Why I will support Joe Republic for President

[Peter]

I wish to announce that I will support Joe Republic for President in the coming elections. Joe, whatever there is that I can do for you in your bid, I will be happy to help.

Emsworth now has a position on economic issues that I would consider to be pushing fully to the right and realistically I don't think I am pushing too far out of the ball park if I called him a radical libertarian. He has repudiated the minimum wage, and given his general posture of opposing "co-ercion", I suspect that he would repudiate much needed regulation to protect the environment and other interests that usually do not fare that well under total free market conditions.

Whilst I fully support most of his positions on social issues, and some economic issues, such as Affirmitive Action, I nonetheless find many of his positions on most economic issues to be too far removed from my own.

Until now, no preferable candidate had enterred the race and thus I planned to keep quiet and just vote Emsworth/Q because it would have been the best available. However, with the entry of Joe Republic into the race, I feel that I have a preferrable option in him: He has supported much of my social legislative agenda in the Mideast, whilst maintaining a pragmatic, centrist position on economic issues. I was proud to have him as my Lt Governor and for him to succeed me as Governor. I will be proud if I have the opportunity to call him my President.

Given the obvious betrayl of party lines, I will resign my membership of the ILP as and when the party formally endorses Emsworth/Q, though I will vote to endorse Joe Republic in that vote.

[Emsworth]

He has repudiated the minimum wage...

The Supreme Court has stated that the minimum wage is unconstitutional. It has declared that labor is not an "article of commerce" that can be regulated by the federal government. Accordingly, I don't think it unreasonable to hold the view that minimum wages ought to be left up to the regions.

I suspect that he would repudiate much needed regulation to protect the environment and other interests that usually do not fare that well under total free market conditions.

If there is a constitutional clause authorizing federal protection of the environment is pointed out to me, then I should like it to be pointed out. There is no interstate commerce clause. There is no protection of the environment clause. How, then, shall federal environmental legislation stand up to legal scrutiny?

I will not hesitate to say that, if the Constitution does not authorize some legislation (however good it may be, however much I like it), I will not support it. Call me pedantic, if you like. But my respect for that fundamental and supreme law transcends my ideological positions: I will, if elected, follow my oath to preserve and defend the Constitution.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

He has repudiated the minimum wage...

The Supreme Court has stated that the minimum wage is unconstitutional. It has declared that labor is not an "article of commerce" that can be regulated by the federal government. Accordingly, I don't think it unreasonable to hold the view that minimum wages ought to be left up to the regions.
If there is a constitutional clause authorizing federal protection of the environment is pointed out to me, then I should like it to be pointed out.  There is no interstate commerce clause. There is no protection of the environment clause. How, then, shall federal environmental legislation stand up to legal scrutiny?

If we are polluting our air and water, then the Constitution won't matter a whole lot, will it?  We have to have the right amount of Environmental protection, period.  If Atlasians cannot feed their families, they won't appreciate the Constitution as much as you and I do.  We must have a basic level of protections for Atlasia's families.  We cannot guarantee these things, but we must do everything possible to promote good jobs, a sound economy, and a clean environment.  Without quality of life, our petty arguments about law will not be important to the average citizen.

I will not hesitate to say that, if the Constitution does not authorize some legislation (however good it may be, however much I like it), I will not support it. Call me pedantic, if you like. But my respect for that fundamental and supreme law transcends my ideological positions: I will, if elected, follow my oath to preserve and defend the Constitution.

Its one thing to be, as I am, a relatively strict constructionist.  Its quite another to be an anal-retentive constructionist.

I don't mean to sound mean or petty.  I just find your beliefs, and the beliefs of most radical Libertarians, lacking in the understanding of basic human needs.  In a previous sim, I was a Republican nominee running with a Libertarian VP and we just about broke up over an argument about the Civil Rights acts.  He kept throwing out Constitutional precedents and ideological mumbo-jumbo and I kept asking him to put himself in the shoes of an African-American resident of Mississippi in the 1960's.  I asked him what he would do if he couldn't go to a lunch counter for a meal?  What would he do if he was facing constant discrimination?  What would he do if his life was in danger if he used his Constitutional right to vote?  The only response my Libertarian friend could come up with is that he would stow away on a train to the north.   I hope that not all Libertarians, including you Emsworth, feel that way.

This is why I so strongly support Dubya.  He is a Conservative with compassion.  He is sympathetic with the needs of struggling Atlasian families, but yet he understands that government must be limited in order to protect the liberty that we hold dear.  Our team also realizes that we must have a strong moral foundation in order to tackle the challenges of inter-generational poverty and the cycle of violence and crime in our communities.  This has nothing to do with interfering with individual liberty, and everything to do with promoting the importance of the family unit and the need for stable two-parent households.

If we work hard enough, there isn't anthing that we can't accomplish as Atlasians.  We cannot cower in fear or come up with ideological mumbo-jumbo to lead us astray from tackling the challenges that Atlasian families face.

[Emsworth]

If we are polluting our air and water, then the Constitution won't matter a whole lot, will it?

The Constitution only prevents the federal government from banning all pollution. There is nothing that bars the regional governments from doing so. I hardly believe that it would be reasonable to ignore the Constitution, even it is for the "benefit" of the People. The Constitution is the will of the sovereign People: the government cannot presume to ignore it, even if some poll suggests otherwise.

I asked him what he would do if he couldn't go to a lunch counter for a meal?  What would he do if he was facing constant discrimination?  ...

This is certainly a powerful argument. At the same time, however, the Constitution should not be construed emotionally. Putting oneself in someone else's shoes does not determine what the Constitution means. It determines what is moral, what is right, and what is wrong: but it does not amend the fundamental law of this country.

Our Supreme Court has declared that the federal minimum wage is unconstitutional. I will not presume to defy that ruling, and reinstate a minimum wage, even if I feel that it would be for the benefit of the People.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is certainly a powerful argument. At the same time, however, the Constitution should not be construed emotionally. Putting oneself in someone else's shoes does not determine what the Constitution means.

Putting oneself in someone else's shoes does determine what the Constitution means to the individual.  As far as an African-American before 1964 was concerned, the Constitution was an utter failure to them.

If said Constitution does not protect basic human rights and does not allow Governments to address basic human needs in order to protect Capitalism and our system of government, then it has failed.

Our Supreme Court has declared that the federal minimum wage is unconstitutional. I will not presume to defy that ruling, and reinstate a minimum wage, even if I feel that it would be for the benefit of the People.

Then, if you believe it to be a benefit to the people, will you join me in an effort to make the wage Constitutional and support its passage?

[Bono]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is certainly a powerful argument. At the same time, however, the Constitution should not be construed emotionally. Putting oneself in someone else's shoes does not determine what the Constitution means.

Putting oneself in someone else's shoes does determine what the Constitution means to the individual.  As far as an African-American before 1964 was concerned, the Constitution was an utter failure to them.

If said Constitution does not protect basic human rights and does not allow Governments to address basic human needs in order to protect Capitalism and our system of government, then it has failed.

Our Supreme Court has declared that the federal minimum wage is unconstitutional. I will not presume to defy that ruling, and reinstate a minimum wage, even if I feel that it would be for the benefit of the People.

Then, if you believe it to be a benefit to the people, will you join me in an effort to make the wage Constitutional and support its passage?

Why does everything you like has to be implemented federally?

[Emsworth]

As far as an African-American before 1964 was concerned, the Constitution was an utter failure to them.

And to a slave before the Thirteenth Amendment, the American Constitution was also an utter failure. But that does not mean that slavery was unconstitutional.

Then, if you believe it to be a benefit to the people, will you join me in an effort to make the wage Constitutional and support its passage?

I fail to see why this matter should not be left to the regions. Indeed, is not the economic climate of each region substantially different from that of each other region? To me, each regional government is the best authority to determine what level of minimum wage to set.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It has declared that labor is not an "article of commerce" that can be regulated by the federal government

Which was absolutely crazy and demonstrated either a complete lack of understanding of the way the job market works or intellectual dishonesty.

[KEmperor]

It has declared that labor is not an "article of commerce" that can be regulated by the federal government

Which was absolutely crazy and demonstrated either a complete lack of understanding of the way the job market works or intellectual dishonesty.

While I don't feel like arguing the merits of the decision, I would simply like to point out that our position is not without precedent.  The New York State Constitution, for example, contains the following in its Bill of Rights:

Section 17. Labor of human beings is not a commodity nor an article of
commerce and shall never be so considered or construed.

You might disagree with this position, but to accuse intellectual dishonesty with regard to a perfectly valid viewpoint is a bit harsh.

[Emsworth]

It has declared that labor is not an "article of commerce" that can be regulated by the federal government

Which was absolutely crazy and demonstrated either a complete lack of understanding of the way the job market works or intellectual dishonesty.

Not necessarily. The Clayton Act of 1914 declared that "the labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce." The federal judiciary of the United States has followed this interpretation ever since; I don't know why Atlasia should deviate.

In any event, be that as it may, the court has spoken. I will not seek to set its decision aside, and enact a federal minimum wage, in violation of its solemn declaration.

[The Duke]

If a statute or Constitutional provision specificallyexzcludes the labor market from the commerce power your interpretation would be correct.  I do not recall their being such an exemption in our Constitution.

[KEmperor]

If a statute or Constitutional provision specificallyexzcludes the labor market from the commerce power your interpretation would be correct.  I do not recall their being such an exemption in our Constitution.

The Constitution specifically says that the Federal Government has the power to regulate "articles of commerce," not all forms of commerce in general.  We have no commerce clause.  As precedent from various laws and rulings over the years (see Emsworth's post) states, labor is not to be considered an "article of commerce."  Hence the federal government has no power to regulate in this area.

[Emsworth]

If a statute or Constitutional provision specificallyexzcludes the labor market from the commerce power your interpretation would be correct.  I do not recall their being such an exemption in our Constitution.

