wealth. Welfare does nothing to break the cycle of joblessness. It does nothing to curb the irresponsibility of women to keep having kids. It does nothing to make the person receiving it to be motivated to better their lives.

Welfare should have a time limit. Additional children should not increase the pay out. Responsibility should be rewarded. If they could make a system like that I would be behind it 100%

__________________
Those who think they know everything, usually know the least.

Overturned? I am unable to find a record of this. Could you supply some specifics?

I'm sure he was quite familiar with it, considering he wrote most of it. And yet you believe you understand what this section "really" means and our nation's foremost expert on the Constitution did not? Interesting.

Perhaps you could elaborate? I've just finished looking at Section 8, and I too can find no clause that would justify the existence of social welfare. In fact, from my persepective, it indicates just the opposite.

Absolutely. The programs in this country definitely need to be re-worked.

We often hear how conservatives want to scrap social programs, but your post here and the results of the post I made on social program about 6 months ago show that the American people aren't heartless; they just feel like they are being robbed by people who make a "career" of abusing these programs. Rebellion is a fairly concervative guy and I think we were lockstep in our opinions of which cases deserved government (i.e. taxpayer assistance).

We all know people (or have read about people) who live very irresponsible lives and get paid to do so. This is clearly wrong. But, as you wrote, we can't completely turn our backs on people who have worked hard, done what was right, and still temporarily fall through society's cracks. We definitely need welfare reform which isn't disbanding the programs, but retooling them so corruption is lower and irresponsibility is not rewarded.

Good post, Theresa.

__________________
"George W. Bush surrounds himself with smart people the way a hole surrounds itself with a donut." —Dennis Miller

As a matter of fact I do want to scrap government social programs, and I do not consider myself "heartless". Why is your first instinct to use government to try and solve society's ills? People should not expect the govermnent to provide food, shelter, and clothing. This is not one of its legitimate functions, and as a result, it is something the government does very poorly. As for welfare reform, how can one "reform" that which is inherently flawed?

The fact is private charity is far more successful than any government assistance program. There is an excellent article making the case for private charities here...

http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/cpr-18n6-1.html

Some Excerpts...
However, I think the strongest case for private charity over goverment welfare is this simple experiment at the end of the article...

I know what I'd do.