Is the federal minimum wage constitutional?

[John Dibble]

Why do you think it unconstitutional?

The burden of proof is on the other side.

Something is unconstitutional unless the Constitution explicitly authorizes it. What part of the document does that?

Not a big fan of the 10th amendment, are you?

So what part of the 10th amendment authorizes the FEDERAL government to have minimum wage laws?

[John Dibble]

There is nothing in the constitution that forbids a minimum wage, end of story.

So where in the constitution does it say that the federal government is allowed to do more than the powers that are granted to it by the constitution?

Seriously, just looking at history would show that the founders wanted a very limited federal government. The Articles of Confederation were before the Constitution, and they had a much weaker federal government - they only opted to give a few more powers to the federal government, via the Constitution, because it was too weak to do it's functions. The AoC show a desire for a small federal government with more power to the states. The Constitution is meant to be interpreted pretty strictly.

[John Dibble]

Khirkib - that 'duty' think is a stretch at best. Yes, some words have multiple definitions. So, let's extend your logic to the words surrounding duties in that clause:

tax
n.
A contribution for the support of a government required of persons, groups, or businesses within the domain of that government.
A fee or dues levied on the members of an organization to meet its expenses.
A burdensome or excessive demand; a strain.

By your logic, government can lay and collect burdensome or excessive demands and strains.

impost
n.
Something, such as a tax or duty, that is imposed.
Sports. The weight a horse must carry in a handicap race.

So, by your logic, the government can lay and collect the weight a horse must carry in a handicap race.

excise
n.
An internal tax imposed on the production, sale, or consumption of a commodity or the use of a service within a country: excises on tobacco, liquor, and long-distance telephone calls.
A licensing charge or a fee levied for certain privileges.

Now this one is pretty clear - it's a tax or fee of the monetary variety.

Now, seeing how both tax and impost have more than one definition, yet both are pretty much a tax as we know it, and because excise is clearly a tax or fee, we can use simple context clues to determine that duty is referring to a tax, not a moral duty.

Oh, and just to further go against your logic, here's some other definitions of 'duty':

A service, function, or task assigned to one, especially in the armed forces: hazardous duty.
Function or work; service: jury duty. See Synonyms at function.
A tax charged by a government, especially on imports.

The work performed by a machine under specified conditions.
A measure of efficiency expressed as the amount of work done per unit of energy used.
The total volume of water required to irrigate a given area in order to cultivate a specific crop until harvest.

Now, let's ask ourselves, do any of these apply in context? I think the obvious answer is no.

So how about we stop trying to make things mean something they don't?

[John Dibble]

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.

[John Dibble]

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. 

And we all know the Supreme Court is infallible, perfect, and has never made a bad decision.

[John Dibble]

Federal parks are unconstitutional unless the state that the park is in approves of it. The government has no right to seize land from states for military bases, parks, or whatever "Government property" garbage they want to make.

Agreed. If a state approves of it, it could be considered constitutional under the 10th Amendment. However, I would prefer non-military facilities like parks to be run by the states, or even better yet by concerned private interests.

[John Dibble]

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.

[John Dibble]

I'm pretty sure the founders didn't consider wage when they wrote the commerce clause. They likely meant the trade of goods more than anything else.

All commerce is related - if you buy a candy bar it's probably going to profit an out of state company. Yet the retailer could be a local - outside of the goods he sells, everything else is local. Since the founders saw fit to distinguish between all commerce and interstate commerce, I think it should probably only deal with goods that cross state lines.

That being said, if the states want a minimum wage that is their business. Let red states be red states and blue states be blue states.