Constitutional Justification of the federal minimum wage rate.

S

Supposn

Verified User
Constitutional Justification of the federal minimum wage rate:
If there were no federal minimum wage rates to bolster state and local minimums, U.S. states and local governments would find it less feasible, if not unfeasible to sustain their minimum rates.

This problem is more apparent among enterprises approximately near the common borders of states or county jurisdiction that have substantially different sales taxes or minimum wage rates. The enterprises on the higher rate sides of those approximately close borders are then at some competitive disadvantages.

If the federal minimum wage rate statutes were eliminated, what are likely to be USA states net detrimental deliberate or unintentional harm to other states' economies? Particularly the consequences between neighboring states? The Constitutional Convention of 1787 addressed such issues and included the commerce clause within our constitution.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Those opposed to a federal minimum wage rate contend there is no mention of such federal power within the U.S. constitution. The 10th constitutional amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”.

Proponents of our federal minimum wage rate laws point to (Article VI, Clause 2), “all laws enacted by the state governments must comply with the Constitution, and that whenever a law enacted by a state conflicts with a federal law, the federal law must be applied”; the words “provide for the common defense and general welfare” which appear within the constitution’s preamble and again within section 8 of the constitution’s first article which is entirely devoted to the powers of congress; and the last word of article 1, section 8, “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”.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Bullshit

Your alleged analysis is contrary to the entire purpose of the US Constitution which was to limit the power of the federal government

Your lame interpretation provides no limits on the federal government.

Consider yourself PWND
 
I Love America said:
Bullshit
Your alleged analysis is contrary to the entire purpose of the US Constitution which was to limit the power of the federal government
Your lame interpretation provides no limits on the federal government.

Consider yourself PWND
Click to expand...
I Love America, you’re apparently less than knowledgeable regarding United States of America’s History.
The Constitutional Convention replaced the prior government, ruled by the “Articles of Confederation”, with a new government ruled by the U.S. Constitution. They replaced their smaller weaker government with a stronger federal government that could defend its borders from commercial or military attack and better regulate its own interstate affairs. Respectfully, Supposn
 
I Love America said:
Bullshit

Your alleged analysis is contrary to the entire purpose of the US Constitution which was to limit the power of the federal government

Your lame interpretation provides no limits on the federal government.

Consider yourself PWND
Click to expand...

now, now, illiterate. you are just mad because you cannot read all the bigger words. it cannot be any clearer than this- Article I, Section 8- congress shall impose and collect taxes in order to "PROVIDE for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." if not for that, could we have interstate highways, the FBI, the CIA, NASA, the FDA, EPA, bridges and dams and a power grid and an internet system, and even a standing army? you are just too stupid to understand and it makes you post dumbass bullshit.
 
I Love America said:
Bullshit

Your alleged analysis is contrary to the entire purpose of the US Constitution which was to limit the power of the federal government

Your lame interpretation provides no limits on the federal government.

Consider yourself PWND
Click to expand...

When are you tRump worshipping idiots going to accept the fact that your savior was a disaster as POTUS and got his corrupt ass fired!

tRump in a Superman costume is simply hilarious. Old bone spurs himself "aint" no hero except to con men and sex abusers.
 
Supposn said:
I Love America, you’re apparently less than knowledgeable regarding United States of America’s History.
The Constitutional Convention replaced the prior government, ruled by the “Articles of Confederation”, with a new government ruled by the U.S. Constitution. They replaced their smaller weaker government with a stronger federal government that could defend its borders from commercial or military attack and better regulate its own interstate affairs. Respectfully, Supposn
Click to expand...

You will find that these tRumptards are functionally illiterate on many levels.
 
Supposn said:
Those opposed to a federal minimum wage rate contend there is no mention of such federal power within the U.S. constitution. The 10th constitutional amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”.

Proponents of our federal minimum wage rate laws point to (Article VI, Clause 2), “all laws enacted by the state governments must comply with the Constitution, and that whenever a law enacted by a state conflicts with a federal law, the federal law must be applied”; the words “provide for the common defense and general welfare” which appear within the constitution’s preamble and again within section 8 of the constitution’s first article which is entirely devoted to the powers of congress; and the last word of article 1, section 8, “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”.

Respectfully, Supposn
Click to expand...

Just another low skilled POS wanting to be paid more than he's worth.
 
Hoosier Daddy said:
now, now, illiterate. you are just mad because you cannot read all the bigger words. it cannot be any clearer than this- Article I, Section 8- congress shall impose and collect taxes in order to "PROVIDE for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." if not for that, could we have interstate highways, the FBI, the CIA, NASA, the FDA, EPA, bridges and dams and a power grid and an internet system, and even a standing army? you are just too stupid to understand and it makes you post dumbass bullshit.
Click to expand...

If not for the minimum wage, you'd be lucky to make $2/hour based on what you can do. Kissing black ass doesn't pay much, Kunta.
 
I Love America said:
Bullshit

Your alleged analysis is contrary to the entire purpose of the US Constitution which was to limit the power of the federal government

Your lame interpretation provides no limits on the federal government.

Consider yourself PWND
Click to expand...

