Nope. Because Bernie's proposal is not regulating "commerce."
Gotta say, I'm a little surprised that you take such a narrow view of "commerce".
Corporations don't engage in commerce? Interesting.
eh... It doesn’t take much to imagination a public benefit to forcing companies to give a stake and a greater voice to employees.
Corporate revenues are their property and minimum wage laws step on those property rights, as do taxes and probably a number of other things I’m not thinking of.
Narrow? My view is the correct view. Commerce must be involved. Commerce is, after all, the subject matter. “Regulate” is also a qualifier. Let’s remember, the purpose of enumerating Congress’ powers was to limit the powers of the government. To have a government of limited powers, limited to those expressed in ink, requires adherence to the words and their meanings. Otherwise, governmental power isn’t limited.
Taxes are easily distinguishable as coming within Congress’ vested power to tax.
Minimum wage laws are different, as the government is requiring more income for labor performed.
Both of those are vastly different than the government dictating who must sit on the board of directors.
Both of those are also different than government mandating the allocation of partial ownership of its own company to certain people.
Barrabas??Yeah, Barrabas!
Bernie Sanders is the L. Ron Hubbard of politics, he enjoys tweaking followers of his commie claptrap.
Ignoring your Strawman, you invoked the word “commerce,” no doubt to reference Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce. But Bernie’s plan isn’t regulating any commerce, that’s the problem. Instead, Bernie is dictating who the company must provide its commerce to, that’s not regulating commerce.
Bernie just keeps bringing what the people want and that's why he will be our next president. Bernie 2020!!!!
Not sure what any of that has to do with this thread, other than the flaming and goading.That's comical.
Worker ownership is okay but, still it takes money to build businesses and to buy businesses unless of course they're trying to take over one that's going bankrupt and usually those don't work out well.
M-Bob
Not sure what any of that has to do with this thread, other than the flaming and goading.
No, it would be setting conditions on legal fictions who wish to participate in interstate commerce. As others pointed out, just like minimum wage laws.
Employing labor is a form of commerce. Most forms of commerce at this point could be argued to have some sort of interstate component to them. Granted, one could argue that the "interstate" aspect has been tortured at times in the past in order to justify federal intervention in what might otherwise be seen as a local matter, but I think that when businesses scale up to the size that I assume Bernie is talking about (i.e. large enough to have a board, if not publicly traded), they're well beyond acting solely on a local scale. At that size, I would imagine they fall under a number of other federal regulations (e.g. SEC) and, thus, the "interstate" ship has already sailed, so to speak.
Since labor is commerce and since large companies work on an interstate, if not global basis, establishing further rules regarding the relationship between employer and employee (e.g. stock/profit sharing & board representation) would seem to me to be well within the purview of the federal government.
Employing labor is a form of commerce
I think that when businesses scale up to the size that I assume Bernie is talking about (i.e. large enough to have a board, if not publicly traded), they're well beyond acting solely on a local scale. At that size, I would imagine they fall under a number of other federal regulations (e.g. SEC) and, thus, the "interstate" ship has already sailed, so to speak.
The word “commerce” in the Constitution does not have any meaning that would include the act of hiring someone to work. There is no court opinion in existence having ever taking such an expansive view. Your view would have shocked the framers to the point of revolting, as your view would undoubtedly mean regulation of purely interstate activity, having no relation or impact on interstate commerce, by virtue of the fact they hired people to work.
That view you espoused is untenable Constitutionally.
The front runner's name is Joe Biden, and that fact is so funny to me.Yeah but he's the front runner.
However, I'll withdraw the claim regarding employment since it's not necessary to make my primary case and I don't really wish to argue it further.
Instead, I'll shift the goalposts a bit and point out that regardless of whether or not the hiring of employees constitutes interstate commerce, the selling of the goods and services produced by the firms in question does constitute interstate commerce, as does the acquisition of supplies and resources necessary to facilitate that production. It seems to me that the logic laid out US v Darby would be rather applicable to Bernie's proposal and would contradict your assessment of it.
I disagree and I think that a solid case could be made that, given employee mobility and the far-reaching impacts of otherwise-local labor conditions, the mere act of hiring people could have sufficient impact on interstate commerce so as to fall under the purview of federal control.
