Serious question: How on earth could anyone oppose a policy that would effectively give low-skilled workers (workers who barely make enough money to feed themselves, let alone a family), higher wages? After all, we live in difficult economic times, and it doesn’t seem wholly unreasonable that individuals working in low-skilled jobs should be entitled to a minimum, universally agreed upon standard of living. And indeed, as you might expect, this isn’t by any means an unpopular idea: According to a recent Gallup poll, almost all the Democrats -- and precisely half the Republicans -- surveyed would vote “for” a proposal...
AmericanLiberal Wrote: 2 minutes ago (11:46 PM) More stupid legalism, trumping principled moral and economic reasoning--at least in your mind. See you in the rearview mirror. And btw, do you think the contracts held by public workers are similarly sacred? Bottom line, Kevin, is that Americans have been misreading the Commerce Clause from day one. The Constitution was formed to regulate business on a centralized basis. That is pretty much the reason why the Articles were pitched and we have a federal republic. ------------ Commerce Clause was written to prevent states from imposing tariffs on other states. It had nothing to do with the federal government regulating the sale of goods and services even over state lines.
- Quotes of the day Allahpundit 4 hours ago
- Yep: MSNBC would react quite differently if Tea Partiers threw rocks at them Mary Katharine Ham 5 hours ago
- Finally: George W. Bush takes the ALS Ice Bucket challenge Allahpundit 6 hours ago
- WaPo/ABC poll: Majority approves of airstrikes in Iraq … Ed Morrissey 7 hours ago
- Report: Two times as many British Muslims fighting for ISIS as with U.K. armed forces Noah Rothman 7 hours ago
- All in: Red-state Democrat Mark Pryor launches rare pro-ObamaCare midterm ad Allahpundit 8 hours ago