10

Supreme Court won't review minimum wage hikes

Posted by $ blarman 7 years, 11 months ago to Business
39 comments | Share | Flag

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.
SOURCE URL: http://www.mail.com/news/politics/4315508-advocates-high-court-signals-wont-15-minimum-wage.html#.7518-stage-hero1-9


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ jdg 7 years, 11 months ago
    The Constitution does prohibit laws that "impair the obligation of contracts", and that was once held to ban minimum wages. That precedent was changed in the 1880s "Slaughterhouse cases", but any honest Supreme Court would make it stick again.

    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by MinorLiberator 7 years, 11 months ago
    I disagree. Absolutely unconstitutional. There is no such thing as "States Rights", only Individual Rights, of which this violates several.

    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...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 7 years, 11 months ago
      The first and most critical step to arguing the Constitutionality of any legislation is to cite which of the enumerated powers is being violated. I'm looking, and the Constitution just doesn't cover it specifically.

      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."
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 7 years, 11 months ago
    I have a good solution to minimum wage laws. If the minimum wage exceeds the value of the job, then that job disappears- either forever, to be replaced by automation, or its exported to another country that doesnt have the minimum wage laws. Its simple. I am already planning on increased automation and sending more subassemblies to china. American workers are pricing themselves out of jobs, and its not my problem if they suffer the consequences.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by iowateacher 7 years, 11 months ago
    I do think that they are unconstitutional because they interfere with a business owners right to contract. There are equal protection of the law issues---more than 50 employees and you come under the law. Certain types of businesses do not have to pay the 15. I think that since the constitution does not give govt the power to do something then doing it is extra (and thus un) constitutional. I believe that is why MOST of what the govts are doing today is unconstitutional--they simply do not have the delegated, written authority do to that which they do.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 7 years, 11 months ago
      A cogent argument, but again, these are State laws - not Federal ones. The question is does the Federal Government have jurisdiction over the matter, which is where the Supreme Court has a legitimate case (pun intended) to get involved.

      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.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by iowateacher 7 years, 11 months ago
        The states also have limits to their power by constitutional writ. And I do not believe that many states have provisions to delve into business contracts and employment they way they do. But I do not know every state...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 7 years, 11 months ago
          "The states also have limits to their power by constitutional writ."

          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.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by chad 7 years, 11 months ago
    Why ask for only $15, why not $100? Or as one socialist idealist once asked me, why doesn't the government just write a check to everyone for $200,000 and we could all get out of debt and buy some things we would like to have? No level of government should be able to intervene or direct a contract between two willing parties. If you don't want to work for very little increase your productiveness, your skill levels, start your own business, what ever will earn you what you think you are worth. No level of government should ever have any say or direction in what people choose to do. As long as each individual is free at any time to choose a different employer or profession as they desire.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 7 years, 11 months ago
    Any time the government decides to dictate what a private employee should be paid, it is stepping into a further socialistic screw up of the economy. When it come to wages, or for that matter pretty much everything else, one size never fits all..
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by wiggys 7 years, 11 months ago
    Keep in mind that the supreme court is populated by government employees. therefore going against the $15.00 per hour minimum wage would reduce the amount of taxes that are being paid by the employee and the business. of course the activists that want the higher wage can not accept that jobs will be lost and then there is less taxes collected. if the employees of the supreme court were actually smart they would comprehend this. they are not smart.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 7 years, 11 months ago
      Inflation has the same effect: it moves people into higher and higher tax brackets without them earning any real increase in purchasing power. Net effect: more tax money, more power to the politicians who can berate "greedy corporations" - a perpetuating cycle.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by diessos 7 years, 11 months ago
    i agree, it is NOT a constitutional issue.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by roneida 7 years, 11 months ago
      diessos.....And just what separates a government ruling of anything or any size from our Constitution?????? Any move that empowers any government agency or thug over the American citizens is subject to the Constitution. This is what happens to public opinion and concern when we have administrations like the current joke that considers the law just an suggestion platform. The government can enforce its' whimsical interference with guns and must always be suspected and challenged for Constitutional compliance. No more unauthorized laws.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ 7 years, 11 months ago
        The Constitution really applies to the Federal Government, however. States are given much greater latitude and freedom to implement various laws by design of the Constitution (see the Ninth and Tenth Amendments). The goal was to allow the States to act as petri dishes for various policies, with the results being there for all the other States to see and evaluate. I'd much rather have an individual State pursue terrible economic policy that have it forced on us as a nation to test.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by roneida 7 years, 11 months ago
          blarman... I agree with your points. I also believe in the States supremacy with some issues..the main rub comes in as it did in the past with serious matters like segregation, private bedroom laws, property rights....it's very complicated as you say, But, no law should violate the Constitution.. Forcing certain employers to pay more for wages than others are forced to do . smacks of corruption and prejudicial regulation. No easy answers. All laws must be judged by the citizens through their legally elected officials...not handed down by the courts or a megalomaniac president.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years, 11 months ago
            Re: "All laws must be judged by the citizens through their legally elected officials...not handed down by the courts or a megalomaniac president."

