According to Tea Party: Child Labor Laws unconstitutional:

[Suu]

I really hope they act on this. I mean, what could POSSIBLY go wrong?

NOTHING!
\

My sewing space looks that clean on a good day.

[Suu]

See? No harm here.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Well, just because its right, doesn't necessarily make it constitutional....

In the 1920's Congress tried to add an amendment to the constitution to place laws about Child Labor into the hands of Congress. However, that amendment failed. A couple decades later they simply passed a law forbidding it and defended it under interstate commerce laws.

Child labor is abhorrent... but the question of constitutional support for a federal law on it is valid.

[Adios]

Well, just because its right, doesn't necessarily make it constitutional....

In the 1920's Congress tried to add an amendment to the constitution to place laws about Child Labor into the hands of Congress. However, that amendment failed. A couple decades later they simply passed a law forbidding it and defended it under interstate commerce laws.

Child labor is abhorrent... but the question of constitutional support for a federal law on it is valid.

If that is true then so is every other labor law on the books.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Well, just because its right, doesn't necessarily make it constitutional....

In the 1920's Congress tried to add an amendment to the constitution to place laws about Child Labor into the hands of Congress. However, that amendment failed. A couple decades later they simply passed a law forbidding it and defended it under interstate commerce laws.

Child labor is abhorrent... but the question of constitutional support for a federal law on it is valid.

If that is true then so is every other labor law on the books.

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes"

There is certainly some truth to that. The interstate commerce clause has been stretched more than Oprah's pantyhose. For example the Federal government  used the Interstate Commerce clause to go after Angel Raich in the medical marijuana case. They argued that even though the marijuana was grown in the state, sold in the state and smoked in the state... that there was a black market for interstate marijuana and its black market cost/price could be mollified by locally grown stuff.

So their argument was "If you do it all locally, you'll fuck the interstate black market. The interstate black market is interstate commerce. Therefore so is your pot."

I don't know how they justify an illegal market as a regulated interstate commerce... but there it is.



The National Labor Relations Act, as another example was enacted under the Interstate Commerce clause. However, it was applied to ALL labor, not just labor that was involved in interstate commerce. So if you have a local shop that sells locally and NEVER sells outside of the state... you're still magically covered by the interstate commerce clause.

[Juana]

I hate these people all the more now. I'm waiting for them to claim that desegregation was unconstitutional, if they haven't already.

[Adios]

Odds are the Supreme Court would refuse to even open that can of worms, if it ever got that far.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I hate these people all the more now. I'm waiting for them to claim that desegregation was unconstitutional, if they haven't already.

Desegregation is covered by the constitution:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

- 14th amendment

The issue with Child Labor and other labor laws is that the amendment failed to pass (or in other cases there never was an amendment).

[Cain]

I hate these people all the more now. I'm waiting for them to claim that desegregation was unconstitutional, if they haven't already.

The same legal logic underpins the ban on child labour as it does on workplace discrimination, according to my reading.  It also infringes on Medicaid and Social Security.

[the last yatto]

So what's the minimal age McDonald's can hire now...

Twelve?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Well, just because its right, doesn't necessarily make it constitutional....

In the 1920's Congress tried to add an amendment to the constitution to place laws about Child Labor into the hands of Congress. However, that amendment failed. A couple decades later they simply passed a law forbidding it and defended it under interstate commerce laws.

Child labor is abhorrent... but the question of constitutional support for a federal law on it is valid.

If that is true then so is every other labor law on the books.

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes"

There is certainly some truth to that. The interstate commerce clause has been stretched more than Oprah's pantyhose. For example the Federal government  used the Interstate Commerce clause to go after Angel Raich in the medical marijuana case. They argued that even though the marijuana was grown in the state, sold in the state and smoked in the state... that there was a black market for interstate marijuana and its black market cost/price could be mollified by locally grown stuff.

So their argument was "If you do it all locally, you'll fuck the interstate black market. The interstate black market is interstate commerce. Therefore so is your pot."

I don't know how they justify an illegal market as a regulated interstate commerce... but there it is.



The National Labor Relations Act, as another example was enacted under the Interstate Commerce clause. However, it was applied to ALL labor, not just labor that was involved in interstate commerce. So if you have a local shop that sells locally and NEVER sells outside of the state... you're still magically covered by the interstate commerce clause.

There's also an amendment XIII argument:

Amendment 13
1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime
whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United
States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation.

A minor cannot legally make decisions for themselves, contractually or otherwise.  Since they cannot give consent, any children working would be assumed to be doing so at the behest of others, making it de facto involuntary servitude.

[Juana]

I hate these people all the more now. I'm waiting for them to claim that desegregation was unconstitutional, if they haven't already.

Desegregation is covered by the constitution:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

- 14th amendment

The issue with Child Labor and other labor laws is that the amendment failed to pass (or in other cases there never was an amendment).

I'm thinking specifically of the Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States case.

Congress did not unconstitutionally exceed its powers under the Commerce Clause by enacting Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibited racial discrimination in public accommodations.

Odds are the Supreme Court would refuse to even open that can of worms, if it ever got that far.

The odds of them contemplating the child labor laws are pretty much nil, too, but it doesn't stop the Tea Baggers from mouthing off about it.

[Adios]

I hate these people all the more now. I'm waiting for them to claim that desegregation was unconstitutional, if they haven't already.

Desegregation is covered by the constitution:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

- 14th amendment

The issue with Child Labor and other labor laws is that the amendment failed to pass (or in other cases there never was an amendment).

I'm thinking specifically of the Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States case.

Congress did not unconstitutionally exceed its powers under the Commerce Clause by enacting Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibited racial discrimination in public accommodations.

Odds are the Supreme Court would refuse to even open that can of worms, if it ever got that far.

The odds of them contemplating the child labor laws are pretty much nil, too, but it doesn't stop the Tea Baggers from mouthing off about it.

True, but I rather enjoy watching them chase their own tails. It keeps them from touching anything important they may actually be able to do something about.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I think Hovercat and Charley are being foolishly optimistic.

There is nothing the American public won't tolerate.  Nothing.

[Adios]

I think Hovercat and Charley are being foolishly optimistic.

There is nothing the American public won't tolerate.  Nothing.

I am trying to think of a good argument....

....

....