DGS49
Diamond Member
A radio ad that is running endlessly in my area quotes KH promising the usual Democrat "two chickens in every pot" bullshit, but also something that strikes me as...I don't know...telling.
She promises (more or less), "...family medical leave..." if she is elected. Forget for a moment that she has been in office for almost four years and this hasn't happened; forget for a moment that the President doesn't make laws or regulations; just focus on one thing: The Federal government lacks the Constitutional power to require employers to pay for work not done or time not worked. And that is what "paid family leave" is. It is an employer paying an employee not to show up for work. She "promises" to compel employers to pay for employees not showing up for work.
It is possible for the Federal government to include such a requirement in contracts with the Federal government above a certain threshold, but it cannot demand, for example, that Hyundai motors, a large U.S. company, provide its employees with "paid family leave."
The Constitutional principle is as follows: Congress' powers are set forth in Article I of the Constitution, and particularly in Section 8 thereof. The Supreme Court has expanded one tiny clause of Section 8 - "...To regulate Commerce...among the several States" (commonly referred to as the Interstate Commerce Clause) - beyond all rational understanding, but it has not given Congress the implicit power to do anything it wants that can be associated with "commerce."
And of course, the Tenth Amendment makes it clear that the Federal government is a government of limited powers; if a power is not identified in the text of the Constitution or by rational implication, then that power is reserved to the States and/or the private sector.
In short, Congress does not have the power to demand that employers pay for work not done.
So why is no one even hinting that KH should be asked, "Where [the fuck] would you get the power to 'give' Americans paid family leave?"
And given her reputation for mastery of Constitutional Law, "we" should pay very close attention to her answer.
But this is not a difficult matter or a trick question. It is basic Civics that should be taught in every HS classroom in the land. Why is it not?
She promises (more or less), "...family medical leave..." if she is elected. Forget for a moment that she has been in office for almost four years and this hasn't happened; forget for a moment that the President doesn't make laws or regulations; just focus on one thing: The Federal government lacks the Constitutional power to require employers to pay for work not done or time not worked. And that is what "paid family leave" is. It is an employer paying an employee not to show up for work. She "promises" to compel employers to pay for employees not showing up for work.
It is possible for the Federal government to include such a requirement in contracts with the Federal government above a certain threshold, but it cannot demand, for example, that Hyundai motors, a large U.S. company, provide its employees with "paid family leave."
The Constitutional principle is as follows: Congress' powers are set forth in Article I of the Constitution, and particularly in Section 8 thereof. The Supreme Court has expanded one tiny clause of Section 8 - "...To regulate Commerce...among the several States" (commonly referred to as the Interstate Commerce Clause) - beyond all rational understanding, but it has not given Congress the implicit power to do anything it wants that can be associated with "commerce."
And of course, the Tenth Amendment makes it clear that the Federal government is a government of limited powers; if a power is not identified in the text of the Constitution or by rational implication, then that power is reserved to the States and/or the private sector.
In short, Congress does not have the power to demand that employers pay for work not done.
So why is no one even hinting that KH should be asked, "Where [the fuck] would you get the power to 'give' Americans paid family leave?"
And given her reputation for mastery of Constitutional Law, "we" should pay very close attention to her answer.
But this is not a difficult matter or a trick question. It is basic Civics that should be taught in every HS classroom in the land. Why is it not?