            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..
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by roneida 7 years, 11 months ago
              CBJ... I stand by my statement that all laws, I don't care if they are local traffic laws, building permit or voting rights. are subject to the Constitution. Courts and Executives do NOT make the laws...this is why we have so many arbitrary "rules" handed down by "executive decree" what ever that means. we have 3 EQUAL but separate branches, when one branch steals the right to pass, enforce and adjuidicate laws alone, tyranny starts. NO state, county, city, town etc can overrule the Constitution. They can appeal and try to amend a law, but they can not defy...check out slavery...that was once legal in certain states.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ 7 years, 11 months ago
                One clarification, however: the Constitution is there to expressly forbid abridgment of general rights but simultaneously restricts its reach to defined topics. The vast majority of the prohibitions apply to the Federal Government, but not necessarily the States (with certain explicit exceptions such as the Fourteenth Amendment). One can't challenge the Constitutionality of traffic laws because the right to set and enforce such are retained by the individual States as per the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. This means that those laws aren't subject to review by the Supreme Court of the United States but by the individual States' Supreme Courts.

                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.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by roneida 7 years, 11 months ago
                  blarman Any state that tries to set a 20 year jail sentence for a stop sign violation will eventually end up facingJustice Ruth if they push it all the way even with their State Highest Court behind them.

                  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,
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ 7 years, 11 months ago
                    What you are arguing now is the sentencing for that law - not the law itself. Sentencing is subject to the Eighth Amendment forbidding "cruel and unusual punishment", but the original infraction of running a stop sign is not subject to Federal oversight nor purview by the Supreme Court.

                    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.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by roneida 7 years, 11 months ago
                      blarman.. That's more than most of the non involved Americans can say. Non voters voluntarily drop out of influencing elections and then complain about the low grade and intellect of our "leaders" we get right up to the top. Giving away other peoples earnings still seems to be the shortest and fastest way to guarantee political success.Thank God for the producers who provide for the robbers to steal from. Vote as though your life depends on it for it soon will.

                      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??
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 7 years, 11 months ago
    Exactly...it''s not up to the un-supreme court to get involved...however...the left never reconsiders...they just double down on the same...like a gambling addict at the race track...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ allosaur 7 years, 11 months ago
      It's that popular definition of insanity: repeating the same thing and expecting different results.
      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.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 7 years, 11 months ago
    you might even learn from mistakes yourself, and
    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
    .
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Gilles 7 years, 11 months ago
    You touch upon the actual problem. Govt's seem to have an unwritten rule that you cannot learn from mistakes. They keep on super-imposing mistakes one upon the other. They have an attitude that they can do no wrong.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by scojohnson 7 years, 11 months ago
    Sure - look at Seattle, $15 minimum wage and they are still rioting in the streets on May Day. Appeasing the welfare state gets you nowhere, but the liberals are more than happy to pretend it does to get some votes out of the deal.

    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 7 years, 11 months ago
    For once, the SCOTUS avoided the temptation to expand the meaning of "unconstitutional." The intent of the Federal structure and the 10th amendment was to allow each state to experiment and create the kind of social environment desired by its residents. The idea was to create multiple laboratories of ideas for governance and make our country dynamic, allowing the most individual freedom as possible. The concept is Libertarian, but the execution has been hamstrung by statist interference.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years, 11 months ago
      Re: " The intent of the Federal structure and the 10th amendment was to allow each state to experiment and create the kind of social environment desired by its residents." Or at least the residents that didn't happen to be slaves, Native Americans or (to some extent) women.

      I don't think it's especially libertarian to rein in the federal government while allowing state governments to do anything they please.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by DrZarkov99 7 years, 11 months ago
        The idea was that a state that governed best to the benefit of its residents would be an example for the others. A successful state would attract more people, while an unsuccessful one would lose its productive members.

        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.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo