• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

McJobs and the Minimum Wage[W:123,226]

blacks were property and not considered people.

Not everywhere. Here in my home state of NY I am pretty sure slavery was all but gone by the time 1776 rolled around. The British had taken over NYC and they offered all the blacks freedom in return for fighting for the crown. By 1812 (Second revolutionary war), I am pretty sure there were zero slaves in NY because by then any child born in NY was born free irrespective of race.

Of course NY is ahead of the curve because we are the greatest State in America!!! ;-)
 
can the government make a law, which takes away a right of all of the people.........no!

can the government make a law which takes away a right of a person, who has violated the law...yes.
Again, non sequitur, what law had blacks violated that denied their citizenship?

Can you please limit your comments to content of the quote?
 
Not everywhere. Here in my home state of NY I am pretty sure slavery was all but gone by the time 1776 rolled around. The British had taken over NYC and they offered all the blacks freedom in return for fighting for the crown. By 1812 (Second revolutionary war), I am pretty sure there were zero slaves in NY because by then any child born in NY was born free irrespective of race.

Of course NY is ahead of the curve because we are the greatest State in America!!! ;-)
African Americans' participation as soldiers in defending the state during the War of 1812 added to public support for their full rights to freedom. In 1817, the state freed all slaves born before July 4, 1799 (the date of the gradual abolition law), to be effective in 1827. It continued with the indenture of children born to slave mothers until their 20s, as noted above.[5] On July 4, 1827, the African-American community celebrated final emancipation with a long parade through New York City.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_New_York
 
The chip manufacturing industry produces a lot of toxic waste. These industries were deemed to be not wanted in the US. Even Jobs told the President he wouldn't/couldn't move many of his jobs back to the US due to the regulatory environment. When it becomes more important not to have particular industries in the country, there will be fewer jobs in those industries...
Wrong, like all manufacturers their largest costs are labor. It was labor cost differential that attracted businesses to Malaysia/SEA for IC fab.
 
Either this is a semantic game, or you just do not understand constitutional rights. You do not have unrestricted protected speech.

you dont have constitutional rights, ...rights are not given to you by the constitution, you will not find the word ......grant or give,

the bill of rights is a limitation placed on government not to violate the natural rights of the people.

again can the right itself, be limited of abolished by government for the people as a whole..........no...rights are unalienable.

can the government make a law which restrict your right, if you commit a crime, or on someone property, .yes!...then it can be restricted then.

but again..... the government cannot just decide to make a law, which applies to every citizen, to take away a right .




No, that is not the meaning, Their...OUR speech has constitution protected limits.

you dont have unlimited speech anywhere, .....you cant say what you want on others property.......but the government cannot place a restriction on the speech of every citizen becuase they want to...thats unconstitutional





Meaning that you don't have unlimited protected speech under our constitution.

i have stated this before, you as a person dont have unlimited speech everywhere, ...but again, the people have a right to free speech, and the government cannot make laws to abolish that right of the people.........this is what i mean, by the .....RIGHT ITSELF

example: when i am in the DMV, i dont have unlimited speech, however when i on the street, and people are not bound to what i have to say, becuase they have the power to walk away, i have free speech, and i have it on my own property.
 
Not everywhere. Here in my home state of NY I am pretty sure slavery was all but gone by the time 1776 rolled around. The British had taken over NYC and they offered all the blacks freedom in return for fighting for the crown. By 1812 (Second revolutionary war), I am pretty sure there were zero slaves in NY because by then any child born in NY was born free irrespective of race.

Of course NY is ahead of the curve because we are the greatest State in America!!! ;-)


iam talking about the slaves , they were not considered people , they were property......property do not have rights.

only 3 states wanted slavery during the time of 1776
 
Are you thinking we no longer make TWT's and Magnetrons, televisions, cell phones, etc. because of a toxic waste issue? I believe it is offshore now merely because labor in the third world is dirt cheap. And it would have been less expensive to solve the pollution problem and keep jobs in USA than to send these jobs overseas. When we made our own chips (UTC owned Mostek back then) for classified systems, the fines for disposing of the waste were not really eating into profits that much.

I spent almost 11 years working on synthetic aperture radar and nuclear launch control systems before I went purely into software for a much bigger payday. You cannot begin to imagine the information we shared with Western Europe manufacturers, Canada, and through lack of reverse engineering protections USSR and China too. ;-(

In many hi-tech industries labor is a relatively small component of manufacturing. Hell, back in the day when I worked in a labor intensive industry, direct labor was only 15% of product cost. The vast majority went towards materials and energy...
 
you dont have constitutional rights, ...rights are not given to you by the constitution, you will not find the word ......grant or give,

the bill of rights is a limitation placed on government not to violate the natural rights of the people.

again can the right itself, be limited of abolished by government for the people as a whole..........no...rights are unalienable.

can the government make a law which restrict your right, if you commit a crime, or on someone property, .yes!...then it can be restricted then.

but again..... the government cannot just decide to make a law, which applies to every citizen, to take away a right .
More non-sequiturs, you have rights that our laws, the constitution, will protect.

You want to get into a debate about absolute rights...but not all that you can think of are constitutionally protected. You just refuse to limit you comments to the CONTEXT.






you dont have unlimited speech anywhere, .....you cant say what you what on others property.......but the government cannot place a restriction on the speech of every citizen becuase they want to...thats unconstitutional
You are still playing a semantic game, it is not a matter of where you say a thing, it is a matter if it is protected by our laws.







i have stated this before, you as a person dont have unlimited speech everywhere, ...but again, the people have a right to free speech, and the government cannot make laws yo abolish that right of the people.........this is what i n=mean, by the .....RIGHT ITSELF

example: when i am int he dmv, i dont have unlimited speech, however when i on the street, and people are not bound to what i have to say, becuase they have the power to walk away, i have free speech, and i have it on my own property.
Your ideas on protected speech are as scrambled as your views on history and your grammar.

This has gone beyond usefulness. Min wages are constitutional.
 
In many hi-tech industries labor is a relatively small component of manufacturing. Hell, back in the day when I worked in a labor intensive industry, direct labor was only 15% of product cost. The vast majority went towards materials and energy...
LOL....well, that isn't much of a defense that enviro regs are the cause!

LOL
 
What are you basing this on? I already showed the wage level changes (varying in real terms) did not affect UE levels.

So what do you think the supply/ demand curve for labor looks like? A flat line?
 
More non-sequiturs, you have rights that our laws, the constitution, will protect.

You want to get into a debate about absolute rights...but not all that you can think of are constitutionally protected. You just refuse to limit you comments to the CONTEXT.

the Constitution gives you no rights..........read the bill of rights itself, and it tells you its a limitation on government.

a limitation that the government cannot make any laws, concerning the rights of the people as a whole.

right are an absolute, when it comes to the right itself as a whole for the people...becuase its unalienable.

i will debate you any time

You are still playing a semantic game, it is not a matter of where you say a thing, it is a matter if it is protected by our laws.

i can say what i like on my property, but i cannot say what i like on others property.

i can say what i like on public property, if you are not a captive audience. and have the ability to walk away.

speech is not measured by government wherever i am.

Your ideas on protected speech are as scrambled as your views on history and your grammar.

This has gone beyond usefulness. Min wages are constitutional.

sorry but you wrong in your assessment of things, and dont know constitional law .
 
So what do you think the supply/ demand curve for labor looks like? A flat line?
It is nearly so for white youth unemployment since 1972, inspite of changes in wages. The biggest changes happened as a result of recessions.....as I already showed......which you don't seem to want to look at....but then I understand why that would be.
 
still waiting on your refutation
he cited the supreme court opinion
show us why it should not be found valid

The decision was correctly made in 1923

Adkins v. Children's Hospital (1923)
In Adkins v. Children's Hospital (1923), the Supreme Court ruled that a minimum wage law for women violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment because it abridged a citizen's right to freely contract labor. In 1918, the District of Columbia passed a law setting a minimum wage for women and children laborers. It set up a board to investigate current wages, solicit input on ideal wage levels, and ultimately set minimum wages. The law was designed to protect women and children "from conditions detrimental to their health and morals, resulting from wages which are inadequate to maintain decent standards of living." The board eventually set minimum wages for various industries, e.g., a minimum $16.50 per week "in a place where food is served" and $15 per week "in a laundry." The Children's Hospital of the District of Columbia, which employed many women at wages below those established by the board, sued the board on the grounds that its regulations violated liberty of contract as defined in Lochner v. New York (1905). The case reached the Supreme Court on appeal in 1923.

