Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Does Joe Miller think child labor laws are unconstitutional?

Dems are jumping on Alaska Tea Party candidate Joe Miller for calling for the abolishment of the Federal minimum wage, but what's particularly interesting about this, I think, is his rationale for doing so:

So there should not be a federal minimum wage?

"There should not be," Miller answered. "That is not within the scope of the powers that are given to the federal government."...

Miller wants to scale back the size and power of the federal government to the powers specifically listed in the Constitution.

"What I'd recommend that you do is go to the Constitution and look at the enumerated powers because what we have is something that we call the 10th amendment that says, look if it's not there if it's not enumerated, then it's delegated to the states," Miller said. "Everything that's not there is reserved to the states and the people."

The Federal minimum wage, of course, was created by the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which also set forth rules against "oppressive child labor." By Miller's lights, the Constitution reserves the power to regulate minimum wage for the states. Maybe someone should ask Miller whether Federal child labor law is unconstitutional, too. Seems like his answer is likely to make some news.

It's hard to overstate how extreme Miller's position is. After the New Deal passed, Republicans ultimately realized that they would have to accept the New Deal's main achievements as permanent pillars of society in order to remain a viable national party. Miller seems to want to relitigate something the GOP already hashed out more than a half century ago.

UPDATE, 11:17 a.m.: Ian Millhiser draws the same comparison to child labor law that I did and also points out that the constitutionality of the Federal minimum wage has already been confirmed by the courts.

By Greg Sargent  | October 4, 2010; 10:52 AM ET
Categories:  2010 elections, Senate Republicans, Tea Party  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Morning Plum
Next: Is the Dem base awakening?

Comments

Just because the GOP "accepted" something that was un-Constitutional, does not make it Constitutional.

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 4, 2010 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Greg, your headline is unworthy of you. You may as well have written "Miller refuses to say when he stopped beating his wife" You and I don't agree with his Jeffersonian view of the Constitution, but neither did Jefferson when it came to the Louisiana purchase. I think child labor laws are safe.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 4, 2010 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Some one should ask him that question.

Also does he believe in the Civil Rights act and the Voters Rights act too.

Posted by: maritza1 | October 4, 2010 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Don't get me started on the Louisiana Purchase again!

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 4, 2010 11:03 AM | Report abuse

54465446 -- I don't think that's a viable analogy. After all, child labor laws passed in the very same Federal act that contain the minimum wage provision, which Miller says is unconstitutional.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | October 4, 2010 11:04 AM | Report abuse

How does Joe square Congressional authority to regulate commerce with them lacking the authority on child labor laws? That authority was granted by the Constitution.

Be it either child labor laws or the minimum wage, Congress clearly has the authority to regulate those activities. It's one thing to disagree with the policy. It's sheer idiocy to hide behind the 10th Amendment claiming the power does not exist.

Miller should know better having allegedly graduated from Yale Law. I always figured they had them at least read the Constitution there but I guess I was wrong.

Posted by: raincntry | October 4, 2010 11:06 AM | Report abuse

Federal Minimum Wage and Child labor laws unconstitutional?


When Bill Clinton signed off on the Free Trade deals - many of those jobs were KISSED AWAY.


So now there are sweat shops all over the developing world. Children working with even less regulations.


Forget the constitutional question.


HOW IS THIS NEW SITUATION BETTER? Labor conditions are WORSE overall. Wages are WORSE overall.


Who cares what Joe Miller thinks - it is not going to be anywhere near the REAL SWEAT SHOPS - unless the Free Trade deals get repealed or re-written.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 4, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse

@Greg: "I don't think that's a viable analogy. After all, child labor laws passed in the very same Federal act that contain the minimum wage provision, which Miller says is unconstitutional."

While this is true, it's possible to include something constitutional and unconstitutional in the same act, or consider one element valid and another invalid. One might as well argue that because you take exception with a given law, you oppose all other laws passed by congress.

How likely is it, do you think, that Joe Miller opposes child labor laws?

