05-12-2016, 03:48 PM
(05-11-2016, 09:11 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:(05-11-2016, 02:58 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: That is the rationale. If a business is operating across state lines, then it is involved in interstate commerce. Even selling merchandise acquired from across state lines (including imports) or producing material intended to be sold across state lines makes a firm a participant in interstate commerce.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause
Stare decisis protects rulings made in the New Deal era on minimum wages.
No the commerce clause, which I know about from reading books not wikipedia, is clear. The economic activity that is being regulated has to be crossing state lines. Typically labor does not cross state lines (though arguments could be made in the specific cases I mentioned).
Stare Decisis applies until it is changed. That is the beauty of precedent, it stands until it is changed. The only reason it hasn't is because no one has yet brought litigation to change the precedent. So your "protection" only works as long as no body seeks a change.
(05-11-2016, 06:31 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: "Only an idiot would believe otherwise" is a poor argument against something that one disagrees with. All too often such is easily refuted as an argument.
Then refute his point. I know you haven't refuted mine. Mostly because you can not.
That's simply a point of logic. Brilliant people can believe in discreditable ideas -- let us say young-earth creationism. Add to that, commonplace errors of memory. Haven't we all?
People make specious and fraudulent arguments all the time, often with considerable sophistication. The fault is with the speciousness or fraudulence of discreditable results of their sophisticated arguments.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.