Helvering v. Davis
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Helvering_v._Davis an entity of type: Thing
Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937), was a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that held that Social Security was constitutionally permissible as an exercise of the federal power to spend for the general welfare and so did not contravene the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Helvering v. Davis
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Guy T. Helvering, Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Davis
xsd:integer
18490989
xsd:integer
1081691354
rdf:langString
McReynolds
rdf:langString
Butler
rdf:langString
Hughes, Brandeis, Stone, Sutherland, Van Devanter, and Roberts
xsd:integer
57
<second>
17280.0
xsd:integer
619
xsd:integer
301
xsd:gMonthDay
--05-05
xsd:integer
1937
rdf:langString
'Helvering v. Davis,
xsd:gMonthDay
--05-24
xsd:integer
1937
rdf:langString
Guy T. Helvering, Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Davis
rdf:langString
The proceeds of both the employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way. The Social Security Act of 1935 does not contravene the Tenth Amendment, as Congress is permitted to spend for the general welfare.
rdf:langString
Helvering v. Davis
rdf:langString
Cardozo
rdf:langString
Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937), was a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that held that Social Security was constitutionally permissible as an exercise of the federal power to spend for the general welfare and so did not contravene the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Court's 7–2 decision defended the constitutionality of the old-age benefit program of the Social Security Act of 1935 by requiring only welfare spending to be for the common benefit, as distinguished from some mere local purpose. It affirmed a District Court decree that held that the tax upon employees was not properly at issue and that the tax upon employers was constitutional.
xsd:nonNegativeInteger
10483