http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/14/mike-lee-child-labor-laws_n_809100.html
QuoteFreshman Tea Party-backed Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) recently offered a provocative interpretation of the Constitution he holds so dear, arguing that federal child labor laws go beyond the bounds of the document.
Oh, this is AWESOME!
GET BACK UNDER THAT LOOM, RUNT! THOSE BOBBINS AIN'T GONNA CHANGE THEMSELVES!
\
:cheney:
Good. Now we have means to keep the little bastards off the streets.
FINALLY, a paying alternative to daycare!!!!
Thank you Tea-Party!!!
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 17, 2011, 03:59:22 PM
Good. Now we have means to keep the little bastards off the streets.
Incidentally, we've found an 8 year old that will do your job for 1/4 the money. Fred the security guard will help you clean out your desk.
Quote from: Niamh on January 17, 2011, 04:38:54 PM
FINALLY, a paying alternative to daycare!!!!
Thank you Tea-Party!!!
And when the little bastards get their hands tangled up with the sewing machine, we'll dock the cost of the needle from their wages, pitch them out in the street, and put the next kid in line at the machine.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 17, 2011, 04:39:38 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 17, 2011, 03:59:22 PM
Good. Now we have means to keep the little bastards off the streets.
Incidentally, we've found an 8 year old that will do your job for 1/4 the money. Fred the security guard will help you clean out your desk.
Yeah. Next we need to get rid of that pesky OSHA thing so when the kiddies get hurt on the job the companies are protected.
Incidentally, while the kids are working, they're not getting an education, so no more worries about dangerous ideas!
:lulz:
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 17, 2011, 04:41:26 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 17, 2011, 04:39:38 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 17, 2011, 03:59:22 PM
Good. Now we have means to keep the little bastards off the streets.
Incidentally, we've found an 8 year old that will do your job for 1/4 the money. Fred the security guard will help you clean out your desk.
Yeah. Next we need to get rid of that pesky OSHA thing so when the kiddies get hurt on the job the companies are protected.
It's the only way to be competitive.
Because God knows we weren't competitive from 1945-1985, right?
All these pesky issues we've been dealing with. The Tea-Party has our answers! Oh Happy Day!!!
Can I get an amen?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 17, 2011, 04:41:58 PM
Incidentally, while the kids are working, they're not getting an education, so no more worries about dangerous ideas!
:lulz:
It's the New Education. They are becoming productive members of society this way. Until they turn 18.
I really hope they act on this. I mean, what could POSSIBLY go wrong?
Quote from: Suu on January 17, 2011, 04:46:05 PM
I really hope they act on this. I mean, what could POSSIBLY go wrong?
NOTHING!
\
(http://www.mdhs.org/Library/Images/Mellon%20Images/Z24access/z24-02273.jpg)
I'd do a nice proper maniacal laugh, but it's early and I haven't done my vocal exercises yet. Just wouldn't do it justice.
I'm proud to say that Arizona has a long history of using children in mining operations.
(http://www.asu.edu/lib/archives/digital-collections/AZSW/full/CP_SPC_177_160_50.JPG)
AND JUST LOOK AT THE FUCKING MUSTACHE ON THAT GUY!
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 17, 2011, 06:06:08 PM
Quote from: Suu on January 17, 2011, 04:46:05 PM
I really hope they act on this. I mean, what could POSSIBLY go wrong?
NOTHING!
\
(http://www.mdhs.org/Library/Images/Mellon%20Images/Z24access/z24-02273.jpg)
My sewing space looks that clean on a good day.
See? No harm here.
(http://mises.org/images4/ChildLabor.png)
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.
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 17, 2011, 08:41:19 PM
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.
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 17, 2011, 08:43:16 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 17, 2011, 08:41:19 PM
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.
Quote"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.
:lulz:
I hate these people all the more now. I'm waiting for them to claim that desegregation was unconstitutional, if they haven't already.
Odds are the Supreme Court would refuse to even open that can of worms, if it ever got that far.
Quote from: Hover Cat on January 17, 2011, 09:07:20 PM
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:
QuoteAll 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).
Quote from: Hover Cat on January 17, 2011, 09:07:20 PM
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.
So what's the minimal age McDonald's can hire now...
Twelve?
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 17, 2011, 09:00:55 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 17, 2011, 08:43:16 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 17, 2011, 08:41:19 PM
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.
Quote"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.
:lulz:
There's also an amendment XIII argument:
QuoteAmendment 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.
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 17, 2011, 09:09:11 PM
Quote from: Hover Cat on January 17, 2011, 09:07:20 PM
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:
QuoteAll 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 (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel_v._United_States) case.
