To "refudiate" a friendly rw acquaintance, please explain how "entitlement" programs are legal -

[Skip Intro]

Constitutionally, that is.

His argument, and that of the larger rw tea party, seems to be that the federal government are given certain limited powers, by the states, to wield, with all other powers of governance defaulting to the individual states.

He argues that the individual states have the power to institute Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment Insurance, etc, at their will. Some may, some may not. But that the federal government has no authority to enact such programs and force states to comply.

Anyone have a good "refudiation" of this argument?

[KingFlorez]

1. All those programs are federal law

And federal law trumps state law, plus all taxpayers pay into the system. A state can't refuse any programs, because they don't have the authority to.

[Skip Intro]

3. But he is arguing in Constitutional terms.

It goes like this: The Constitution gave certain powers, given by the states, to the federal government. Enacting such programs were not among those powers.

My only comeback has been the "common good" clause, but then he comes back with interpreting that in such a way would give the federal government unlimited power over the states.

I'll admit I'm not well educated on this aspect of the Constitution, so I find myself at an embarrassing inability to reply.

[KingFlorez]

5. Okay, I get it now

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.

"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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"

I think that pretty much sums it up.

[Skip Intro]

4. Dupe.

[drmeow]

2. Here is a description of 3 Supreme Court

Decisions:

"Justice Cardozo wrote the opinions in Helvering vs. Davis and Steward Machine. After giving the 1788 dictionary the consideration he thought it deserved, he made clear the Court's view on the scope of the government's spending authority: "There have been statesman in our history who have stood for other views. . .We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision. The conception of the spending power advocated by Hamilton . . .has prevailed over that of Madison. . ." Arguing that the unemployment compensation program provided for the general welfare, Cardozo observed: ". . .there is need to remind ourselves of facts as to the problem of unemployment that are now matters of common knowledge. . .the roll of the unemployed, itself formidable enough, was only a partial roll of the destitute or needy. The fact developed quickly that the states were unable to give the requisite relief. The problem had become national in area and dimensions. There was need of help from the nation if the people were not to starve. It is too late today for the argument to be heard with tolerance that in a crisis so extreme the use of the moneys of the nation to relieve the unemployed and their dependents is a use for any purpose than the promotion of the general welfare."

And finally, he extended the reasoning to the old-age insurance program: "The purge of nation-wide calamity that began in 1929 has taught us many lessons. . . Spreading from state to state, unemployment is an ill not particular but general, which may be checked, if Congress so determines, by the resources of the nation. . . But the ill is all one or at least not greatly different whether men are thrown out of work because there is no longer work to do or because the disabilities of age make them incapable of doing it. Rescue becomes necessary irrespective of the cause. The hope behind this statute is to save men and women from the rigors of the poor house as well as from the haunting fear that such a lot awaits them when journey's end is near."

With these cases decided, Justice Stone could then dispose of the third case in short order. "Together the two statutes now before us embody a cooperative legislative effort by state and national governments, for carrying out a public purpose common to both, which neither could fully achieve without the cooperation of the other. The Constitution does not prohibit such cooperation." "

http://www.ssa.gov/history/court.html

"... promote the general welfare ..."

[LoZoccolo]

6. Article I 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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

He'll argue that it all depends on what the definition for "provide" or "general Welfare" is, but there it is.

[gratuitous]

7. Article I trumps Amendment 10

Feel free to play poker with this garbanzo, as long as he keeps thinking a 10 beats an Ace.

[treestar]

8. Over the years these programs have been challenged

under federal law and the SCOTUS has decided in favor of them. Right wingers can't get over the fact the court decided against them. They don't accept Roe v. Wade either. It's why they have the rule of law.

[ThoughtCriminal]

9. A bit of history for court challenges

Here:
http://www.ssa.gov/history/court.html

But please do encourage your acquaintance to keep spreading the word that voting for conservatives will bring an end to Social Security and Medicare. Suggest that he write letters to the local newspapers and endorse specific candidates who share his view.