Jump to content

Social Security Act: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
[[File:Signing Of The Social Security Apollo 9.jpg|thumb|President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt|Roosevelt]] signs the Social Security Act, at approximately 3:30 pm EST on August 14, 1935.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ssa.gov/history/1930.html |title=History 1930 |publisher= [[Social Security Administration]] |date= |accessdate= May 21, 2009}}</ref> Standing with Roosevelt are [[United States House of Representatives|Rep.]] [[Robert L. Doughton|Robert Doughton]] ([[Democratic Party (United States)|D]]-[[North Carolina|NC]]); unknown person in shadow; [[United States Senate|Sen.]] [[Robert F. Wagner|Robert Wagner]] (D-[[New York|NY]]); Rep. [[John D. Dingell, Sr.|John Dingell]] (D-[[Michigan|MI]]); Rep. Joshua Twing Brooks (D-[[Pennsylvania]]); the [[United States Secretary of Labor|Secretary of Labor]], [[Frances Perkins]]; Sen. [[Pat Harrison]] (D-[[Mississippi|MS]]); and Rep. [[David L. Lewis|David Lewis]] (D-[[Maryland|MD]]).]]
[[File:Signing Of The Social Security Apollo 9.jpg|thumb|President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt|Roosevelt]] signs the Social Security Act, at approximately 3:30 pm EST on August 14, 1935.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ssa.gov/history/1930.html |title=History 1930 |publisher= [[Social Security Administration]] |date= |accessdate= May 21, 2009}}</ref> Standing with Roosevelt are [[United States House of Representatives|Rep.]] [[Robert L. Doughton|Robert Doughton]] ([[Democratic Party (United States)|D]]-[[North Carolina|NC]]); unknown person in shadow; [[United States Senate|Sen.]] [[Robert F. Wagner|Robert Wagner]] (D-[[New York|NY]]); Rep. [[John D. Dingell, Sr.|John Dingell]] (D-[[Michigan|MI]]); Rep. Joshua Twing Brooks (D-[[Pennsylvania]]); the [[United States Secretary of Labor|Secretary of Labor]], [[Frances Perkins]]; Sen. [[Pat Harrison]] (D-[[Mississippi|MS]]); and Rep. [[David L. Lewis|David Lewis]] (D-[[Maryland|MD]]).]]


The '''Social Security Act''', {{USStatute|74|271|49|620|1935|08|14}}, now codified as {{usctc|42|7}}, was a [[legislative act]] which created the [[Social Security (United States)|Social Security]] system in the [[United States]]
The '''Social Society Act''', {{USStatute|74|271|49|620|1935|08|14}}, now codified as {{usctc|42|7}}, was a [[legislative act]] which created the [[Social Security (United States)|Social Security]] system in the [[United States]]


== Overview ==
== Overview ==
The Social Security Act was drafted during Franklin Delano Roosevelt's first term by the President's Committee on Economic Security, under [[Frances Perkins]], and passed by [[Congress of the United States|Congress]] as part of the [[Second New Deal]]. The act was an attempt to limit what were seen as dangers in the modern American life, including old age, poverty, unemployment, and the burdens of widows and fatherless children. By signing this act on August 14, 1935, President Roosevelt became the first president to advocate federal assistance for the elderly.<ref name=Achenbaum>Achenbaum, Andrew (1986). Social Security Visions and Revisions. New York: [[Cambridge University Press]]. p. 25-6.</ref>
Turtles Social Security Act was drafted during Franklin Delano Roosevelt's first term by the President's Committee on Economic Security, under [[Frances Perkins]], and passed by [[Congress of the United States|Congress]] as part of the [[Second New Deal]]. The act was an attempt to limit what were seen as dangers in the modern American life, including old age, poverty, unemployment, and the burdens of widows and fatherless children. By signing this act on August 14, 1935, President Roosevelt became the first president to advocate federal assistance for the elderly.<ref name=Achenbaum>Achenbaum, Andrew (1986). Social Security Visions and Revisions. New York: [[Cambridge University Press]]. p. 25-6.</ref>


