(05-11-2016, 12:34 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(05-11-2016, 08:31 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: The federal government has the ability to regulate interstate commerce just to prevent legal anarchy. Minimum wage? To prevent some real horrors.

Kinser:

Except for one real reality, most employees and employers reside or are located in the same state.  Using the commerce clause alone one could argue that the Federal Government could set minimum wages for transportation workers and telecommuting employees.  Otherwise there isn't the crossing of state lines while on-the-clock that would necessitate the implementation of the Commerce Clause as an excuse for imposing a minimum wage.

To be sure I'm not opposing minimum wages themselves, but rather arguing that they like many other issues are no business of the federal government (except in clear cases where the commerce clause would apply).  And no you can't use the commerce clause to regulate everything.

---

(05-11-2016, 02:32 AM)Galen Wrote: Only an idiot progressive would think that clause that would cover an employee and his employer when they reside in the same state.  The Supreme Court has pretty much been ignoring the Constitution since the thirties and making shit up as they go along.

Bad Dog here:

Many people in MO work in IL, here in STL, and vice versa. Lots more examples out there. It does become a fed matter when states play beggar-thy-neighbor (KS vs MO).