Flemming v. Nestor Revisited

July 18, 2002

Investor's Business Daily cited ensuring Social Security benefits as part of the reason why Congress raised the federal debt limit. Although thought of a retirement insurance program, Investor's Business Daily points out that there are neither grantees nor rights to benefits. The notion of Social Security benefits as a property right was challenged in the Supreme Court case Flemming v. Nestor. Although a district court initially sided with Nestor that depriving Social Security benefits was a violation of Fifth Amendment rights, the Supreme Court overturned the decision. According to the Supreme Court, interpreting Social Security as a property right would " deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever-changing conditions which it demands." Social Security is not the property of the contributor, but a tax to be spent as the government sees fit. In essence, "Social Security became a welfare program. And if it's a welfare program, lawmakers can take it away as easily as they grant it."

In "Property Rights: The Hidden Issue of Social Security Reform," Charles Rounds examines this "most enduring myth of Social Security."

2005 Index | 2004 Index
2003 Index | 2002 Index | 2001 Index
2000 Index | 1999 Index | 1998 Index