Response to ops
Topic: Constitution
The reply from me on this post by ops on the Oregon Live Forum was deleted by the moderators.

ops' post in entirety: "Your deciding what is constitutional... doesn't show any documentation only personal opinion. Few of us will agree that there is no constitutional basis for FICA or federal ownership of land.

"The Constitution established a branch of gov't known as the legislative branch. When the legislative branch passes a bill and the President(established by the Constitution as the Chief Executive to head up the Executive Branch) signs said bill it becomes the law of the land-an extension of the Constitution. Should an American citizen disagree with the law this citizen can file suit in federal court to challenge the Constitutionality of this law. I suggest that you challenge the FICA program in federal court if you are convinced it is unconstitutional.

"I would fight to keep federal lands out of the hands of developers just to pay taxpayer obligations. Provide documentation of the unconstitutional nature of the national gov't owning land 'in toto' for its citizens."

My response to his post follows:

ops: "When the legislative branch passes a bill and the President(established by the Constitution as the Chief Executive to head up the Executive Branch) signs said bill it becomes the law of the land-an extension of the Constitution."

Actually, the Fed only has the power to make laws with regard to the enumerated powers it is given in the Constitution. This is established by the tenth amendment; "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Article 5 of the Constitution describes the method of enacting amendments for the purpose of adding to or taking away enumerated powers.

The Constitutional argument in favor of FICA is well known and is based on the "general welfare" clause of Article 1, Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and **general Welfare** of the United States" (emphasis mine).

The Supreme Court did find SS to be Constitutional in Helvering vs. Davis May 24, 1937. Never-the-less Interpretation of this clause is a matter of debate. Suffice it to say that I strongly disagree with the current interpretation held by the Supreme Court. I strongly suggest you read this article regarding that important case:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/attarian7.html

ops: "I suggest that you challenge the FICA program in federal court if you are convinced it is unconstitutional."

I think your suggestion is a bit tongue and cheek, but actually you are right. There really is very little recourse but what you suggest. The problem is in the method. Federal Courts deciding whether a Federal Law is unconstitutional. I hope you see the conflict of interest there. Personally I would rather see the States take this issue up as a states rights issue. While the Federal Government has no Constitutional Right to provide Social Security, under the 10th Amendment the States actually do have that right.

ops: "Provide documentation of the unconstitutional nature of the national gov't owning land 'in toto' for its citizens."

That's easy. The clause concerning Federal ownership of land is also in Article 1, Section 8 and reads as follows; "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings"

The Fed can buy land for those purposes only, according to the constitution. Again, however the Fed found a way around this restriction, by a very loose interpretation of the Fifth Amendment; see the following link:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/14.html

This is the birth of "Eminent Domain" in the US in 1879. The Abuses of this "power" are many and well documented. Just google "Eminent Domain Abuse" and see for yourself.