PING...
I didn’t miss the point, I actually agree with your point...
I am pushing for people to educate themselves on this subject and they may be surprised as to what our Skrool system has suspiciously forgotten to educate us about.
However, Social Security is a “Benefit” and not mandated...
By excepting said “Benefit” you have entered into a “Contract” with USA incorporated and “Volunteered” into becoming a “14th amendment citizen” and you are now bound by it’s terms which DOES include all Statuatory Laws!!!
And you don't get fined, if you don't put into it ...
“However, Social Security is a “Benefit” and not mandated...”
There are two things in play with what you wrote and this is not just my opinion but historical fact, and what I am going to point out to you is extremely relevant to the Obamacare case because it is what the democrats planned from the outset based on the Social Security constitutional challenge of 1935:
The two things in play are in your terms and my terms:
1. Benefit
2. Tax
SCOTUS does not look at these two things as one singular entity.
Now it is true what you said that Social Security is/was a Benefit and not a mandate, and the words of FDR that are part of the historical record shows he knew that he would lose by imposing a ‘benefit’ on the American People. So he switched from a ‘benefit’ argument to a ‘tax’ argument.
So your argument about not being legal to force a ‘benefit’ is fine, pat yourself on the back. But it does not matter that you won that argument because you lose the other argument, the ‘tax’ argument.
Now you are like the football fan whose team is down by a field goal and later you jump and cheer when your team intercepts a pass and runs for a touchdown. But in the final play the other team scores a touchdown and you lose.
They are going to lose on the ‘mandate’ argument and they are going to win on the ‘tax’ argument, and thus the American People lose.