The Constitution and the Minimum Wage

[DGS49]

The Ninth Amendment to the Constitution tells us, basically, that the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution is not meant to imply that these are ALL of the "constitutional" rights that Americans have. Hence, we have the right to own, buy, and sell property, the right to move from place to place, and so on.

And certainly one of the rights the People retain in this country is the right to contract freely with others for goods and services, provided that what is contracted for is not illegal (e.g., a contract to burn a house down, or to execute someone).

Therefore, I maintain that we all have a "constitutional" right to sell our effort and services to anyone else we want, on any terms and conditions we might choose to stipulate.

So, for example, if I am in need to a place to live, I might arrange with the owner of an apartment building to get the use of an apartment in exchange for performing janitorial services and maintenance on the building. No money changes hands. This is perfectly legal, and in fact the imputed rent savings is taxable "income" for me.

But minimum wage laws trample all over the right of contract. If I have certain work that I want to have done by someone else, and I find someone who is willing and able to do that work for the wage that I'm willing to pay, where does the U.S. Federal government get the power to tell us - both of us - that this contract may not be consummated? Are MW laws "regulation of interstate commerce"? Of course not! Someone is sweeping off the sidewalk in front of my store for $5. It's $5 that I am willing to pay, the he is willing to accept, in exchange for the work. We will both pay the applicable taxes in due course.

In addition to being economically stupid, Federal minimum wage laws are unconstitutional.

And of course, (a) if a "higher" minimum wage is a good idea, why are you taking many years to implement it? Why not immediately? and (b) If $15 is good, then why not $20 or $25? Wouldn't that be better?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Minimum wage laws are not unconstitutional simply because they have been shoved under the "commerce clause" exception. Agree or disagree with that, either way though the logic of saying that makes it constitutional is sound.

As for the argument of "why $15 and not $100?" that's just childish. How much do you make a year? $40k? Why not $100K? Oh that's right because one can support a REASONABLE wage increase whilst disagreeing with an unreasonable one.

 

[DGS49]

Arsenic is harmless, if the dosage is small enough. So is it wise to take an arguably "safe" dose? Or would it be better to avoid arsenic altogether?

EVERY economist knows that if a MW is "too high" it does more harm than good.

Enough said.

 

[ScienceRocks]

It is called the Commerce Clause . Of course, you conservative losers would support slavery, child labor and mistreatment of the workers as we see in Africa and Asia...So this doesn't surprise me.

The congress has a lot of power! The constitution is a document of No's, not one so much of what the congress can't do beyond that. You conservatives just want to go back to the articles, don't you, lol!

The Commerce Clause describes an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Ninth Amendment to the Constitution tells us, basically, that the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution is not meant to imply that these are ALL of the "constitutional" rights that Americans have. Hence, we have the right to own, buy, and sell property, the right to move from place to place, and so on.

And certainly one of the rights the People retain in this country is the right to contract freely with others for goods and services, provided that what is contracted for is not illegal (e.g., a contract to burn a house down, or to execute someone).

Therefore, I maintain that we all have a "constitutional" right to sell our effort and services to anyone else we want, on any terms and conditions we might choose to stipulate.

So, for example, if I am in need to a place to live, I might arrange with the owner of an apartment building to get the use of an apartment in exchange for performing janitorial services and maintenance on the building. No money changes hands. This is perfectly legal, and in fact the imputed rent savings is taxable "income" for me.

But minimum wage laws trample all over the right of contract. If I have certain work that I want to have done by someone else, and I find someone who is willing and able to do that work for the wage that I'm willing to pay, where does the U.S. Federal government get the power to tell us - both of us - that this contract may not be consummated? Are MW laws "regulation of interstate commerce"? Of course not! Someone is sweeping off the sidewalk in front of my store for $5. It's $5 that I am willing to pay, the he is willing to accept, in exchange for the work. We will both pay the applicable taxes in due course.

In addition to being economically stupid, Federal minimum wage laws are unconstitutional.

And of course, (a) if a "higher" minimum wage is a good idea, why are you taking many years to implement it? Why not immediately? and (b) If $15 is good, then why not $20 or $25? Wouldn't that be better?

“Therefore, I maintain that we all have a "constitutional" right to sell our effort and services to anyone else we want, on any terms and conditions we might choose to stipulate.

But minimum wage laws trample all over the right of contract.”

Wrong.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, not by wrongheaded reactionary conservatives on a message board.

The minimum wage is necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy as authorized by the Commerce Clause.

In West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937) the Supreme Court held that minimum wage laws do not manifest as a “[d]eprivation of liberty to contract,” and are consequently perfectly Constitutional, in no way ‘violating’ the Ninth Amendment.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Clayton, it is obvious that conservatives don't care about the functions of our constitution or the case law that drives it. It is truly sad that we have so many stupid people voting for the 19th century.

 

[Friends]

A strict adherence to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments would require most of the economic, environmental, and civil rights legislation that was passed during the twentieth century to be overturned. That legislation is popular with the voters. The United States Supreme Court has had the good sense to ignore the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

 

[emilynghiem]

The Ninth Amendment to the Constitution tells us, basically, that the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution is not meant to imply that these are ALL of the "constitutional" rights that Americans have. Hence, we have the right to own, buy, and sell property, the right to move from place to place, and so on.

And certainly one of the rights the People retain in this country is the right to contract freely with others for goods and services, provided that what is contracted for is not illegal (e.g., a contract to burn a house down, or to execute someone).