QuoteCongress 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.
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 17, 2011, 09:08:33 PM
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.
Quote from: Hover Cat on January 17, 2011, 09:15:34 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 17, 2011, 09:09:11 PM
Quote from: Hover Cat on January 17, 2011, 09:07:20 PM
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:
QuoteAll 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 (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel_v._United_States) case.
QuoteCongress 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.
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 17, 2011, 09:08:33 PM
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.
I think Hovercat and Charley are being foolishly optimistic.
There is nothing the American public won't tolerate. Nothing.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 17, 2011, 09:19:33 PM
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....
....
....
Quote from: Hover Cat on January 17, 2011, 09:15:34 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 17, 2011, 09:09:11 PM
Quote from: Hover Cat on January 17, 2011, 09:07:20 PM
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:
QuoteAll 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 (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel_v._United_States) case.
QuoteCongress 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.
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 17, 2011, 09:08:33 PM
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.
Right. And its a interesting tact, because in some sense they are right, in some sense they are wrong and in some sense it's meaningless because no one is gonna repeal Child Labor. However, its good populist rhetoric based on a direct interpretation of the Constitution in a very limited view.
TGRR Says:
QuoteA 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.
Also true... but that argument hasn't been used in court (IIRC). Further, it would seem that the Congress in the early 20th century that tried to pass the constitutional amendment on Child labor felt that the previous amendment did not cover the issue. The later laws passed would have been defended by citing the 13th amendment rather than the commerce clause.
I mean we can make all sorts of arguments in an internet forum, but what is on the books looks a bit shady.
DISCLAIMER: THIS IS NOT AN ENDORSEMENT OF CHILD LABOR LAWS BUT ONLY A PERSPECTIVE ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
This is basically Hammer v Dagenhart all over again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammer_v_dagenhart
Ironically, in that case, the ban was only on Federal interstate commerce, and Justice Holmes' dissenting opinion was undoubtedly the more accurate one, and so it should not have been overturned.
You can also argue that US participation in several international treaties, signed by the US government and enacting laws against child labour, constitute a source of legal legitimacy. You could argue based on the supremacy clause that these do not count...but the Bricker Ammendment only refers to interference with the manifest powers of the Federal government, not expanding it.
Quote from: Cain on January 17, 2011, 09:26:12 PM
This is basically Hammer v Dagenhart all over again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammer_v_dagenhart
Ironically, in that case, the ban was only on Federal interstate commerce, and Justice Holmes' dissenting opinion was undoubtedly the more accurate one, and so it should not have been overturned.
You can also argue that US participation in several international treaties, signed by the US government and enacting laws against child labour, constitute a source of legal legitimacy. You could argue based on the supremacy clause that these do not count...but the Bricker Ammendment only refers to interference with the manifest powers of the Federal government, not expanding it.
Yes, those are all good arguments, particularly the international treaties.
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 17, 2011, 09:25:31 PM
TGRR Says:
QuoteA 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.
Also true... but that argument hasn't been used in court (IIRC). Further, it would seem that the Congress in the early 20th century that tried to pass the constitutional amendment on Child labor felt that the previous amendment did not cover the issue. The later laws passed would have been defended by citing the 13th amendment rather than the commerce clause.
I mean we can make all sorts of arguments in an internet forum, but what is on the books looks a bit shady.
DISCLAIMER: THIS IS NOT AN ENDORSEMENT OF CHILD LABOR LAWS BUT ONLY A PERSPECTIVE ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
Doesn't matter. The law is still constitutional, even if the people trying to defend it are retarded.
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 17, 2011, 09:28:26 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 17, 2011, 09:26:12 PM
This is basically Hammer v Dagenhart all over again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammer_v_dagenhart
Ironically, in that case, the ban was only on Federal interstate commerce, and Justice Holmes' dissenting opinion was undoubtedly the more accurate one, and so it should not have been overturned.
You can also argue that US participation in several international treaties, signed by the US government and enacting laws against child labour, constitute a source of legal legitimacy. You could argue based on the supremacy clause that these do not count...but the Bricker Ammendment only refers to interference with the manifest powers of the Federal government, not expanding it.
Yes, those are all good arguments, particularly the international treaties.
And if there's a treaty, it's constitutional, due to article VI.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 17, 2011, 09:29:28 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 17, 2011, 09:28:26 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 17, 2011, 09:26:12 PM
This is basically Hammer v Dagenhart all over again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammer_v_dagenhart
Ironically, in that case, the ban was only on Federal interstate commerce, and Justice Holmes' dissenting opinion was undoubtedly the more accurate one, and so it should not have been overturned.