In a 5-3 decision written by Justice George Sutherland, the Court struck down the minimum wage law as unconstitutional, arguing that it violated the Due Process Clause of the Constitution's Fifth Amendment. The Court cited Lochner v. New York (1905) in maintaining that the clause gives citizens equal rights "to obtain from each other the best terms they can as the result of private bargaining." According to Justice Sutherland, the D. C. minimum wage law, by contrast, was "an arbitrary interference with the liberty of contract which no government can legally justify in a free land." The law was especially "arbitrary," argued the Court, because it imposed uniform minimum wages on all women regardless of their individual needs or occupations.

The Court also took issue with the provisions of the law which gave special protection to women over men. The Court claimed that, as of 1923, the civil inferiority of women in American society was at a "vanishing point," citing the recent passage of the Nineteenth Amendment, which extended the right to vote to women, as an example of their newfound equality in American culture. Special workplace protections for women were thus unnecessary because women could protect their own interests through the political process and equal bargaining power.

Nothing easier than arguing against a USSC opinion all ya gotta do is copy and paste the dissenting opinion (s) or the decision that was overturned.
 
Again, non sequitur, what law had blacks violated that denied their citizenship?

Can you please limit your comments to content of the quote?

slaves did not never have citizenship ......they were property and no considered people........why is this hard for you to understand.

property do not have rights,......geesh
 
the Constitution gives you no rights.
Non sequitur, I said you have some rights protected by the constitution.





i can say what i like on my property, but i cannot say what i like on others property.

i can say what i like on public property, if you are not a captive audience. and have the ability to walk away.

speech is not measured by government wherever i am.
You can say whatever you like where ever you want, it doesn't mean your speech is protected.



sorry but you wrong in your assessment of things, and dont know constitional law .
Well this is funny coming from someone who would not acknowledge Dred or the '37 finding on min wages......while claiming slavery was not supported by the constitution or that min wage is not.
 
The decision was correctly made in 1923

Adkins v. Children's Hospital (1923)


Nothing easier than arguing against a USSC opinion all ya gotta do is copy and paste the dissenting opinion (s) or the decision that was overturned.
West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, sensibly as it reads today, was a radical and controversial departure in 1937. The decision directly overturned the landmark decision Adkins v. Children's Hospital (1923), which ruled that laws fixing terms of employment contracts violated the Due Process Clause because the clause protects a substantive right to freely contract labor ("substantive" due process). Although the Court's sudden rejection of "substantive" due process has sometimes been attributed to political pressures, because the decision was issued right after President Franklin Roosevelt proposed a "court-packing scheme" that would have added "anti-Lochner" justices to the Court to protect New Deal legislation, the Court actually voted on the case prior to Roosevelt's announcement of his proposal. The exact chronology of events aside, historians debate whether and to what degree the day's political climate affected Justice Josephus Roberts' unexpected switch -- sometimes referred to as "the switch in time that saved nine" -- to the pro-New Deal wing of the Court. West Coast Hotel's position on economic regulations remains settled law today.
 
It is nearly so for white youth unemployment since 1972, inspite of changes in wages. The biggest changes happened as a result of recessions.....as I already showed......which you don't seem to want to look at....but then I understand why that would be.

So you believe the supply/ demand curve for labor is flat? Yes or no?
 
Non sequitur, I said you have some rights protected by the constitution.

what are some?

You can say whatever you like where ever you want, it doesn't mean your speech is protected.

can the government abolished all free speech?



Well this is funny coming from someone who would not acknowledge Dred or the '37 finding on min wages......while claiming slavery was not supported by the constitution or that min wage is not.

where is slavery in the constitution ...no where, the constitution abolishes the importation of slaves by 1808...it does not promote slavery at all.

where are wages in the constitution?
 
slaves did not never have citizenship ......they were property and no considered people........why is this hard for you to understand.

property do not have rights,......geesh
Of course.....they were not men....apparently.
 
what are some?
Um, less than all.



can the government abolished all free speech?
Non-sequitur.





where is slavery in the constitution ...no where, the constitution abolishes the importation of slaves by 1808...it does not promote slavery at all.
And you still cannot acknowledge the previous findings of Dred.

Wash rinse repeat.

where are wages in the constitution?
And we are back to you ignoring West Coast Hotel v. Parrish.

Wash rinse repeat.
 
West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, sensibly as it reads today, was a radical and controversial departure in 1937. The decision directly overturned the landmark decision Adkins v. Children's Hospital (1923), which ruled that laws fixing terms of employment contracts violated the Due Process Clause because the clause protects a substantive right to freely contract labor ("substantive" due process). Although the Court's sudden rejection of "substantive" due process has sometimes been attributed to political pressures, because the decision was issued right after President Franklin Roosevelt proposed a "court-packing scheme" that would have added "anti-Lochner" justices to the Court to protect New Deal legislation, the Court actually voted on the case prior to Roosevelt's announcement of his proposal. The exact chronology of events aside, historians debate whether and to what degree the day's political climate affected Justice Josephus Roberts' unexpected switch -- sometimes referred to as "the switch in time that saved nine" -- to the pro-New Deal wing of the Court. West Coast Hotel's position on economic regulations remains settled law today.

