Submitted by Lawrence Rafferty(rafflaw), Guest Blogger
We have seen and heard on many occasions the Tea Party claim that it desires Congress and the Federal Government to follow the letter of the Constitution instead of reaching beyond the four corners of the document. With that thought in mind, I was intrigued by a recent article on the Think Progress site that reviewed the You Tube video claims made by U.S. Senator Mike Lee of Utah, that Congress’ passage of laws outlawing and restricting Child Labor, was unconstitutional. http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/14/lee-child-labor/?wpmp_switcher=desktop
Now, I know that the Tea Party has sometimes gotten a bad reputation for making silly claims under the Tenth Amendment. Those claims actually spurred a new term or title, “Tenther”. But, I have to admit that Senator Lee has really gone way beyond the Tenther label with this false claim about the constitutionality of the child labor laws within the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Here is a link to a brief description of how the FLSA deals with child labor and the act itself: http://www.stopchildlabor.org/USchildlabor/fact1.htm & http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/statutes/FairLaborStandAct.pdf
Senator Lee discusses his outrageous claim in a YouTube presentation that attempts to use the 1918 Supreme Court case of Hammer v. Dagenhart as his evidence that Congress has gone too far. Unfortunately for Senator Lee, the Hammer case was specifically overruled in 1941 by a unanimous Supreme Court in 1941 in U.S. v. Darby. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1183543472021488573&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr I guess Senator Lee didn’t want to let minor details get in the way of “proving” his claim. The part that I just don’t understand about Senator Lee is why does he want to return to the day when children were forced to work at too early of an age and under horrible conditions? From what I can tell from his video lectures which are found in the aforementioned Think Progress link, he claims that the State should be making those decisions and not the Federal Government or Judiciary. Why would he make those claims and not tell the listener that the case he is citing was overruled over 60 years ago? What other laws would be unconstitutional in his world?
Lawrence Rafferty, (rafflaw) Guest Blogger.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-c,2849/
Seems Appropriate.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gsJrgwxQDo&fs=1&hl=en_US]
Buddha and James,
thanks for the insights! Now it is dinner time!
James M.,
“easily encompasses the idea that child labor laws are unconstitutional.”
Not because they want to engage in child labor (there is no evidence to support that), but because it is viewed as an encroachment against the authority of the states.
One is a moral argument; the other a constitutional argument.
Just like the Court in 1941 revisited and overturned the decision of the Court from 1918, many, motivated by the overreach (real or perceived) of the National Health Care Act, see this as an potential opportunity to overturn the 1941 decision. The means by which they expect to do so, I don’t think, have been identified.
raff,
Also in re ekeyra.
I’d say from past conversations that she’s probably more of a free market anarchist than a teabagger. Maybe with a dash of Libertarian.
BBB,
As I just said to rafflaw, your point (4) above:
4. An originalist interpretation of the Constitution, especially in regard to personal freedoms.
easily encompasses the idea that child labor laws are unconstitutional.
raff,
In all fairness, most Teabaggers don’t know the real reason for their existence or even that their party agenda is strongly – if not totally – manipulated by corporatist interests. They just buy a lot of the bullshit because it plays to their confirmation biases. Now someone at Lee’s level? He may or may not know he’s the Koch Bros. lil’ whore.
rafflaw,
I jumped in after the discussion was already far afield from your original post, so I’m just now getting around to responding:
If you’re going to throw out two hundred plus years of Supreme Court precedent, there’s no reason why the commerce clause’s ability to regulate commerce between the several states necessarily needs to include the right to prohibit child labor.
rafflaw,
“I am simply stating and pointing out what their members are saying about the Constitution. Maybe it is the Tea Party who is afraid of people finding out their real reasons for existence?”
No you’re not. What you are doing is spreading unfounded propagandist bullcrap. Will you accept all things stated by a Democrat to be the vision of the Democrats? I’m sure you wouldn’t complain if I said that their ideas were what the Democrats want, would you?
What you’re doing is fear mongering with a decided liberal partisan twist.