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 4, 2010 11:12 AM | Report abuse

@raincntry: "Be it either child labor laws or the minimum wage, Congress clearly has the authority to regulate those activities. It's one thing to disagree with the policy. It's sheer idiocy to hide behind the 10th Amendment claiming the power does not exist."

Well, it exists via precedent and interpretation. It certainly isn't explicit in the constitution, and has been used to grant the federal government such broad and pervasive power over the states that it really should be spelled out, if that's a power we believe should be extended to the federal government. It's a case where a clear amendment, much more explicit than the commerce clause, would come in handy.

Failing that, precedence serves, and precedence suggests the federal government can regulate anything inside a state that involves money in pretty much any way. So . . . there ya go!

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 4, 2010 11:16 AM | Report abuse

Kevin -- I don't know how likely it is. I'm merely suggesting it's a perfectly fair question, given his rationale for opposing the Federal minimum wage.

I'm asking his campaign.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | October 4, 2010 11:16 AM | Report abuse

Greg:

My guess is that nearly everyone on the modern Radical Right thinks what Miller does. Palin. Angle. Paul. In fact, if these laws weren't around for so long and so embedded in our society I would confidently predict that the Radical Right Supreme Court would declare them unconstitutional. In fact, with the Radical Right Court being so activist they may do it anyway. After all, don't corporations have the "freedom" to pay whatever they want to whomever they want?

Posted by: wbgonne | October 4, 2010 11:26 AM | Report abuse

So I guess the Dems are figuring that if Murkowski wins it's a net positive for them? I don't understand why the Dems would waste any energy on this race.

Posted by: sbj3 | October 4, 2010 11:28 AM | Report abuse

I think this is a great question. The point is, how far does his constitutional argument go? His argument seems to set aside even many Republican supported programs. One wonders what he will do as a Senator.

Posted by: michiganmaine | October 4, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Clearly the only use the Republican Tea Party has for the Constitution is as a business memo.

After all, child labor laws are JOB KILLERS.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 4, 2010 11:34 AM | Report abuse

All, new details about DNC's fundraising haul:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/10/dnc_our.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | October 4, 2010 11:43 AM | Report abuse

UPDATE: 11:45 a.m. the Constitutionality of interning Japanese-Americans, legalizing abortion, and holding slaves as 3/5ths "persons" has already been confirmed by the courts too.

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 4, 2010 11:43 AM | Report abuse

No wonder Joke is a retired lawyer. With arguing skills like he displays here, it's no wonder he ran out of clients.

Posted by: Observer691 | October 4, 2010 11:46 AM | Report abuse

curious why GOP candidates like McMahon, Angle, Miller and Paul have decided to promote LOWERING or ILLIMINATING the minimum wage? Isn't opposition to the Civil Rights Act and Open Housing radical enough for this gang? Since they want to debate evolution why not just open up debate to w/n we should have slavery or prohibition as well, I fear some on the right might also find those 21st century burning issues to be mainstream in their delusional worlds. How about reinstating sweat shops and illiminating food safety, might those also be the next GOP targets?

Posted by: leichtman1 | October 4, 2010 11:46 AM | Report abuse

Democrats should frame the debate as:

Republicans Waging Class Warfare On The Poorest Workers In America.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 4, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Rainforest is all wet. Reagan signed GATT which preceded NAFTA. The 1993 vote on NAFTA received more Rep votes than Dem ones. Many Dems lost their seats in 1994 due to the NAFTA vote more so than God Guns or Gays etc. You also need to factor in improvements in productivity and automation which shed many low skill jobs.

When Bill Clinton signed off on the Free Trade deals - many of those jobs were KISSED AWAY

Who cares what Joe Miller thinks - it is not going to be anywhere near the REAL SWEAT SHOPS - unless the Free Trade deals get repealed or re-written.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest

Posted by: MerrillFrank | October 4, 2010 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Abortion is equally not spelled out in the constitution yet they want to make laws against it...

Posted by: soapm | October 4, 2010 11:53 AM | Report abuse

For the record, I am specifically responding to Mr. Sargent's original post: "After the New Deal passed, Republicans ultimately realized that they would have to accept the New Deal's main achievements as permanent pillars of society in order to remain a viable national party."

AND

UPDATE, 11:17 a.m.: "Ian Millhiser draws the same comparison to child labor law that I did and also points out that the constitutionality of the Federal minimum wage has already been confirmed by the courts."

There's NO DOUBT that the Supreme Court has issued "Un-constitutional Opinions" some of which were later overturned, some not (yet ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 4, 2010 11:54 AM | Report abuse

liam voters don't care much about poor people, middle class voters seem too fixated on guaranteeing tax cuts for Paris and Lindsay. Go figure.

Posted by: leichtman1 | October 4, 2010 11:57 AM | Report abuse

soapm:

Most Conservatives would be HAPPY to just get the abortion issue out of the federal level and back to the States to regulate.

"That is not within the scope of the powers that are given to the federal government."

Sound familiar?

"What I'd recommend that you do is go to the Constitution and look at the enumerated powers because what we have is something that we call the 10th Amendment that says, look if it's not there if it's not enumerated, then it's delegated to the states," Miller said. "Everything that's not there is reserved to the States and the people."

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 4, 2010 11:58 AM | Report abuse

Greg, I believe that your headline was more incendiary than his statement. That's what my earlier post referred to. I can't imagine if asked that he would say he opposes child labor laws. You may know him better than I. Until he does, I think we should stick to what he actually DID say. It's a shame that the Dems don't seem to have a viable candidate opposing him.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 4, 2010 12:02 PM | Report abuse

leichtman1:

I understand the reference to Paris Hilton, but do you really think that Lindsay Lohan (or her parents) are worth more than $2 million?

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 4, 2010 12:03 PM | Report abuse

slavery, civil rights, food safety, sweat shops, prohibition to the Radical Right those are issues we need to re examine and determine w/n the 10th Amndment delegates those rights to the Miss. and Alabama state legislatures. Welcome to the new world of the radical right aka The TeaParty marching America back to the 18th Century.

Posted by: leichtman1 | October 4, 2010 12:05 PM | Report abuse

jakeD2 wrote:

"There's NO DOUBT that the Supreme Court has issued "Un-constitutional Opinions" some of which were later overturned, some not (yet ; )"

Your statement is absurd on it's face. It's like people who say after a game the best team didn't win. Well, yes they did, because that's how you determine those things!

Posted by: 54465446 | October 4, 2010 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Republican Class Warfare:

Tax Cuts For Fat Cats;

And Lower Wages For The Starving Poor Class.


Posted by: Liam-still | October 4, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse

jakeD2 wrote:

"Don't get me started on the Louisiana Purchase again"

LOL What I meant of course is that polticians IN office have decidedly different views on power than when they were candidates running for office.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 4, 2010 12:13 PM | Report abuse

iam voters don't care much about poor people, middle class voters seem too fixated on guaranteeing tax cuts for Paris and Lindsay. Go figure.

Posted by: leichtman1 | October 4, 2010 11:57 AM
....................

I have labeled it as Joe The Plumber Syndrome.

That guy was all about cutting taxes for Fat Cats, at a time when he did not have a job, or a pot to piss in.

H

Posted by: Liam-still | October 4, 2010 12:13 PM | Report abuse

54465446:

If the Roberts Court today ruled that the First Amendment allowed the federal government to throw Greg Sargent into jailed for his political speech, that would be UN-CONSTITUTIONAL (and hopefully overturned asap : )

leichtman1:

http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/actors/lindsay-lohan-net-worth/

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 4, 2010 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Lindsay is reportedly worth b/w $7-25 million--the poor folk to the GOP. Paris likely upwords of $1-2 billion in desperate need of a GOP tax cut.

Posted by: leichtman1 | October 4, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Lindsay is reportedly worth b/w $7-25 million--the poor folk to the GOP. Paris likely upwords of $1-2 billion in desperate need of a GOP tax cut.

Posted by: leichtman1 | October 4, 2010 12:15 PM
................

Renew The Bush Tax Cuts For Rich Bimbos!


Renew The Bush Tax Cuts For Fat Cats, Now!!

