Do away with Federal Minimum wage

Originally posted by Eladar
I 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 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.

You may believe whatever you want. But you have yet to make a cogent argument why the Commerce Clause doesn't grant such a power given that commercial regulations of that sort were conceded to be valid when made by State governments.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You may believe whatever you want. But you have yet to make a cogent argument why the Commerce Clause doesn't grant such a power given that commercial regulations of that sort were conceded to be valid when made by State governments.

There is no arguing about what is obvious. You simply choose to embrace the idea that the Constitution gives the right to the government to do whatever it wishes to do. I embrace that idea that the Constitution limits the government.

Judges and the government support your position. We'll see if enough people support mine.

Originally posted by Eladar
There is no arguing about what is obvious. You simply choose to embrace the idea that the Constitution gives the right to the government to do whatever it wishes to do. I embrace that idea that the Constitution limits the government.

Judges and the government support your position. We'll see if enough people support mine.

You do realize that the Constitution was intended to vastly increase central government authority over many matters including Commerce? If the Framers were satisfied with a central government having as little power as you desire they would have stuck with the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You do realize that the Constitution was intended to vastly increase central government authority over many matters including Commerce? If the Framers were satisfied with a central government having as little power as you desire they would have stuck with the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.

If you want to see how vastly they intended the federal powers to be, just look at what they did.

Did they create a minimum wage? Did they tell people who they can and can't hire?

Originally posted by Eladar
If you want to see how vastly they intended the federal powers to be, just look at what they did.

Did they create a minimum wage? Did they tell people who they can and can't hire?

This is pointless. That objection has already been dealt with. They recognized the power to do either if it enhanced the common good in the opinion of the People.

Originally posted by no1marauder
This is pointless. That objection has already been dealt with. They recognized the power to do either if it enhanced the common good in the opinion of the People.

Yes it is pointless.

We live in a country where the government feels free to ignore the Constitution. It is a country where the exact same politicians choose the judges!

Originally posted by Eladar
Yes it is pointless.

We live in a country where the government feels free to ignore the Constitution. It is a country where the exact same politicians choose the judges!

It is you who are ignoring the Constitution and the intent of the Framers in putting it into effect.

BTW The Constitution made it a "a country where the exact same politicians choose the judges".

Originally posted by no1marauder
It is you who are ignoring the Constitution and the intent of the Framers in putting it into effect.

BTW The Constitution made it a "a country where the exact same politicians choose the judges".

Did the Constitution give the right to the courts to declare laws unconstitutional?

But hey, the original founders knew that it took people standing up for themselves to prevent evil governments from taking over.

Originally posted by Eladar
Did the Constitution give the right to the courts to declare laws unconstitutional?

But hey, the original founders knew that it took people standing up for themselves to prevent evil governments from taking over.

Yes it did:

By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex post facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.

Some perplexity respecting the rights of the courts to pronounce legislative acts void, because contrary to the Constitution, has arisen from an imagination that the doctrine would imply a superiority of the judiciary to the legislative power. It is urged that the authority which can declare the acts of another void, must necessarily be superior to the one whose acts may be declared void. As this doctrine is of great importance in all the American constitutions, a brief discussion of the ground on which it rests cannot be unacceptable.

There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 78


The power mentioned was in common use in the States at the time of the Constitution.

Originally posted by no1marauder
(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.

Though Hamilton probably held a more powerful role for government than other framers, I don't believe even he thought that such open ended rules ought to be a part of the Constitution. The parties to the Constitution are enumerated in the 10th amendment. All powers not enumerated to the United States belonged to either the States or the people. If such open ended authority were real, the notion of the tenth amendment would be redundant or unnecessary.

Originally posted by normbenign
Though Hamilton probably held a more powerful role for government than other framers, I don't believe even he thought that such open ended rules ought to be a part of the Constitution. The parties to the Constitution are enumerated in the 10th amendment. All powers not enumerated to the United States belonged to either the States or the people. If such ...[text shortened]... ended authority were real, the notion of the tenth amendment would be redundant or unnecessary.

The power to regulate interstate Commerce is an enumerated one so the Tenth Amendment is irrelevant.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The power to regulate interstate Commerce is an enumerated one so the Tenth Amendment is irrelevant.

The power to regulate interstate commerce is not in doubt. It is the open ended power to define almost any activity as interstate commerce. Such open ended power renders the entire Constitution redundant, and the nation subject to tyranny.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Yes it did:

By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex post facto laws, and the like. [b]Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of j ...[text shortened]... The power mentioned was in common use in the States at the time of the Constitution.

"There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. "

Thought Hamilton thought this a good argument for the adoption of the Constitution, many thought it wasn't. The prevailing view was not hiring a master, but a servant who would take care of limited duties. King George was a master. The United States did not need another.

Originally posted by normbenign
The power to regulate interstate commerce is not in doubt. It is the open ended power to define almost any activity as interstate commerce. Such open ended power renders the entire Constitution redundant, and the nation subject to tyranny.

By design, the constitution is open-ended because it means whatever voters, through the indirectly elected Supreme Court "judges" (read: politicians), want it to mean.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Yes it did:

By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex post facto laws, and the like. [b]Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of j ...[text shortened]... The power mentioned was in common use in the States at the time of the Constitution.

The Federalist papers are not the Constitution.