4 ms·
I would disagree. The 16th amendment gave the goverment the power to do something like social security as it explicitly allows the taxing of income. The case yo
by anfilt 7y ago
I would disagree. The 16th amendment gave the goverment the power to do something like social security as it explicitly allows the taxing of income. The case you mention mainly concerns how the federal government may spend money collected via taxes.
Wickard v. Filburn in my honest opinion seems to allow the goverment even greater involvment in personsal/individual matters under the guise of interstate commerce.
- pdonis 7y ago> The 16th amendment Which was (to make the point I think you are making explicit) at least an actual amendment to the Constitution, the way changes like that are supposed to be done. One can argue about whether it was prudent policy, but at least it was using the mechanism for change that the Framers explicitly provided.
- xyzzyz 7y agoNot at all, no. The 16th amendment allows federal government to impose income taxes. Obviously it makes the tax part of social security constitutional. In no way however it makes the spending part of the social security constitutional, because it clearly doesn’t say anything about what the government can use that money for. For that, we had the Enumerated Powers of Article I, Section 8, along with any powers explicitly listed in constitution, like for example 16th amendment.