Are you worried about the economy? I know I am. Sure, some economists with whom I heavily disagree may claim that inflation has slowed recently. However, I can see with my own two eyes that prices are still up everywhere, meaning that inflation rates are still far too high. The current federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour, an absurdly high wage that has forced business owners to spend ridiculous amounts on paying employees. In effect, business owners have been forced to increase prices, causing inflation. In order to curb inflation, the obvious course of action is to lower the federal minimum wage, but how to do so? The answer is obvious. As this problematic minimum wage is the fault of a federal government that is so clearly out of touch with the economic turmoil of its people, I say that we abolish the federal government’s power over the minimum wage. I say that we abolish the Commerce Clause.
Abolishing the Commerce Clause would pluck power over the minimum wage out of the hands of the federal government, leaving it in the hands of the states. I do believe that in many states where the cost of living is low in comparison to others, the state legislatures will waste no time lowering the minimum wage. Making anything above $6.00 as a cashier at a grocery store in Wyoming is nonsense! I am confident that the good politicians of many of these states will share my philosophy. In the states where the simple acts of living may cost more, I make one simple proposal: do not live off of a minimum wage salary. I believe that more expensive states such as New York and California will see the sense in lowering their minimum wages. Although many may say that independents may not be able to make it on such low salaries, it is of my belief that most, if not all, minimum wage jobs are meant for adolescents. In other words, they are meant for dependents who can live off of the higher salaries of their parents. In many cases, a minimum wage job is simply meant to teach the basics of responsibility with money, it is not meant to support an adult in such states. Paying adolescents living off of the salaries of their parents to cause inflation is a disgrace to our country. It is unnecessary and illogical. This is basic fact that I trust wealthier states will agree with.
Also, eliminating the entire Commerce Clause would be beneficial to our nation. The clause states that the federal government has the right to “regulate commerce with foreign nations, among states, and with the Indian tribes.” Firstly, by abolishing the clause, the federal government would no longer be able to regulate any interstate economic activity. This change would be greatly beneficial to our country. In my opinion, and I expect in the opinion of others with sense, the word “commerce” is much too broad. Its lack of a clear definition opens opportunities for the federal government to impose tyrannical rule over the states. Anything can be “commerce” if Congress or the president says that it is. Even though many may argue that the Supreme Court would surely strike down any radical legislation that would escape the logical bounds of “commerce,” I would not be so quick to put so much trust into the hands of nine unpredictable individuals. Secondly, abolishing the clause would hinder the federal government from regulating anything regarding commerce among foreign nations and Indian tribes. I also believe that these are powers best left to the states. The federal government rarely speaks for all people of the United States. We are much better represented by our state governments. The federal government has to represent citizens from both South Dakota and Florida, Iowa and Oregon. It quite simply cannot express the economic needs of the North Dakotan in tangent with the economic needs of the Floridian to foreign nations or Indian tribes. When dealing with foreign entities, it is better to leave the varying economic needs of the states to the states.
Those who doubt my proposal may claim that there is one fundamental problem with it: Congress would never vote to eliminate the Commerce Clause. Why would they willingly eliminate their own power over the economy? I answer by stating that Congress does not have to vote on anything. In order to propose a Constitutional amendment, it is customary for both Houses of Congress to vote on the proposed amendment. In order for it to pass, two-thirds of each House must vote to approve the amendment. However, a Constitutional amendment can also be proposed by a vote from two-thirds of state legislatures. Then, the amendment must be ratified by three-fourths of state legislatures or elected state delegates. As stated before, I have no doubt that state legislatures will see the logic in abolishing the Commerce Clause and I am confident that the amendment would get both the two-thirds and three-fourths votes needed to pass. By having the states propose the amendment, Congress can be completely bypassed and the hesitance of the federal government to let go of power will become a nonissue.
It is obvious that inflation needs to be dealt with. It is obvious that the federal minimum wage is contributing to inflation. It is obvious that the federal minimum wage could be eliminated. So, it is now time to lobby your state politicians to call for a national convention and to eliminate this clause of economic turmoil.
