alt.social-security-disability

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 20:20:35 GMT, Puddin' Man
wrote:

>I would've thought something like "... does not have merit -because -
> ...".

Yes.

But there's one thing I may have overlooked, not being familiar with
the procedures involving Constitutional challenges.

It's my understanding that when you list what you believe are
unconstitutional SSA practices, SSA has to respond in their brief that
they are not unconstitutional. In other words, both sides must agree
that the only issues are constitutional. There is no disagreement as
to the facts in the case. If any part of your brief contained a
dispute as to a finding of fact, this may have provided SSA and the
court with a "cop-out" to avoid responding to Constitutional issues.
________
This does not pertain exactly to your situation but it shows how both
sides must agree as to the facts:

/OP_Home/cfr20/404/

§ When the expedited appeals process may be used.

(...)

(d) You have claimed, and we agree, that the only factor preventing a
favorable determination or decision is a provision in the law that you
believe is unconstitutional.

(...)

_______

Constitutional challenges are not commonplace and the only one in
which I was intimately involved was the Heckler v. Campbell 1983
Supreme Court case in which I was deposed by Campbell's attorneys as
a potential expert witness.
_____-