4 ms·

The man is alive. Federal law and federal courts do not care if state law decides to ignore the patently obvious. They are not bound by state law.

protomyth 13y ago
Nope, he is still legally dead. Logic outside the law has little effect on logic inside the law. Unless the SSA decides to challenge the ruling (doubtful) or he wins an appeal or other avenue, he is dead. "They are not bound by state law" That's not really true, the US Constitution has a different interpretation, the state still has rights and areas of responsibility.
- nknighthb 13y ago
  Ohio, for the moment, thinks he is dead. Absolutely no one outside of Ohio is required to recognize this absurdity. And specifically as to federal law, the US Constitution is crystal clear on this matter: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Go get the Social Security Act -- a federal law -- declared beyond the powers of the federal government (not going to happen), and you'll have a coherent argument. Until then, you're just speaking nonsense. And before you tiresomely drag out the full faith and credit clause, try looking it up and actually reading about it.
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    Has it occurred to you that the text of the Social Security Act probably predicates the life/death status of a person on the determination made by the state? There is no federal agency that issues birth/death certificates, those are all done at the state level. You're assuming that federal law already contains a provision for dealing with situations like this which would override state law, whereas it appears that what the man would need to do is sue the SSA in federal court, which he doesn't have the resources to do.
    - nknighthb 13y ago
      Has it occurred to you to read the act? It's readily available. Certificates of death can be considered, but they're not controlling. On the contrary, you can find a very clear, unambiguous statement that such certificates are not controlling in the SSA's policy documents[1]: "Give the court's declaration of death based on a presumption great weight depending on the supporting evidence, but is not controlling. The number holder may not be presumed dead for purposes of Social Security until he or she has been missing for 7 years and the presumption of death is not rebutted as instructed in GN 00304.050A.1., in this section." And this isn't just about him wanting to be declared alive -- the Social Security Administration is going to want back the benefits it paid out, and it's going to want to sue him and his family to get them, not the other way around. [1] https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0200304050 https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0200304050
      - anigbrowl 13y ago
        None of which has any bearing on his being legally dead in Ohio. I'm not sure what point you think you're arguing, since nobody is claiming that the SSA is powerless to act.
        nknighthb 13y ago
        Did you read the thread? > Well, it's a might bit hard for the SSA to collect if the guy is not alive. For that matter, do you remember what you wrote just a few hours ago? > Has it occurred to you that the text of the Social Security Act probably predicates the life/death status of a person on the determination made by the state? I don't care if he's legally dead in Ohio. I was never arguing about that. It is, in fact, entirely irrelevant to any point I've been making. Whatever argument you think you're having with me is all in your head.
  - protomyth 13y ago
    "And before you tiresomely drag out the full faith and credit clause, try looking it up and actually reading about it." I get the feeling you haven't read it or how the Federal law might try to declare him alive. You also seem to have decided to go insulting to defend your point. The SSA will have to initiate action and this will be a loser for any Federal official all the way around.
    - nknighthb 13y ago
      The SSA takes action to recover overpayments all the time.

protomyth 13y ago

Nope, he is still legally dead. Logic outside the law has little effect on logic inside the law. Unless the SSA decides to challenge the ruling (doubtful) or he wins an appeal or other avenue, he is dead. "They are not bound by state law" That's not really true, the US Constitution has a different interpretation, the state still has rights and areas of responsibility.

nknighthb 13y ago
Ohio, for the moment, thinks he is dead. Absolutely no one outside of Ohio is required to recognize this absurdity. And specifically as to federal law, the US Constitution is crystal clear on this matter: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Go get the Social Security Act -- a federal law -- declared beyond the powers of the federal government (not going to happen), and you'll have a coherent argument. Until then, you're just speaking nonsense. And before you tiresomely drag out the full faith and credit clause, try looking it up and actually reading about it.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  Has it occurred to you that the text of the Social Security Act probably predicates the life/death status of a person on the determination made by the state? There is no federal agency that issues birth/death certificates, those are all done at the state level. You're assuming that federal law already contains a provision for dealing with situations like this which would override state law, whereas it appears that what the man would need to do is sue the SSA in federal court, which he doesn't have the resources to do.
  - nknighthb 13y ago
    Has it occurred to you to read the act? It's readily available. Certificates of death can be considered, but they're not controlling. On the contrary, you can find a very clear, unambiguous statement that such certificates are not controlling in the SSA's policy documents[1]: "Give the court's declaration of death based on a presumption great weight depending on the supporting evidence, but is not controlling. The number holder may not be presumed dead for purposes of Social Security until he or she has been missing for 7 years and the presumption of death is not rebutted as instructed in GN 00304.050A.1., in this section." And this isn't just about him wanting to be declared alive -- the Social Security Administration is going to want back the benefits it paid out, and it's going to want to sue him and his family to get them, not the other way around. [1] https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0200304050 https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0200304050
    - anigbrowl 13y ago
      None of which has any bearing on his being legally dead in Ohio. I'm not sure what point you think you're arguing, since nobody is claiming that the SSA is powerless to act.
      - nknighthb 13y ago
        Did you read the thread? > Well, it's a might bit hard for the SSA to collect if the guy is not alive. For that matter, do you remember what you wrote just a few hours ago? > Has it occurred to you that the text of the Social Security Act probably predicates the life/death status of a person on the determination made by the state? I don't care if he's legally dead in Ohio. I was never arguing about that. It is, in fact, entirely irrelevant to any point I've been making. Whatever argument you think you're having with me is all in your head.
- protomyth 13y ago
  "And before you tiresomely drag out the full faith and credit clause, try looking it up and actually reading about it." I get the feeling you haven't read it or how the Federal law might try to declare him alive. You also seem to have decided to go insulting to defend your point. The SSA will have to initiate action and this will be a loser for any Federal official all the way around.
  - nknighthb 13y ago
    The SSA takes action to recover overpayments all the time.