Yes, the government can do this. The Court said that taking care of the elderly had become a huge problem across the entire country, especially during the Great Depression. Since individual states didn't have enough money or power to fix such a big problem on their own, it was a matter of 'general welfare' for the whole nation. The Constitution gives Congress the power to spend money to help the country, and it's up to Congress, not judges, to decide what counts as helping. Creating Social Security was a reasonable way to deal with a national crisis.

No, the government can't do this. The dissenters briefly said that the Social Security law stepped on the toes of the states. They believed that this kind of program was a power reserved for state governments, not the federal government, and so the law should be struck down.

No, the plan is okay. The government can spend money to help everyone in the country, and this includes helping older people who can't work anymore. The states alone can't handle this big problem because they might not have enough money and people might move to states with better benefits. The taxes that pay for this help are legal, and the law doesn't go against the Constitution. Congress decides what's best for the general welfare, and the courts usually trust Congress's judgment unless it's really off base.

The parts of the Social Security Act that were challenged go against the Constitution, and the decision of the lower court should have been upheld.

"The discretion... is not confided to the courts. The discretion belongs to Congress, unless the choice is clearly wrong, a display of arbitrary power, not an exercise of judgment."

She also underscores that decisions of how best to provide for the general welfare are for the representative branches, not for the courts.

—the US Supreme Court discussed the authority of Congress to enact the Social Security Act and the purpose of the act: Congress may spend money in aid of the "general welfare."

"Congress may spend money in aid of the general welfare...[T] he concept of the'general welfare'[is not] static. Needs that were narrow or parochial a century ago may be interwoven in our day with the well-being of the Nation. What is critical or urgent changes with the times."

"When [federal] money is spent to promote the general welfare, the concept of welfare or the opposite is shaped by Congress, not the states."

In considering whether a particular expenditure is intended to serve general public purposes, courts should defer substantially to the judgment of Congress.

The Flemming Court rejected the contention that one could accrue property rights under the Social Security system: The "right" to Social Security benefits is in one sense "earned", for the entire scheme rests on the legislative judgment that those who in their productive years were functioning members of the economy may justly call upon the economy, in their later years …

—at page 646, 57 S. Ct. 904, at page 911, 81 L. Ed. 1307, discusses, among other things, the exemptions as contained in the statute in its then form and the opinion states: "Fifth: The tax is not invalid as a result of its exemptions."

Mr. Justice Cardozo taught us how Justices may write for the Court and still reserve their own postions, though overruled.

Where, after examination of the statute, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, even to dispute these characterizations, Congress'"choice is clearly wrong."

No. The Social Security Act's old-age benefits program and its related taxes are a constitutional exercise of Congress's power to spend for the general welfare. The court reasoned that the problem of old-age poverty and dependency had become a national issue that individual states were unable to solve effectively due to limited resources and competition among them. Citing United States v. Butler, the court affirmed the Hamiltonian view that the spending power is a distinct power not limited to Congress's other enumerated powers. The determination of what constitutes the 'general welfare' is a matter for Congress's discretion, and courts should only overturn that judgment if it is a 'display of arbitrary power.' Given the widespread destitution among the elderly during the Great Depression, Congress's decision to create a national pension system was a reasonable response to a national crisis and thus served the general welfare.

Yes. The dissenting justices stated without elaboration that the challenged provisions of the Social Security Act were repugnant to the Tenth Amendment, and the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals invalidating the act should have been affirmed.

No, the scheme of benefits created by the provisions of Title II is not in contravention of the limitations of the Tenth Amendment. Congress has broad discretion to spend money in aid of the 'general welfare' because the concept of welfare is shaped by Congress, not the states, and evolves with the needs of the nation. The problem of old age benefits is national in scope and cannot be effectively addressed by individual states due to resource limitations and the potential for interstate migration of the needy. The tax on employers is a valid excise or duty upon the relation of employment, and the act's provisions are not repugnant to the Tenth Amendment. Courts should defer substantially to the judgment of Congress in considering whether a particular expenditure is intended to serve general public purposes.

The provisions of the act here challenged are repugnant to the Tenth Amendment, and the decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals should be affirmed.

Helvering v. Davis

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot