On some level, we just have conflicting legal and moral philosophies. For example, I do not think the federal minimum wage is constitutional, even if the Supreme Court ruled it to be (contradicting an earlier court ruling, as you pointed out). I have the view that the Constitution is the law, and any power not expressly granted the federal government in the Constitution is a power it does not have. Laws passed by Congress do not override the Constitution — Congress cannot, for example, make a law abridging your right to free speech (at least not constitutionally — the Constitution is disobeyed by our legislators and presidents routinely, though).

Secondly, I just don’t agree with the impact abolishing minimum wages would have. I think people’s problem is not how much they earn OR how much they spend — but how much regulation and bearacracy get in the way of economic growth. It is impossible for anyone to “take advantage” of someone else without using force or fraud. The government’s legitimate role is in regulating force and fraud, but not regulating mutually agreed-upon wages. There are people today who would work for $5 an hour and there are people who could afford to pay them that, but no more. Why should these people not be allowed to work? If, instead or receiving welfare (or worse yet, NOT receiving welfare), the person were allowed to work for $5 an hour, he/she would have that much more to contribute to the economy, etc., eventually (in short time) resulting in higher wages for everyone. Furthermore, with the less expensive labor creating more goods and services, prices would also decline, allowing people to stretch their dollars further.

I’m just trying to make sure you understand my point. I understand where you are coming from, and I used to agree at one point… But now I disagree. Thanks again for the response!