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.
My neighbor across the creek proudly called himself a Tea Bagger long before anyone else I know. He was part of that online, grassroots group that passed petitions to draft Ron Paul for the 2004 presidential election. We discussed the matter then and over the years leading up to the 2008 election.
He, my neighbor, no longer considers himself a Tea Bagger as he is appalled at the “take-over” of the name and movement by the “crazy” Republicans (he dislikes Democrats also). From what he tells me, most original Tea Baggers feel exactly as he.
BBB,
I apologize for confusing you earlier. What I was trying to say was that you were claiming that Sen. Lee was just one Tea Party member and that I shouldn’t claim his thoughts or comments represent the whole movement. Without knowing who all the members are, I can’t determine if the Tea Party accepted his staements. There is no normal Party structure that one can go check to see if Sen. Lee’s statements are accepted by the “party”. I do know that there have been no statements by any person who claims to be a Tea Party member or spokesperson disavowing Sen. Lee’s statements. The only person I have seen that claims to speak for the majority of the Tea Party members is you as you stated above: “These are the only ideals that are attributable to the majority of those who align themselves with the movement.” Secondly, I am not spreading propaganda against the Tea Party. I quoted Sen. Lee accurately and provided a link to his full and complete video seminar on the subject.
Thirdly, your comment that the Tea Party was started due to the outrages of the Bush Administration is just your claim. Where were the rallies by Glenn Beck during the Bush campaign to whip the Tea Party into action? Show us some proof.
Finally, Happy Martin Luther King Day!
BBB,
War of the worlds was properly introduced. The confusion came from people tuning in halfway through.
The Onion doesn’t identify itself as fiction all the time, but is very well known.
BBB,
One was the article proper and one was analysis of the article.
If you’ve got a problem with that?
That would be your problem.
As far as Soros goes?
I don’t work for him nor am I a member of a party he backs.
I keep my house clean by being non-partisan.
However, if you want to compare, Soros advocates positions that aim to better all of society rather than just his own personal bottom line whereas the Koch Bros. are simply self-interested fascists who care only about their profits and repressing anyone or anything – like laws, regulation and civil liberties – that stand in their way.
It’s like comparing apples and horseshit.
Gyges,
“War of the Worlds wasn’t satire. It was a radio drama. So stop calling it satire. Words do have meaning.”
If you’re so worried about being absolutely correct, you should point out that both are/were fiction, and the resultant reaction was due to neither of them being properly identified as fiction.
“Now with that out of the way, this is a stupid conversation. So I’m stopping it.”
You will be sorely missed. (In the interest of full disclosure: the preceeding statement was both satire and fiction) 🙂
I have three movies on DVD, which, in my faulty mind, for a useful trilogy.
The Paper Chase.
My Cousin Vinny.
Johnny Dangerously.
To me, and I expect no one else to have a similar experience, The Paper Chase is, at its ultimate depth, the most comedic, and Johnny Dangerously, at its ultimate depth, is the least comedic.
My Cousin Vinny is the bridge between the most and the least comedic, for me and perhaps for no one else.
De Gustibus non est disputandum.
(Sorry, I took Latin in High School.)
BBB,
War of the Worlds wasn’t satire. It was a radio drama. So stop calling it satire. Words do have meaning.
Now with that out of the way, this is a stupid conversation. So I’m stopping it.
BBB,
So we shouldn’t refer to members of the National Socialist Party as Nazi’s because it’s become an insult now?
The Tea Bagger Movement was a specific movement during a specific time-frame. I’ve explained the origin of the term. If you don’t like that that’s what they called themselves, that’s between you and them. Unlike you I don’t change history to suit my political beliefs.
Ms EM,
No Ma’am. That picture was not funny—in fact, I consider it perverted absurdity.
RE: Former Federal LEO, January 17, 2011 at 12:52 pm
[begin quote]
Ms. EM,
The Onion is taking satire way beyond any sense of fairness and decency.
[end quote]
Sorry to say, I do read the Onion, it being a Wisconsin-based business, much like the Green Bay Packers, and I find it my civic duty as a Wisconsin resident to be supportive of the local economy.
Every time possible I buy toilet paper made in Wisconsin.
I make mistakes, so I just checked to see if I recently made one. The most recently purchased toilet paper is still in its wrapper. What a relief, a mistake not made. Neenah, Wisconsin.
That’s a relief, and it will be a relief when it gets put to use.
While the toilet paper is unused, I can avoid using it as scatological humor?
Which leads me to contemplation.
What is an effective, committed satirist to do when all satire not beyond any sense of fairness and decency is perfectly ineffective?
Gyges,
Was the panic that took place during the War of the Worlds airing the fault of the listener? Should they have said “I’m sorry, I should have made sure that it was satire”?
I’ve been wrong before and I’m sure I’ll be wrong again, but I won’t apolgize for taking seriously something that was not clearly identified as satire (when introduced to a discussion about unsubstantiated claims laid upon the Tea Party).
FF Leo,
I take it you didn’t think that picture was funny???
********************
Bill Maher To Tea Partiers: ‘The Founding Fathers Would Have Hated Your Guts’ (VIDEO)
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/bill-maher-to-tea-partiers-the-founding-fathers-would-have-hated-your-guts-video.php?ref=fpb
James M.,
I have viewed the entire interview. More than once. But thanks for pointing it out.
“tea baggers”, no matter who initially used it, is currently being used as a derogatory term. The only people who don’t seem to consider it to be derogatory are those who continue to use it.
Would you use the same argument to support a racist using the “N” word?
Civility starts here.
Elaine,
You’re telling me that’s not a serious story?
Ms. EM,
The Onion is taking satire way beyond any sense of fairness and decency. Following your link is only the second time I have accessed the Onion and I will never do so again unless by sheer accident.
Full Disclosure: I do not like Mr. B. and his emotional crying while speaking from within the House chambers is very troubling to me.
Gyges,
Check this “Onion” picture out:
Lingerie-Wearing Boehner: ‘We Still Have A Very Pretty Speaker Of The House’
http://www.theonion.com/articles/lingeriewearing-boehner-we-still-have-a-very-prett,18775/?utm_medium=promobar&utm_campaign=recirculation
BBB,
It’s o.k. once you get the hang of it admitting to making a mistake is easy. It makes you feel better, and is a lot less work then trying to make the other guy into a villain.
Here I’ll start “I was wrong for assuming that everyone knew the Onion was Satire.”
See? Easy.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNoiqigl2qQ&fs=1&hl=en_US]
BBB,
The whole interview is available http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkHq_wueVMw (part 1 of 4). It’s a good listen. Don’t just fixate on one part that plays into your preconceptions.
Also, Gyges was talking about what the movement called itself historically; not derogatorily calling them tea baggers, which is what Jon Stewart was talking about.
Gyges,
Tell me it’s satire, and I’ll read it as satire. Don’t tell me it’s satire; well:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9VWC8eB9ic&w=640&h=390]