For a Yale-educated lawyer, Joe Miller has some strange ideas about the constitution. He was on radio show today, and ThinkProgress called in to ask him about his position on Social Security. Here's the exchange:

MILLER: When you start to receive some sort of commitment from government in exchange for a payment that you’ve made, there are reciprocal responsibilities; there is an expectation of payment on the part of the person that’s paid into it. And it’s gotten us into this quandary, where government is into something that it shouldn’t have gotten into. Now we’ve got a whole generation of people that are dependent on it, plus we have others that are getting ready to enter into the Social Security payment system, and they are, they simply don’t have time to transition out of it. [...] QUESTION: What about for me? I’m 32 years old. Is Social Security constitutional for me? MILLER: Social Security should be transitioned into a program, there’s no question about it, that will allow either the states, or the private entities — whatever the dialogue, I think, results in — to provide payments to you. It is ultimately the government’s responsibility to follow the mandates of the Constitution.

As Millhiser says in the post "it’s difficult to count the errors in Miller’s statement." Were Social Security actually unconstitutional, then continuing to provide benefits under the current system would be unconstitutional. That's just the way it works--it applies equally to all of us. Millhiser continues:

I think Yale may want to take that degree back.