Provide the reference....

[RetiredGySgt]

Seattle is in the state of Washington and voted overwhelmingly for Obama in the last election. South Carolina did not. Bingo!

The Federal Government has no power or authority to prevent a private business from relocating from one State to another. Never has and hopefully never will.

 

[elvis]

By what AUTHORITY does Congress have to create NON Government jobs?

By what AUTHORITY does Congress have to set CEO's and other executives pay at PRIVATE Corporations?

By what AUTHORITY does Congress have to limit private Companies from importing oil into this Country?

Just curious?

for the second one, none. they can just say we won't bail you out unless you limit your CEO's salary.

 

[NYcarbineer]

By what AUTHORITY does Congress have to create NON Government jobs?

By what AUTHORITY does Congress have to set CEO's and other executives pay at PRIVATE Corporations?

By what AUTHORITY does Congress have to limit private Companies from importing oil into this Country?

Just curious?

What do you mean by create non-government jobs?

 

[digger]

Browsing the constitution looking for those enumerated powers. Came up with this, which I thought was interesting.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

That seems to say that we need to have flat tariffs that apply to each state evenly. We don't do that at all, do we?

Section 9, limits on Congress.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

 

[digger]

I'm not a constitutional scholar. But it's not rocket science. They did a brilliant job of making a really readable constitution. It's amazing that I can't even get a bank account today without more small print than the entire basis of our government. There's some boring numbers with the how many votes who gets and yadda yadda. But the juicy bits are easy to find.

So I looked it up. First I looked through article 1, section 9, limits of congress. There's nothing to suggest any reason that you can't do any of the things you list.

But that's not the end of the story, of course. because of the 10th Amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So it's not good enough that it doesn't say you can't. It has to say you can. So I went to section one, article 8, powers of Congress. In which you have the Commerce Clause.

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes

Pretty straight forward. Within a state, the government has no say on commerce. But once you're trading between states or nations, Congress gets to regulate you. There is no reason to think that this regulation should not include the ability to dictate wages. The government has done far more intrusive things in the past. And you should be glad they did, unless you like monopolies and trusts. Regulating imports is covered under the commerce clause. So there goes both the 2nd and the 3rd thing on your list.

I really don't understand the 1st thing on your list. It sounds like a logical impossibility. How could the government create a non government job? Are you talking about stimulus spending or targeted investment or yadda yadda other ways of trying to increase job growth? I dunno. Anyway, the constitution gives Congress the right to regulate commerce, and there's no reason that Congress shouldn't use that power to create private jobs if it finds out some way to do that.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I'm not a constitutional scholar. But it's not rocket science. They did a brilliant job of making a really readable constitution. It's amazing that I can't even get a bank account today without more small print than the entire basis of our government. There's some boring numbers with the how many votes who gets and yadda yadda. But the juicy bits are easy to find.

So I looked it up. First I looked through article 1, section 9, limits of congress. There's nothing to suggest any reason that you can't do any of the things you list.

But that's not the end of the story, of course. because of the 10th Amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So it's not good enough that it doesn't say you can't. It has to say you can. So I went to section one, article 8, powers of Congress. In which you have the Commerce Clause.

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes

Pretty straight forward. Within a state, the government has no say on commerce. But once you're trading between states or nations, Congress gets to regulate you. There is no reason to think that this regulation should not include the ability to dictate wages. The government has done far more intrusive things in the past. And you should be glad they did, unless you like monopolies and trusts. Regulating imports is covered under the commerce clause. So there goes both the 2nd and the 3rd thing on your list.

I really don't understand the 1st thing on your list. It sounds like a logical impossibility. How could the government create a non government job? Are you talking about stimulus spending or targeted investment or yadda yadda other ways of trying to increase job growth? I dunno. Anyway, the constitution gives Congress the right to regulate commerce, and there's no reason that Congress shouldn't use that power to create private jobs if it finds out some way to do that.

Simply not true. The Government's right to REGULATE does not include establishing wages within a private company. It does not include the ability of the Government to prevent a Company from moving their operations from one State to another. Nor does the collection of Taxes allow the Government to spend money paying NON Government employees.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm not a constitutional scholar. But it's not rocket science. They did a brilliant job of making a really readable constitution. It's amazing that I can't even get a bank account today without more small print than the entire basis of our government. There's some boring numbers with the how many votes who gets and yadda yadda. But the juicy bits are easy to find.

