@chrisgeidner @soy_patria @samknight1 don't suppose it's easy as looking at the statute online? Probably not, bet its buried in rulemaking
@soy_patria @samknight1 It only becomes a Sec. 2 question if Soc Sec Admin requires adherence to state law for provision of a fed benefit.
-
-
-
@msilverman@soy_patria@samknight1 If it was in statute, wldn't there be denial? It seems sub-statutory reqs must b involved, at most, yes? -
@crescat@msilverman@soy_patria@samknight1 The POMS instructions appear not to include consideration of the "alternate route to benefits."
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@chrisgeidner@soy_patria@samknight1 Feds choosing to do this. Feds could say "u can choose 1 beneficiary" insisting on legal marriage certThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.