Congress On Verge Of Unconstitutional Minimum Wage Hike

J.J. Jackson* | July 28, 2006

Go ahead, prove me wrong when I say the “minimum wage” is unconstitutional!

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - House Republicans worried about their political fate inched toward a vote on Thursday to raise the federal minimum wage for the first time in a decade, but Democrats called it an empty gesture.

I’ve been searching for someone for YEARS to make a case that somewhere in the powers of Congress (Article I, Section 8 ) the power to set wages exists.

I know most of America is Constitutionally illiterate and/or want such over reaching socialist legislation. But I’ll give you the proper Article anyway to make those of you that want this law and don’t want to admit your inherently unconstitutional desires face the truth:

Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marquee and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;–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.

That’s ALL that Congress has the power to do! See anything about setting wages in there? No, you don’t.

And in case you are thinking about the “general Welfare” argument, lest I remind you that in arguing for the Constitution James Madison wrote on the subject

what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter. - Federalist 41

So make the case for the fedderal “minimum wage” as not a violation of the Constitution if you like.

What we have here is liberal, big government, nanny state, anti-capitalist (i.e. socialist/communist) Democrats and liberal, big government, nanny state, anti-capitalist (i.e. socialist/communist) Republicans mistakenly refereed to as “moderates” trying to violate the Constitution.

And I have no doubt that an ignorant American public will let them get away with it too.

And I?ll go even further. Since this act is CLEARLY unconstitutional, every last one of you supporting it are supporting violating the law, desiring and illegal act be committed and are, by the very definition of the term, un-American.

Sleep tight knowing that you are only slightly better than traitors to America.

Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws

(Book)

Authors:Andrew P. Napolitano
Manufacturer:Nelson Current
Released:07 February, 2006

Contributor's website: http://www.libertyreborn.com

Similar posts:

*Content posted by a user may not be completely written by that user. Content from another source is cited in either block quotes, with quotes or with a link to the original material. Content from other sites is posted for commentary and news purposes under fair use. Each user is responsible for their own postings and a particular posting should not be construed as being endorsed by this site or it's owner.