Is the federal minimum wage constitutional?

[Erc]

McCulloch v. Maryland just gives a bit more weight to the "necessary and proper" clause of I.8.18.   The ends of the legislation still have to be for the purpose of implementing one of the implicit powers in I.8.1-I.8.17.


So lets take a look, shall we?  Does the minimum wage work towards a goal stated in other parts of Section I.1.?

Clause 1:  The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Congress has the power to tax.  Whoop-de-do.  Now if Congress set up some sort of weird legislation whereby corporations were taxed and this money were distributed to workers receiving below the minimum wage, then maybe.


Now, if you have the reading comprehension of a four-year-old and some sharp selective reading skills, you could look at it this way:

The Congress shall have Power To...provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States...

In context, of course, this makes no sense, and is bloody vague and doesn't actually grant Congress any powers to fulfill those ends.  Well, other than the taxation bit we just cut out.  So we can't justify it under the general welfare clause as its only talking about taxes here.

Clause 3.  The interstate commerce clause.  Interstate.  Congress can arguably impose a minimum wage on interstate business/activity, but on businesses in one state only?  Nope.

Clause 5.  Don't make me laugh.


And what about these other laws that you cite?


Congress to establish the United States Air Force
   The Air Force can be interpreted as one of the "Armies" in Clause 12.  [It's not like we couldn't have kept it under the Army anyway...]

Congress to establish national parks.
In the end, this comes down to a matter of federal land, which the government has the right to regulate in the manner it sees fit.  Not explicitly stated, but it's bloody obvious and strongly implied by Clause 17.  Whether government has the right to seize private property (through eminent domain) for such purposes is not clear and is therefore likely to be unconstitutional.

Congress to create federal laws against pollution.
Put a tax on it.  Allowed by I.1.

Congress to make laws regarding discrimination in employment.

Interstate commerce clause / 14th Amendment covers a lot of situations.  Otherwise, that's what amendments are for.

Congress to decide that televisions should have V-chips that enable parents to block certain shows

Interstate Commerce Clause (as most broadcasts pass over state boundaries in some form or another)

Congress to pass the Gun-Free School Zones Act prohibiting anyone from possessing a firearm in a school zone.

Business of the states.

Congress to give licenses to broadcasters to play music on the radio.

Interstate Commerce clause (see above).



The constitution is the law of the land.  Like it or amend it.  Don't disregard it and leave it by the wayside.  [Not to get partisan or anything, but we can probably blame FDR for our current attitude towards the Constitution, which, other than the 1st, 5th, and 14th Amendments (plus the procedural businesses from the actual Constitution) doesn't really matter anymore.  Heck, the 14th doesn't even matter anymore...]