Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Definition of entitlement b : a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract
The Supreme Court says your wrong.
IT WAS DOUBTLESS OUT OF AN AWARENESS OF THE NEED FOR SUCH FLEXIBILITY THAT CONGRESS INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL ACT, AND HAS SINCE RETAINED, A CLAUSE EXPRESSLY RESERVING TO IT "THE RIGHT TO ALTER, AMEND, OR REPEAL ANY PROVISION" OF THE ACT.
If you can REPEAL it, then its not a RIGHT, nor is it an entitlement. It has been repealed for some individuals, despite them paying into it. Case sighted above the man payed into it for 19 years and has his benefits repealed. You think the Supreme Court was wrong, fine, take it up with them.
All of the money that you, me, and everyone else has paid into social security was issued as bonds. The interest on those bonds is how we pay retirees. Similar thinking with medicare.
Thats why those would be paid. New retirees wouldn't be accepted though until the ceiling was raised.
The money we pay in is issued to pay present retirees not bonds
Today's Workers Fund Today's Retirees
In other words, the Social Security taxes paid by today's workers and their employers are used to pay the benefits for people who are currently retired, and for other beneficiaries such as workers who become disabled or the families of workers who die.
which makes it a bigger Ponzi scheme that anything Madhoff did Social Security - How Does Social Security Work?
If you can REPEAL it, then its not a RIGHT, nor is it an entitlement. It has been repealed for some individuals, despite them paying into it. Case sighted above the man payed into it for 19 years and has his benefits repealed. You think the Supreme Court was wrong, fine, take it up with them.
Whether the Supreme Court is/was right or not on any particular issue is not for me to say (although in this case, I believe they were correct). Whether you're right or not on what you said above is clear.
Laws can, are, and often should be repealed. Up until a law is repealed, any rights or entitlements or other provisions of that law are valid and true.
Social Security could be repealed. Does it make the law on Social Security invalid today because it could be repealed at a future date? That's what you're saying: If you can repeal it, then it's not a right.
An example: My great-grandfather, prior to 1919, had the right to establish and run a distillery. But in 1919, an amendment to the Constitution (the highest law of the land) took that right away from him.
Until 1865, a citizen of the United States had the right to own a slave. The 13th Amendment took away that right.
If you can repeal it, then it's not a right? No, that's wrong.
Whether the Supreme Court is/was right or not on any particular issue is not for me to say (although in this case, I believe they were correct). Whether you're right or not on what you said above is clear.
Laws can, are, and often should be repealed. Up until a law is repealed, any rights or entitlements or other provisions of that law are valid and true.
ok, I'll stop here. Tell me what law makes Social Security an ENTITLEMENT. Tell me what law says Social Security future expenses are liabilities and debt? Explain to me why they dont count it on the federal level, because if they did, they'd be advertising $100T in national debt. Why dont they calculate all of the future payments Green?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenGene
Social Security could be repealed. Does it make the law on Social Security invalid today because it could be repealed at a future date? That's what you're saying: If you can repeal it, then it's not a right.
There is no law on the book which says you are entitled to Social Security. There is a law on the book that says you can APPLY for it. You do not apply for your rights, they are granded to you by "our creator". Social Security passes constitutional muster because its ONLY a tax bill, with a potential payment down the road. If it was your right, then those funds would return to your estate upon your death. They do NOT.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenGene
An example: My great-grandfather, prior to 1919, had the right to establish and run a distillery. But in 1919, an amendment to the Constitution (the highest law of the land) took that right away from him.
running a distillery is not a right. Can you open one up now? NO.. You must APPLY for a license to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenGene
Until 1865, a citizen of the United States had the right to own a slave. The 13th Amendment took away that right.
Thats right, because laws remove your authority to do something, and since blacks were not considered full citizens, they were not protected.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenGene
If you can repeal it, then it's not a right? No, that's wrong.
No, you are wrong. again, running a distillery is not a right, and it wasnt until the 14th amendment that slaves were granted citizenship status. The Constitution limits what can be taken away from you, it doesnt grant you "rights" because your rights again, come from our creator.
And the President has the power to enforce the constitution. If congress fails in their duty, the President must enforce the constitution. He can't tell the treasury to issue bonds for new spending, but he can for previous debt that was approved by congress.
Woah, what? The President doesn't "enforce the Constitution". The President enforces laws passed by the Congress that fall within the restrictions of the Constitution. The President can't say "I don't think that the Congress is doing their job, so I will do it for them." That's the whole separation of powers business. Geez.
Woah, what? The President doesn't "enforce the Constitution". The President enforces laws passed by the Congress that fall within the restrictions of the Constitution. The President can't say "I don't think that the Congress is doing their job, so I will do it for them." That's the whole separation of powers business. Geez.
He is charged with executing the law, hence the name "Executive branch".
That means he enforces it.
Without federal enforcement of federal law, then there would be no federal government.
Umm. You need to go back to Civics class, Memphis. No offense intended.
The power of the Executive Branch is vested in the President of the United States, who also acts as head of state and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. The President is responsible for implementing and enforcing the laws written by Congress and, to that end, appoints the heads of the federal agencies, including the Cabinet. The Vice President is also part of the Executive Branch, ready to assume the Presidency should the need arise.
By the way, before you claim its Obama's white house, this has been on their website since the last President was in office as well. You can read several founding fathers saying the exact same thing.
The executive branch enforces the laws written by congress. If he feels he can't enforce the law, then he is supposed to veto it. By signing a bill into law, the President is saying that it is enforceable, and he/she will do just that.
The power of the Executive Branch is vested in the President of the United States, who also acts as head of state and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. The President is responsible for implementing and enforcing the laws written by Congress and, to that end, appoints the heads of the federal agencies, including the Cabinet. The Vice President is also part of the Executive Branch, ready to assume the Presidency should the need arise.
By the way, before you claim its Obama's white house, this has been on their website since the last President was in office as well. You can read several founding fathers saying the exact same thing.
The executive branch enforces the laws written by congress. If he feels he can't enforce the law, then he is supposed to veto it. By signing a bill into law, the President is saying that it is enforceable, and he/she will do just that.
Memphis, what you wrote above and what you stated earlier are contradictory. Glad you looked it up and got it straight. I was not being mean spirited - but your earlier statement was not correct. The courts (Judicial branch) enforce the laws of the land, not the President.
He is charged with executing the law, hence the name "Executive branch".
That means he enforces it.
Without federal enforcement of federal law, then there would be no federal government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
The power of the Executive Branch is vested in the President of the United States, who also acts as head of state and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. The President is responsible for implementing and enforcing the laws written by Congress and, to that end, appoints the heads of the federal agencies, including the Cabinet. The Vice President is also part of the Executive Branch, ready to assume the Presidency should the need arise.
By the way, before you claim its Obama's white house, this has been on their website since the last President was in office as well. You can read several founding fathers saying the exact same thing.
The executive branch enforces the laws written by congress. If he feels he can't enforce the law, then he is supposed to veto it. By signing a bill into law, the President is saying that it is enforceable, and he/she will do just that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anifani821
Memphis, what you wrote above and what you stated earlier are contradictory. Glad you looked it up and got it straight. I was not being mean spirited - but your earlier statement was not correct. The courts (Judicial branch) enforce the laws of the land, not the President.
Huh?
Read the first post, I said the President enforces the law. He executes it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
