4 ms·

Also state vs federal have different abilities to regulate, states aren't bound by the constitutional limits in the Articles just the Bill of Rights and Amendme

by rtkwe 2y ago

Also state vs federal have different abilities to regulate, states aren't bound by the constitutional limits in the Articles just the Bill of Rights and Amendments.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Also state vs federal Congress absolutely has the right to regulate employment.
- pdonis 2y ago
  > Congress absolutely has the right to regulate employment. On what basis? What provision in the Constitution gives Congress that power?
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    the entire amendment process? How do you think federal minimum wage was implemented? The supreme court can strike it down, but congress very much can introduce federal bills pertaining to labor.
    - pdonis 2y ago
      > the entire amendment process? How do you think federal minimum wage was implemented? Are you saying there was a Constitutional amendment empowering Congress to impose a minimum wage? Which one?
      - johnnyanmac 2y ago
        laws =/= amendments. Think of laws as "anything goes, as long as it doesn't go against the constitution". Which includes the process of how congress and the president sign off on a law. There's nothing in the constitution saying that the government can't enforce a minimum wage. Now if you want a stronger law, or to override the constitution, you perform an even more involved process which includes ratification from 75% of the states. But this is extremely difficult, by design. >Which one? In this case, the US code for this is The Fair Labor Standards Act Of 1938, last amended in 2011. But the amendment to this act that increases minimum wage was last amended in 2009.
        pdonis 2y ago
        > laws =/= amendments Then why did you say "the entire amendment process" in response to my question? > Think of laws as "anything goes, as long as it doesn't go against the constitution". No, that's not how it works. The things Congress can legislate about are explicitly enumerated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Congress can't just pass any law it likes as long as it follows the process given in the Constitution. > There's nothing in the constitution saying that the government can't enforce a minimum wage. Again, this is backwards. I'm asking if there is anything in the Constitution that says Congress can enforce a minimum wage. If there isn't, Congress can't do it (unless the Constitution is amended to add that to the list of things Congress can legislate about). > Now if you want a stronger law, or to override the constitution There is no such thing as a "stronger law" or "to override the Constitution". The Constitution can be amended, which is what the more difficult process you describe does, but that doesn't "override" it or pass a "stronger law" in spite of it, it amends it.
        johnnyanmac 2y ago
        >why did you say "the entire amendment process" in response to my question? Because I'm not a lawyer and my main point was "yes, congress can control this stuff" >The things Congress can legislate about are explicitly enumerated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitutio I'm going to guess "setting minimum wage" isn't specifically enumerated in Article I, section 8. But yes, we have federal laws we revise overtime outlining that. >I'm asking if there is anything in the Constitution that says Congress can enforce a minimum wage. Probbaly not. But there are mechanisms on how congress can draft laws to enforce a minimum wage. Of course it can be challenged by the SCOTUS, but that's one hell of a hill to die on, even by 2024 standards. It not adjusting for 15 years