The Key Issue for the Court Isn't Abortion

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

all state minimum wages are clearly unconstitutional.

LOL

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If Congress has power ... to impose a minimum wage, then all state minimum wages are clearly unconstitutional.

Yes, that's clearly an invalid argument.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If Congress has power ... to impose a minimum wage, then all state minimum wages are clearly unconstitutional.

Yes, that's clearly an invalid argument.

On the contrary, jfern, A18's argument is completely correct.

To quote Justice Story, "It has been settled upon the most solemn deliberation, that the power [to regulate interstate commerce] is exclusive in the government of the United States... A grant of a power to regulate necessarily excludes the action of all others, who would perform the same operation on the same thing. Regulation is designed to indicate the entire result, applying to those parts, which remain as they were, as well as to those, which are altered. It produces a uniform whole, which is as much disturbed and deranged by changing, what the regulating power designs to have unbounded, as that, on which it has operated."

The power to regulate interstate commerce is not a concurrent power. It is vested completely and absolutely in Congress alone. Whatever Congress may regulate under the commerce clause, no state may interfere with, in any way whatsoever. This was settled (correctly) by the Supreme Court under John Marshall.

Therefore, if wages are subject to congressional regulation under the commerce clause, then it follows that they cannot be subject to state regulation.

Let me guess, you're also against states having stricter environmental laws? What's the point of having states if they can't do anything useful?

Clearly multiple levels of government can have laws that must be followed.  Just because the feds regulate cars doesn't mean that you won't get a parking ticket for violating local laws. If two laws exist with different minimums, clearly they are not contradictory, and the higher minimum is the law.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

We've got a bunch of crazies on this forum. Given that a federal minimum wage exists, "OMG Alaska's minimum wage is unconstitutional".

It's only unconstitutional if it violates the Alaska constitution.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

What kind of environmental laws? Most (if not all) federal environmental laws are unconstitutional.

You're just a crazy. Let me guess, you think that no enivironmental laws should apply to National Parks?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

National parks are unconstitutional, but the federal government has plenary power over its property.

It's time for the Teddy Roosevelt wing of the Republican party to reclaim it from people like you.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Let me guess, you're also against states having stricter environmental laws? What's the point of having states if they can't do anything useful?

Clearly multiple levels of government can have laws that must be followed.  Just because the feds regulate cars doesn't mean that you won't get a parking ticket for violating local laws. If two laws exist with different minimums, clearly they are not contradictory, and the higher minimum is the law.

The power to regulate does not involve merely the power to impose rules. It also involves the power to keep something free from rules.

Regulation is designed to indicate the complete effect, the total result, of the rules relating to a particular activity. A state disturbs regulations just as much by adding to them, as by subtracting from them.

As it so happens, the federal government does not have the power to regulate wages, or pass environmental legislation, under the commerce clause. If it did, then state action in these areas would be forbidden.

Umm, no, the federal government can pass said regulations, which require a minimum of certain standards. It says nothing about whether a state can impose tougher standards. If the federal government wanted to prevent that, then they'd pass a law stating the minimum wage was $5.15 an hour everywhere in the United States, regardless of locality.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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

Where do you get that?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

He already said: All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States. (Article I, Section 1)

Congress can not delegate its power to regulate interstate commerce to the states any more than it can delegate that power to the president, or to France.

Sounds like an activist reading of the constitution to me. Nowhere does it say that Congress has to be the one to do perform all types of regulation. It just says they have the power to.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Let's see if you guys understand this. When Congress leaves some leeway to the states to have regulation, Congress is not removing any power from itself. There is clearly nothing unconstitutional about Congress not doing something that they could.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

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

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Constitution specifically provides that all legislative powers granted therein "shall be vested in a Congress of the United States." Clearly, Congress cannot vest such powers elsewhere. It cannot transfer its legislative powers to the states, any more than it can transfer its legislative powers to the government of France, to the AFL-CIO, or to the Board of Directors of Microsoft.

Congress can implicitly allow the states to regulate. If Congress was concerned about such regulation, then they'd forbid it.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

And Congress can implicitly allow the states to set higher standards.
Just because the feds do something doesn't mean that the states can be in the business, as long as they follow any federal rules (laws, court rulings, Constitution).