Supreme Court Ruling Sets Up Attack on Roe v. Wade

LifeNews.com ^ | January 25, 2010 | Steven Ertelt

[julieee]

Supreme Court Ruling Sets Up Attack on Roe v. Wade

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Supreme Court observers are focusing on an aspect of last Thursday's decision to overturn a national campaign finance reform law that shows the high court could establish a legal basis for overturning the Roe v. Wade decision that has resulted in 52 million abortions.

http://www.LifeNews.com/nat5921.html

[Tublecane]

“Supreme Court observers are focusing on an aspect of last Thursday’s decision to overturn a national campaign finance reform law that shows the high court could establish a legal basis for overturning the Roe v. Wade decision that has resulted in 52 million abortions.”

Why? Because it overturned a previous decision? As if we didn’t already know that was possible. Libs, of course, have been lately pretending they didn’t know, but they’re lying.

[Tublecane]

“While I think minimum wage laws are bad for the economy, I would not favor putting words in the mouths of the framers in order to get rid of them.”

One wouldn’t need to put words into their mouths to strike them down. The way the Constitution works is if there is no power granted to the federal government, then the federal government has no power. We don’t have to pretend there is a right to contract. All we have to do is point out, honestly, that the Constitution doesn’t mention regulation of wages.

Nothing, so far as I can see, gives the feds the power to set a minimum wage. Except the all-powerful Interstate Commerce excuse. And as we all know, that applies to everything under the sun. So I guess you win, libs. No one on our side has successfully argued against your interpretation of that clause for a century.

[Tublecane]

“The Roberts Court said stare decisis is not always sacrosanct.”

Angry Lib: Which is yet another lie from the hard right, who would have us barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen if barefootedness and pregnancy ever came before the court. What have they been drinking, anyway? It’s not as if Brown vs. Board of Education overturned Plessy v. Ferguson, or anything.

[Tublecane]

“We don’t have to pretend there is a right to contract”

Actually, there IS a right to contract. It’s called the Contract Clause (Article 1, section 10). Though it is ostensibly about preventing government from retroactively altering contracts. Which wouldn’t apply to the issue at hand, except insofar as those who already had agreed to a wage below the new minimum shouldn’t be automatically bumped up. This issue never comes up, of course, since the sort of contracts between minimum wage employees and their employers are not the kind that anyone bothers enforcing.

[AndyTheBear]

One wouldn’t need to put words into their mouths to strike them down.

The discussion at the point you jumped in was only in regard to state minimum wage laws. I was arguing that I didn't see how the Constitution mandated a federal court to stop such a state law.

At the beginning of the discussion I had stated that I could see how federal minimum wage laws were not constitutional, but saw state minimum wage laws as being a non-federal matter. The only relevant constitution being that of the paticular state.

[AndyTheBear]

Well dang...there it is:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

I guess there is a case to be made for not allowing states to have minimum wage...but presumably only in regard to an existing contract obligation.