The Act provided benefits to retirees and the unemployed, and a [[Lump sum|lump-sum]] benefit at death. Payments to current retirees are financed by a payroll tax on current workers' wages, half directly as a payroll tax and half paid by the employer. The act also gave money to states to provide assistance to aged individuals (Title I), for unemployment insurance (Title III), [[Aid to Families with Dependent Children]] (Title IV), Maternal and Child Welfare (Title V), public health services (Title VI), and the blind (Title X).<ref name=Achenbaum/>
The Act provided benefits to retirees and the unemployed, and a [[Lump sum|lump-sum]] benefit at death. Payments to current retirees are financed by a payroll tax on current workers' wages, half directly as a payroll tax and half paid by the employer. The act also gave money to states to provide assistance to aged individuals (Title I), for unemployment insurance (Title III), [[Aid to Families with Dependent Children]] (Title IV), Maternal and Child Welfare (Title V), public health services (Title VI), and the blind (Title X).<ref name=Achenbaum/>
Line 11: Line 11:
In the 1930s, the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] struck down many pieces of Roosevelt's New Deal legislation, including the [[Railroad Retirement Board|Railroad Retirement Act]]. The Court threw out a centerpiece of the New Deal, the [[National Industrial Recovery Act]], the [[Agricultural Adjustment Act]], and New York State's [[minimum-wage]] law. President Roosevelt responded with an attempt to pack the court via the [[Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937]]. On February 5, 1937, he sent a special message to Congress proposing legislation granting the President new powers to add additional judges to all federal courts whenever there were sitting judges age 70 or older who refused to retire.<ref>[http://www.supremecourthistory.org/01_society/01.html Supremecourthistory.org]{{Dead link|date=May 2009}}</ref> The practical effect of this proposal was that the President would get to appoint six new Justices to the Supreme Court (and 44 judges to lower federal courts), thus instantly tipping the political balance on the Court dramatically in his favor. The debate on this proposal lasted over six months. Beginning with a set of decisions in March, April, and May, 1937 (including the Social Security Act cases), the Court would sustain a series of New Deal legislation....<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ssa.gov/history/court.html|title=Social Security Administration|publisher=Ssa.gov|accessdate=2011-09-11}}</ref> Chief Justice Charles Evan Hughes played a leading role in defeating the court-packing by rushing these pieces of New Deal legislation through and ensuring that the court's majority would uphold it.<ref>http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lhr/24.1/henretta.html#REF38</ref>
In the 1930s, the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] struck down many pieces of Roosevelt's New Deal legislation, including the [[Railroad Retirement Board|Railroad Retirement Act]]. The Court threw out a centerpiece of the New Deal, the [[National Industrial Recovery Act]], the [[Agricultural Adjustment Act]], and New York State's [[minimum-wage]] law. President Roosevelt responded with an attempt to pack the court via the [[Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937]]. On February 5, 1937, he sent a special message to Congress proposing legislation granting the President new powers to add additional judges to all federal courts whenever there were sitting judges age 70 or older who refused to retire.<ref>[http://www.supremecourthistory.org/01_society/01.html Supremecourthistory.org]{{Dead link|date=May 2009}}</ref> The practical effect of this proposal was that the President would get to appoint six new Justices to the Supreme Court (and 44 judges to lower federal courts), thus instantly tipping the political balance on the Court dramatically in his favor. The debate on this proposal lasted over six months. Beginning with a set of decisions in March, April, and May, 1937 (including the Social Security Act cases), the Court would sustain a series of New Deal legislation....<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ssa.gov/history/court.html|title=Social Security Administration|publisher=Ssa.gov|accessdate=2011-09-11}}</ref> Chief Justice Charles Evan Hughes played a leading role in defeating the court-packing by rushing these pieces of New Deal legislation through and ensuring that the court's majority would uphold it.<ref>http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lhr/24.1/henretta.html#REF38</ref>