This message has been brought to you by:

Concerned American Trophy Wives For Alimony.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 4, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

leichtman1:

I'm the only one to provide an ACTAUL LINK (Ms. Lohan has hit on hard times and is only worth $500,000).

54465446:

As Andrew Jackson (in)famously said: "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 4, 2010 12:22 PM | Report abuse

ACTUAL (darn Spellchecker ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 4, 2010 12:23 PM | Report abuse

jakeD2 wrote:

"If the Roberts Court today ruled that the First Amendment allowed the federal government to throw Greg Sargent into jailed for his political speech, that would be UN-CONSTITUTIONAL (and hopefully overturned asap : )"

No, it wouldn't be anymore than people who say that health care legislation is UNCONSTITUIONAL. No, until and unless, the Supreme Court rules otherwise, it is constitutional.

They get the last word, at least temporarily whether you like it or not. Good thing too because many of their most advanced and far reaching decisions would have been considered "unconstitutional" by a majority of Americans, Brown vs. Board of Education for instance.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 4, 2010 12:25 PM | Report abuse

This is beneath you MR Sargent. Your flimsy excuses notwithstanding.

did Mr Miller specifically say that he opposes child labor laws? apparently not. This is just more liberal yellow journalism. It goes like this: If conservative A takes position B, then he (she) must also, therefore, take position C, which is ghastly according to liberals. the next step is to repeat this assumption as if it were fact and let the liberal media/propaganda process engage the big lie machinery.

This is old and ugly. And pointless. This is disappointing Mr Sargent. Do I sense desperation?

Further, it appears that we have yet another new liberal definition. "Extreme" now means: positions taken by anyone who leads a democrat in an election campaign.

running on a "green" platform that promises to regulate every aspect of our lives in not extreme to liberals. Government control in the interest of humanity is simply correct thinking according to Mr Sargent and his followers. Running on a platform of personal liberty and responsibility is "extreme" these days.

Small wonder the liberal agenda is being rejected.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | October 4, 2010 12:29 PM | Report abuse

54465446:

Not even "temporarily" my dear learned counsel. As Andrew Jackson (in)famously said: "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 4, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

another site shows her worth $7-$25 million, but who in the world wants to get in a food fight over her net worth? You also know from history that Jackson's VP, John C Calhoun promoted nullification, a theory that Rick Perry supports, I am shocked that Mr. Miller has no advocated for nullification, YET.

Posted by: leichtman1 | October 4, 2010 12:43 PM | Report abuse

The Alaska Permanent Fund dividend this year is $1281.00 per resident; ergo, the 10 member Joe Miller family will receive a
$12,810.00 check. With this annual freebie, no wonder he feels entitled to pontificate about minimum wage laws as unconstitutional, privatizing social security, and the like. However, he will fit right in with the Tom Coburns, Jim Inhofes, and the Jim Demints. Alaskans should beware of men with weak chins who must cover up perceived defects with scraggly beards.

Posted by: dozas | October 4, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

For those who doubt the Constitutionality of minimum wage (i.e., the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938), please open your copies of the Constitution to Article I, Section 8, and you will see the following text (from clauses 1, 3, and 18):

"The Congress shall have Power ... To regulate Commerce ... among the several States, and ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

The FLSA applies only to "employees who are engaged in interstate commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, or who are employed by an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce," but the employer is exempt if the "enterprise" earns less than $500,000 gross per year. The law presumes that any business smaller than that has no substantial effect on, and therefore is effectively not engaged in, interstate commerce.

Oh, and by the way, the GOP didn't simply give in on the FLSA. In 1941, the Supreme Court unanimously decided the law was a Constitutional exercise of Congressional control of interstate commerce (US v. Darby, 312 US 100), a holding that has been reaffirmed regularly since then. At this point, the only two ways to change the reach of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause are to convince the Court to overturn 70 years of well-settled law, or to amend the Constitution. Have fun storming the castle!

Posted by: goldsteb | October 4, 2010 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Question for dozas and others here who toe the party line. What good has the minimum wage law done for America's youth?

What is the current unemployment rate among America's young? What was it before the rate hike compared to its current value?

