I have read, and re-read, the constitution, and nowhere, in its entirety, does it make mention of a National Savings/Retirement program. Neither does it mention anything whatsoever about a National Health Care Administration for people in need and Seniors. This goes for administering Unemployment Insurance, and long term disability, as well.
The social programs we have in place are neither “constitutional”, or “unconstitutional”. The U.S. Constitution has absolutely nothing to do with Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, Unemployment Insurance, or Long Term Disability. All these programs were enacted into law by Congress and a Presidential signature; hence, they are Legislative in nature and substance. A society that adheres to a political democracy and a free market capitalistic economic structure implicitly mandates these programs.
I suppose all interpretations are open when someone states “fact”. With that in mind, I have a question that is making my head hurt. Why is anyone calling the Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, and Unemployment Insurance unconstitutional? I keep hearing that this a country based on the rule of law. Why not stick to that when it comes to properly identifying what is “law” versus what is an “entitlement”. Our Constitution states very clearly what We The People are entitled to. It does not get bogged down in the minutia and detail of specific laws.
No inference can be made to a Constitution when discussing a law. Government and social conduct can be discussed as being legal, or illegal, not constitutional, or unconstitutional unless there is a breach of actual constitutionality in conduct or action.
From this point forward, can we all agree to stick to the actual, printed facts when it comes to attacking some of the very basic and popularly accepted ways in which We The People choose to live?