Yes, a radical departure. A terrible ruling.
 
james madison 1800--When the Constitution was under the discussions which preceded its ratification, it is well known that great apprehensions were expressed by many, lest the omission of some positive exception, from the powers delegated, of certain rights, and of the freedom of the press particularly, might expose them to the danger of being drawn, by construction, within some of the powers vested in Congress, more especially of the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying their other powers into execution. In reply to this objection, it was invariably urged to be a fundamental and characteristic principle of the Constitution, that all powers not given by it were reserved; that no powers were given beyond those enumerated in the Constitution, and such as were fairly incident to them: that the power over the rights in question, and particularly over the press, was neither among the enumerated powers, nor incident to any of them; and consequently that an exercise of any such power would be manifest usurpation. It is painful to remark how much the arguments now employed in behalf of the Sedition Act are at variance with the reasoning which then justified the Constitution, and invited its ratification.

In pursuance of the wishes thus expressed, the first Congress that assembled under the Constitution proposed certain amendments, which have since, by the necessary ratifications, been made a part of it; among which amendments is the article containing, among other prohibitions on the Congress, an express declaration that they should make no law abridging the freedom of the press.

Without tracing farther the evidence on this subject, it would seem scarcely possible to doubt that no power whatever over the press was supposed to be delegated by the Constitution, as it originally stood, and that the amendment was intended as a positive and absolute reservation of it.

But the evidence is still stronger. The proposition of amendments made by Congress is introduced in the following terms:

"The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstructions or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added; and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institutions."

Here is the most satisfactory and authentic proof that the several amendments proposed were to be considered as either declaratory or restrictive, and, whether the one or the other as corresponding with the desire expressed by a number of the States, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government.

Under any other construction of the amendment relating to the press, than that it declared the press to be wholly exempt from the power of Congress, the amendment could neither be said to correspond with the desire expressed by a number of the States, nor be calculated to extend the ground of public confidence in the Government.

Nay, more; the construction employed to justify the Sedition Act would exhibit a phenomenon without a parallel in the political world. It would exhibit a number of respectable States, as denying, first, that any power over the press was delegated by the Constitution; as proposing, next, that an amendment to it should explicitly declare that no such power was delegated; and, finally, as concurring in an amendment actually recognising or delegating such a power.

Is, then, the Federal Government, it will be asked, destitute of every authority for restraining the licentiousness of the press, and for shielding itself against the libellous attacks which may be made on those who administer it?

The Constitution alone can answer this question. If no such power be expressly delegated, and if it be not both necessary and proper to carry into execution an express power--above all, if it be expressly forbidden, by a declaratory amendment to the Constitution--the answer must be, that the Federal Government is destitute of all such authority.


"That this State having, by its Convention, which ratified the Federal Constitution, expressly declared that, among other essential rights, 'the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by any authority of the United States;' and, from its extreme anxiety to guard these rights from every possible attack of sophistry and ambition, having, with other States, recommended an amendment for that purpose, which amendment was in due time annexed to the Constitution, it would mark a reproachful inconsistency, and criminal degeneracy, if an indifference were now shown to the most palpable violation of one of the rights thus declared and secured, and to the establishment of a precedent which may be fatal to the other."

To place this Resolution in its just light, it will be necessary to recur to the act of ratification by Virginia, which stands in the ensuing form:

"We, the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared, as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon--DO, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression; and that every power not granted thereby remains with them, and at their will. That, therefore, no right of any denomination can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives, acting in any capacity, by the President, or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes; and that, among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by any authority of the United States."

Here is an express and solemn declaration by the Convention of the State, that they ratified the Constitution in the sense that no right of any denomination can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by the Government of the United States, or any part of it, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution; and in the sense, particularly, "that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and freedom of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by any authority of the United States."

Words could not well express in a fuller or more forcible manner the understanding of the Convention, that the liberty of conscience and the freedom of the press were equally and completely exempted from all authority whatever of the United States.

Amendment I (Speech and Press): James Madison, Report on the Virginia Resolutions
 
Back
Top Bottom