No they can't. I gave you the link to the court decision. I suggest you read IT instead of relying on a libertarian think tank that prints only half the truth.<quoted text>you missed the point yes the can and they proved it with Nestor and legal.
Property Rights: The Hidden Issue of Social Security Reform
By Charles E. Rounds Jr.
April 19, 2000
One of the most enduring myths of Social Security is that a worker has a legal right to his Social Security benefits. Many workers assume that, if they pay Social Security taxes into the system, they have some sort of legal guarantee to the system’s benefits. The truth is exactly the opposite. It has long been law that there is no legal right to Social Security. In two important cases, Helvering v. Davis and Flemming v. Nestor, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Social Security taxes are simply taxes and convey no property or contractual rights to Social Security benefits.
As a result, a worker’s retirement security is entirely dependent on the political decisions of the president and Congress. Benefits may be reduced or even eliminated at any time. Given the program’s looming financial crisis, benefit cutbacks are increasingly likely. Therefore, the entirely political nature of Social Security places workers’ retirement security at considerable risk. Indeed, Congress has already arbitrarily reduced Social Security benefits of some groups of workers. Moreover, because Social Security benefits are not a worker’s property, they are not inheritable.
In contrast, a privatized Social Security system, based on individual accounts, would provide workers with the benefits and the safeguards of true ownership.
The Nestor case was a very specific case and the court addressed that in their decision...they said, "THIS IS NOT TO SAY, HOWEVER, THAT CONGRESS MAY EXERCISE ITS POWER TO MODIFY THE STATUTORY SCHEME FREE OF ALL CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRAINT."
They went on to say that the Due Process clause of the constitution would apply and "interpose a bar" if the action of Congress manifested itself as "utterly lacking in rational justification." They went on to explain that in the Nestor case Congress was only justified because it was determined it was "rational for Congress to have concluded that the public purse should not be utilized to contribute to the support of those deported..."
You people are so gullible.