Instead, I'll shift the goalposts a bit and point out that regardless of whether or not the hiring of employees constitutes interstate commerce, the selling of the goods and services produced by the firms in question does constitute interstate commerce, as does the acquisition of supplies and resources necessary to facilitate that production. It seems to me that the logic laid out US v Darby would be rather applicable to Bernie's proposal and would contradict your assessment of it.
Sure, this is possible by invoking any meaning to the words “commerce” and “regulate” that is necessary for reaching that outcome. But it strikes me as rather irrational to have a results oriented approach to the meaning of words such that one looks to the desired goal to be attained and then reconfigures the meaning of words to meet the goal.
U.S. v Darby concerned wages paid to laborers who made labored to manufacture goods to be shipped in interstate commerce, and Congress’ power to deny articles entering interstate commerce from an entity not in compliance with minimum wage law. The case has absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter of Bernie’s proposal.
So, you’ll have to do better. Specifically, you’ll need to begin by arguing how the facts of U.S v Darby relate enough to Bernie’s proposal as to justify Bernie’s proposal as regulating interstate commerce.
I guess it's a good thing, then, that that's not what I'm doing.
One of the issues addressed by the FLSA and Darby was "substandard labor conditions" and their impact on interstate commerce. That phrase is mentioned several times in the decision.
As far as I understand Bernie's proposal, he'd like to place requirements on how large corporations structure their boards, specifically as they accommodate representation of labor. He'd also like wages to include some sort of profit-sharing mechanism (via stock and dividends, as I understand it). It strikes me that Bernie is addressing other manifestations of what could be argued are substandard labor conditions, with respect to workers' voice (or lack thereof) in the direction of the company.
I guess it's a good thing, then, that that's not what I'm doing.
One of the issues addressed by the FLSA and Darby was "substandard labor conditions" and their impact on interstate commerce. That phrase is mentioned several times in the decision.
It strikes me that Bernie is addressing other manifestations of what could be argued are substandard labor conditions
That's the fake front runner.The front runner's name is Joe Biden, and that fact is so funny to me.
Sure, this is possible by invoking any meaning to the words “commerce” and “regulate” that is necessary for reaching that outcome. But it strikes me as rather irrational to have a results oriented approach to the meaning of words such that one looks to the desired goal to be attained and then reconfigures the meaning of words to meet the goal.
U.S. v Darby concerned wages paid to laborers who made labored to manufacture goods shipped in interstate commerce, and Congress’ power to deny articles entering interstate commerce from an entity not in compliance with minimum wage law. The case has absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter of Bernie’s proposal.
U.S. v Darby was a case concerning commerce, “logs,” involved “interstate” commerce as the logs were shipped between two or more states. The wages are in relation to labor, and the labor was for goods moved in interstate commerce. Wages are closely related to labor, and hence it makes sense to regulate them as they are paid for goods moved in interstate commerce. That’s not Bernie’s proposal. Bernie’s proposal requires a company to divest partial ownership to its employees and appoint some number of seats for board of directors to its employees. Bernie isn’t dealing with wages paid for labor to make goods moved in interstate commerce.
The fact the company is involved in interstate commerce does not give the federal government broad authority to dictate to companies how it may divest it’s private peppery, divest it’s ownership, or who may sit on its board of directors.
So, you’ll have to do better. Specifically, you’ll need to begin by arguing how the facts of U.S v Darby relate enough to Bernie’s proposal as to justify Bernie’s proposal as regulating interstate commerce.
And I think you are kidding yourself. I understand why you feel that Darby shouldn't be stretched to include things like requiring employee ownership or the makeup of company management. At the same time, particularly in view of previous "stretching" of the definition of commerce by the Supreme Court -- such as Darby -- it isn't hard to see how the Supreme Court could once again stretch it to include these items.
I'd argue that is something the Supreme Court has done on numerous occasions -- they decide what they want commerce to mean to fit their decisions. We already have US v Darby, where they push the definition to include worker wages there is Gonzales v. Raich, where they stretch the definition to include a private citizen growing marijuana for personal use (not selling/participating in "commerce" in a more traditional definition); etc.
And I think you are kidding yourself.
At the same time, particularly in view of previous "stretching" of the definition of commerce by the Supreme Court -- such as Darby -- it isn't hard to see how the Supreme Court could once again stretch it to include these items
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?