08 Jun 14
Originally posted by no1marauderObviously Hamilton believed in the minimum, he was the first person to push for and achieve the first minimum wage law in the US.
Accordingly, such only are the regulations to be found in the laws of the United States [b]whose objects are to give encouragement to the enterprise of our own merchants, and to advance our navigation and manufactures. And it is in reference to these general relations of commerce, that an establishment which furnishes facilities to circulation, and a ...[text shortened]... end to every part ?
Alexander Hamilton
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bank-ah.asp[/b]
09 Jun 14
Originally posted by Eladar(Shrug) The issue is whether Hamilton believed that Congress had a broad power to regulate economic activity not whether in his particular time he would have supported measures to deal with different economic crisis in a far different time.
Obviously Hamilton believed in the minimum, he was the first person to push for and achieve the first minimum wage law in the US.
09 Jun 14
Originally posted by KazetNagorraNo, I don't feel the same way about Federal laws, but if there are some that
Do you feel the same about all federal laws? If so, why? If not, what are the criteria you use to determine whether or not something should be legislated at the federal or at some lower level?
are good and bad, I'd not use a broad brush to dismiss or embrace them
all one way or another. I do believe in State Rights, but you need Federal
laws to keep the Union together.
Kelly
09 Jun 14
Originally posted by no1marauderIf the commerce clause was so broadly understood, then Article 1, section 10 would have been redundant.
Jesus H. Christ. How many times do we have to go through this?
Hamilton wasn't discussing the Commerce Clause in that quote; he was discussing this provision:
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: an ...[text shortened]... ision in Article I, Section 10 resolved this issue. The Commerce Clause was completely separate.
The cited quote of Hamilton brings up precisely the problem which I cited, that of major waterways (the most economical means of transporting goods) becoming nearly useless due to each state and city on the route getting in on the taxation. The commerce clause was to lubricate commerce (trade) with common rules, and limited tariffs, not to dictate wages in every sector from coast to coast, as well as to interfere in many other areas that have nothing at all to do with interstate commerce (like carrying a gun within 200 feet of a school).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990
The Supreme Court of the United States subsequently held that the Act was an unconstitutional exercise of Congressional authority under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995). This was the first time in over half a century that the Supreme Court limited Congressional authority to legislate under the Commerce Clause.
09 Jun 14
Originally posted by normbenignNo, it wouldn't. Article I, Section 10 is the specific section where certain pre-existing powers of the States were eliminated. The Commerce Clause is a specific grant of power to the Congress. That's an apple and an orange though it does show that the Constitution itself meant to increase central government power and decrease State government power in economic matters.
If the commerce clause was so broadly understood, then Article 1, section 10 would have been redundant.
The cited quote of Hamilton brings up precisely the problem which I cited, that of major waterways (the most economical means of transporting goods) becoming nearly useless due to each state and city on the route getting in on the taxation. The comm ...[text shortened]... y that the Supreme Court limited Congressional authority to legislate under the Commerce Clause.
As already patiently explained, the quote you cited by Hamilton dealt with a problem that was solved in Article I, Section 10 as his reference to the German situation makes clear. The quote I provided by Hamilton clearly shows he was aware that the Federal Commerce Clause power would have effects on commerce inside the States ................... and that he had no problem with such. The quote from Madison's makes it obvious that the Framers were perfectly aware that regulation of competing economic interests was a main purpose of government which is a direct refutation of laissez faire theory.
Lopez was correctly decided because the Gun Free School Zone Act was not a commercial regulation but an attempt to legislate regarding an area of traditional State control. But it is fallacious to argue that because some have attempted to stretch the Commerce Clause beyond its reasonable bounds by passing such measures that the Clause does not give broad power to the Congress to regulate in the economic/commercial area; that's what it was designed to do.
09 Jun 14
Originally posted by KellyJayThat doesn't answer the question. What are the appropriate responsibilities of federal, state and county governments?
No, I don't feel the same way about Federal laws, but if there are some that
are good and bad, I'd not use a broad brush to dismiss or embrace them
all one way or another. I do believe in State Rights, but you need Federal
laws to keep the Union together.