“Maybe it is the Tea Party who is afraid of people finding out their real reasons for existence?”
And maybe the Democrats are secretly plotting to destroy the United States! (do you really want to play a game of who can fling the most poop? Is that how you plan to accomplish civility in political discourse?)
I think Mike Lee was advocating a form of national government even weaker than the Articles of Confederation, so that citizenship, banking, child labor, voting rights and myriad other things would be subject to local interpretation and definition. So there could be ruthlessly darwinian states where child labor was OK, slavery too, no suffrage for women, no suffrage unless a property owner, and so on. And other states could be “socialist” on the European model…. Of course, I’ll bet Senator Lee would want to NOT leave abortion to the discretion of each state. Anyone want to give me odds on that one?
ekeyra,
First of all, mandatory education through high school(it varies from state to state) is not indoctrination. Secondly, that is not what Senator Lee stated. He didn’t state that education was harming the children of Utah or America. He was arguing for the States control of issues that have an impact on children everywhere in the United States. Without education, not only will most of these children be a burden on society, they may also turn more to crime and violence. Of course your option is to allow the States to decide if corporations can hire kids for any amount of money to labor in a factory when they are 8 years old, 9 years old, 10 years old???
BBB,
I am not afraid of the Tea Party. I am simply stating and pointing out what their members are saying about the Constitution. Maybe it is the Tea Party who is afraid of people finding out their real reasons for existence?
rafflaw,
“How come you and the Tea Party want to go back to the laws of that era?”
Is there no end to the unfounded denigration of the Tea Party movement? How afraid must you be of those who profess an opposing political ideology to consistently thrust unfounded accusations upon them? Is this the result of ignorance, or the end justifies the means tool of a propagandist? Neither of which become you.
The ideas presented by one person, or a even handful of representatives, who had the support of the Tea Party movement, do not become the tenets of the movement itself.
Here are the basics of the Tea Party Movement:
1. Smaller government
2. Lower taxes
3. Fiscal responsibility, mostly manifested by reduced government debt and a balanced federal budget
4. An originalist interpretation of the Constitution, especially in regard to personal freedoms.
These are the only ideals that are attributable to the majority of those who align themselves with the movement.
I’m a product of primarily public education.
I went two years to a private school in high school (it was, by the way, a totally inferior educational experience to some of my public schools and the only school I ever attended where corporal punishment by teachers was considered appropriate) and to a private school for law school (which was excellent).
And I kind of smash that idea of “indoctrinating them with blind obedience to authority” all to Hell if I do say so myself.
Oddly enough, that trait manifested well before I ever went to a private school.
Raff,
So by suggesting that maybe, just maybe, forcing children to sit down and shtup for 7 hours a day, and indoctrinating them with blind obedience to authority is not whats best for their development, I am in fact advocating human slavery? Id say im a pretty direct person and if thats what i wanted id just tell you.
Also, no child left behind was possibly the biggest hypocrisy of the republican party of the last decade, possibly topped only by their love of the military industrial complex. For a party that claims to want smaller government, that never seems to be the outcome when theyre in charge.
Its also funny you just assume im a teapartier. Is that because of the name of the article or because i disagree with you?
W=c,
That was funny and appropriate.
Where does one get one of those “hand beanies” is my big question . . .
rafflaw Congratulations on the bears. Maybe you will come to Texas for the Superbowl. My brother in law is mad at my sister because she made him sell today’s and the next game’s tickets.
Woosty,
nteresting video. Is that kid the same actor who played Timmy in the 50’s Lassie series??
James,
those like ekeyra don’t want compusory education because the disadvantaged and minorities will be able to get a piece of the american dream through education. I also want to ask ekeyra and any other Tea Party folks why they weren’t screaming about child labor laws when George W. Bush was President? Why didn’t the Tea Party arise during the Bush era to decry “No child left behind?” I wonder why??
ekeyra,
Yeah, Abe Lincoln learned to read without public schools, but the world has advanced since the 1800’s. How come you and the Tea Party want to go back to the laws of that era? Is there something you are not telling us?