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.

govt has no business in business.

Thanks for the visual guys.

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.

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.

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.

He's probably hoping that quantum physics kicks in at some point and the wall just happens to be somewhere else as he moves... ;)

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.

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.

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.

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.

i agree, it is NOT a constitutional issue.

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...

I do think it's unfair to treat franchises as if they were owned by the corporation, they are small businesses. It isn't a federal matter, though.