.. legal requirement for the US government to honor the obligation that is the SS ponzi scheme. Flemming v. Nestor (1960). And how does any of this change the fact that the unfunded liabilities for SS are real?

Funny how you left the rest of the quote. This subsection of the 14 amendment pertains to public arising from insurrection. It has nothing to do with anything else: "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void." Also, you left out the fact that the SCOTUS has decided that there is no ...

Hate to disappoint you, but your quote "Bear in mind..." from his first inaugural was taken out of context. He was referring to the "will of law", NOT democracy. "During the contest of opinion through which we have passed the animation of discussions and of exertions has sometimes worn an aspect which might impose on strangers unused to think freely and to speak and to write what they think; but this being now decided by the voice of the nation, announced according to the rules of the Constitution, all will, of course, arrange themselves under the will of the law, and unite in common efforts for the common good." And further on he defines our system of governance "We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists." and " Let us, then,...

Believe me, it was just under the surface. Quietly conservatives were trying to rid the Republican party of RINOs. Why do you think the Dems won so many elections? Conservatives had no where to turn, and thus did not turn out to vote. Dems thought everyone agreed with their policies; however, it was non-participation by conservatives that allowed a Dem landslide. I for one disliked Bush's conservation of his veto pen. He was probably as big a liberal as John McCain.

I have to humbly disagree with the fact that the intent of the commerce clause was established with Odgen v Gibbons. The intent seemed to be upheld by the decision of the court on that case, as New York was restricting commerce with respect to New Jersey (eventhough both states shared the waters). I agree the Articles of Confederation was fraught with problems; however, the Constitution was/is different. Even before it was submitted to five writers to 'stylistically' polish the Constitution before submission for ratification, the original form started "We the People of the sovereign state of New York, the people of... (cut for brevity). This indicated to me that did indeed mean a confederation of sovereign states. They only removed the...

The SCOTUS should indeed deem anything not enumerated in Article 1 sec. 8 as unconstitutional. If you do research into the orginal meaning of the commerce clause, you will find that it prevented any state from interferring with trade of any other state by way of imposed tax on transport of that trade, and to be an arbitor among disagreements between the states. A state could, in fact, forbid imports from other states by duty, only if it forbade imports from ALL states. "Regulate" at the time of the Constitution, was meant "to make regular". A negative restriction as apposed to a positive restriction. As far as getting rid of SS, Medicare, Medicaid and all the other malodies of the Federal government, I am all for it. Let the states...