In any event, it should not be relevant, because the Constitution authorizes the Senate to set "standards of weights and measures" of items of commerce. I don't think that a minimum wage qualifies as either a weight or a measure.

Nothing else in the Constitution would appear to authorize a minimum wage, as the Supreme Court unanimously agreed. With all due respect, therefore, the federal minimum wage is a non-issue: it can only be restored by changing the interpretation of the Constitution, and that, I hope we all agree, is not something that should be politicized. The same argument applies to environmental regulations.

It may appear that I oppose regional regulation of the environment, or of labor. I do not: each region is free to enact any such law, if it so desires, whatever my own personal views might be. Indeed, this is the election of the President of the Republic, not the Governor of a Region. But I cannot, in good conscience, argue that the federal government should pass a law, where it has no authority to do so. If the voters wish to reject my candidacy for this reason, such is their prerogative.

[The Duke]

In the cases you two have cited, there were SPECIFIC PROVISIONS of the laws in question that excluded wage control laws.  The reason the courts ruled as they did on wages being an article of commerce is that the law specifically excluded wage controls from being defined as articles of commerce.

[Emsworth]

In the cases you two have cited, there were SPECIFIC PROVISIONS of the laws in question that excluded wage control laws.  The reason the courts ruled as they did on wages being an article of commerce is that the law specifically excluded wage controls from being defined as articles of commerce.

Well, I don't know why the court even addressed the question of whether labor was an article of commerce, because the Constitution only refers to the setting of weights and measures of items of commerce.

[Bono]

In the cases you two have cited, there were SPECIFIC PROVISIONS of the laws in question that excluded wage control laws.  The reason the courts ruled as they did on wages being an article of commerce is that the law specifically excluded wage controls from being defined as articles of commerce.

Well, I don't know why the court even addressed the question of whether labor was an article of commerce, because the Constitution only refers to the setting of weights and measures of items of commerce.

My opinion of you just raised by a mile.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

As far as an African-American before 1964 was concerned, the Constitution was an utter failure to them.

And to a slave before the Thirteenth Amendment, the American Constitution was also an utter failure. But that does not mean that slavery was unconstitutional.

[/quote]

So, therefore, what is Constitutional is not necessarily what is right.  We need leaders to lead the people towards what is right, not lawyers to pick at the details of why we cannot do what is right.

[Emsworth]

So, therefore, what is Constitutional is not necessarily what is right.

That is certainly true. But as long as the Constitution is not repugnant to our fundamental natural rights, it ought to be considered binding. How are our rights, or our dignity, diminished, if a regional government sets the minimum wage instead of the federal government?

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

So, therefore, what is Constitutional is not necessarily what is right.

That is certainly true. But as long as the Constitution is not repugnant to our fundamental natural rights, it ought to be considered binding. How are our rights, or our dignity, diminished, if a regional government sets the minimum wage instead of the federal government?

If a region fails to enact proper legislation to protect the welfare of its citizens, then yes that responsibility should fall upon the federal government.

Would you join me then on, no matter what may be in each regional Constitution, a crusade to enact a reasonable minimum wage in every region?

[Emsworth]

Would you join me then on, no matter what may be in each regional Constitution, a crusade to enact a reasonable minimum wage in every region?

No, I could not do so: each region should decide the matter for itself. It would be most improper for me to go on a crusade, as you put it, to intervene with the politics of other regions.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Would you join me then on, no matter what may be in each regional Constitution, a crusade to enact a reasonable minimum wage in every region?

No, I could not do so: each region should decide the matter for itself. It would be most improper for me to go on a crusade, as you put it, to intervene with the politics of other regions.

So you want to be President, encompassing all of the regions of Atlasia, but you will not use the "bully pulpit" of said office to protect Atlasian workers?  Again, we're not talking about "coercion", as you would put it, we are simply talking about you, as President, requesting that each region do the right thing and have a responsible minimum wage.

[The Dowager Mod]

Sounds like Emsworth wants the presidency to be a figurehead position.

[Emsworth]

So you want to be President, encompassing all of the regions of Atlasia, but you will not use the "bully pulpit" of said office to protect Atlasian workers?

I will use the bully pulpit to ensure that federal legislation gets passed when necessary. But for the President to go about telling each region what to do is most inappropriate. I have no problem encouraging something, but "going on a crusade" is hardly what I would plan. Even the President of the United States does not tell individual states what or what not to do.

Sounds like Emsworth wants the presidency to be a figurehead position.

With respect, that suggestion is not true. At the risk of appearing immodest, I think that my actvity as Vice President demonstrates that I would be anything but a mere figurehead.

[ilikeverin]

As far as an African-American before 1964 was concerned, the Constitution was an utter failure to them.

And to a slave before the Thirteenth Amendment, the American Constitution was also an utter failure. But that does not mean that slavery was unconstitutional.

*blink*

(not about the unconstitutionality, but about what that statement truly means)

[Emsworth]

(not about the unconstitutionality, but about what that statement truly means)

If you are implying that I support slavery, or that I think it was acceptable, then I would apologize for any misunderstanding, but assert that nothing could be further from my views.