Obama to announce sick time is a "right"

[Forever_frost]

And also another government bill without constitutional authority

[YALE]

And also another government bill without constitutional authority

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Darby_Lumber_Co

[Forever_frost]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...arby_Lumber_Co

Right, and the SC ruled internment was constitutional. The Commerce clause was there to keep states from taxing each other. The Founders were very clear in their writings. Please, explain where the Commerce Clause, authorizes the federal government power over employment.

[YALE]

Right, and the SC ruled internment was constitutional. The Commerce clause was there to keep states from taxing each other. The Founders were very clear in their writings. Please, explain where the Commerce Clause, authorizes the federal government power over employment.

The SCOTUS decision (and it was unanimous, if you bothered to read it) I just linked is exactly what you're asking for.

[Pro88LX]

Let me try to get this right. If you're more valuable, you're treated as though you're more valuable? Is that right?

Congress ain't passing this shit.

well i mean the wigger working the drive through at braums needs his sick time yo!

[YALE]

well i mean the wigger working the drive through at braums needs his sick time yo!

Gotta get the day off and go get the a choppa!

[sc281]

Free shit, in our time!

[CJ]

My new company has sick time/vacation time that is off the charts. I worked in the trenches for so many years it blows my mind how the rest of the finance industry lives.

[Forever_frost]

The SCOTUS decision (and it was unanimous, if you bothered to read it) I just linked is exactly what you're asking for.

I read through a bit of it however they are bastardizing the Commerce Clause, just like they did in Wicker v Filburn. It doesn't pertain to this, it is to ensure states do not tax one another as the states were essentially independent nations doing business with each other. The clause is a clause, a part of a larger document that in no way authorizes this authority.

Again, please indicate to me where in that Clause it mentions wages.

[YALE]

I read through a bit of it however they are bastardizing the Commerce Clause, just like they did in Wicker v Filburn. It doesn't pertain to this, it is to ensure states do not tax one another as the states were essentially independent nations doing business with each other. The clause is a clause, a part of a larger document that in no way authorizes this authority.

Again, please indicate to me where in that Clause it mentions wages.

Show me in the Constitution where the SCOTUS is not allowed to decide cases in law and equity, between any combination of parties in the United States.

[Forever_frost]

Oh they can decide cases that are within their purview. Here's a quick list of things they can hear on:

Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.


Now please indicate the federal power over wages. I can tell you exactly where the states have authority over it if you like.

[YALE]

Oh they can decide cases that are within their purview. Here's a quick list of things they can hear on:

Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.


Now please indicate the federal power over wages. I can tell you exactly where the states have authority over it if you like.

Are you missing the parts that say "to all cases?" Are you missing the, "equity," and, "controversies," parts? That basically says they can hear anything, not just constitutional issues. That being said, they're not making anyone's arguments for them. They're issuing decisions based on the arguments presented in court.

[Forever_frost]

Are you missing the words after "all cases?" To all cases affecting ambassadors. To all cases of admirality. To controversies between states Between states and their citizens. Between citizens of different states and between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states or between foreign states and citizens.

Now, where do you find authority to rule on wages?

[YALE]

Are you missing the words after "all cases?" To all cases affecting ambassadors. To all cases of admirality. To controversies between states Between states and their citizens. Between citizens of different states and between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states or between foreign states and citizens.

Now, where do you find authority to rule on wages?

Fuck it. You're a legal genius. You should go straight to the SCOTUS, as lord supreme commander of the Supreme Court Navy. Carry on. Clearly only the original text matters, and no judicial decisions coming after matter.

[Forever_frost]

No, it'd be an issue if it was the citizens suing the state, wage disputes are not that. Especially when they concern businesses as the businesses are not the state unless you're dealing with the federal government, that is a 10th amendment issue. Now, if I have an issue with the State of Texas and them owing me money? Then yes. The Supreme Court has jurisdiction, otherwise they have no power, just like they had none in Wickard v Filburn.