In the past Chapter, I've provided proof that Social Security would be unconstitutional if it was a Trust Fund. In another Chapter, I'll prove that it is only available to "Indigents," but first I'll explain why, so that you will understand that IT CANNOT BE OTHERWISE.
Your Constitution does not allow government to provide ordinary people with entitlements such as "Welfare" or Social Security benefits. It is not a government function to provide entitlements to people. It is not a government function to take care of people. Nor is there any authorized source of funds to take care of people, nor can civil servants receive a paycheck for performing such non-governmental services. And indeed, your Government does not give entitlements to ordinary people. ORDINARY PEOPLE CANNOT QUALIFY FOR FEDERAL BENEFITS. Again: it is not a government function to provide entitlements to people.
When your federal Constitution was being considered for ratification by the State Senates, some people were suspicious of the "general welfare" Clause and tried to claim that these two words could authorize any kind of welfare. The general welfare Clause in Article 1, Section 8 of your U.S. Constitution reads: "The Congress shall have Power to ... provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; ..." It is an introductory phrase which is followed, after a semi-colon, by a specific list of the 17 things the new government would be authorized to do, such as; to establish Post Offices, coin money, make Treaties, establish standard weights and measures, provide for a Navy, punish pirates, punish counterfeiting, fund a temporary army, declare war, and exercise exclusive jurisdiction over all cases in the future Washington, D.C., etc.
To counter those rumors that the general welfare Clause in the proposed Constitution would authorize any kind of welfare, James Madison, in Federalist Paper #41, explained its clear intent. He stated that it "is an absurdity" to claim that the General Welfare Clause confounds or misleads, because this introductory Clause is followed by enumeration of specific particulars that explain and qualify the meaning of phrase "general welfare."
That's right! YOUR CONSTITUTION WAS RATIFIED UNDER THE ASSURANCE THAT IT WOULD NEVER BE INTERPRETED TO PROVIDE WELFARE TO INDIVIDUALS - And it has not. And indeed, to this very day, your U.S. Government can not, and does not, provide entitlements to ordinary Americans. Here is the catch: The ONLY way to qualify for entitlements, such as welfare or Social Security, is to become a ward of a foreign authority. The U.S. Government administers their program as their Agent. SOCIAL SECURITY AND WELFARE REMAIN CONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE ORDINARY AMERICANS CANNOT QUALIFY FOR ENTITLEMENTS. The Supreme Court says, 92 US 551: "It is the natural consequence of a citizenship which owes allegiance to two sovereignties, and claims protection from both. The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government."
Congress cannot appropriate funds for entitlements to Americans. No one who swears an Oath to uphold the Constitution can lawfully spend funds for any entitlement. Government funds can only be spent for legitimate purposes.
Conclusion #1, "Welfare" is prohibited by your U.S. Constitution. IT HAS NEVER BEEN A GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION TO HELP PEOPLE
Jesus Christ said in Luke 22:25: "... they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors." 2nd Thessalonians 3:6-14 prohibits Christians from associating with freeloaders.
Those who manage themselves will not accept Socialist benefits. Christians will not force others to pay for their retirement. Those who accept benefits do so only by a "Pledge of Allegiance" to a worldly master. Perhaps you've chosen the wrong provider.
Another interesting Document is President Cleveland's June 21, 1886 veto of military pensions. His veto blasted into politicians because a pension would "urge honest men to become dishonest." And he refused to pass such a "demoralizing lesson." Military pensions were dishonest in 1886. Federal pensions are still dishonest today. If earned pensions are dishonest, how depraved are those who think of unearned welfare as honest?
By the way, The Federalist Papers are not just some antiquated editorial opinions, they are, according to the Supreme Court in Cohen v. Virginia (6 Wheat), the exact record of the intent of the Constitution (also see Coleman v. Miller).
Just in case you think a law or an Amendment changed the intent of your U.S. Constitution, Think again. A Congressman cannot swear an Oath to support and defend your Constitution and then suggest an Amendment to change something that he is sworn to perpetuate.
If you don't believe me, perhaps you can believe the U.S. Supreme Court in S. Carolina v. U.S., 199 US 437 (1905): "The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now ..."
Busser v. Snyder, 37 ALR 1515: "An Old Age Assistance Law is prohibited by a constitutional provision that no appropriation shall be made for charitable or benevolent purposes to any person."
Also in the Busser case: "The term 'poor,' as used by lawmakers, describes those who are destitute and helpless, unable to support themselves, and without means of support."
I want you to remember the legal definition of the term "poor" from this Busser case. Destitute, helpless, unable to support themselves, without means of support. Later on, I will show that this is entirely consistent with the poor laws. If you cannot take care of yourself, others are allowed to take care of you, even if you don't like it. John 21:18.