Rulings on Bono v. Atlasia 2.0 (Part 2)

[KEmperor]

X.  The Fair Wage Act

The plaintiff's claim rests largely on the interpretation what "a
single market where competition is free and undistorted" means in Article I Section 5 Clause 4.  The plaintiff's assertion that this means the Federal Government may not engage in any act that affects the economy is an absurdity as it would essentially mean that the government could do nothing as any action it undertakes will have an effect on the economy.  In the context of the rest of the constitution it is clear that the intent of the clause is to prevent the government from undertaking actions intended to favor one area of Atlasia over another.

The defendant's assertion that wages are established by contracts and thus Article I Section 5 Clause 6 applies would imply that the government has an unlimited power under that clause to limit the types of contracts private parties may engage in.  We are not prepared to accept that such a broad grant of power was intended.  The government may not interfere in private contracts at will.

The crux of the issue lies in the definition of labor itself.  The argument has been made that the Federal Government may regulate labor by recognizing labor as an “item of commerce” under Article I Section 5 Clause 9.  We disagree.  Labor is not a tradable good, and one may not own the right to another’s labor as their property.  The Federal Government may only regulate items of commerce under Article I Section 5 Clause 9, not all commerce itself.  Therefore this act’s regulation of wages is unconstitutional.

---Justices KEmperor and JFK for the majority, Justice Ernest dissenting.

[King]

No more minimum wage?  It is a conservative dream come true.

[KEmperor]

No more minimum wage?  It is a conservative dream come true.

No federal minimum wage.  The regions are free to do as they like.  They could even institute an Opebo $15 one if they want.

[ilikeverin]

ilikeverin (4:27:38 PM): so, let's see, we're saying no minimum wage and rich people can apply for welfare?
KEmperor3 (4:27:44 PM): yep
KEmperor3 (4:27:46 PM): kind of
ilikeverin (4:27:48 PM): hmm
ilikeverin (4:27:50 PM): how lovely

[True Federalist]

While I agree with the majority in their interpretation of the impact of Clauses 4 annd 6 of Article I Section 5 of the Constitution upon the constitutionality of thus Act, I unreservedly disagree with their interpretation of the effect of Article I Section 5 Clause 9.

The assertion that labor is not an item of commerce made by the majority depends upon the mistaken assumption that because of its lack of tangibility it somehow cannot be owned.  There are diverse varieties of intangible property such as patents, corporate shares, and in particular: labor.  The contract between an employee and an employer for the provision of wages and benefits in exchange for labor is clearly a transfer of the employee's labor to the employer who directs and controls what is done with that labor.  Therefore labor is clearly an item of commerce and thus it is within the purview of the Senate under Article I Section 5 Clause 9 to establish minimum standards for that item of commerce.  Setting a minimum economic value for tradable labor is clearly one particular means of establishing such a standard and thus a law setting a minimum wage such as The Fair Wage Act is constitutional.

-- Justice Ernest in dissent.

[Jake]

Hey, nice ruling guys. Having no minimum wage is the greatest idea I've heard all day [/sarcasm]

[King]

Hey, nice ruling guys. Having no minimum wage is the greatest idea I've heard all day [/sarcasm]

And now the rich can apply for welfare.

[Emsworth]

Very interesting ruling, although I can't say that I agree with it. I am in accord with Justice Ernest's dissent about labor as a part of commerce.

I would have thought that if the Supreme Court did indeed choose to strike down minimum wage laws, it would have relied on the liberty of contract doctrine, rather than the premise that labor is not an article of commerce.

[KEmperor]

Very interesting ruling, although I can't say that I agree with it. I am in accord with Justice Ernest's dissent about labor as a part of commerce.

I would have thought that if the Supreme Court did indeed choose to strike down minimum wage laws, it would have relied on the liberty of contract doctrine, rather than the premise that labor is not an article of commerce.

The second paragraph does indeed cover liberty of contract.

[JohnFKennedy]

Very interesting ruling, although I can't say that I agree with it. I am in accord with Justice Ernest's dissent about labor as a part of commerce.

I would have thought that if the Supreme Court did indeed choose to strike down minimum wage laws, it would have relied on the liberty of contract doctrine, rather than the premise that labor is not an article of commerce.

The constitution explicitly says item of commerce, not article of commerce and we didn't feel that labour could be considered an item of commerce.

[Sam Spade]

Very interesting ruling, although I can't say that I agree with it. I am in accord with Justice Ernest's dissent about labor as a part of commerce.

I would have thought that if the Supreme Court did indeed choose to strike down minimum wage laws, it would have relied on the liberty of contract doctrine, rather than the premise that labor is not an article of commerce.

The constitution explicitly says item of commerce, not article of commerce and we didn't feel that labour could be considered an item of commerce.

So, in other words, if the Constitution were amended to say "article of commerce", a minimum wage would be legal for the Senate to create and the court would uphold it.

[KEmperor]

Very interesting ruling, although I can't say that I agree with it. I am in accord with Justice Ernest's dissent about labor as a part of commerce.

I would have thought that if the Supreme Court did indeed choose to strike down minimum wage laws, it would have relied on the liberty of contract doctrine, rather than the premise that labor is not an article of commerce.

The constitution explicitly says item of commerce, not article of commerce and we didn't feel that labour could be considered an item of commerce.

So, in other words, if the Constitution were amended to say "article of commerce", a minimum wage would be legal for the Senate to create and the court would uphold it.

The Court will not comment on such hypotheticals.

[Colin]

Well I knew this was going to happen all I have to say is at least this thread hasn't become one long rant that has been going on for three pages. I expect that will come soon. Well if people want a minimum wage to continue I would suggest they write up an initiative or a bill in their respective region to provide a minimum wage.