Missouri House Republicans recently voted (in HB 567) to repeal much of Proposition A, the minimum wage and family leave ballot measure approved by voters last November.

Is it right to undo what Missouri voters just approved by a significant margin?

In this case the answer is “yes.”

In fact, legislators had a sworn DUTY to reverse what the voters did for one very important reason: Proposition A is unconstitutional based on both the Missouri and United States Constitutions’ “contracts clause.”

Article I, Section 13 of the Missouri Constitution says, “That no…law impairing the obligation of contracts…can be enacted.” And Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution says, “No State shall…pass any…law impairing the Obligation of Contracts…”

(There’s also Article I, Section 2 of the Missouri Constitution and the 5th, 9th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.)

An agreement to exchange time and talent for wages and other benefits is a contract between an employee and employer and no law can constitutionally “impair” that contract. Employers, existing employees, and potential employees are harmed when such laws are enacted, whether by a legislative body or a ballot measure proposed by initiative petition.

Some disabled folks and youth are particularly harmed when employers decide that high mandated wages price them out of the labor market.

By supporting a bill to repeal such a law, a legislator is honoring his or her oath to support the state and federal constitution and is protecting his or her constituents in the process.

But isn’t striking down unconstitutional laws a job for the courts? Yes it is, but that does not diminish the sworn duty of either the legislative or executive branches to protect the people from unconstitutional laws — especially when today’s courts are falling down on the job.

After all, our state legislators take an oath to support the state and federal constitutions, not what courts say about the Constitution. That means they have to do their own evaluation of the meaning of any constitutional clause and act accordingly, within the scope of their own constitutional powers.

And the Missouri General Assembly clearly has the authority to fix a bad statutory ballot measure.

The courts weren’t always AWOL…

For instance, in 1923 a case called Adkins v. Children’s Hospital, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a federal minimum wage law, citing the contracts clause in Article 1, Section 10 and the Fifth Amendment.

In Adkins the court observed, “Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private property…is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for money or other forms of property.”

HB 567 is about protecting personal liberty. And now it is advancing through the committee process in the Missouri Senate, hopefully senators will have the same sense of duty to support the Constitution as did so many House members.

Maybe the Senate will take their support of the Constitution a step further with even greater protection of those harmed most by short-sighted minimum wage laws — disabled people and minors — by exempting them completely from minimum wage laws.

Neither of those two groups typically need to support a family, but they DO need jobs and the intrinsic benefits that come with a sense of accomplishment that only a job can bring.

Who knows, if the youth of some of our troubled urban areas were gainfully employed maybe we would see crime statistics plummet.

(Editor’s note: Missouri First, Inc. is a think tank focused on preserving free markets, individual liberty, and constitutional governance. Ron Calzone may be contacted at ron@mofirst.org or go to http://www.mofirst.org to view Missouri First’s website).