Is the federal minimum wage constitutional?

[The Duke]

I disagree with Khirkhib on two points.

His interpretation of "duty" is so radically divorced from the intent of the authors as to immediately disqualify itself.  Context provides all you need to know about what "duty" is meant to mean.

Fixing weights and measures does no include fixing economic valuations, and again this is such a stretch relative to the intent of the authors as to render itself invalid on its face.

I agree with Khirkhib, and strongly disagree with Philip, on one point.

Unless you wish to regard the labor market as divorced from commerce, you must regard labor as commerce.  Unless you believe that the labor market is divorced from interstate commerce, you must admit that the Congress has the power to regulate it.  If one maid drives from the Bronx to Western Connecticut to clean homes for minimum wage, you have interstate commerce.  The regulation of minumum wages is part of the Cogress's right to regulate interstate commerce, and is therfore constitutional.

[The Duke]

You are right John Ford and Clause 3 is the one that is used, generally, when arguing for minimum wage.  My other two examples were, well for more justification and fun.
 
If  the government wanted to collect the weight a horse must carry in a handicap race, well I say that if it makes a better country and it promoted the general welfare, why not.  The constition certainly doesn't prohibit them from doing so.  Who am I or you for that matter to say with any real degree of certainty what our fore fathers were thinking when the put the constitution together 200 years ago.  I can tell you one thing for certain though they had the foresight to know that situtation would arise that would necessitate the government a degree of flexibility.  Our modern world is not what it was 200 years ago so I'll give them some latitude.  Though today all Americans are free.  We now do count Indians and African Americans are no longer considered 3/5ths of a person.

And as hack as you may think I am.  You and I know that I have the winning arguement.  I have the arguement that has won in the Supreme Court. 

more later

But the Supreme Court didn't side with you because they think "duty" means a moral obligation.  They sided with you for the same reason I did, because labor is interstate commerce.

Unless you wish to regard the labor market as divorced from commerce, you must regard labor as commerce. Unless you believe that the labor market is divorced from interstate commerce, you must admit that the Congress has the power to regulate it. If one maid drives from the Bronx to Western Connecticut to clean homes for minimum wage, you have interstate commerce. The regulation of minumum wages is part of the Cogress's right to regulate interstate commerce, and is therfore constitutional.

It's possibly constitutional, but it would depend on the case. If I worked in a restaraunt in my own local town, not crossing state borders, my labor is not interstate commerce, so it would be unconstitutional to impose federal minimum wage on my employer.

If I hire a worker from in state, its the substituted effects doctrine (Wickard v. Filburn).  It one worker I DIDN'T hire from out of state, and therefore qualifies as interstate commerce by detracting from said commerce.

Furthermore, the 14th Amendment guarantees the state shall safeguard the right of equal protection for all citizens within each state.  If a maid lives in New York, but works in Manhattan for a federal minimum wage of $5.15 p/h, and a second maid lives in Connecticut and works for a state minimum wage that may be loewr, the second maid has been deprived of equal protection of their ability to market their labor.  In reality, Connecticut's minimum wage is $7.10, but for arguments sake, lets say its not.

[The Duke]

Since the 1930's, the Supreme Court has consistantly ruled that the federal government can, under the commerce clause, basically regulate anything even peripherally realted to commerce. A couple of statutes have been struck down by our current, more conservative court, because they really had nothing to do with commerce. But I don't know of any recent cases where a federal statute had been struck down for being insufficiently "interstate". Even the most conservative of judges have basically adopted the FDR Court framework on this issue.

We're debating whether the Supreme Court is right or not; not what it ruled.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the side of states' rights.

Not for a long time anyways.

Actually, the Rehnquist Court scaled back the commerce clause significantly in repealing portions of the Violence Against Women Act (Morrison, I think), the Gun Free School Zones Act (Lopez), and expanded the 10th Amendment when removing part of the Brady Bill (Printz).

Labor is always in one particular state. There's nothing interstate about it.

Really?  What about the maid in Manhattan who goes to Connecticut to work, or a truck driver who's paid to drive across state lines.  Labor is not only interstate, it is international.  See all the farm laborers who come from Mexico to California to work.  To suggest that labor is ALWAYS intrastate commerce is to have no understanding of the labor market.

[The Duke]

I said it's constitutional; that's different from saying it's a good idea.

Have you ever heard of the substantive effects doctrine?