if said amendment did not pass, your view would be that the best course of action would be to simply violate the Constitution as written (not, obviously, as enforced--I presume you're not talking about starting some kind of legitamacy crisis), correct?
I think such an amendment would be ratified. Suppose it would take six months into the new president’s term. During those six months, I would want the president to advocate constantly for the amendment and for constitutionalism more generally. One of the main goals of the presidency would be to awaken constitutional awareness, in much the same way that Trump’s presidency has caused voters to prioritize the immigration issue as never before. In the meantime: yes, the Constitution would need to continue to be violated at least for Social Security, Medicare, and immigration.
Another question: Given that you seem to reject the notion that the courts should decide on whether a law is Constitutional, what is your proposed alternative method of settling controversies on the issue?
I don’t think I’ve ever come out against judicial review. I have not made an extensive study of the debate. On the surface, Marshall’s fundamental argument---that Article III’s “under this Constitution”, interpreted in light of the traditional assumption of the supremacy of constitutional law over statutory law, necessarily implies the power of judicial review---appears solid. It’s a fascinating issue to be sure, but I’d rather not suppose hypotheticals about my beliefs that are probably the opposite of reality. I’d be happy to debate with you the veracity of Marshall’s argument.
I would think that it wouldn't just be current SS recipients who would object to both the repeal of our most successful anti-poverty program and to the idea of a single person overruling the wishes of the public and lawmakers and single-handedly overturning a SCOTUS ruling. Seems that everyone who expects to be old someday and who values freedom and democracy would have a problem with this. I think that the objections are not so much the populace being ignorant of the True Meaning of the Founding as a widespread belief in America that free people have say in their own governance and a belief that mass poverty is bad.
This is taking us off topic, but I’ll make a few points. I did not advocate for repeal of SS. I advocated for the ratification of a constitutional amendment to put the program on sound legal footing. I am aware of
Helvering v.
Davis and its distortion of the general welfare clause. Gradualism would be in order. It’s been over 80 years since that decision, and I suspect the Gorsuch/Thomas/Kavanaughs of the world would apply
stare decisis, at least narrowly, in the event that the issue came before them. This is why I stress advocacy and education. We have multiple generations of people who don’t know what the 10th Amendment is. We have people who assume, for example, that opposition to
Roe v.
Wade implies that one is “pro-life”. Until this type of ignorance can be overcome, the entire project is a loser.
I disagree with your second statement about “freedom and democracy”, unless you are applying non-traditional definitions to these terms.
As for your third point, people do not have “a free say in their governance” to create programs that violate the Constitution. That goes back to the question of the supremacy of constitutional law over statutory law, which I doubt you would question. I also don’t disagree that a hypothetical US without SS is necessarily a US with mass poverty. The means by which we would arrive at the SS-free world would be important.