So I looked it up. First I looked through article 1, section 9, limits of congress. There's nothing to suggest any reason that you can't do any of the things you list.

But that's not the end of the story, of course. because of the 10th Amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So it's not good enough that it doesn't say you can't. It has to say you can. So I went to section one, article 8, powers of Congress. In which you have the Commerce Clause.

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes

Pretty straight forward. Within a state, the government has no say on commerce. But once you're trading between states or nations, Congress gets to regulate you. There is no reason to think that this regulation should not include the ability to dictate wages. The government has done far more intrusive things in the past. And you should be glad they did, unless you like monopolies and trusts. Regulating imports is covered under the commerce clause. So there goes both the 2nd and the 3rd thing on your list.

I really don't understand the 1st thing on your list. It sounds like a logical impossibility. How could the government create a non government job? Are you talking about stimulus spending or targeted investment or yadda yadda other ways of trying to increase job growth? I dunno. Anyway, the constitution gives Congress the right to regulate commerce, and there's no reason that Congress shouldn't use that power to create private jobs if it finds out some way to do that.

Simply not true. The Government's right to REGULATE does not include establishing wages within a private company. It does not include the ability of the Government to prevent a Company from moving their operations from one State to another. Nor does the collection of Taxes allow the Government to spend money paying NON Government employees.

1. Then why hasn't the minimum wage been declared unconstitutional?

2. Every time the government contracts work to a private company, it is spending money paying non government employees. Who do you think are building our planes and ships and tanks? Government workers?

 

[The T]

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

It's in the Constitution.

But if you notice, the word used is regulate not administer. That's the beef most people have, not that government should propose and make regulations on business, but that Government is actually running businesses.

People believe in the "Separation of Church and State", there should be a "Separation of Public and Private" as well.

Absolutely correct. But in this case? They are adminstering private companies right the Hell outta business...and on purpose.

 

[digger]

I'm not a constitutional scholar. But it's not rocket science. They did a brilliant job of making a really readable constitution. It's amazing that I can't even get a bank account today without more small print than the entire basis of our government. There's some boring numbers with the how many votes who gets and yadda yadda. But the juicy bits are easy to find.

So I looked it up. First I looked through article 1, section 9, limits of congress. There's nothing to suggest any reason that you can't do any of the things you list.

But that's not the end of the story, of course. because of the 10th Amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So it's not good enough that it doesn't say you can't. It has to say you can. So I went to section one, article 8, powers of Congress. In which you have the Commerce Clause.

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes

Pretty straight forward. Within a state, the government has no say on commerce. But once you're trading between states or nations, Congress gets to regulate you. There is no reason to think that this regulation should not include the ability to dictate wages. The government has done far more intrusive things in the past. And you should be glad they did, unless you like monopolies and trusts. Regulating imports is covered under the commerce clause. So there goes both the 2nd and the 3rd thing on your list.

I really don't understand the 1st thing on your list. It sounds like a logical impossibility. How could the government create a non government job? Are you talking about stimulus spending or targeted investment or yadda yadda other ways of trying to increase job growth? I dunno. Anyway, the constitution gives Congress the right to regulate commerce, and there's no reason that Congress shouldn't use that power to create private jobs if it finds out some way to do that.

Simply not true. The Government's right to REGULATE does not include establishing wages within a private company. It does not include the ability of the Government to prevent a Company from moving their operations from one State to another. Nor does the collection of Taxes allow the Government to spend money paying NON Government employees.

Those are your words. Not the constitution's. Face it, the constitution allows for government intervention in commerce, and it doesn't put many restrictions at all. The modern attempts by conservatives to portray the constitution the other way around has no actual basis in the text, or in history for that matter. We've always had a heavily regulated economy.

Trust busting is the best example. The government is allowed to do whatever it wants to a business that crosses state lines. And you'd better be glad, too, if you like paying reasonable prices for telephone service, for instance.