Arguing against the validity of the minimum wage law is part and parcel of the conservative POV. first, it is not the government's role to set the price for ANYTHING. Free people should be free to pay what they think something is worth or shun the purchase if the value isn't right. The government should not meddle in our affairs.

next, as I asked above, how has the well intentioned law actually worked in the crucible of market realities? Well it seems to me that this has worked just about as well as so many other well intentioned but ultimately misguided efforts of the left. That is, it has failed.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | October 4, 2010 1:02 PM | Report abuse

leichtman1:

I'm not here to argue with you. I simply point out your faulty reasoning, for which I include ACTUAL LINKS to back me up, and I am content letting the peanut gallery decide.

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 4, 2010 1:05 PM | Report abuse

then let's amend the constitution.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | October 4, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Conservatives Love To Wage Class Warfare On The Poorest Workers,


While complaining about Class Warfare being waged against their Fat Cat pets.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 4, 2010 1:20 PM | Report abuse

jakeD2 wrote:

"Not even "temporarily" my dear learned counsel. As Andrew Jackson (in)famously said: "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"

Nice, we both know history, but that doesn't address the substance of what I said now does it? Your quote actually goes against your own argument. The Court decides what is constitutional, but it does not possess powers of enforcement. As I stated before, most of the best decisions of the Court would have been declared "unconstitutional" by people like yourself when made.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 4, 2010 2:15 PM | Report abuse

It does indeed address the substance of what you said (at least "typed"). The President of the United States has an EQUAL say in what's Constitutional. That's my entire argument!

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 4, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

More to the point, the Supreme Court, President AND Congress could all agree that jailing Greg Sargent for his political speech is "Constitutional" but that does not make it so -- they could declare night to be "day" as well -- of course, that does no good for Mr. Sargent who is now in jail. My point is that some things are so clearly UN-Constitutional, that no one can change them short of a formal Amendment. Do you see my point now?

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 4, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

skipsailing: In response to your question, evidence suggests that the "America's youth" you refer to are perhaps too spoiled to take the minimum wage jobs out there in the marketplace; and because of this, it is why we have such an illegal immigrant population WHO ARE WILLING TO DO THESE JOBS. The minimum wage at the least just allows those who are so employed to buy some vittles and gas after 10 hours of work to just survive. Most employers of low paying jobs don't care about their employees, they just care about their own American Dream, which is one of the reasons for the law (i.e., greed in all it's manifestations).

Posted by: dozas | October 4, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

raincntry:

It's unbelievable, isn't it, that some of us actually got through top-tier Law Schools without being brain-washed? Which one did YOU graduate from?

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 4, 2010 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Was it one of these?

1. Yale U (CT) Obviously not.

2. Harvard U (MA) I doubt it, but anything's possible given that Obama made it through there.

3. Stanford U (CA) Let me know your last name and class year, so I can verify.

4. Columbia U (NY)

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 4, 2010 2:47 PM | Report abuse

jakeD2 wrote:

"It does indeed address the substance of what you said (at least "typed"). The President of the United States has an EQUAL say in what's Constitutional. That's my entire argument!"

No one has made that argument successfully since the Civil War, but you can if you want to. A President today who did what Jackson did would be impeached. Got any other long settled Constitutional issues that you would like to overturn? How about the right of a state to secede?

Posted by: 54465446 | October 4, 2010 2:48 PM | Report abuse

"The President of the United States has an EQUAL say in what's Constitutional. That's my entire argument!"

Then your entire argument is wrong. The Supreme Court has the ultimate authority to interpret the Constitution. That is the basis for judicial review. Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 137 (1803).

Posted by: wbgonne | October 4, 2010 2:48 PM | Report abuse

jakeD2 wrote:

"My point is that some things are so clearly UN-Constitutional, that no one can change them short of a formal Amendment. Do you see my point now?"

Ummm actually NO, lol. You view the Constitution as a dead document, that was set in stone. You are not alone in that regard, but the Constitution IS what the nine justices say it is. This is really a theoretical college professor type argument anyway.

