For senior citizens, can we sue or get some group legal action against this?

[Cleita]

It occurred to me that Social Security and Medicare are contracts that were made to the generations that followed when signed into law. When you got that FICA taken out of your salary, you were insured for old age in the form of a pension if you reached the age of sixty-five. In my case it started with my first part time job at the age of fifteen and continues today as I am still working part time although I'm seventy-one. Of course Medicare was added to the mix to be there for us when we were no longer insurable and when we were at the age we needed medical care access the most. This was the contract our government made with us in exchange for taking those deductions from our wages. This is why they were administered separately from the general fund. This is why they can't be on the bargaining table.

THE US GOVERNMENT IS BREAKING THEIR CONTRACT WITH US AND THEY CANNOT TOUCH THAT MONEY WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES! This is the way it should be.

[Wilms]

1. You mean a class action suit???

[Cleita]

8. I believe something like that.

We can't count on AARP doing something constructive but there are other senior organizations out there that should take up the gauntlet.

[Why Syzygy]

2. Furthermore ..

those funds were allocated for other expenses! That's why it is in danger now.

Not only would it break the contract wherein we kept our part of the bargain for insurance later in life.
It also defaults on the LOAN made from OUR money to pay other government programs (balanced budget/Clinton).

However. As far as I can determine, we are a lawless nation. Might makes Right. It's an obscenity.

[Cleita]

15. This is a real problem. We seem to have a

consortium of criminals, who barely operate within the law or change it for their benefit, in partnership with a religious cult and both partners are calling the shots in governing us. We are being ruled by a minority, not a majority of the people as the Constitution has laid out. You know the Constitution, that quaint document? As far as I'm concerned, our President is doing what he has to do to get re-elected in 2012, so he's taking what doesn't belong to him or the nutties in Congress for bargaining chips.

[Sheepshank]

3. Sue for what specifically? Nothing has happened?

Working ones self into a frenzy over something that hasn't happened yet seems a little hysterical.

OTOH, I'm pretty sure there are plenty of attorneys out there who would love to take a retainer from you on this very project.

[Cleita]

7. This would have to be a contingency action. No

money paid unless there is a favorable judgement.

[Sheepshank]

27. How can any attorney start working on any law suit under the condictions you describe?

Any credible attorney will tell you there has to have been a definitive action first - - a basis on which to file the complaint. They need something on which to build a case, citing case law, portions of the contract breeched etc.

Of course as I'd mentioned there will be plenty of 'other' attorneys that will take your case with $ up front and pay you back when they win :sarcasm:

[Cleita]

29. And they should.

Many do take up contingencies though if they think they can win, or in the case it would be because it's the ideological right thing to do.

[Sheepshank]

30. File a law suit against the US, in case they do something?

ok...now this is just getting stupid.

[emulatorloo]

4. Against what? Nothing has happened.

It seems to me we are probably going to get a clean bill to raise the debt ceiling, or a more balanced and reasonable version of the McConnell plan.

[Cleita]

9. Even if that happens, the fact that they bargained

with something that didn't belong to them needs to be addressed. The act of taking from seniors what they are entitled to (their words) like it was part of the General Fund and using it to trade for something that will not be given back to the seniors is pure theft IMHO.

[emulatorloo]

18. You can't file a lawsuit if there is no law.

"The act of taking from seniors what they are entitled to"

Talking about something is not an action.

Nothing has been taken from seniors by talk at a negotiating table,

Courts do not rule on talk.

[Sheepshank]

28. Remember the law suit that was recently tossed in protection of Free Speech?

Some dude posted a need to shoot Obama in the head.

Talk does not create liability.

[MineralMan]

5. Before anything is in place, no. You can't get a restraining order

against the US Congress or the President.

After a decision is made and there is an actual policy in place, you might be able to sue. However, such a suit would probably be dismissed in federal court without even being heard. You may think there is a contract, but there is not. SS and Medicare are programs that are funded by taxation. The details of the programs are not a matter of contract, but of laws passed by Congress and signed by the President. So, there really would be no case, and you or your class would not have valid standing in court.

However, you can change things by electing legislators and a President who believes as you do. That remedy is always in play in this country. I highly recommend that action, and the time to begin is now. the 2012 election is just around the corner. Working to nominate and elect candidates who share your views can create what you want. It's hard work, but it needs to be done.

[KittyWampus]

6. Okay, someone posted in a thread this has been to court which ruled it is not an actual contract.

I will see if I can find it.

[Cleita]

11. Maybe that court ruled that, but it should go to other

courts and it is an actual contract. You sign it on your W-3 form, which gives your employer the right to deduct FICA from your wages. There was a time you could refuse it, if you had another pension plan to replace it like a state pension plan. So in the act of allowing that money to be taken in exchange for your future retirement security is a contract by any definition of the word.

[PoliticAverse]

14. Right on Social Security's website:

http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html

[Cleita]

17. Time for activists to clamor for Fleming vs. Nestor to be

reversed.

[KittyWampus]

24. Thanks for following up with that.

[lonestarnot]

10. Sovereign Immunity?

[Cleita]

12. Whose the sovereign in this case?

That, I believe, would need to be defined and I'm not a lawyer. I did have a lawyer once tell me though, when a landlord I had signed a lease with, tried to get me out of my apartment because he wanted to rent my unit to someone who would pay more rent, that possession was nine tenths of the law. He told me not to move no matter how much I was harassed until he could get the legal processes going. I believe we own our Social Security Fund to be given to us at a later date according to the terms of the contract.

[lonestarnot]

20. United States. Congress. Agency head.

[PoliticAverse]

13. No, the Supreme Court ruled Social Security isn't an enforceable contract...

Congress has the right to make changes to the program and no one has rights to any specific
promised benefits.

See: http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html

[Cleita]

16. Fuck the Supreme Court, it's time to make it enforceable. n/t

[kelly1mm]

19. You have no contractual rights to SS. See Flemming v. Nestor. Link below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemming_v._Nestor

[Cleita]

21. I already looked. I think it was a wrong decision and

it should be looked at again and most likely reversed because I'm almost certain that FDR regarded it as an iron bound contract. However, I know it would be a fool's errand with this Supreme Court.

[EFerrari]

22. You know who you might check with,

the Center for Constitutional Rights. They are very responsive.

[Cleita]

25. Good idea.

Even though as others have pointed out, our government doesn't think it has a contract with its people regarding this, it seems we need to bring it up and make them talk about it. Could the Supreme Court have been wrong?

[EFerrari]

26. Our government thinks all kinds of things that are wrong all the time.

lol

It's an interesting question.

[former9thward]

23. SS is no more a contract than are taxes.

SS has been changed many many times over the years. Usually for the better but not always. Retirement age used to be 65. It no longer is. It was changed to 67 in 1983. Did you complain about the "contract" being broken then? When they changed the law to add cost of living adjustments did you complain about the "contract" being broken then? I didn't think so.

[Xithras]

31. Doesn't matter. Even if it WAS a contract, the courts would be powerless.

The Judicial branch can only overrule the Legislative branch on constitutional issues. There is no constitutional protection for contract enforcement. The laws regulating the enforcement of contracts have been created by the Legislative branch, and as such can be changed by them at will.

The power of Congress is held in check ONLY by the restrictions placed in the Constitution. Because there are no constitutional checks that govern SS, contract law, or anything remotely related, the courts couldn't intervene even if they wanted to.