According to Tea Party: Child Labor Laws unconstitutional:

[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).

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.

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:

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.

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.

[Cain]

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.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

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.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

TGRR Says:

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.

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.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

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.

[Cain]

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.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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.

[Requia ☣]

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.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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.

[Requia ☣]

Ah!  Ok, that makes the legal history of the question make much more sense.

[Cain]

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.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

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.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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.