You can also argue that US participation in several international treaties, signed by the US government and enacting laws against child labour, constitute a source of legal legitimacy. You could argue based on the supremacy clause that these do not count...but the Bricker Ammendment only refers to interference with the manifest powers of the Federal government, not expanding it.
Yes, those are all good arguments, particularly the international treaties.
And if there's a treaty, it's constitutional, due to article VI.
Yep, but as I said before... that's not what the Courts ruled on which is why this guy can make the claim. If they actually tried to overturn it, the issue of treaties or slavery could be used to defend the laws and end the discussion... or we could pass an Amendment to deal with the issue. He's arguing a technicality.
Uh-oh...the USA actually isn't a signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It's been signed, but never ratified. Again, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights was also signed, but never ratified.
And guess who in both cases is against the signing of such treaties? The Heritage Foundation. Well, I am shocked. But unless I can find some other treaties which are ratified, this actually blows the treaty argument out of the water.
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 17, 2011, 09:32:54 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 17, 2011, 09:29:28 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 17, 2011, 09:28:26 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 17, 2011, 09:26:12 PM
This is basically Hammer v Dagenhart all over again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammer_v_dagenhart
Ironically, in that case, the ban was only on Federal interstate commerce, and Justice Holmes' dissenting opinion was undoubtedly the more accurate one, and so it should not have been overturned.
You can also argue that US participation in several international treaties, signed by the US government and enacting laws against child labour, constitute a source of legal legitimacy. You could argue based on the supremacy clause that these do not count...but the Bricker Ammendment only refers to interference with the manifest powers of the Federal government, not expanding it.
Yes, those are all good arguments, particularly the international treaties.
And if there's a treaty, it's constitutional, due to article VI.
Yep, but as I said before... that's not what the Courts ruled on which is why this guy can make the claim. If they actually tried to overturn it, the issue of treaties or slavery could be used to defend the laws and end the discussion... or we could pass an Amendment to deal with the issue. He's arguing a technicality.
So what? He has to take it to court now if he wants it deemed unconstitutional, and there's at least two good arguments in its favor.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 17, 2011, 09:29:28 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 17, 2011, 09:28:26 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 17, 2011, 09:26:12 PM
This is basically Hammer v Dagenhart all over again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammer_v_dagenhart
Ironically, in that case, the ban was only on Federal interstate commerce, and Justice Holmes' dissenting opinion was undoubtedly the more accurate one, and so it should not have been overturned.
You can also argue that US participation in several international treaties, signed by the US government and enacting laws against child labour, constitute a source of legal legitimacy. You could argue based on the supremacy clause that these do not count...but the Bricker Ammendment only refers to interference with the manifest powers of the Federal government, not expanding it.
Yes, those are all good arguments, particularly the international treaties.
And if there's a treaty, it's constitutional, due to article VI.
SCOTUS overturned part of the Berne treaty (specifically, the US cannot honor foreign copyright on things that became public domain before we signed the treaty, regardless of what the treaty says). So they seem to disagree.
Quote from: Cain on January 17, 2011, 09:33:28 PM
Uh-oh...the USA actually isn't a signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It's been signed, but never ratified. Again, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights was also signed, but never ratified.
And guess who in both cases is against the signing of such treaties? The Heritage Foundation. Well, I am shocked. But unless I can find some other treaties which are ratified, this actually blows the treaty argument out of the water.
Okay, one good argument.
And why am I not surprised at all about The Heritage Foundation? Those fuckers are the worst people on Earth.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 17, 2011, 09:34:21 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 17, 2011, 09:29:28 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 17, 2011, 09:28:26 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 17, 2011, 09:26:12 PM
This is basically Hammer v Dagenhart all over again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammer_v_dagenhart
Ironically, in that case, the ban was only on Federal interstate commerce, and Justice Holmes' dissenting opinion was undoubtedly the more accurate one, and so it should not have been overturned.
You can also argue that US participation in several international treaties, signed by the US government and enacting laws against child labour, constitute a source of legal legitimacy. You could argue based on the supremacy clause that these do not count...but the Bricker Ammendment only refers to interference with the manifest powers of the Federal government, not expanding it.
Yes, those are all good arguments, particularly the international treaties.
And if there's a treaty, it's constitutional, due to article VI.
SCOTUS overturned part of the Berne treaty (specifically, the US cannot honor foreign copyright on things that became public domain before we signed the treaty, regardless of what the treaty says). So they seem to disagree.
