The Key Issue for the Court Isn't Abortion

[Peter]

Under the Commerce Clause, if the federal government has jurisdiction, the states do not. If Congress has power, for example, to impose a minimum wage, then all state minimum wages are clearly unconstitutional.

Whilst I agree that this dichotomy is true: something is either interstate commerce or intrastate commerce, never both, it is worth noting that this restriction does not extend to the other powers - nobody would seriously suggest that only the federal government may build roads.

Anyway, I would argue that the federal minimum wage can be upheld in a very few limited circumstances - jobs that genuinely involve interstate commerce. One of the prime examples of this is long distance truck drivers.

The rest of the minimum wage legislation is at best a suggestion to be taken up by the States - oddly enough, I believe that a few States, e.g. Maryland, have actually delegated their legislative authority (via referencing the federal minimum wage act) to set their minimum wage effectively to the federal government. I personally view this as taking up the suggestion.

[Peter]

I'd be interested in how the federal minimum wage makes state minimum wages unconstitutional. The federal minimum wage reads that for most people $5.15 is the minimum wage, although agriculture workers and those that rely on tips can be paid less. How is it then unconstitutional for Alaska to make their minimum wage be $7.15 an hour? It's perfectly consistant with the federal law.

Commerce is either interstate/international or intrastate .

The first is the sole purview of the federal Government, and solely regulable by the feds.

The second is the sole purview of the Staes, and is solely regulable by the States.

If we were on crack, we might suppose that the minimum wage was a part of interstate commerce, and thus is only regulable by the feds, and therefore not by the States at all.

Of course, thats ultimately ridiculous since we aren't on crack except in a very few limited circumstances. The minimum wage is imo a positive thing, but I wholly recognise that it has to be passed at the State level under the Constitution.

[Peter]

Congress may not confer such its power on other authorities, even states.

Where do you get that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._City_of_New_York

Concurred by some of your favourite Justices I might add.

[Peter]

Congress may not confer such its power on other authorities, even states.

Where do you get that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._City_of_New_York

Concurred by some of your favourite Justices I might add.

How is that relevant? The line item veto changed the legislative process.

...by delegating the power to change the legislation to the President. Your position is exactly the same: That the States should have the power to raise the minimum wage within their own State, when under the most reasonable interpretation of the commerce clause, it is clear that a dichotomy of sovereignty is present.

[Peter]

The states have the power to do whatever the federal government doesn't prevent them from doing.

No, they have power to do anything that the federal Constitution doesn't prevent them from doing. The distinction is subtle.

If the Constitution allows regulation of the minimum wage by Congress then under all non-drug induced readings of the commerce clause, that power is solely vested in Congress and denied to the States.