WhoIsJohnGalt

I am not on a "high horse." You are the one proposing unconstitutional legislation. The burden of proof is on you. If you want me to agree with you to do this, then you must provide your reasons and a complete set of details of how it is to be carried out. I have grown tired of this kind of feel-good legislation that is either unconstitutional or extra-constitutional without any real justification. You must sell me on the idea. I am maintaining that there is nothing in the constitution to support your arguments.

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

No reason to apologize for those words.

Yesterday when I heard Beck talking about Common Core I hit my wife who just retired a couple of years ago about that and she, although at least as far right leaning as I am, got pretty mad because she really was taken in by Common Core. She believed that they weren't trying to do anything untoward with it and got really mad at me when I said I would be calling my state representative to make sure he was going to fight that thing staying around.

If they fooled her they surely fooled most of the teachers in her school. Common Core is just more brainwashing of kids that I just h**e. I wish I had still been in the school when they came at the state with the carrot and stick approach back in 2010. I would have raised a lot of hell and got fired later than when I did get it.

Slingblade68 Loc: Charleston SC

Hear, Hear Old Roy-

This is another perfect example of Government intervention on the Federal Level. Your wife is simply falling in line with the rest of the (Ill-informed) or (uninformed) if the country had More Michelle Malkins, Mark Levins and Glenn Becks out there, maybe we would not be having this correspondence.
My theory is, if you continually tell America a lie , regardless of how improbable or even acceptable it is. Eventually, the minions will acknowledge it as t***h. Not because they lack the intelligence to decipher (right from Wrong). They refuse to do the homework necessary to prove them wrong. Or they have become so complacent that they believe that the individual making the statements are honest and have their best interests in mind.. Nothing could be further from the t***h. The Teachers Unions have some areas in a stranglehold.. As I previously stated. Whenever, there is a crime, or a big problem involving our (Out of control Government) just follow the Money..

memBrain Loc: North Carolina (No longer in hiding.)

I have already demonstrated that this is not unconstitutional. There is no burden of proof except that you refuse to accept it.

memBrain Loc: North Carolina (No longer in hiding.)

Tell a lie long enough, and it's google search will start having more hits than the t***h. Do THAT long enough, and the t***h will appear a lie. Case in point, I submit GW/CC (g****l w*****g/c*****e c****e).

WhoIsJohnGalt

So you want the federal government to pass a law that will require business owners to pay wages set by the federal government, yet you have no idea of what those wages should be or how to justify the numbers you want to set. What about the rights of the business owners? Shouldn't they have a say in all this? Not only that, you believe it to be constitutional. I would have expected this from a Democrat. Is that what you are?

memBrain Loc: North Carolina (No longer in hiding.)

I have demonstrated how the numbers are to be derived. You're being too dense to see it. The only thing that is being set is a price floor. there is nothing preventing employers from paying workers who demonstrate competency more. As for the Constitutionality, I have already shown which portions of the constitution that support the right of the government to regulate business. It's there, you refuse to see it because you have some myopic problem with the concept. For most things, I do not see the government being needed to manage business affairs. However, if the government didn't intervene, there would be rampant abuse of employees (including children) to this day. I'm not saying there isn't any today, but it would be a lot worse.

I consider myself more of an anarchist when it comes to government involvement with the affairs of people. As little government as possible is best. However, businesses are a fictional creation supported by the government (especially Corporations and LLCs).

They start with the state in which they are created or registered (even sole proprietorships and partnerships must be registered). As long as their business is conducted within the borders of the state in which the are established, then there is little need for federal involvement. The moment business is conducted outside the state, then the federal government has the constitutional authority to step in.

All establishing a minimum wage law with provisions to adjust for experience, education, and cost of living does is guarantee an individual the ability to maintain their standard of living when taking their trade to another region. It does not guarantee that when one company values him more than the minimum, that another company will value him as much. Nor does it prevent them from valuing him more. Those concerns are for the market to decide.

WhoIsJohnGalt

You would have the federal government interfere in the affairs between a potential employer and a potential employee by setting the wage in advance by law. You have not shown how that wage should be arrived at, and neither has our congress proved how a minimum wage should be set with anything like certainty. That is only one problem with the attempt to set a minimum wage. You want the government to do things that rightly should be left up to the individuals involved.


Well, let's see. From what you are saying, a parent would be required to pay the minimum wage to his/her children if the parent wants her/his children to do chores around the house or farm. I went back and checked the parts of the constitution you have quoted and claim that it gives the right to the federal government to regulate wages. They say nothing about wages. Nada. Zip. Zero. No thing said about wages at all. As it is, the minimum wage prevents many small businesses from employing teenagers who wander about the neighborhoods getting into mischief.


Then why don't you act like it? For all outward appearances, you seem to be an out and out control freak. Would a goldsmith have to pay his apprentice a minimum wage set by the federal government as well as providing housing, clothing and food?


So you say. The Supreme Court has agreed with your position at least once, but I cannot find any basis whatsoever that justifies your or the Supreme Court's position on this matter.


I would argue that wages should be left to the markets period.

Here are the phrases you claim allows the federal government to set a minimum wage:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

This is about taxes, common defence, and general welfare and that they shall be uniform throughout the United States. So if you set a minimum wage for one state, you must set that same wage for all the others. A living wage in New York City is much greater than a living wage in Nacogdoches, Texas.

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Taking commerce to mean trade, this cannot have anything to do with wages per se. It is concerned with the sales of goods, not services.

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

Congress has abrogated its duties on this, just as it has the Navy. They have handed their responsibilities for the currency off to the Federal Reserve Bank, a private corporation. Even so, this does not have anything to do with wages or the federal government's right to set wages.

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

This says "...all laws necessary and proper... for carrying out the orders given by this part of the constitution. The words necessary and proper are an inclusive proposition. In order to enact a law, it must first be both necessary and proper. Setting a minimum wage does not meet this criteria. It is not necessary nor is it proper.

memBrain Loc: North Carolina (No longer in hiding.)

From the beginning you have stretched and twisted my statements outside of context and meaning. You have even gone so far as to attribute me as implying things not said.

Furthermore, despite the fact that I have indeed shown how a wage floor can be arrived at, you persist in this delusion that I have not. I have nothing more to say on this as you have demonstrated that you will persist in saying I haven't, and I refuse to continue perpetuating a circular argument.

Having a wage floor that is consistent helps to provide a certain measure of stability to the market. Like I mentioned, it makes it possible for an individual to move in pursuit of work elsewhere without the fear of losing value just because of the move.

In short, you've made your mind up. You have no interest in seriously considering any of this. I may as well talk to a wall. As that is the case, I will consider any further attempt by you to solicit continued conversation on this topic to be trolling. Good day.

WhoIsJohnGalt

You have read into the constitution things that are not there. I refuse to yield ground to you. If that means that we are at an impasse, so be it.

memBrain Loc: North Carolina (No longer in hiding.)

Indeed, we are at an impasse. What is in dispute is the Constitutionality. I see that they are there, you do not. Nothing further is to be gained.

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

In this case it is the State of Kansas that fooled those people into believing that Common Core is some kind of national curriculum thing. Of course, they did that because it was required to get the stimulus money they took from Obama. Of course, the unions do have a lot of control. My wife was a member, but only because they provided a $1 million policy against those who would sue for wh**ever lawyer reason they could come up with. I left the union in 1976, but after suit after suit came up she decided that $400 or so was pretty cheap fee for that insurance policy.