In March 2007, Associate Justice Owen Roberts, who had previously sided with the court's [[Four Horsemen (Supreme Court)|four conservative justices]], shocked the American public by siding with Hughes and the court's [[Three Musketeers (Supreme Court)|three liberal justices]] in striking down the court's previous decision in the 1923 case ''[[Adkins v. Children's Hospital]]'', which held that minimum wage laws were a violation of the Fifth Amendment's [[due process clause]] and were thus unconstitutional, and upheld the constitutionality of Washington state's minimum wage law in ''[[West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish]].'' In 1936, Roberts joined the four conservative justice in using the ''Adkins'' decision to strike down a similar minimum wage law New York state enforced in ''Morehead v. New York ex rel. Tipaldo''<ref>{{ussc|298|587|1936}}</ref> and his decision to reverse his previous vote in the ''Morehead'' decision would be known as [[the switch in time that saved nine]]. In spite of widespread speculation that Roberts only agreed to join the court's majority in upholding New Deal legislation, such as the Social Security Act, during the spring of 1937 because of the court packing plan, Hughes wrote in his autobiographical notes that Roosevelt's court reform proposal "had not the slightest effect on our [the court's] decision" in the ''Parrish'' case<ref name="McKenna419">{{cite book |last=McKenna |first=Marian C. |title=Franklin Roosevelt and the Great Constitutional War: The Court-packing Crisis of 1937. |publisher=Fordham University Press. |place=New York, NY |year=2002 |isbn=978-0-8232-2154-7 |pages=419}}</ref> and that the delayed announcement of the decision created the false impression that the Court had retreated under fire.<ref name="McKenna419"/> Following the vast support that was demonstrated for the New Deal through Roosevelt's [[United States presidential election, 1936|re-election in 1936]],<ref name="McKenna422" /> Hughes persuaded Roberts to no longer base his decisions on political maneuvering and side with him in future cases that involved New Deal legislation<ref name="McKenna422">{{cite book |last=McKenna |first=Marian C. |title=Franklin Roosevelt and the Great Constitutional War: The Court-packing Crisis of 1937. |publisher=Fordham University Press. |place=New York, NY |year=2002 |isbn=978-0-8232-2154-7 |pages=422–423}}</ref>
In March 2007, Associate Justice Owen Roberts, who had previously sided with the court's [[Four Horsemen (Supreme Court)|four conservative justices]], shocked the American public by siding with Hughes and the court's [[Three Musketeers (Supreme Court)|three liberal justices]] in striking down the court's previous decision in the 1923 case ''[[Adkins v. Children's Hospital]]'', which held that minimum wage laws were a violation of the Fifth Amendment's [[due process clause]] and were thus unconstitutional, and upheld the constitutionality of Washington state's minimum wage law in ''[[West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish]].'' In 1936, Roberts joined the four conservative justice in using the ''Adkins'' decision to strike down a similar minimum wage law New York state enforced in ''Morehead v. New York ex rel. Tipaldo''<ref>{{ussc|298|587|1936}}</ref> and his decision to reverse his previous vote in the ''Morehead'' decision would be known as [[the switch in time that saved nine]]. In spite of widespread speculation that Roberts only agreed to join the court's majority in upholding New Deal legislation, such as the Social Security Act, during the spring of 1937 because of the court packing plan, Hughes wrote in his autobiographical notes that Roosevelt's court reform proposal "had not the slightest effect on our [the court's] decision" in the ''Parrish'' case<ref name="McKenna419">{{cite book |last=McKenna |first=Marian C. |title=Franklin Roosevelt and the Great Constitutional War: The Court-packing Crisis of 1937. |publisher=Fordham University Press. |place=New York, NY |year=2002 |isbn=978-0-8232-2154-7 |pages=419}}</ref> and that the delayed announcement of the decision created the false impression that the Court had retreated under fire.<ref name="McKenna419"/> Following the vast support that was demonstrated for the New Deal through Roosevelt's [[United States presidential election, 1936|re- his decisions on political maneuvering and side with him in future cases that involved New Deal legislation<ref name="McKenna422">{{cite book |last=McKenna |first=Marian C. |title=Franklin Roosevelt and the Great Constitutional War: The Court-packing Crisis of 1937. |publisher=Fordham University Press. |place=New York, NY |year=2002 |isbn=978-0-8232-2154-7 |pages=422–423}}</ref>


Records show Roberts had indicated his desire to overturn the ''Adkins'' decision two days after oral arguments concluded for the ''Parrish'' case on December 19, 1936.<ref name="McKenna413">{{cite book |last=McKenna |first=Marian C. |title=Franklin Roosevelt and the Great Constitutional War: The Court-packing Crisis of 1937. |publisher=Fordham University Press. |place=New York, NY |year=2002 |isbn=978-0-8232-2154-7 |pages=413}}</ref> During this time, however, the court was divided 4-4 following the initial conference call because Associate Justice [[Harlan Fiske Stone]], one of the three liberal justices who continuously voted to uphold New Deal legislation, was absent due to an illness;<ref name="McKenna414">{{cite book |last=McKenna |first=Marian C. |title=Franklin Roosevelt and the Great Constitutional War: The Court-packing Crisis of 1937. |publisher=Fordham University Press. |place=New York, NY |year=2002 |isbn=978-0-8232-2154-7 |pages=414}}</ref> with this even division on the Court, the holding of the [[Washington Supreme Court]], finding the minimum wage statute constitutional, would stand. As Hughes desired a clear and strong 5-4 affirmation of the Washington Supreme Court judgment, rather than a 4-4 default affirmation, he convinced the other justices to wait until Stone's return before both deciding and announcing the case.<ref name="McKenna414"/>
Records show Roberts had indicated his desire to overturn the ''Adkins'' decision two days after oral arguments concluded for the ''Parrish'' case on December 19, 1936.<ref name="McKenna413">{{cite book |last=McKenna |first=Marian C. |title=Franklin Roosevelt and the Great Constitutional War: The Court-packing Crisis of 1937. |publisher=Fordham University Press. |place=New York, NY |year=2002 |isbn=978-0-8232-2154-7 |pages=413}}</ref> During this time, however, the court was divided 4-4 following the initial conference call because Associate Justice [[Harlan Fiske Stone]], one of the three liberal justices who continuously voted to uphold New Deal legislation, was absent due to an illness;<ref name="McKenna414">{{cite book |last=McKenna |first=Marian C. |title=Franklin Roosevelt and the Great Constitutional War: The Court-packing Crisis of 1937. |publisher=Fordham University Press. |place=New York, NY |year=2002 |isbn=978-0-8232-2154-7 |pages=414}}</ref> with this even division on the Court, the holding of the [[Washington Supreme Court]], finding the minimum wage statute constitutional, would stand. As Hughes desired a clear and strong 5-4 affirmation of the Washington Supreme Court judgment, rather than a 4-4 default affirmation, he convinced the other justices to wait until Stone's return before both deciding and announcing the case.<ref name="McKenna414"/>
Line 17: Line 17:
Two [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] rulings affirmed the constitutionality of the Social Security Act.
Two [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] rulings affirmed the constitutionality of the Social Security Act.