Much of what was done in the 40's and 50's concerning restrictions on civil rights and free speech and the right to assembly I would have said was "unconstitutional", for instance the denial of Paul Robeson's right to leave the country. HOWEVER the Court didn't feel that way, so that what I think doesn't matter.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 4, 2010 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Brilliant deductive reasoning. You have proof Lindsay's net worth is less than the reported $7 million therefore you are right that the GOP's proposed tax cuts don t help the rich in this country.
Meanwhile the GOP advocates for annulment and illiminating or reducing the minimum wage.

Posted by: leichtman1 | October 4, 2010 4:09 PM | Report abuse

54465446 and wbgonne:

I'm right, and here's the ultimate test -- Do you think that GWB would have been impeached by a Republican Congress?

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 4, 2010 4:17 PM | Report abuse

leichtman1:

I never said that the GOP's proposed tax cuts don t help the rich in this country.

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 4, 2010 4:26 PM | Report abuse

For the peanut gallery:

"... middle class voters seem too [SIC] fixated on guaranteeing tax cuts for Paris and Lindsay. Go figure."

Posted by: leichtman1 | October 4, 2010 11:57 AM

"I understand the reference to Paris Hilton, but do you really think that Lindsay Lohan (or her parents) are worth more than $2 million?"

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 4, 2010 12:03 PM

I simply asked a question (and provided THE ONLY LINK showing Ms. Lohan's net worth to be $500,000) and didn't set up strawmen arguments -- I'm also not the one "too fixated" on Paris / Lindsay -- if anyone else has a question about any of that, please let me know.

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 4, 2010 5:15 PM | Report abuse

none of this answers my questions:
=================
skipsailing: In response to your question, evidence suggests that the "America's youth" you refer to are perhaps too spoiled to take the minimum wage jobs out there in the marketplace; and because of this, it is why we have such an illegal immigrant population WHO ARE WILLING TO DO THESE JOBS. The minimum wage at the least just allows those who are so employed to buy some vittles and gas after 10 hours of work to just survive. Most employers of low paying jobs don't care about their employees, they just care about their own American Dream, which is one of the reasons for the law (i.e., greed in all it's manifestations).

===========================

Aside from some bigoted generalizations about employers, the above provides no factual evidence to support the contention that the minimum wage is good for America's youth.

Either you can support this or you cannot. Bashing businesses may be a fun pass-time but it is a stupid basis for sound policy.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | October 4, 2010 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Right Wing Nut Job says That More Money In The Hands Of Fat Cats Is Good.

And

Less Money Paid To Poor People Is Also Very Good.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 4, 2010 5:49 PM | Report abuse

skipsailing: I suspect anything I write would not answer your "questions." Have you ever experienced poverty? I suspect not, for if one has, one needs no explanation of the minimum wage issue. If you have been poor, and still do not understand, then you have forgotten what it is like. God bless you.

Posted by: dozas | October 4, 2010 8:11 PM | Report abuse

I just noticed this comment above, representative of liberal constitutional knowledge:

"How does Joe square Congressional authority to regulate commerce with them lacking the authority on child labor laws? That authority was granted by the Constitution."

The Constitution does not grant power to regulate "commerce" but "Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States . . .." See that "among"? That's why it is called the "interstate" commerce clause.

I'm pretty sure they did read the Constitution at YLS, but I gather you never have.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 4, 2010 11:04 PM | Report abuse

dozas:

An actual ANSWER to the questions would admit to the reality that even a well-intentioned "minimum wage" law has failed. Since you can't even name ONE "good" the law done for America's youth compared to the current unemployment rate among America's young, maybe it's time to acknowledge that businesses don't hire as much when there's a minimum wage forced on them. That's not good for anyone.

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 5, 2010 11:20 AM | Report abuse

We already have a place right here in the U.S. that by Tea Party standards comes very close to Heaven on Earth. That place is Mississippi. Just get rid of the Federal minimum wage and child labor laws and it could be perfect. Best of all you can move there right now and enjoy all the freedom and liberty God and the founding fathers have to offer!

Posted by: markswisshelm | October 6, 2010 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company