Therefore, I maintain that we all have a "constitutional" right to sell our effort and services to anyone else we want, on any terms and conditions we might choose to stipulate.

So, for example, if I am in need to a place to live, I might arrange with the owner of an apartment building to get the use of an apartment in exchange for performing janitorial services and maintenance on the building. No money changes hands. This is perfectly legal, and in fact the imputed rent savings is taxable "income" for me.

But minimum wage laws trample all over the right of contract. If I have certain work that I want to have done by someone else, and I find someone who is willing and able to do that work for the wage that I'm willing to pay, where does the U.S. Federal government get the power to tell us - both of us - that this contract may not be consummated? Are MW laws "regulation of interstate commerce"? Of course not! Someone is sweeping off the sidewalk in front of my store for $5. It's $5 that I am willing to pay, the he is willing to accept, in exchange for the work. We will both pay the applicable taxes in due course.

In addition to being economically stupid, Federal minimum wage laws are unconstitutional.

And of course, (a) if a "higher" minimum wage is a good idea, why are you taking many years to implement it? Why not immediately? and (b) If $15 is good, then why not $20 or $25? Wouldn't that be better?

Dear DGS49 if you use Federal Reserve Notes with businesses that signed up to be under State authority and laws when they registered their operations in that State,
these might be bound by tax laws and other standards issued by state or federal authorities.

Now, for independent currency, the main laws that apply
1. the bills have to be smaller in size than a one dollar federal note but larger in denomination
2. the currency is restricted geographically and can't be used online to cross over into other states for example
3. the same state or federal taxes apply to income and exchanges using local currency, but the state and federal govt requires govt currency.
Introducing HOUR Money
the Ithaca Hours system used to be based on 10 an hour and 20 for doctors and lawyers that had additional state and govt fees to pay.

I think if we started using the work study programs in schools, where some work is done for course credit under paid internships
and room/board/health care could be provided as part of the package, then the wage issue could be negotiated for training wages
if the costs of living is also reduced and subsidized while the work is done within a safe supervised community campus system.

If we are going to convert from sweatshop slave labor to livable working wages,
I suggest using the campus model and bartering services and labor so nobody is exploited while the econnomy grows.
http://www.houstonprogressive.org/campus94.html
Earned Amnesty

 

[Centinel]

The minimum wage is necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy as authorized by the Commerce Clause.

A minimum wage law is necessary and proper to carry into execution congress' enumerated power to regulate commerce among the several states?? How is a minimum wage law even related to commerce among the several states, much less necessary for regulating this commerce?

 

[regent]

The Constitution is what the Supreme Court say it is.

 

[Indeependent]

The Minimum Wage GUARANTEES that I have to pay more in Taxes to keep poor people from parading into neighborhoods with mansions and burning them to the ground with the owners locked in them.

 

[Ozone]

if for whatever reason the congress says that a minimum wage is necessary and proper, then the congress can establish the minimum wage.

 

[Centinel]

The Constitution is what the Supreme Court say it is.

So the delegates to the constitutional convention had not idea what they were writing?
The state ratifying conventions had no idea what they were ratifying?

 

[Centinel]

if for whatever reason the congress says that a minimum wage is necessary and proper, then the congress can establish the minimum wage.

Necessary and proper to carry into execution which of its enumerated powers?

 

[regent]

The Constitution is what the Supreme Court say it is.

So the delegates to the constitutional convention had not idea what they were writing?
The state ratifying conventions had no idea what they were ratifying?

In Marbury the Court decided it would determine what the Constitution says, and the nation has now accepted that decision.

 

[Conservative65]

It is called the Commerce Clause . Of course, you conservative losers would support slavery, child labor and mistreatment of the workers as we see in Africa and Asia...So this doesn't surprise me.

The congress has a lot of power! The constitution is a document of No's, not one so much of what the congress can't do beyond that. You conservatives just want to go back to the articles, don't you, lol!

The Commerce Clause describes an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

It's probably a good thing such laws are in place. It allows a moron like you with $2/hours skills to make far more than your sorry ass will ever be worth.

 

[Conservative65]

Clayton, it is obvious that conservatives don't care about the functions of our constitution or the case law that drives it. It is truly sad that we have so many stupid people voting for the 19th century.

It's obvious the only reason you support a minimum wage is so you'll get paid more than the skills you offer are worth.

 

[Conservative65]

The Minimum Wage GUARANTEES that I have to pay more in Taxes to keep poor people from parading into neighborhoods with mansions and burning them to the ground with the owners locked in them.

The 2nd Amendment GUARANTEES that when the idiots try, those of us in those neighborhoods can teach the smart ones a lesson to not make the same mistake.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The Constitution is what the Supreme Court say it is.

So if SCOTUS says that the 1st Amendment says we all have to report to forced labor camps, then that is the Constitution?

The Constitution is written in plain language, much to the chagrin of the left. The Constitution means what it says, based on the words that were ratified by the many states

Consent of the governed is a concept that offends the left, and a dictatorial SCOTUS who's very utterance is law, fits with the tyranny the left seeks to impose. Marbury v. Madison usurped significant power for the court, in that the court may through judicial review decide the constitutionality of LAWS. As spurious as this is, it is a LONG way from your claim that the SCOTUS defines the Constitution.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
In Marbury the Court decided it would determine what the Constitution says, and the nation has now accepted that decision.

Uh no, it sure didn't, sparky.