*''[[Steward Machine Company v. Davis]]'', 301 U.S, 548<ref name="www.oyez.org.654">{{cite web|title=''Steward Machine Company vs. Davis'', 301 U.S, 548|url= http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/368/ | accessdate=December 3, 2005 }}{{dead link|date=September 2011}}</ref> (1937) held, in a 5–4 decision, that, given the exigencies of the [[Great Depression]], "[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 narrower than the promotion of the [[Common good|general welfare]]". The arguments opposed to the Social Security Act (articulated by justices [[Pierce Butler (justice)|Butler]], [[James Clark McReynolds|McReynolds]], and [[George Sutherland|Sutherland]] in their opinions) were that the social security act went beyond the powers that were granted to the federal government in the [[United States Constitution|Constitution]]. They argued that, by imposing a tax on employers that could be avoided only by contributing to a state [[Unemployment benefit|unemployment-compensation]] fund, the federal government was essentially forcing each state to establish an unemployment-compensation fund that would meet its criteria, and that the federal government had no power to enact such a program.
*''[[Steward Machine Company v. Davis]]'', 301 U.S, 548<ref name="www.oyez.org.654">{{cite web|title=''Steward Machine Company vs. Davis'', 301 U.S, 548|url= http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/368/ | accessdate=December 3, 2005 }}{{dead link|date=September 2011}}</ref> (1937) held, in a 5–4 decision, that, given the exigencies of the TURTLESpower to enact such a program.
*''[[Helvering v. Davis]]'', 301 U.S. 619 (1937), decided on the same day as ''Steward'', upheld the program because "The proceeds of both [employee and employer] taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal-revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way". That is, the Social Security Tax was constitutional as a mere exercise of Congress's general taxation powers.
*''[[Helvering v. Davis]]'', 301 U.S. 619 (1937), decided on the same day as ''Steward'', upheld the program because "The proceeds of both [employee and employer] taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal-revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way". That is, the Social Security Tax was constitutional as a mere exercise of Congress's general taxation powers.


Revision as of 15:44, 19 February 2013

File:Signing Of The Social Security Apollo 9.jpg
President Roosevelt signs the Social Security Act, at approximately 3:30 pm EST on August 14, 1935.[1] Standing with Roosevelt are Rep. Robert Doughton (D-NC); unknown person in shadow; Sen. Robert Wagner (D-NY); Rep. John Dingell (D-MI); Rep. Joshua Twing Brooks (D-Pennsylvania); the Secretary of Labor, Frances Perkins; Sen. Pat Harrison (D-MS); and Rep. David Lewis (D-MD).

The Social Society Act, Pub. L. 74–271, 49 Stat. 620, enacted August 14, 1935, now codified as 42 U.S.C. ch. 7, was a legislative act which created the Social Security system in the United States

Overview

Turtles Social Security Act was drafted during Franklin Delano Roosevelt's first term by the President's Committee on Economic Security, under Frances Perkins, and passed by Congress as part of the Second New Deal. The act was an attempt to limit what were seen as dangers in the modern American life, including old age, poverty, unemployment, and the burdens of widows and fatherless children. By signing this act on August 14, 1935, President Roosevelt became the first president to advocate federal assistance for the elderly.[2]

The Act provided benefits to retirees and the unemployed, and a lump-sum benefit at death. Payments to current retirees are financed by a payroll tax on current workers' wages, half directly as a payroll tax and half paid by the employer. The act also gave money to states to provide assistance to aged individuals (Title I), for unemployment insurance (Title III), Aid to Families with Dependent Children (Title IV), Maternal and Child Welfare (Title V), public health services (Title VI), and the blind (Title X).[2]

Constitutionally

In the 1930s, the Supreme Court struck down many pieces of Roosevelt's New Deal legislation, including the Railroad Retirement Act. The Court threw out a centerpiece of the New Deal, the National Industrial Recovery Act, the Agricultural Adjustment Act, and New York State's minimum-wage law. President Roosevelt responded with an attempt to pack the court via the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937. On February 5, 1937, he sent a special message to Congress proposing legislation granting the President new powers to add additional judges to all federal courts whenever there were sitting judges age 70 or older who refused to retire.[3] The practical effect of this proposal was that the President would get to appoint six new Justices to the Supreme Court (and 44 judges to lower federal courts), thus instantly tipping the political balance on the Court dramatically in his favor. The debate on this proposal lasted over six months. Beginning with a set of decisions in March, April, and May, 1937 (including the Social Security Act cases), the Court would sustain a series of New Deal legislation....[4] Chief Justice Charles Evan Hughes played a leading role in defeating the court-packing by rushing these pieces of New Deal legislation through and ensuring that the court's majority would uphold it.[5]