 

[Greenbeard]

By what AUTHORITY does Congress have to create NON Government jobs?

By what AUTHORITY does Congress have to set CEO's and other executives pay at PRIVATE Corporations?

By what AUTHORITY does Congress have to limit private Companies from importing oil into this Country?

Just curious?

for the second one, none. they can just say we won't bail you out unless you limit your CEO's salary.

Exactly. You don't have to require institutions to sell you their troubled assets but you can offer to buy them with the following stipulation: "Applicability.--Any financial institution that sells troubled assets to the Secretary under this Act shall be subject to the executive compensation requirements of subsections (b) and (c)...".

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch8uCOPbH7I]An offer...[/ame]

 

[The T]

I'm not a constitutional scholar. But it's not rocket science. They did a brilliant job of making a really readable constitution. It's amazing that I can't even get a bank account today without more small print than the entire basis of our government. There's some boring numbers with the how many votes who gets and yadda yadda. But the juicy bits are easy to find.

So I looked it up. First I looked through article 1, section 9, limits of congress. There's nothing to suggest any reason that you can't do any of the things you list.

But that's not the end of the story, of course. because of the 10th Amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So it's not good enough that it doesn't say you can't. It has to say you can. So I went to section one, article 8, powers of Congress. In which you have the Commerce Clause.

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes

Pretty straight forward. Within a state, the government has no say on commerce. But once you're trading between states or nations, Congress gets to regulate you. There is no reason to think that this regulation should not include the ability to dictate wages. The government has done far more intrusive things in the past. And you should be glad they did, unless you like monopolies and trusts. Regulating imports is covered under the commerce clause. So there goes both the 2nd and the 3rd thing on your list.

I really don't understand the 1st thing on your list. It sounds like a logical impossibility. How could the government create a non government job? Are you talking about stimulus spending or targeted investment or yadda yadda other ways of trying to increase job growth? I dunno. Anyway, the constitution gives Congress the right to regulate commerce, and there's no reason that Congress shouldn't use that power to create private jobs if it finds out some way to do that.

Simply not true. The Government's right to REGULATE does not include establishing wages within a private company. It does not include the ability of the Government to prevent a Company from moving their operations from one State to another. Nor does the collection of Taxes allow the Government to spend money paying NON Government employees.

Those are your words. Not the constitution's. Face it, the constitution allows for government intervention in commerce, and it doesn't put many restrictions at all. The modern attempts by conservatives to portray the constitution the other way around has no actual basis in the text, or in history for that matter. We've always had a heavily regulated economy.

Trust busting is the best example. The government is allowed to do whatever it wants to a business that crosses state lines. And you'd better be glad, too, if you like paying reasonable prices for telephone service, for instance.

Tell us where Government has the right to tell a private company what they can/cannot pay? SHOW IT.

 

[Charles_Main]

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

It's in the Constitution.

Reading that, one would think if a company does not do any interstate or international commerce and does not trade with Indian Tribes, that the government has NO AUTHORITY at all over them. lol

the "commerce clause" is far too broad and undefined, and with all do respect was not intended to be interpreted to give the Fed such broad powers to regulate that they can set salaries. Why if what you claim is in fact the case. Then the Federal government has the authority to Do just about anything it wants, and call it regulating commerce.

Simply too broad. I prefer a government with clearly defined powers myself.

 

[digger]

Tell us where Government has the right to tell a private company what they can/cannot pay? SHOW IT.

I just did. The government has the right to regulate commerce. Closing your eyes and wishing really hard that the constitution takes your point of view isn't going to make it true.

 

[digger]

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

It's in the Constitution.

Reading that, one would think if a company does not do any interstate or international commerce and does not trade with Indian Tribes, that the government has NO AUTHORITY at all over them. lol

the "commerce clause" is far too broad and undefined, and with all do respect was not intended to be interpreted to give the Fed such broad powers to regulate that they can set salaries. Why if what you claim is in fact the case. Then the Federal government has the authority to Do just about anything it wants, and call it regulating commerce.

Simply too broad. I prefer a government with clearly defined powers myself.

