Summary

Portrait of Hugo Black Hugo Black Flemming v. Nestor — Dissent

These are nice words but they cannot conceal the fact that they simply tell the contributors to this insurance fund that despite their own and their employers' payments the Government, in paying the beneficiaries out of the fund, is merely giving them something for nothing and can stop doing so when it pleases. This, in my judgment, reveals a complete misunderstanding of the purpose Congress and the country had in passing that law. It was then generally agreed, as it is today, that it is not desirable that aged people think of the Government as giving them something for nothing.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Hugo Black Hugo Black Flemming v. Nestor — Dissent

Now a similar ex post facto law deprives him of his insurance, which, while petty and insignificant in amount to this great Government, may well be this exile's daily bread, for the same reason and in accord with the general fashion of the day-that is, to punish in every way possible anyone who ever made the mistake of being a Communist in this country or who is supposed ever to have been associated with anyone who made that mistake.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Hugo Black Hugo Black Flemming v. Nestor — Dissent

Congress, of course, properly retained that power. It could repeal the Act so as to cease to operate its old-age insurance activities for the future. This means that it could stop covering new people, and even stop increasing its obligations to its old contributors. But that is quite different from disappointing the just expectations of the contributors to the fund which the Government has compelled them and their employers to pay its Treasury. There is nothing 'conceptualistic' about saying, as this Court did in Lynch, that such a taking as this the Constitution forbids.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature