Unit 1 Current Events Post - The Minimum Wage Debate

http://www.chicagotribune.com/site/ct-minimum-wage-debate-biz-0202-20140202,0,7595101.story

The minimum wage debate has been a continuous topic of debate for years. President Obama is a supporter of raising the federal minimum wage to as much as $10.10 an hour from the current minimum wage of $7.25.  The arguments between supporters of the raising of minimum wage and the idea's opponents can mostly be related to federalism and the United States Constitution.

Some people may use Constitutional arguments to their advantage in this debate.  Many resort to the Elastic Clause, which is commonly referred to within debates involving the creation of new laws or standards.  The Elastic Clause is nicknamed the "necessary and proper" clause because it states that Congress has the power to make any laws that are necessary for the continued success of the country. A posing question is: Is the raising of the minimum wage in this country necessary for the betterment of the economy?
Another part of the Constitution that provides an argument for opponents is the tenth amendment, which basically states that any powers not delegated to the United States federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the states.  Many people may argue that since the Constitution does not explicitly outline its control over small or local businesses--the majority of what would be affected by a raise in federal minimum wage--this power should be a reserved power, meaning that the issue should be decided upon within the states.

The minimum wage debate is an example of implied preemption, which is a concept of federalism that states that if state law differs from federal law, federal law automatically takes precedence.  In the case of minimum wage, the higher wage takes effect.  For example, workers in Illinois earn a minimum wage of $8.25 as decided upon by the state; since their state's wage is higher than the federal rate of $7.25, they can use it above the federal wage.  However, states that believe in keeping a lower wage for workers would be forced by federal law to adjust their minimum wage according to the new law, due to the concept of implied preemption.

Small businesses believe, according to the article above, that "government shouldn't be weighing in on wages in the private sector."  This stance can be closely compared to that of the Anti-federalists of the late 1700s.  Small and local businesses are afraid to see the federal government taking too much control over what they believe is a personal issue.  They do not want to be held to a higher minimum wage under the force of the federal government.  This was the opinion of the Anti-federalists; they feared that the federal system would become much too controlling and would take away the individual rights of the states.  

The main question of the minimum wage debate, when relating it to United States federalism, is: When should the federal government draw the line when it comes to their encroachment of powers reserved to the states?  This question is not only asked today but was debated when Federalists and Anti-federalists fought over the future of American government.  Thus, the minimum wage debate rages on.