Supreme Court won't review minimum wage hikes
And I don't think they should, really. Are minimum wages a bad idea? Indubitably. UnConstitutional? Hardly.
I think that cities and States should be allowed to make these kinds of blunders, watch as businesses move to other States, and then revise their policies after examining the evidence. Of course, I'm also an idealist who thinks that people can actually learn from making mistakes - even in government.
I think that cities and States should be allowed to make these kinds of blunders, watch as businesses move to other States, and then revise their policies after examining the evidence. Of course, I'm also an idealist who thinks that people can actually learn from making mistakes - even in government.
And of course, applying it to most employment should also be overturned because most jobs are not in interstate commerce. Wickard v. Filburn is the key wrong precedent there.
Unfortunately, once we've allowed the Feds/SCOTUS to overrule that in issues like affirmative action etc., they are now the ones seen as violating individual rights (which they absolutely do), and we're back to the fiction that the States can make up their own rights. They can't. They can apply rights in a procedural way, i.e., murder is murder, force is force, but they can "experiment" with different types of punishment, length of sentence etc. But they can't declare under a State constitution or law that initiating force, and injuring or killing someone is OK.
Sorry, it absolutely is a Constitutional issue. What I pay an employee is none of ANYONE'S business, no matter what State I live in. The whole idea that "States can make a mistake, and have the right to do so" is absurd. And if I have to go to SCOTUS to assert my rights, I will.
We made this same mistake, and not for a moment do I consider this on the same scale, with slavery. Everyone here knows, or should know, that, we need a Constitutional amendment forbidding any Federal or State interference in the business arena. If, as in the current environment, we have to do it piecemeal, so be it. Objective facts and theory, and history, show that a minimum wage hurts even those who supposedly benefit from it. SCOTUS should have heard this, and, and declared a minimum wage as unconstitutional, as it is. It's a start, at least...
Does the Supreme Court assume power it shouldn't have? I think there are great examples of this. They should have thrown out Obamacare altogether, but the activist judges and one RINO instead made it into a taxation issue. The whole gay marriage debate is another: that is an area over which the Constitution is mute and so therefore the Ninth and Tenth amendments should apply.
Are the States violating individual rights when they pass minimum wage laws? That is certainly open for debate. On the one side as you point out, government shouldn't be interfering in contract negotiations between a business owner and his/her employees. (I certainly agree with you.) But whether or not they have that legal authority (to meddle) or not is a matter of public policy, and in these liberal/progressive states they have decided that everything is fair game.
"we need a Constitutional amendment forbidding any Federal or State interference in the business arena."
I agree, but it isn't going to happen in our current political climate. Further, judicial precedent with the passage of various minimum wage laws, Social Security taxation, health insurance, and other laws all do not consider it "disparate treatment" to have one set of laws for companies under 15 employees and another for companies with more than 15 employees. How that precedent has stood doesn't make much sense to me, but that is the precedent one must undo if one is to challenge this law.
"Objective facts and theory, and history, show that a minimum wage hurts even those who supposedly benefit from it."
Agreed, but those occupying at least four seats on the current Supreme Court don't care about those pesky little facts. They are openly activists seeking to impose law through judicial fiat. Until they are replaced by Constitutionalists, they aren't going to take a case like this. I think what happened is that four said "the current ruling is already what we want so there is no need to take this case" while the other four said "the Federal Government has no jurisdiction, so we shouldn't take this case."
Now you do make an interesting case about disparate treatment based on the number of employees. I'd be interested for a lawyer to chime in here, because there have been a lot of laws such as SS, health insurance, etc., which have similar provisions which still exist on the books. If a successful case can be made that employee-limits in laws is in fact unConstitutional, it would challenge these other areas as well.
Only in specific cases such as the First or Fourteenth Amendments (among others). In general, they were intentionally given great latitude. Does that mean the States should get involved in business? I agree with you that ideally they should not. But Constitutionally, they have that power.
Are you referring to majority rule, where makers and takers have equal voting power? The 14th Amendment is supposed to protect citizens from unequal treatment by states and lower levels of government, and a proper function of the court system is to set aside any state and local laws that fail to comply with this requirement..
Yes, the Constitution set up a government of co-equal branches and I agree that SCOTUS has certainly made some rulings which overstep its bounds, as has the Executive Branch.
Don't ever forget to vote....We now have only 5 Americans running for President and 4 of the 5 are now employed by the Feds...and the 4 expect you and me to get rid of the one candidate who is self employed. Laws matter.Enjoyed your thoughts,
I would argue that of the five still running for President, we have two socialist anti-Americans, one Establishment Republican, one socialist businessman, and one anti-Establishment Republican. All I know at this point is who I am not going to vote for.
The cruel and unusual punishment is how the Constitution oversees local government. SCOTUS doesn't give a hoot about stop sign rules, but don't try to send a driver to prison for 20 years for breaking the law. Constitution still trumps local yokels. Except when the emperor lets SCOTUS fine a private baker 130 grand for not baking a cake...little overkill??
Come to think of it, I recall reading Einstein came up with that.
Now I recall a cartoon I saw over three years ago about Obama repeatedly walking into the same brick wall, obviously thinking he would not bump into it again at some point of time.
think the best of others' abilities to do the same.
how optimistic! . increasingly, the people around us
when we go to the grocery store are willingly ignorant
of the nation's situation. . so sad. -- j
.
I would suggest that the constitutionality of it is pretty well-settled, minimum wage has been there pretty much forever, and it was intended to end child labor, etc. Noble to say the least.
There are no questions of law about it though, and the lesson to be learned is that it gives rise to the protectionism that Trump politicizes. Free trade and huge minimum wage at home is only going to always lead to companies just putting the plant outside the border and shipping the goods in for next-to-free with the exception of some shipping costs. We probably don't want to reduce our minimum wage to look like Vietnam or China, so inevitably we have to begin protecting our economy.
If we could innovate new products without the Chinese ripping them off, that would be one thing, but there isn't a lot of advantage to R&D investment anymore either.
As odd as it may sound for a pro-growth economist like myself, we are really one of the few nations on earth that can really be self-sufficient if we need to be. We have ample natural resources, fossil and renewable energy, and we're the Saudi Arabia of nat-gas. If we need to start implementing tariffs to protect our economy and spur growth at home, other than some rising prices (and jobs to match), I don't see a downside.
Amazon has been the great equalizer of bringing goods anywhere to consumers wherever they are, so unlike years ago, we can now completely and efficiently utilize all of our production and efficiently consume all that is produced. By the time you take the shipping costs out of the equation, get rid of the cheap shit at Walmart we all spend money on that we can ultimately live just fine without, and realize the economic benefits of buying quality-made goods that last much longer - I think we can relatively easily adapt.
As for the other protectionist policies, they are probably a little too extreme, but "the Donald" negotiates. I think the illegal immigration thing will get watered down to something like "commit a crime and you will serve a sentence, then be deported - apply for welfare, and if you are illegal you are deported". We can probably all live with that just fine and it would take an enormous burden off the tax payer.
I don't think it's especially libertarian to rein in the federal government while allowing state governments to do anything they please.
The Founders didn't pretend to be perfect, but hoped the institutions they set in place would guide the country in a productive direction without constricting it. Having lived under a highly centralized state (Monarchy), they recognized it was necessary for a nation to be adaptable to survive.