Also state vs federal have different abilities to regulate, states aren't bound by the constitutional limits in the Articles just the Bill of Rights and Amendments.
There isn’t a specific line in the Constitution that gives Congress the right to regulate employment. This power of Congress is implied by the powers that are explicitly written in the Constution.
There are 5 axioms of Euclidean Geometry. Those 5 simple axioms have a vast number of implications as evidenced by all the theorems in Euclidean Geometry. In the same way there are logical conclusions to the statements in the Constitution. It is settled law that Congress can regulate employment.
Obviously the vast majority of legal experts, lawmakers and those knowledgeable on the subject believe Congress has this authority. For instance, every time the minimum wage gets updated one argument against updating it you don't hear people make is that Congress doesn't have the authority to do this.
You are welcome to research the topic yourself. There are lots of books on the history of labor rights and labor struggles in the U.S. and the role courts have played in this.
But you might be right that the experts on this topic know less than you and that there is no justifiable implied power of Congress to regulate labor markets.
> Obviously the vast majority of legal experts, lawmakers and those knowledgeable on the subject believe Congress has this authority.
The same vast majority of legal experts, lawmakers, and those knowledgeable on the subject also believe:
That Congress can delegate legislative power to Executive Branch agencies, in spite of the explicit statement at the beginning of Article I that all legislative power shall be vested in Congress, as long as Congress gives an "intelligible principle" to guide the Executive branch agency (Hampton Co. v. United States);
That Congress can regulate a farmer growing wheat for his own use, that never leaves his property, under the Commerce Clause (Wickard v. Filburn);
That seizing private homes, evicting their owners, and turning the property over to a private developer is a "public use" under the meaning of the Fifth Amendment (Kelo v. New London).
Given the above (and those are just a few examples I thought of off the top of my head), I do not accept that what such a "vast majority" believe is a good guide to what the Constitution actually says.
That assumes that employment counts as "commerce", which, as another subthread elsewhere in this discussion will show you, is not an assumption that I think you can just help yourself to.
laws =/= amendments. Think of laws as "anything goes, as long as it doesn't go against the constitution". Which includes the process of how congress and the president sign off on a law. There's nothing in the constitution saying that the government can't enforce a minimum wage.
Now if you want a stronger law, or to override the constitution, you perform an even more involved process which includes ratification from 75% of the states. But this is extremely difficult, by design.
>Which one?
In this case, the US code for this is The Fair Labor Standards Act
Of 1938, last amended in 2011. But the amendment to this act that increases minimum wage was last amended in 2009.
Then why did you say "the entire amendment process" in response to my question?
> Think of laws as "anything goes, as long as it doesn't go against the constitution".
No, that's not how it works. The things Congress can legislate about are explicitly enumerated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Congress can't just pass any law it likes as long as it follows the process given in the Constitution.
> There's nothing in the constitution saying that the government can't enforce a minimum wage.
Again, this is backwards. I'm asking if there is anything in the Constitution that says Congress can enforce a minimum wage. If there isn't, Congress can't do it (unless the Constitution is amended to add that to the list of things Congress can legislate about).
> Now if you want a stronger law, or to override the constitution
There is no such thing as a "stronger law" or "to override the Constitution". The Constitution can be amended, which is what the more difficult process you describe does, but that doesn't "override" it or pass a "stronger law" in spite of it, it amends it.
>why did you say "the entire amendment process" in response to my question?
Because I'm not a lawyer and my main point was "yes, congress can control this stuff"
>The things Congress can legislate about are explicitly enumerated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitutio
I'm going to guess "setting minimum wage" isn't specifically enumerated in Article I, section 8. But yes, we have federal laws we revise overtime outlining that.
>I'm asking if there is anything in the Constitution that says Congress can enforce a minimum wage.
Probbaly not. But there are mechanisms on how congress can draft laws to enforce a minimum wage. Of course it can be challenged by the SCOTUS, but that's one hell of a hill to die on, even by 2024 standards.
It not adjusting for 15 years is pretty close. Sometimes apathy is the best malice.
>There is no such thing as a "stronger law" or "to override the Constitution". The Constitution can be amended
Did you want to talk about congress passing laws or argue pedantism against the spirit of HN? I'm not a lawyer so my language will not be precise as the centuries and thousands of pages of law talking about this.
My main point was that yes, congress can pass laws that regulate employment. No it doesn't need to be the 28th amendment to take effect. There's no point grilling me on the legalese because that is far outside my purview (and frankly, far outside the scope of a comment on Hacker News. I'm not drafting an entire book try and likely fail to convince someone who is simply prodding instead of giving their own opinions on the matter)
I think so and you think so but at a systemic level the only opinion that matters legally are the 9 people in robes at the Supreme Court at any point in time. And this current court is pretty dedicated to delivering on a decades long project to hamstring federal regulations of business and commerce.
