31 January, 2009

Workplace Equality and the Commerce Clause

Posted by Socrates in business, Commerce Clause, federal power, Felix Frankfurter, jewed culture, jewed law, New Deal, Roosevelt, Socrates, Supreme Court at 10:34 pm | Permanent Link

It looks like more “equality” has come to the workplace. But how and why?

According to the U.S. government, almost all businesses are involved in “interstate commerce,” which means that the government can regulate them – for example, the government can dictate how much money employees are paid. Even if the businesses only sell goods locally, they are still involved in interstate commerce in some way, e.g., they might buy pencils from companies which are located out-of-state.

Today, according to the government, almost any action by a business is interstate commerce, even if goods aren’t actually moved from one state to another state.

The meaning of interstate commerce was redefined and expanded in the early 1940s by the U.S. Supreme Court through the Roosevelt administration [1]. The pointman for that redefinition and expansion was the Jewish, Supreme Court judge Felix Frankfurter, who was an adviser to Roosevelt even before he joined the Court [2]. Interstate commerce seems to have been a pet issue with Frankfurter – so much so that he edited/wrote two books on the subject (in 1915 and 1937) and he was getting interstate-commerce rules into federal law for Roosevelt as early as 1933, e.g., the Securities Act.

The redefining of the meaning of interstate commerce had an extremely negative impact on America by leaving many hiring, firing and wage decisions up to the government. Interstate commerce has also been used by the courts as an excuse to uphold civil-rights laws. It’s a one-size-fits-all tool for government regulation.

[Article].

More on interstate commerce: [Here].

[1] see United States v. Darby Lumber Co., February 1941, Kirschbaum v. Walling, June 1942 and Wickard v. Filburn, November 1942

[2] a mention of Felix Frankfurter as being “the central figure” in the effort to get the meaning of “commerce” redefined is found in the book “Law and Ecology” by Dr. Richard O. Brooks, et al, 2002


  • Similar posts:

    1. 05/22/07 The Federal Government Today 83% similar
    2. 02/06/09 Blacks and Workplace Testing 31% similar
    3. 03/02/09 South Dakota: ACLU Investigates Sioux Falls Fire Department 31% similar
    4. 05/28/09 The Sotomayor Nomination: More Glimpses of Jewish Activism — and a Warning to Republicans 30% similar
    5. 10/18/12 It’s the Democratic Way: Memorials to Lying Warmongers 29% similar
    6. 2 Responses to “Workplace Equality and the Commerce Clause”

      1. old_dutch Says:

        This Ledbetter decision should protect White males too. I don’t know why it wouldn’t?

        In general corporations/jews will stall past the six month, or whatever time limit in order to escape from paying the claim. Even those with union protection will get stalled by the offending corporation/and or their jews.

      2. Zarathustra Says:

        Women don’t always get paid the same as men do for the same job because women can take an extended paid maternity leave, which means the company is obligated to hire and train a temp to replace her. Women are also more likely to quit their position in order to stay at home and raise their kids, that sort of thing. Male employees don’t have these luxuries and are therefore expected to stick around and grow with a company, not get knocked up and leave or file costly sex-harassment lawsuits against their employers.

        OK, so I’m no Mr. Senstitive, like Mike Farrell.

      Leave a Reply

      You may use the following HTML tags in your comments.

      <a abbr acronym b blockquote cite code del em i q strike strong>