Social Security Act
.svg.png) | |
| Other short titles | SSA |
|---|---|
| Long title | The Social Security Act of 1935 |
| Nicknames | SSA |
| Enacted by | the 74th United States Congress |
| Citations | |
| Statutes at Large | Pub.L. 74–271, 49 Stat. 620, enacted August 14, 1935 |
| Codification | |
| U.S.C. sections created | 42 U.S.C. ch. 7 |
| Legislative history | |
| |
| Major amendments | |
|
Social Security Amendments of 1965 Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999 | |
| United States Supreme Court cases | |
| Steward Machine Company v. Davis, Helvering v. Davis | |
The Social Security Act of 1935 Pub.L. 74–271, 49 Stat. 620, now codified as 42 U.S.C. ch. 7, created Social Security in the United States, and is relevant for US labor law. It created a basic right to a pension in old age, and insurance against unemployment.
Background
In the Second New Deal, the Social Security Act was signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on August 14, 1935. The act laid the groundwork for the modern welfare system in the United States, with its primary focus to provide aid for the elderly, the unemployed, and children. Industrialization and the urbanization in the 19th Century created many new social problems, and transformed ideas of how society and the government should function together because of them. As industry expanded, cities grew quickly to keep up with demand for labor. Tenement houses were built quickly and poorly, cramming new migrants from farms and Southern and Eastern European immigrants into tight and unhealthy spaces. Work spaces were even more unsafe.[2] In 1890, Jacob Riis wrote that "the quick change of economic conditions in the city…often out paces all plans of relief."
Contents
The Social Security Act has been amended significantly over time, but contains ten major titles.
Title I, old age
Title I is designed to give money to states to provide assistance to aged individuals
Title III, unemployment
Title III concerns unemployment insurance
Title IV, child aid
Title IV concerns Aid to Families with Dependent Children.
Title V, child welfare
Title V concerns Maternal and Child Welfare.
Title VI, public health
Title VI concerns public health services (investigation of disease and problems of sanitation)
Title X, blindness
Title X concerns support for blind people.[3]
Amendments
Social Security Act Amendments of 1939
H.R.6635 Approved, August 10, 1939 Public Law 76-379
Amendments of 1939: The original Act provided only retirement benefits, and only to the worker. The 1939 Amendments made a fundamental change in the Social Security program. The Amendments added two new categories of benefits: payments to the spouse and minor children of a retired worker (called dependents benefits) and survivors benefits paid to the family in the event of the premature death of the worker. The 1939 Amendments also increased benefit amounts and accelerated the start of monthly benefit payments from 1942 to 1940.
War Mobilization and Reconversion Act of 1944
S.2051 Approved, October 3, 1219 Public Law 78-458
Title XII who created the social security act?
Social Security Act Amendments of 1946
H.R.7037 Approved, August 10, 1946 Public Law 79-719
Title XIII
Social Security Act Amendments of 1950
H.R.6000 Approved August 28, 1950 Public Law 81-734
These amendments raised benefits for the first time and placed the program on the road to the virtually universal coverage it has today. Specifically it is the introduction of the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA).
H.R.6291
Approved June 28, 1952 Public Law 82-420
Social Security Act Amendments of 1952
H.R.7800 Approved, July 18, 1952 Public Law 82-590
Social Security Act Amendments of 1954
H.R.9366 Approved September 1, 1954 Public Law 83-761
H.R.9709
Approved September 1, 1954 Public Law 83-767
Title XV
Maternal and Child Health and Mental Retardation Planning Amendments of 1963
H.R.7544 Approved, October 24, 1963 Public Law 88-156
Title XVII
Social Security Amendments of 1965
H.R.6675 Approved, July 30, 1965 Public Law 89-97
Title XVIII Title XIX
Constitutional litigation
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.[4] 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[5] Chief Justice Charles Evans 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.[6]
In March 1937, 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 justices 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[7] 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[8]:419 and that the delayed announcement of the decision created the false impression that the Court had retreated under fire.[8]:419 Following the vast support that was demonstrated for the New Deal through Roosevelt's re-election in 1936,[8]:422–23 Hughes persuaded Roberts to no longer base his decisions on political maneuvering and side with him in future cases that involved New Deal legislation[8]:422–23
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.[8]:413 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;[8]:414 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.[8]:414
US Supreme Court cases
Two Supreme Court rulings affirmed the constitutionality of the Social Security Act.
- Steward Machine Company v. Davis, 301 U.S, 548[9] (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 general welfare". The arguments opposed to the Social Security Act (articulated by justices Butler, McReynolds, and Sutherland in their opinions) were that the social security act went beyond the powers that were granted to the federal government in the Constitution. They argued that, by imposing a tax on employers that could be avoided only by contributing to a state 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.
- 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.
Other cases
- Flemming v. Nestor, 363 US 603 (1960) upholding §1104, allowing Congress to itself amend and revise the schedule of benefits. Further, however, recipients of benefits had no contractual rights to them.
- Goldberg v. Kelly 397 US 254 (1970) William Brennan, Jr. held there must be an evidentiary hearing before a recipient can be deprived of government benefits under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld (1975) held that a male widower should be entitled to his deceased wife's benefit just as a female widow was entitled to a deceased husband's, under the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
See also
Notes
- ↑ "History 1930". Social Security Administration. Retrieved May 21, 2009.
- ↑ Butler, Chris. ""The Social Impact of Industrialization," The Flow of History". Flow of History. Retrieved 24 October 2016.
- ↑ Achene, Andrew (1986). Social Security Visions and Revisions. New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 25-6.
- ↑ Supremecourthistory.org Archived October 6, 2008, at the Wayback Machine.
- ↑ "Social Security Administration". Ssa.gov. Retrieved 2011-09-11.
- ↑ www.historycooperative.org [11] Archived March 9, 2012, at the Wayback Machine.. Historycooperative.org. Retrieved on 2013-08-12.
- ↑ 298 U.S. 587 (1936)
- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 McKenna, Marian C. (2002). Franklin Roosevelt and the Great Constitutional War: The Court-packing Crisis of 1937. New York, NY: Fordham University Press. ISBN 978-0-8232-2154-7.
- ↑ "Steward Machine Company vs. Davis, 301 U.S, 548". Archived from the original on November 28, 2005. Retrieved December 3, 2005.
