[QuadsOverQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to say it does because subjectively I think that part of the constitution is FAR more important than the interstate commerce clause

[/ QUOTE ]

Constitutional law doesn't work that way.

You don't get to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution you like more and which ones you like less.

[ QUOTE ]
What happens if you run your business only in a certain state, shouldn't you then definitely be exempt from all labor laws?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are asking where federal regulatory authority (ICC) ends. Under Wickard v. Filburn, the reach of ICC authority is quite broad (anything impacting on interstate commerce is subject to federal ICC authority).

In the absence of federal regulatory power, then state regulatory power comes into play. This is a BIG point, because ACers also deny state-level regulatory authority (see Lochner, et al), although they usually dress up their pitches to avoid this question.

At a more fundamental level, what you are asking is this: how can you set up a business so that it is never, ever subject to American labor law? (no minimum wage, no regulation of work hours or conditions -- basically, setting up an American sweatshop system).

My quick answer is this: America moved beyond third world labor practices two generations ago. If that bothers you, feel free to go work in a sweatshop in Bangladesh for a few years. I suspect after that you'll see the wisdom in what your grandparents fought for in this country.


q/q