Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
no strawman....do you even know what one is?
Sound Logic
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
no strawman....do you even know what one is?
His interpretation is in line with several decades of Supreme Court precedent. That's doesn't necessarily make it correct, but your assertion that it's "wrong" doesn't carry much weight, comparatively.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
lochner is about the right to contract...it doesn't undercut my position at all
hotel also supports my contention that rights can and should be left up to the states when it come to regulating labor....as it upheld a state labor law
total strawman about the FLSA...i never said boo about it and how does it apply here? you have sappy arguing its the commerce clause...
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
hi stalker! wonder if you're ever gonna man up and reveal your users at usmb....or are you just going to be content to do nothing but insult, stalk me, steal my avatar?
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
lol....spit out the cases
Lochner held that the states have no authority to regulate the terms or conditions of employment. In this thread you are asserting that the states, not the federal government, have the authority to regulate labor. Lochner is in direct contradiction of your main point here.
West Cost Hotel merely said that states can regulate the terms and conditions of employment, not that the federal government cannot regulate the terms and conditions of employment.
As for the FLSA, it isn't a strawman at all. You are saying that the federal government has no authority to regulate the work place, presumably because the employment relationship is not interstate commerce. Is my presumption wrong here?
zappasguitar
Well-known member
Sorry, but this is just the latest instance where businesses have whined that if the Government would just leave them alone, then they would have no problem policing themselves.
EXCEPT...
After years of letting them police themselves, we have incidents like the one in Kentucky, where gross NEGLIGENCE BY CORPORATE EXECS helped contribute to the deaths of those miners. They had their chance at "policing themselves" and they proved they couldn't be trusted to look out for their employees.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
i am not defending the negligence....i am saying that it should be dealt with at the state level....there is NO reason to expand, yet again, the federal government....sue them in state court, petition the state legislature to make new regulations....
the federal government was never supposed to be a nanny state
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
lochner was about contract rights nigel...you're absolutely wrong on your take on that case
exactly....states can and should regulate...it doesn't at all support the contention that the federal government can, which is what you tried to pass it off as
i'm saying it shouldn't in this case...i never said "no authority"...of course it does...osha etc...and the FLSA...i've dealt with at in college...
my point is that we don't need to expand the federal government here, we don't need the nanny state...and i think osha is fucking stupid
lochner was about contract rights nigel...you're absolutely wrong on your take on that case
In Lochner the court concluded that New York state health and safety laws prohibiting the number of hours that baker could work per day and per week were unconstitutional. Yes, it was about the freedom to contract, but it was about state efforts to restrict that freedom in the interests of the health and safety of the employee. According to Lochner you're wrong
No, states can regulate. It does not address the question of whether the federal government can regulate.
i
Well, you said that Zappa's interpretation of the breadth of the commerce clause was wrong. If that's the case, then OSHA, FLSA, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, FMLA, portions of the ADA and scads of other laws are unconstitutional. That just isn't the case.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
really...thats odd...lochner did not say i am wrong, it ruled against the state there solely because of contract issues...not at all about what i am saying...
exactly...which is why it is extremely weak of you to use that case to support your assertion
are you telling me that FMLA and OSHA derive their power from the commerce clause?
i know the CRA and ADA does...i was not aware that FMLA and OSHA do as well...do you have case law for this, if so, i will admit i am wrong...
nonetheless, imo, even the interstate commerce clause used to enforce CRA is still a ridiculous decision that to this day still is controversial among con law scholars...all the court has done is ever expand the commerce clause power...which is exactly what cypress and zappa want to do....so far the courts say i am wrong because 99% of laws or regs are upheld under the commerce clause, however, recently there are cases that have sought to curb the ever growing expansion of the commerce clause
Uh, yes.
It's pretty common knowledge...
also, refer to…..
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=687960&postcount=48
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=687681&postcount=45
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
So does EPA.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
i stand corrected
Good Luck
New member
Yurt, don't you know that anything and everything is related to interstate commerce? If I get diarrhea it means I'll use more TP, which affects interstate commerce. Therefore congress should have the power to make certain I never eat too many of those damned jalapenos.
The misuse of the interstate commerce clause is, quite probably, the greatest threat to liberty, followed closely by "necessary and proper" SCOTUS decision. Between the interpretation that ANYTHING affecting interstate commerce can be regulated, and McCullough v Maryland which brought out the "necessary and proper" clause, we end up with no practical limit of federal power as long as liberals define what affect interstate commerce, and what is necessary and proper to regulate it.
The misuse of the interstate commerce clause is, quite probably, the greatest threat to liberty, followed closely by "necessary and proper" SCOTUS decision. Between the interpretation that ANYTHING affecting interstate commerce can be regulated, and McCullough v Maryland which brought out the "necessary and proper" clause, we end up with no practical limit of federal power as long as liberals define what affect interstate commerce, and what is necessary and proper to regulate it.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
i know that, i used a similar example to zappa if his waste was transported across state lines...but yours is better...
and i agree with you, however, since congress has declared osha regulated under the commerce clause, then that is law until overturned...the commerce clause has been wrongly expanded to cover basically everything as you suggest and as i earlier suggested, however, the cases against ever growing expansion are few and far between
zappasguitar
Well-known member
And I am saying that they had their chance to show people at the state level they could do the right thing...now since they've proven they can't, it's time to call in the feds.
Maybe next time when the Federal Government tells them they need to do a better job policing themselves, they'll actually listen.
As it is...they played fast and loose with the rules, now they get to deal with the repercussions of those actions.
You want less Governmental intrusion by the Federal Government?
Then tell these slimy business owners there will be no more tap dancing around safety regulations.