is pretty close. Sometimes apathy is the best malice. >There is no such thing as a "stronger law" or "to override the Constitution". The Constitution can be amended Did you want to talk about congress passing laws or argue pedantism against the spirit of HN? I'm not a lawyer so my language will not be precise as the centuries and thousands of pages of law talking about this. My main point was that yes, congress can pass laws that regulate employment. No it doesn't need to be the 28th amendment to take effect. There's no point grilling me on the legalese because that is far outside my purview (and frankly, far outside the scope of a comment on Hacker News. I'm not drafting an entire book try and likely fail to convince someone who is simply prodding instead of giving their own opinions on the matter)
  - tacocataco 2y ago
    IANAL, but the catch all that is usually used is the Commerce clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause
    - pdonis 2y ago
      > the catch all that is usually used is the Commerce clause Ok. I am posting in another discussion downthread on whether "commerce" includes employment.
  - skhunted 2y ago
    There isn’t a specific line in the Constitution that gives Congress the right to regulate employment. This power of Congress is implied by the powers that are explicitly written in the Constution. There are 5 axioms of Euclidean Geometry. Those 5 simple axioms have a vast number of implications as evidenced by all the theorems in Euclidean Geometry. In the same way there are logical conclusions to the statements in the Constitution. It is settled law that Congress can regulate employment.
    - pdonis 2y ago
      > This power of Congress is implied by the powers that are explicitly written in the Constution. Which ones, and how?
      - rtkwe 2y ago
        Commerce Clause Article 1 Section 8 Clause 3 [0] employees are in a market and they are free to move among the states making it a national market. [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section8:~:text=To%20regulate%20commerce%20with%20foreign%20nations%2C%20and%20among%20the%20several%20states%2C%20and%20with%20the%20Indian%20tribes%3B https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section8:~...
        pdonis 2y ago
        That assumes that employment counts as "commerce", which, as another subthread elsewhere in this discussion will show you, is not an assumption that I think you can just help yourself to.
      - skhunted 2y ago
        Obviously the vast majority of legal experts, lawmakers and those knowledgeable on the subject believe Congress has this authority. For instance, every time the minimum wage gets updated one argument against updating it you don't hear people make is that Congress doesn't have the authority to do this. You are welcome to research the topic yourself. There are lots of books on the history of labor rights and labor struggles in the U.S. and the role courts have played in this. But you might be right that the experts on this topic know less than you and that there is no justifiable implied power of Congress to regulate labor markets.
- freeone3000 2y ago
  does it? it has the right to regulate interstate commerce and to tax exports, but there is a suspicious silence on the concept of employment.
  - rtkwe 2y ago
    I'd love to see your economy where labor is not part of commerce... (for now) someone still has to pull the levers and spin the knobs to make things.
- rtkwe 2y ago
  I think so and you think so but at a systemic level the only opinion that matters legally are the 9 people in robes at the Supreme Court at any point in time. And this current court is pretty dedicated to delivering on a decades long project to hamstring federal regulations of business and commerce.

