The Daily Caller

The Daily Caller

Why the Paycheck Fairness Act is unconstitutional

Photo of Mike Church
Mike Church
Host, The Mike Church Show

Third time’s the charm goes the old adage, or in the case of the Paycheck Fairness Act, perhaps the third time will spare us the embarrassment of a fourth time. Our Dear Leader is determined to spend spring demagoguing the two-time-loser into yet another signing ceremony that shreds the Constitution. His Democrat accomplices in the U.S. Senate, last seen as the victims of a CIA spy caper gone bad, want to join the frivolity. Their abettors in the media have done nothing to vet the legality of the law and even engaged in a corny satire, staged Tuesday, in the White House briefing room, over what everyone knows are the bogus statistics anchoring the act’s necessity. From the White House transcript room.

Question: Jay [Carney], your own Labor Department has that gender pay equity metric at 81 cents. The numbers are a little bit all over the place, are they not? That number, 77 cents –

MR. CARNEY: Do you doubt – I mean, we can have this –

Q: I’m not saying there’s any doubt that there’s gender pay inequity.

MR. CARNEY: OK. There’s gender pay inequity. [emphasis mine -- MC]

Got that, reader? While doubt remains over the current laws of astrophysics there is not an iota of doubt in the Minister of Propaganda’s office over something as subjective as gender pay equity. The WaPo’s Nia-Malika Henderson theorizes that FaceBook COO Sheryl Sandberg’s book, written 14 months ago and forgotten even faster, is a catalyst. Besides, in the eyes of the White House’s epigones, there is gender pay inequity and wherever an inequity is found, so must the imperial Congress and president be found, outlawing the inequity by the power of Congress.

Maybe instead of arguing over the census “data” that alleges to show the inequality, someone in the media could ask the most important question of all: Does Congress or the president actually have the legitimate power to address it? The answer is no, but the government, their trial lawyer friends and the court stenographers all have big stakes in the outcome. This is how a corrupt, immoral, banana republic operates and it’s high time to ask, why do the American people tolerate it? Because they don’t know how the Constitution’s system of separated powers worked. If we’re going to abide by a written Constitution and if that Constitution is to govern some of our affairs, this separation must be understood.

Back in the day…

Back in the days of Jefferson, Monroe, and Cleveland, federal power was limited while state power was nearly unlimited. In Federalist 45, James Madison proclaimed this to hesitant New Yorkers:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” 

Madison’s definition does not leave any room, anywhere, for Congress or the president to meddle in any inequality, found anywhere, in any state in the union. This agreement was grudgingly obeyed in every Congress or by president’s checking derelict Congresses all the way up until the turn of the 20th century. Since then as federal power has expanded, state power has waned to the point where it only exists in the minds of a few thousand remnant dreamers, like me.

And so we come to the well-intentioned but misguided civil lawsuit in New Mexico. Elaine and Jonathan Huguenin ran a business called Elane Photography. The Hugienins refused to photograph the 2007 commitment ceremony of a lesbian couple, Vanessa Willock and Misti Collinsworth, for religious reasons. The couple sued under New Mexico’s Human Rights Act (HRA) and the State’s Human Rights Commission (HRC) unanimously agreed. The Huguenins unsuccessfully appealed to the New Mexico Supreme Court claiming protection for their acts under the federal Constitution’s First Amendment.