picture-556-1354627824.jpg

During Filibuster, Rand Paul Praises Supreme Court Decision Allowing Exploitation of Workers

In his 13-hour filibuster on Wednesday night, Rand Paul got one thing right - drone strikes on American citizens should not be allowed. However, as is often the case with our favorite curly-haired mad doctor, he simply can leave well enough alone. During his filibuster "defending" Americans he drifed off into a side argument he seems to find comfort in - arguing that employers should be able to ruthlessly exploit their workers.  

So while we agree with the fact that our government should not be able to kill its citizens with drone attacks without due process, we certainly do not agree with the Supreme Court decision of Lochner vs. New York.

In this horrible decision from 1905, a bakery owner sought to strike down a New York law that allowed bakeries to overwork bakers.  Unfortunately for Paul, the "right to contract" the case invented also appears nowhere in the Constitution:

Lochner fabricated a so-called right to contract in order to strike down a New York law preventing bakery owners from overworking bakers, but its rationale has implications for any law intended to shield workers from exploitation. In essence, Lochner established that any law that limits any contract between an employer and an employee is constitutionally suspect. If desperation forces someone to agree to work 18 hours a day, seven days a week, for a dollar a day in a factory filled with toxic air, then courts must treat that law with heavy skepticism. Not every workplace law was struck down during the so-called Lochner Era - the justices of that era sometimes valued sexism more than they valued exploiting workers, for example - but Lochner placed any law benefiting workers on constitutionally weak footing. Needless to say, the "right to contract" it invented appears nowhere in the Constitution.

Watch Paul's hypocrisy here:

That's right, Rand Paul thinks the Lochner case was "a wonderful decision." Let's take a look at the text of the ruling Paul admires so much:

The general right to make a contract in relation to his business is part of the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, and this includes the right to purchase and sell labor, except as controlled by the State in the legitimate exercise of its police power.

Liberty of contract relating to labor includes both parties to it; the one has as much right to purchase as the other to sell labor.

There is no reasonable ground, on the score of health, for interfering with the liberty of the person or the right of free contract, by determining the hours of labor, in the occupation of a baker. Nor can a law limiting such hours be justified a a health law to safeguard the public health, or the health of the individuals following that occupation.

Section 110 of the labor law of the State of New York, providing that no employes shall be required or permitted to work in bakeries more than sixty hours in a week, or ten hours a day, is not a legitimate exercise of the police power of the State, but an unreasonable, unnecessary and arbitrary interference with the right and liberty of the individual to contract in relation to labor, and, as such, it is in conflict with, and void under, the Federal Constitution.

As with everything with Paul, his view of the Constitution is tainted with hypocrisy. While his paranoid mind is so afraid of the federal government preying upon American citizens, he's not afraid of businesses preying on those same Americans  and making them work for nothing.

I am much more afraid of becoming a victim of greed from folks like Paul and his ilk than I am of getting hit by a missile from an Obama drone.

Go to KY State Page
Category: 
origin Blog: 
origin Author: 
Comments Count: 
0
Showing 0 comments