Posted on 03/22/2010 7:23:47 AM PDT by indianyogi
Someone asked a question: if government can set the mandated minimum wage, why can't they require us to buy health insurance?
Freepers thoughts!
An individual mandate is equivalent to a head tax—a tax imposed on every legal resident regardless of whether they are working, own property etc. A minimum wage applies only to those who are working and is “binding”—i.e., has a practical effect on what you get paid—only for a very small fraction of workers.
So both are infringements on liberty, but the individual mandate affects virtually everyone whereas the minimum wage affects many fewer.
It’s about damn time we get BACK to a more CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW of the USA... otherwise.. we’re now the USSA instead.
**When the the Liberals cry “You have no right to force us to buy that!”, the response would be, “Well you had no right to force us to buy health insurance, but you did it anyway.**
That’s the most Common Sense Idea I’ve heard in months... however.. it will never cross the mind of the Republicans.
SS & Medicare are taxes, government rhetoric notwithstanding. Healthcare reform is making US citizens purchase a private product at prevailing prices.
Indianyogi might have a point that the Federal Minimum Wage is the closest comparison to the Healthcare mandate.
I am not forced (at the point of a gun) to pay anyone a wage. I still have a free choice in the matter. (Key word: FREE)
After that little tiff following the State of the Union address I wonder if a majority of the Supreme Court will have the stones to overturn Healthcare Reform. They looked pretty spooked.
Short answer: you decide whether to employ someone.
MINIMUM WAGE, MAXIMUM FOLLY
A MINORITY VIEW
BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, MARCH 23, 2005, AND THEREAFTER
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew//articles/05/wage.html
Also, minimum wage is state legislation not Federal legislation
Here's where the Federal law on Minimum Wage applies to the states... you see... :-)
By law, states are allowed to establish their own minimum wages and regulations. However, anytime the state minimum wage differs from the federal minimum wage, the higher rate applies.
The “miniumum wage” is not Constitutional either.
I love these arguments where "it is said" something is not Constitutional, and where "It has been done for decades" and it's never been declared Unconstitutional... LOL ...
I knew I was going to get sniped on that, but here is the deal. States set there own minimum wage laws. It is like the speed limit in that sense.
[ ... Feds to States: "You can set whatever minimum wage you want as long as it's equal to what we say, or more." ...]
Pray that no conservatives retire from the court!
I don’t defend minimum wage laws, so don’t get me wrong. I blame minimum wage law for the devaluation of the dollar. Also, If Obamacare is defeated in the Supreme Court laws like the minimum wage laws can be revisited in light of stronger court precedence. The point I have been trying to make is that Obamacare is different because prior overreaches by the Federal Government have been connected to Federal funding, like Highway funds. Obamacare completely ignores the authority of the states.
You must get to laugh a lot...
Anyway, if I may interrupt your laughter for just a moment, I would like to point out that even though something has been "done for decades" or "has not been declared unconstitutional" is completely irrelevant to whether or not the law or activity in question is, in fact, unconstitutional or not. Case law is replete with examples of behaviors, policies, and laws that were practiced uninterruptedly and without constitutional question - then were found to be unconstitutional. More to the point is the fact that over the years the Constitution has been systematically trashed and shredded by Congress, the Executive, and the Courts.
You may find it laughable, but there is a serious movement in the United States today calling for restoration of the Constitution as Law, not a suggestion book.
Since you find it funny that anyone might think that a federal minimum wage law is unconstitutional, why don't you go ahead and try to find exactly where in the Constitution such a power to interfere with private contract is granted to the Federal Government.
You must get to laugh a lot...
On Free Republic... just about every day... :-)
Anyway, if I may interrupt your laughter for just a moment, I would like to point out that even though something has been "done for decades" or "has not been declared unconstitutional" is completely irrelevant to whether or not the law or activity in question is, in fact, unconstitutional or not. Case law is replete with examples of behaviors, policies, and laws that were practiced uninterruptedly and without constitutional question - then were found to be unconstitutional.
The only problem with "that" (what you just said) and your statement that something is Unconstitutional -- is -- that you don't have the court saying it in this case.
All you're saying here is that just because some things are declared "Unconstitutional" -- that means if "I say it's unconstitutional" -- then "it is" ... doncha know... LOL ...
As I said, I get to laugh a lot on Free Republic... :-)
You may find it laughable, but there is a serious movement in the United States today calling for restoration of the Constitution as Law, not a suggestion book.
Again, the problem is that just because you say it's Unconstitutional, doesn't make it so.
In fact, I would argue the opposite, in that since the practice has been going on for decade after decade (in other words, my entire life, and I'm old... :-) ..., as I was not born in 1938 ...) shows that the Supreme Court is not going to be declaring the Federal Minimum Wage -- Unconstitutional.
Since you find it funny that anyone might think that a federal minimum wage law is unconstitutional, why don't you go ahead and try to find exactly where in the Constitution such a power to interfere with private contract is granted to the Federal Government.
I do think it's pretty funny, in that it's been in existence since 1938 and you think it's Unconstitutional... LOL ...
I wouldn’t be holding my breath for the Supreme Court to declare it Unconstitutional... and I’m talking about the Federal Minimum Wage... :-)
Court decisions do not decide what is unconstitutional and what is not. Something is unconstitutional or it is not and the Court confirms it.
If the Court were to note that the Federal government is unconstitutionally setting wages for private transactions, such interference with contract does not become unconstitutional from that point forward: such a practice was ALWAYS unconstitutional.
And if the Court were to note that such private interference with contract rights at the Federal level was NOT unconstitutional, well then, they would be in error, and not for the first time, either, and such a ruling would and ought to be overturned at some time when the Court were either less corrupt or more intellectually rigorous.
Court decisions do not decide what is unconstitutional and what is not. Something is unconstitutional or it is not and the Court confirms it.
They confirm or deny it... either way.
And they certainly do determine exactly what is Constitutional and what is not, by how they interpret what the words mean. It happens all the time.
You get two sides that disagree on what the Constitution means when it says something in very specific words, and the Supreme Court comes in there and makes a decision and sometimes it can be for one side or the other side, or even say something that neither side envisioned.
Again, it happens all the time.
That's exactly what happens, in practice (i.e., in "real life") with the Supreme Court and the Constitution.
NOW..., if the people of the United States decide, themselves, that they don't like what the Supreme Court said and they disagree with it and think that the Constitution actually meant something different than what it was interpreted to mean in some court decision that they gave -- then -- the people can propose a Constitutional Amendment, which can be worded in such a way as to give the "proper interpretation" to the Constitution, and then they essentially "override" the Supreme Court decision -- if -- the Constitutional Amendment gets passed.
That's the way it works in real life.
The Supreme Court is the final word on the legal matter in regards to the Constitution and then the people of the United States can amend the Constitution, if they don't like the Supreme Court decision (or disagree with it).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.