by rtkwe 2y ago

Also state vs federal have different abilities to regulate, states aren't bound by the constitutional limits in the Articles just the Bill of Rights and Amendments.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> Also state vs federal Congress absolutely has the right to regulate employment.

pdonis 2y ago
> Congress absolutely has the right to regulate employment. On what basis? What provision in the Constitution gives Congress that power?
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  the entire amendment process? How do you think federal minimum wage was implemented? The supreme court can strike it down, but congress very much can introduce federal bills pertaining to labor.
  - pdonis 2y ago
    > the entire amendment process? How do you think federal minimum wage was implemented? Are you saying there was a Constitutional amendment empowering Congress to impose a minimum wage? Which one?
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      laws =/= amendments. Think of laws as "anything goes, as long as it doesn't go against the constitution". Which includes the process of how congress and the president sign off on a law. There's nothing in the constitution saying that the government can't enforce a minimum wage. Now if you want a stronger law, or to override the constitution, you perform an even more involved process which includes ratification from 75% of the states. But this is extremely difficult, by design. >Which one? In this case, the US code for this is The Fair Labor Standards Act Of 1938, last amended in 2011. But the amendment to this act that increases minimum wage was last amended in 2009.
      - pdonis 2y ago
        > laws =/= amendments Then why did you say "the entire amendment process" in response to my question? > Think of laws as "anything goes, as long as it doesn't go against the constitution". No, that's not how it works. The things Congress can legislate about are explicitly enumerated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Congress can't just pass any law it likes as long as it follows the process given in the Constitution. > There's nothing in the constitution saying that the government can't enforce a minimum wage. Again, this is backwards. I'm asking if there is anything in the Constitution that says Congress can enforce a minimum wage. If there isn't, Congress can't do it (unless the Constitution is amended to add that to the list of things Congress can legislate about). > Now if you want a stronger law, or to override the constitution There is no such thing as a "stronger law" or "to override the Constitution". The Constitution can be amended, which is what the more difficult process you describe does, but that doesn't "override" it or pass a "stronger law" in spite of it, it amends it.
        johnnyanmac 2y ago
        >why did you say "the entire amendment process" in response to my question? Because I'm not a lawyer and my main point was "yes, congress can control this stuff" >The things Congress can legislate about are explicitly enumerated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitutio I'm going to guess "setting minimum wage" isn't specifically enumerated in Article I, section 8. But yes, we have federal laws we revise overtime outlining that. >I'm asking if there is anything in the Constitution that says Congress can enforce a minimum wage. Probbaly not. But there are mechanisms on how congress can draft laws to enforce a minimum wage. Of course it can be challenged by the SCOTUS, but that's one hell of a hill to die on, even by 2024 standards. It not adjusting for 15 years is pretty close. Sometimes apathy is the best malice. >There is no such thing as a "stronger law" or "to override the Constitution". The Constitution can be amended Did you want to talk about congress passing laws or argue pedantism against the spirit of HN? I'm not a lawyer so my language will not be precise as the centuries and thousands of pages of law talking about this. My main point was that yes, congress can pass laws that regulate employment. No it doesn't need to be the 28th amendment to take effect. There's no point grilling me on the legalese because that is far outside my purview (and frankly, far outside the scope of a comment on Hacker News. I'm not drafting an entire book try and likely fail to convince someone who is simply prodding instead of giving their own opinions on the matter)
- tacocataco 2y ago
  IANAL, but the catch all that is usually used is the Commerce clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause
  - pdonis 2y ago
    > the catch all that is usually used is the Commerce clause Ok. I am posting in another discussion downthread on whether "commerce" includes employment.
- skhunted 2y ago
  There isn’t a specific line in the Constitution that gives Congress the right to regulate employment. This power of Congress is implied by the powers that are explicitly written in the Constution. There are 5 axioms of Euclidean Geometry. Those 5 simple axioms have a vast number of implications as evidenced by all the theorems in Euclidean Geometry. In the same way there are logical conclusions to the statements in the Constitution. It is settled law that Congress can regulate employment.
  - pdonis 2y ago
    > This power of Congress is implied by the powers that are explicitly written in the Constution. Which ones, and how?
    - rtkwe 2y ago
      Commerce Clause Article 1 Section 8 Clause 3 [0] employees are in a market and they are free to move among the states making it a national market. [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section8:~:text=To%20regulate%20commerce%20with%20foreign%20nations%2C%20and%20among%20the%20several%20states%2C%20and%20with%20the%20Indian%20tribes%3B https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section8:~...
      - pdonis 2y ago
        That assumes that employment counts as "commerce", which, as another subthread elsewhere in this discussion will show you, is not an assumption that I think you can just help yourself to.
    - skhunted 2y ago
      Obviously the vast majority of legal experts, lawmakers and those knowledgeable on the subject believe Congress has this authority. For instance, every time the minimum wage gets updated one argument against updating it you don't hear people make is that Congress doesn't have the authority to do this. You are welcome to research the topic yourself. There are lots of books on the history of labor rights and labor struggles in the U.S. and the role courts have played in this. But you might be right that the experts on this topic know less than you and that there is no justifiable implied power of Congress to regulate labor markets.
freeone3000 2y ago
does it? it has the right to regulate interstate commerce and to tax exports, but there is a suspicious silence on the concept of employment.
- rtkwe 2y ago
  I'd love to see your economy where labor is not part of commerce... (for now) someone still has to pull the levers and spin the knobs to make things.
rtkwe 2y ago
I think so and you think so but at a systemic level the only opinion that matters legally are the 9 people in robes at the Supreme Court at any point in time. And this current court is pretty dedicated to delivering on a decades long project to hamstring federal regulations of business and commerce.