Yes, it's broad. Too broad for your liking. You may not agree with it. But that's what it says. How can you say what it was meant to imply and what it wasn't? The constitution is a very clear document. it doesn't rely on implications. It just lays it all right out there, and it doesn't have a blessed word in it saying that the government can't dictate wages.

If you want to fall back on the constitution for your arguments, than those arguments actually need to be in the constitution. It's just not. If you still don't like it, there are other realms that you can bring the fight to. You can elect a different Congress, for instance. Even elect a Congress that will change the constitution.

But don't go around acting like the constitution says what you want it to say.

 

[liebuster]

Tell us where Government has the right to tell a private company what they can/cannot pay? SHOW IT.

I just did. The government has the right to regulate Commerce. Closing your eyes and wishing really hard that the constitution takes your point of view isn't going to make it true.

I think most judges and scholars would interpret "commerce among the states" as being interstate commerce. In fact the interstate commerce act of 1887 states that. Also I don't think interstate commerce can be used to regulate intrastate commerce even though they pretty much do. Thats why you have been seeing states pass pro 10th amendment laws that null and void all federal law regarding firearm manufacturing and sales that is conducted intrastate.

 

[digger]

Bleh. Wrote congress instead of commerce. Fixed.

 

[liebuster]

Bleh. Wrote congress instead of commerce. Fixed.

I changed my above post to reflect your correction.

 

[Greenbeard]

I think most judges and scholars would interpret "commerce among the states" as being interstate commerce. In fact the interstate commerce act of 1887 states that. Also I don't think interstate commerce can be used to regulate intrastate commerce even though they pretty much do. Thats why you have been seeing states pass pro 10th amendment laws that null and void all federal law regarding firearm manufacturing and sales that is conducted intrastate.

The Commerce Clause, coupled with the Necessary & Proper Clause, allows quite a bit of latitude, even in regulating intrastate activities that aren't themselves explicitly economic in nature. Scalia summed it up a few years back:

As we implicitly acknowledged in Lopez, however, Congress’s authority to enact laws necessary and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce is not limited to laws directed against economic activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Though the conduct in Lopez was not economic, the Court nevertheless recognized that it could be regulated as “an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated.” 514 U.S., at 561. This statement referred to those cases permitting the regulation of intrastate activities “which in a substantial way interfere with or obstruct the exercise of the granted power.” Wrightwood Dairy Co., 315 U.S., at 119; see also United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 118—119 (1941); Shreveport Rate Cases, 234 U.S., at 353. As the Court put it in Wrightwood Dairy, where Congress has the authority to enact a regulation of interstate commerce, “it possesses every power needed to make that regulation effective.” 315 U.S., at 118—119.

Although this power “to make … regulation effective” commonly overlaps with the authority to regulate economic activities that substantially affect interstate commerce,2 and may in some cases have been confused with that authority, the two are distinct. The regulation of an intrastate activity may be essential to a comprehensive regulation of interstate commerce even though the intrastate activity does not itself “substantially affect” interstate commerce. Moreover, as the passage from Lopez quoted above suggests, Congress may regulate even noneconomic local activity if that regulation is a necessary part of a more general regulation of interstate commerce. See Lopez, supra, at 561. The relevant question is simply whether the means chosen are “reasonably adapted” to the attainment of a legitimate end under the commerce power. See Darby, supra, at 121.

 

[The T]

Tell us where Government has the right to tell a private company what they can/cannot pay? SHOW IT.

I just did. The government has the right to regulate commerce. Closing your eyes and wishing really hard that the constitution takes your point of view isn't going to make it true.

Commerce is the flow of goods and services, period. So are you telling me they have the right to tell a company they MUST pay X to an employee or else?

 

[The T]

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

It's in the Constitution.

Reading that, one would think if a company does not do any interstate or international commerce and does not trade with Indian Tribes, that the government has NO AUTHORITY at all over them. lol

the "commerce clause" is far too broad and undefined, and with all do respect was not intended to be interpreted to give the Fed such broad powers to regulate that they can set salaries. Why if what you claim is in fact the case. Then the Federal government has the authority to Do just about anything it wants, and call it regulating commerce.

Simply too broad. I prefer a government with clearly defined powers myself.

Agreed.