You wish to limit the power of the federal government, yet are more than willing to give Donald Trump all of the power he wants. Just how do you justify that?
 
Tacomaman said:
When are you tRump worshipping idiots going to accept the fact that your savior was a disaster as POTUS and got his corrupt ass fired!

tRump in a Superman costume is simply hilarious. Old bone spurs himself "aint" no hero except to con men and sex abusers.
Click to expand...

this is not trump stuff. this is usual unthinking fake libertarian corporate cocksuckerism. trump is an 80s democrat.
 
Last edited:
Supposn said:
Those opposed to a federal minimum wage rate contend there is no mention of such federal power within the U.S. constitution. The 10th constitutional amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”.

Proponents of our federal minimum wage rate laws point to (Article VI, Clause 2), “all laws enacted by the state governments must comply with the Constitution, and that whenever a law enacted by a state conflicts with a federal law, the federal law must be applied”; the words “provide for the common defense and general welfare” which appear within the constitution’s preamble and again within section 8 of the constitution’s first article which is entirely devoted to the powers of congress; and the last word of article 1, section 8, “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”.

Respectfully, Supposn
Click to expand...

The olde and tired "general welfare clause" argument. Pitiful. Madison mocked you on this argument over 240 years ago.
 
Supposn said:
I Love America, you’re apparently less than knowledgeable regarding United States of America’s History.
The Constitutional Convention replaced the prior government, ruled by the “Articles of Confederation”, with a new government ruled by the U.S. Constitution. They replaced their smaller weaker government with a stronger federal government that could defend its borders from commercial or military attack and better regulate its own interstate affairs. Respectfully, Supposn
Click to expand...

No one can read our Constitution without concluding that the people who wrote it wanted their government severely limited; the words "no" and "not" employed in restraint of government power occur 24 times in the first seven articles of the Constitution and 22 more times in the Bill of Rights. — EDMUND A. OPITZ

"Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money."
-letter to Albert Gallatin (June 16, 1817)
 
Hoosier Daddy said:
now, now, illiterate. you are just mad because you cannot read all the bigger words. it cannot be any clearer than this- Article I, Section 8- congress shall impose and collect taxes in order to "PROVIDE for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." if not for that, could we have interstate highways, the FBI, the CIA, NASA, the FDA, EPA, bridges and dams and a power grid and an internet system, and even a standing army? you are just too stupid to understand and it makes you post dumbass bullshit.
Click to expand...

"Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money."
-letter to Albert Gallatin (June 16, 1817)
 
Supposn said:
I Love America, you’re apparently less than knowledgeable regarding United States of America’s History.
The Constitutional Convention replaced the prior government, ruled by the “Articles of Confederation”, with a new government ruled by the U.S. Constitution. They replaced their smaller weaker government with a stronger federal government that could defend its borders from commercial or military attack and better regulate its own interstate affairs. Respectfully, Supposn
Click to expand...

ummmmm, fucking duh

nothing you said refutes anything I said Captain Fucking Obvious.

Now back to ignore with you
 
SmarterthanYou said:
"Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money."
-letter to Albert Gallatin (June 16, 1817)
Click to expand...
SmarterthanYou, I would disagree and regret but understand and reconcile myself to the logic, if a future U.S, Supreme Court should choose to reverse previous courts’ determinations and decree our federal minimum wage rate to be unconstitutional.

Proponents of our federal minimum wage rate laws point to (Article VI, Clause 2), “all laws enacted by the state governments must comply with the Constitution, and that whenever a law enacted by a state conflicts with a federal law, the federal law must be applied”; the words “provide for the common defense and general welfare” which appear within the constitution’s preamble and again within section 8 of the constitution’s first article which is entirely devoted to the powers of congress; and the last word of article 1, section 8, “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”.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Supposn said:
SmarterthanYou, I would disagree and regret but understand and reconcile myself to the logic, if a future U.S, Supreme Court should choose to reverse previous courts’ determinations and decree our federal minimum wage rate to be unconstitutional.

Proponents of our federal minimum wage rate laws point to (Article VI, Clause 2), “all laws enacted by the state governments must comply with the Constitution, and that whenever a law enacted by a state conflicts with a federal law, the federal law must be applied”; the words “provide for the common defense and general welfare” which appear within the constitution’s preamble and again within section 8 of the constitution’s first article which is entirely devoted to the powers of congress; and the last word of article 1, section 8, “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”.

Respectfully, Supposn
Click to expand...

I get that people need to believe that the supreme court rules over us, that they decide what the constitution means........it makes it easier for those feebleminded individuals just do what they're told and push their parties to nominate political hacks to the benches to decide how they want it...........it's why we're pretty much dead as a free nation and have been for some time.

the thing that people can't seem to fathom, most likely because it would turn their foundation of reality in to quicksand, is what happens if you end up in court and believe you're not guilty of whatever it is that the government charged you with, but those on the court decide to interpret the law and/or constitution against you? you have to accept it because you've spent your entire lifetime letting government define the limits of their own power..........is that freedom when you can't completely trust the constitution and it's limits on the government? no, it just makes you a slave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top