Text 1500, 70 rader
Skriven 2006-06-27 13:46:00 av BOB KLAHN (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av JOHN MASSEY
Ärende: prescription problems
=============================
 JM> "BOB KLAHN -> JOHN MASSEY" <1:123/140> wrote in message
 JM> news:17850$POL_INC@JamNNTPd...
 BK>> ..

 JM>>>>> Yes it does, and those purposes are listed in the U.S.
 JM> Constitution.
 JM>>>>> Protecting children is not one of those listed.

 DC>>>> I guess that invalidates all of the child Labor Laws...

 JM>>> Actually it should. The Federal government has no
 JM>>> Constitutional basis to interfere in the dealings between
 JM>>> an employer and employee.

 BK>>   The interstate commerce clause most certainly gives it that
 BK>>   basis.

 JM> Sorry but you are wrong.

 JM> Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States
 JM> Constitution, known as the Commerce Clause, empowers the
 JM> United States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign
 JM> Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian
 JM> Tribes."

 Yep. Among the several states, that's interstate commerce.
 **************************************************************************

Sect. 8. The Congress shall have power
 To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay
 the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare
 of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall
 be uniform throughout the United States.  To borrow money on the
 credit of the United States; To regulate commerce with foreign
 nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian
 tribes;

 **************************************************************************

 JM> Courts and commentators have tended to discuss each of
 JM> these three areas as a separate power granted to Congress.

 They may. Doesn't affect anything in particular.

 JM> It is therefore common to see references to the Foreign
 JM> Commerce Clause, the Interstate Commerce Clause, and the
 JM> Indian Commerce Clause, each of which refers to the power
 JM> granted to Congress in this section.

 Yup.

 JM> Not in there  anywhere is anything having to do with the
 JM> relationship between an employer and employee.

 Unfortunately for your theory, regulating commerce between the
 states is open enough to encompass setting uniform laws
 governing the conduct of businesses that trade between states.
 And that allows setting rules for employer/employee
 relationships.

 No where in the constitution do I see reference to an Air Force,
 doesn't stop the govt from having one.


BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... GN> If a tree fell on William Shatner, would you here the over acting?
 * Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)