Hacker News Reader

Comment by duncan_bayne | Hacker News Reader

Yes, and yes.

If you don't think the ERISA is unconstitutional, then point to the relevant wording that you think gives the Federal Government the right to regulate employment agreements between private individuals.

View on HN

In the American system of government, the constitution isn't interpreted by random individuals voting on how they personally would read the text; it proceeds via caselaw and stare decisis. Since this particular issue was already litigated, ERISA is constitutional; since it was substantially litigated over 70 years ago (I'm not aware of any ERISA-specific controversy that wouldn't also apply to, say, the NLRB or Social Security), it's solidly constitutional.

Among the current Supreme Court, possibly only Thomas thinks otherwise; not even Scalia believes that, say, Social Security is unconstitutional. Of course, if you're a historian you can argue over what a historical court should've ruled, but that's pretty irrelevant to the Constitution as a functioning legal document.

What you describe is not the American system of government, nor the government as instituted by the constitution. The constitution is explicitly written such that every individual, "random" or not, is expected to enforce it. It is not a document that creates a government which is free to "interpret" it as is convenient to said government. The entire point of the revolution, and the extreme set of limitations put forth in the document was to prevent the government from having the power to interpret the document itself.

The constitution does not give the supreme court the power to amend it via ruling or "precedent". The methods for amending the constitution are laid out in the document itself.

Since the document does not give the federal government any power to regulate employment, these laws are unconstitutional. It doesn't matter what the supreme court says, as the supreme court is a group of political appointees beholden to the political establishment.

IF the constitution is not a functioning legal document, then then it has no power. If it is a functioning legal document, then all these unconstitutional laws are actually null and void (as ruled in Maybury v. Madison) and anyone enforcing them is committing a crime.

If it is your position that the existing government is not bound by the limitations of the constitution whenever it decides that it shouldn't be, then the government in question is not a constitutional government, and is, in fact, an occupying force with no legitimate authority. (not that the constitution was anything other than the result of an illegitimate coup in the first place, but for purposes of discussion, I'm granting that the constitution is legitimate.)

It might not be how it was intended to work but it seems much closer to how it works today than what you describe.

In practice the constitution in the US is interpreted by the elite, and a sufficiently dissenting view will earn you time in prison.

Absurdity. The Supreme Court does not amend the Constitution when it rules, it interprets it in order to establish whether legislation is in conflict with it, or which state should prevail in an interstate dispute, and so forth. It most certainly does matter what the Supreme Court says about such matters, because the judicial power of the United States is vested in it and extends to all cases arising under the Constitution.

Your view that the lack of any explicit mention of employment means that any federal laws regulating it are unconstitutional is widespread but self-contradictory. For one thing, employment is a fundamental part of commerce.

Read the Constitution; it doesn't grant the power to regulate all commerce, but a very specific subset:

"The Congress shall have Power....To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_State...]

How do private employment agreements fall into any of those categories?

'Among the several states,' has historically been interpreted very broadly, as you are doubtless well aware.

Yes, it has been; so broadly in fact as to render the constraint meaningless. Do you think that the Framers really intended such a broad meaning?

I think it is more likely that it has been intentionally broadened from its original scope in order that the Federal Government be able to exercise a wider range of powers than intended by the Framers.

I do not think that they intended such broad interpretations, any more than I think they anticipated industrial society. In regards to ERISA, it would be appropriate for us to also consider the intentions of those who passed the XVI amendment between ~1909 and 1913, which established the constitutionality of income tax, Congressional power to collect same (and set up agencies such as the IRS to this end), etc., and who had ample time to consider the relationship between this amendment and the rest of the Constitution by debating what sort of practical consequences might ensue.

While I don't always agree with the way the Supreme Court decides matters (and it has seen fit to reverse itself on more than one occasion), I like the system of using the court as the appropriate forum to try such questions, and of electing legislators and executives to develop or implement new rules where the existing ones turn out to be flawed. If you feel you have spotted a glaring flaw in the Court's reasoning, I urge you to write it up and circulate it as widely as possible.

How can you claim that the Framers were unaware of the possible consequences of industrialization when "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" was published in 1776?

Issues surrounding capitalism, the division of labor etc. were being actively discussed back then, and industrialization as we know it got started properly in 1789 thanks to the efforts of Sam Slater.

Besides which, the correct way to expand the powers of the Federal Government is by an amendment to the Constitution, not the liberal interpretation of existing clauses. The former is transparent & leaves room for public debate; the latter is the practice of political appointees who do not care for their expansion to be the subject of public scrutiny in advance.

Are you talking about ERISA, which was enacted in the 70s, or Social Security?

I am finding it difficult to believe that I have been downvoted into troll-town for suggesting that legislation enacted by the Federal Government of the United States over the course of the last 62 years might NOT be unconstitutional.

Some of which were contested and deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court (though not the one I mentioned as far as I am aware).

Are people downvoting me because they hold an honest belief that the Federal Government of The United States is an illegitimate illegal entity backed by a corrupt Supreme Court? Just curious.

Do you think the Federal Government has the power to regulate the content of any kind of contract between individuals?

Do you think the Federal Government should have the power to regulate the content of any kind of contract between individuals?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com