Kelly
Originally posted by no1marauderI suppose you can change the subject to whatever you see fit, as can I. I see the question as to whether the Constitution has given the government the right to tell employers how much they must pay their employees. Clearly it does not, but as you point out that doesn't matter. It only matters what a group of politically appointed judges decide.
(Shrug) The issue is whether Hamilton believed that Congress had a broad power to regulate economic activity not whether in his particular time he would have supported measures to deal with different economic crisis in a far different time.
09 Jun 14
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI answered that, if you need to get into the weeds on that point we would
That doesn't answer the question. What are the appropriate responsibilities of federal, state and county governments?
almost have to look at each law. For me on a very high level it would
touch upon those things the states cannot do for themselves. If however,
if a county can do it, why should the state, if the state can why the federal
government? Local levels are better than the ones that come down from
on high.
Kelly
09 Jun 14
1 edit
Originally posted by EladarThe ability for a government to set wage rates was well established by the time of the Constitution; Virginia and Massachusetts had wide ranging wage and price controls at various times during their colonial existence.http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/library/books/drastic-measures-history-wage-and-price-controls-united-states
I suppose you can change the subject to whatever you see fit, as can I. I see the question as to whether the Constitution has given the government the right to tell employers how much they must pay their employees. Clearly it does not, but as you point out that doesn't matter. It only matters what a group of politically appointed judges decide.
The only question that remains is whether such a measure is a valid regulation of interstate Commerce since the power to regulate interstate commerce is an enumerated power given to the US Congress. Given the statements of Hamilton and Madison and my review of the purposes of the Commerce Clause, the answer surely seems to be "Yes".
EDIT: Here's the short version:
The American colonies experimented with wage and price controls to cope with shortages in commodities and labor. In 1623, the governor of Virginia issued a proclamation fixing prices and profit rates. The proclamation issued a list of prices embracing goods ranging from Canadian fish to wine vinegar. A war with Indians apparently created a shortage of goods that led to the controls. The colonial government lifted the controls in 1641. In 1630, the Massachusetts Bay Colony enacted a schedule of wages for skilled workers, coupled with a limit on the markup for finished goods. In 1633, a law banning all “excessive wages and prices” displaced the scale of wages and limitation on markups.
The colonists turned again to wage and price controls to protect themselves from the wave of hyperinflation that struck the colonial economy during the War of Independence. The Continental Congress did not have the power to impose wage and price controls and remained split on the efforts of state governments to control prices and wages.
http://www.kredihesaplama.org/financialterms/wage-and-price-controls.html
Of course, the Continental Congress had no such power as there was nothing like the Commerce Clause at the time.
09 Jun 14
The ability for a government to set wage rates was well established by the time of the Constitution
As I said, you have the right to change the topic.
Of course, the Continental Congress had no such power as there was nothing like the Commerce Clause at the time.
Glad to see that you agree with me on what the Constitution action says.
09 Jun 14
Originally posted by EladarI suggest you have someone explain my posts to you seem impervious in listening to anything I say. But the topic wasn't changed as you insisted no government had no "right" to set wages (the Framers disagreed) and pointing out the Continental Congress lacked a power is hardly agreeing with your assertion that the Congress of the United States after the ratification of the Constitution doesn't.
[b]The ability for a government to set wage rates was well established by the time of the Constitution
As I said, you have the right to change the topic.
Of course, the Continental Congress had no such power as there was nothing like the Commerce Clause at the time.
Glad to see that you agree with me on what the Constitution action says.[/b]
10 Jun 14
Originally posted by no1marauderI understand what you said. I just explained why I believe you are not dealing with the actual issue, just the one you'd like to talk about.
I suggest you have someone explain my posts to you seem impervious in listening to anything I say. But the topic wasn't changed as you insisted no government had no "right" to set wages (the Framers disagreed) and pointing out the Continental Congress lacked a power is hardly agreeing with your assertion that the Congress of the United States after the ratification of the Constitution doesn't.
I believe that the Constitution does not give the federal government the right to set wages. As a matter of fact, the Constitution makes it impossible for the federal government to do so. Since that really doesn't matter, it doesn't really apply to reality.