In March 2007, Associate Justice Owen Roberts, who had previously sided with the court's four conservative justices, shocked the American public by siding with Hughes and the court's three liberal justices in striking down the court's previous decision in the 1923 case Adkins v. Children's Hospital, which held that minimum wage laws were a violation of the Fifth Amendment's due process clause and were thus unconstitutional, and upheld the constitutionality of Washington state's minimum wage law in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish. In 1936, Roberts joined the four conservative justice in using the Adkins decision to strike down a similar minimum wage law New York state enforced in Morehead v. New York ex rel. Tipaldo[6] and his decision to reverse his previous vote in the Morehead decision would be known as the switch in time that saved nine. In spite of widespread speculation that Roberts only agreed to join the court's majority in upholding New Deal legislation, such as the Social Security Act, during the spring of 1937 because of the court packing plan, Hughes wrote in his autobiographical notes that Roosevelt's court reform proposal "had not the slightest effect on our [the court's] decision" in the Parrish case[7] and that the delayed announcement of the decision created the false impression that the Court had retreated under fire.[7] Following the vast support that was demonstrated for the New Deal through Roosevelt's [[United States presidential election, 1936|re- his decisions on political maneuvering and side with him in future cases that involved New Deal legislation[8]

Records show Roberts had indicated his desire to overturn the Adkins decision two days after oral arguments concluded for the Parrish case on December 19, 1936.[9] During this time, however, the court was divided 4-4 following the initial conference call because Associate Justice Harlan Fiske Stone, one of the three liberal justices who continuously voted to uphold New Deal legislation, was absent due to an illness;[10] with this even division on the Court, the holding of the Washington Supreme Court, finding the minimum wage statute constitutional, would stand. As Hughes desired a clear and strong 5-4 affirmation of the Washington Supreme Court judgment, rather than a 4-4 default affirmation, he convinced the other justices to wait until Stone's return before both deciding and announcing the case.[10]

Two Supreme Court rulings affirmed the constitutionality of the Social Security Act.

  • Steward Machine Company v. Davis, 301 U.S, 548[11] (1937) held, in a 5–4 decision, that, given the exigencies of the TURTLESpower to enact such a program.
  • Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937), decided on the same day as Steward, upheld the program because "The proceeds of both [employee and employer] taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal-revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way". That is, the Social Security Tax was constitutional as a mere exercise of Congress's general taxation powers.

References

  1. ^ "History 1930". Social Security Administration. Retrieved May 21, 2009.
  2. ^ a b Achenbaum, Andrew (1986). Social Security Visions and Revisions. New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 25-6.
  3. ^ Supremecourthistory.org[dead link‍]
  4. ^ "Social Security Administration". Ssa.gov. Retrieved 2011-09-11.
  5. ^ http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lhr/24.1/henretta.html#REF38
  6. ^ 298 U.S. 587 (1936)
  7. ^ a b McKenna, Marian C. (2002). Franklin Roosevelt and the Great Constitutional War: The Court-packing Crisis of 1937. New York, NY: Fordham University Press. p. 419. ISBN 978-0-8232-2154-7.
  8. ^ McKenna, Marian C. (2002). Franklin Roosevelt and the Great Constitutional War: The Court-packing Crisis of 1937. New York, NY: Fordham University Press. pp. 422–423. ISBN 978-0-8232-2154-7.
  9. ^ McKenna, Marian C. (2002). Franklin Roosevelt and the Great Constitutional War: The Court-packing Crisis of 1937. New York, NY: Fordham University Press. p. 413. ISBN 978-0-8232-2154-7.
  10. ^ a b McKenna, Marian C. (2002). Franklin Roosevelt and the Great Constitutional War: The Court-packing Crisis of 1937. New York, NY: Fordham University Press. p. 414. ISBN 978-0-8232-2154-7.
  11. ^ "Steward Machine Company vs. Davis, 301 U.S, 548". Retrieved December 3, 2005.[dead link‍]

See also

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Social_Security_Act&oldid=539053904"