Because the US Consitution is on par with ratified treaties, and this treaty violated article I, sec 9...So they judges could have gone either way and been correct.
Ah! Ok, that makes the legal history of the question make much more sense.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 17, 2011, 09:34:50 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 17, 2011, 09:33:28 PM
Uh-oh...the USA actually isn't a signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It's been signed, but never ratified. Again, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights was also signed, but never ratified.
And guess who in both cases is against the signing of such treaties? The Heritage Foundation. Well, I am shocked. But unless I can find some other treaties which are ratified, this actually blows the treaty argument out of the water.
Okay, one good argument.
And why am I not surprised at all about The Heritage Foundation? Those fuckers are the worst people on Earth.
Indeed they are. They were afraid that that the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights would mean America would have to have socialized national healthcare (reality alert: Australia and New Zealand are signatories, and don't have socialized national healthcare) and in the case of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, their position was that it would threaten homeschooling and undermine "parental rights"...presumably like the right to brainwash your child into a Dominionist Death Cult or have them suffer the death penalty for crimes.
Obama says he is going to review the latter, last October.
So if the only argument is the slavery argument, then it could be bypassed by parents signing a waiver that lets the kid work.
An amendment seems like the cleanest way to end the discussion.
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 17, 2011, 09:48:09 PM
So if the only argument is the slavery argument, then it could be bypassed by parents signing a waiver that lets the kid work.
An amendment seems like the cleanest way to end the discussion.
Can parents sign a waiver allowing their kids have legal sex?
Nope, and for the same reason. Consent for employment, sex, and several other issues has to be given by the person involved, not a proxy. Certain things prevent a person from being able to legally consent to these things, one of which is age.
The amendment will probably never happen.
Quote from: Hover Cat on January 17, 2011, 09:53:50 PM
The amendment will probably never happen.
Neither will any sort of legal action to repeal the court decision :lulz:
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 17, 2011, 09:54:34 PM
Quote from: Hover Cat on January 17, 2011, 09:53:50 PM
The amendment will probably never happen.
Neither will any sort of legal action to repeal the court decision :lulz:
Optimist.
"well if dem immigrunts gotta stay, may as well put their kids ta work."
\
:redneck2:
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 17, 2011, 08:41:19 PM
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 goods are sold across state lines they are certainly covered by interstate commerce clauses. A brewery or Winery could make a case that the law does not apply to them, as they are not allowed to sell across state lines in many cases, but any other business is fully capable of it, so they'd have to comply.
Nope, sorry. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
Quote from: Telarus on January 18, 2011, 02:40:14 AM
Nope, sorry. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
The fact that he didn't choose to export doesn't change the fact that he was able to export. Beer and Wine producers are not able to export, in many states.
But that case wasn't decided on his ability to export.
Filburn argued that since the excess wheat he produced was intended solely for home consumption it could not be regulated through the interstate Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, reasoning that if Filburn had not used home-grown wheat he would have had to buy wheat on the open market. This effect on interstate commerce, the Court reasoned, may not be substantial from the actions of Filburn alone but through the cumulative actions of thousands of other farmers just like Filburn its effect would certainly become substantial. Therefore Congress could regulate wholly intrastate, non-commercial activity if such activity, viewed in the aggregate, would have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, even if the individual effects are trivial.
So I shouldn't have dropped the brat pack off at the sweat shop this morning? :sad:
Oops... :oops:
Only if they're making stuff crossing state boundaries.
Quote from: Cain on January 18, 2011, 03:05:25 PM
Only if they're making stuff crossing state boundaries.
Everything here crosses state boundaries, I can see IL from the window in the kitchen :lulz:
YAY!! I'm good!!
The Tea Party is now officially a satire of itself.
Quote from: Hoopla on January 18, 2011, 03:15:38 PM
The Tea Party is now officially a satire of itself.
and that's the way uh huh uh huh I like it
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 18, 2011, 03:24:43 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on January 18, 2011, 03:15:38 PM
The Tea Party is now officially a satire of itself.
and that's the way uh huh uh huh I like it
Ok the mental of Sarah Palin in a dayglo polyester jumpsuit with a gigantic fro is not the way I wanted to start off my morning.... :argh!:
:lulz:
Quote from: Niamh on January 18, 2011, 03:31:47 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 18, 2011, 03:24:43 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on January 18, 2011, 03:15:38 PM
The Tea Party is now officially a satire of itself.
and that's the way uh huh uh huh I like it
Ok the mental of Sarah Palin in a dayglo polyester jumpsuit with a gigantic fro is not the way I wanted to start off my morning.... :argh!:
:lulz:
I am here only to serve.