Judge Bars Government From Discovering Social Security Fraud

One of Bill Clinton's Federal Judges has

issued an injunction against the issuance of "no-match" letters that inform employers of potential fraudulent employees, halting enforcement of employer sanctions for hiring illegal workers:

Click on the link to Captain's Quarters for the details. The most interesting part of this story are the comments:

Daytrader tells us:

Actually the article is slightly fact challenged.

The no match letters have gone out all along since they were first required. The just get put in a file cabinet and ignored. It is clear and primary indicator of identity theft. The enforcement requirements are not new, they are now just attempted to being enforced.

It happens all the time. I myself can personally speak to the issue. I am retired and there is an ongoing investigation with the Social Security system because they are wondering why I am retired yet still actively working in the States of Florida, New York, Ohio , Texas and California ALL AT THE SAME TIME!!!!

Also I am working as a roofer and electrician, a veterinarians assistant, a timeshare salesperson and a commercial fisherman. All new occupations I have learned since my retirement.

Who says you can't teach an old dog new tricks.

And Uncle Jefe relates:

An absolute friggin' joke.
For this year's grape harvest here in Sonoma County, at our winery, we put 70 people through physicals/drug screenings and background checks, and social security checks. We can't do the Social Security check first, and therefore have to spend all of the money on the rest of the process, before finding out that over 10% didn't qualify anyway because of bad Soc Sec #'s. And we can't report them. And of the ones that DID pass the Soc Sec check, I'm still not convinced that all of them were legit. It only screens out ones that didn't match up...if the check is inconclusive or doesn't raise any flags, they're good to go. I've seen people get rejected for a bad Soc Sec # in the morning, and come back in the afternoon with a different name and number, and pass.
Friggin' joke.

Question for the judiciary: if a law is not enforced is it constitutional, or does it only become unconstitutional if it is enforced?