Are Child Labor Laws Unconstitutional, Should They Be Repealed?

a reply to: Kali74

First you would have to explain the Commerce Clause. I don't remember that one and it has been a long time since I took poli-sci.

A suspicious person might be tempted to infer, that the reason this specific question has been asked, has nothing to do with child labour, and more to do with trying to highlight issues with the constitution itself.

In any case, child labour laws have had a markedly positive effect on the number of children who have been fortunate enough to grow up at all since their coming into force.

a reply to: JDeLattre89

For the sake of clarity here's Cornell Law on how it's used regarding the 10th Amendment.

The Commerce Clause refers to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.”

The Constitution enumerates certain powers for the federal government. The Tenth Amendment provides that any powers that are not delegated to Congress by the Constitution are reserved for the states. Congress has often used the Commerce Clause to justify exercising legislative power over the activities of states and their citizens, leading to significant and ongoing controversy regarding the balance of power between the federal government and the states.

Cornell University

Child labor laws should be reworked and updated for this century, Not repelled. They are there for the protection of children from people who would take advantage. Than again, They work as is as well even with out being updated. But as the economy continues to slide, People continue to become more poor, and jobs being taken up by automation, Children of the future may be forced to work at least part time just to keep the family home heated, And that should be allowed to a certain extent.

a reply to: Kali74

k, just looked it up on the government archives site.

It states that the government (fed) can raise taxes in order to regulate certain things, one of which is interstate commerce. Last time I checked, child labor had nothing to do with commerce and especially not interstate commerce.

Thus again, it comes down to . . .what does the legal government (the government of the individual state) have to say about it.

Otherwise it is the equivalent of the EU making labor laws for France (I would have said Britain, but we know how that would go over). They may be accepted, but are they truly legal?

a reply to: Tjoran

Noooo....

The correct answer to these things is to prevent a persons ability to heat their home, resting on the shoulders of a child entirely, by finding energy solutions that do not require expensive maintenance, fuels, or any large monthly, weekly, or top up tariff.

That would reduce an awful lot of the poverty being experienced in the first place.

Are we questioning ethics or the Constitution here?

They are two completely different things and thus two different arguments.

a reply to: JDeLattre89

Mostly just should we keep or repeal child labor laws.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Issues with the Constitution would be a great thread I think but that's not what I'm doing here. It's really just about child labor laws.

a reply to: ketsuko

okay, you don't seem to want to change the hourly restrictions that are in place, so that just leaves the age restrictions.
and... after looking at this

www.continuetolearn.uiowa.edu...

and seeing just what the federal laws say... I have to ask.
at what age do you want to put the little tykes to work??

I mean...
it seems to be at the age of 14 for non-agricultural work and even younger for agricultural. with the exception being in those areas where the dept of labor have deemed as being hazardous.

so, what I am seeing on that page is that anyone over the age of 10 who is lucky enough to live near a small farm could possibly work there as long as their parents agreed. so, should the age be lowered even more? another poster made reference to the crappy jobs parents are doing at raising kids and that having a job would be a great way to teach the kids responsibility had self discipline. okay, but at young ages, it is probably gonna take more than a "your fired" to teach a kid that. should employers be expected to pay for kids to sit in the time out chair till lunchtime? or maybe we can give these employers more authority to use a stronger hand in their discipline that we seem to be willing to give parents. to me, it kind of sounds like some want to make employers not only free babysitters, but heck they should pay for the opportunity to be the parent to kids. which, when it comes to kids under 10, for many, it would either take a tyrant, or a very patient, loving boss to even come close to making hiring them profitable in a business sense.

a reply to: dawnstar

Great points. Prior to the New Deal and child labor laws, child laborers were barely a step above slave labor and horribly abused.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: TrueBrit

Issues with the Constitution would be a great thread I think but that's not what I'm doing here. It's really just about child labor laws.

But that is not what you originally asked . . .

I was reading something today that caused me to be curious about the overall consensus of ATS political junkies regarding Child Labor. Let's start off simple: 1) Do you believe that child labor laws violate the Constitution? 2) How do child labor laws violate the Constitution or how don't they? 3)If you think child labor laws violate the Constitution should we repeal them?

So according to OP, you originally asked about Constitutionality. Now you want to know what people think they should be, which means you want to have an ethical discussion.

In that case . . . I think each state should regulate the way they see best fit. Past that . . . my personal beliefs are that there should be a stepping system on labor regulations that coincide with age. For example a one year old should not be allowed to work at all, but as they get older more and more would be allowed. Therefore; in an ideal situation the amount of time, and type of work would increase as someone got older. Of course there would still be exceptions for family businesses (especially farms).

Well, I think that covers it from that direction.

a reply to: JDeLattre89

which means you want to have an ethical discussion.

On the Constitution? No. I don't. On child labor laws I'm looking to see where ATS posters stand.

a reply to: Kali74

No, it wouldn't be their choice. The law makes it clear what level of schooling you have to attend. Not even farm kids whose parents needed them for the harvest work could work around that. In fact, the school hours in many places are an artifact of those days when kids really were needed to help get the harvest in, but it still did not get them out of education.

a reply to: dawnstar

I still haven't rendered an opinion.

I have asked if there are legitimate reasons a child might want to be gainfully employed and I have pointed out that even if you opened up the market to child labor, it would not remove the laws concerning education requirements which would not allow forced labor and full-time child employment by their very nature.

So we are talking about much more than simply opening up child labor restrictions to re-create the days of child mine and sweatshop labor you are all talking about.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Tjoran

Noooo....

The correct answer to these things is to prevent a persons ability to heat their home, resting on the shoulders of a child entirely, by finding energy solutions that do not require expensive maintenance, fuels, or any large monthly, weekly, or top up tariff.

That would reduce an awful lot of the poverty being experienced in the first place.

Of course in an ideal world no one wants it to come to that. And once again in an ideal world that's exactly what we would do. But unfortunately it isn't, and it's not. The reality of it is that it could actually come to that at some point. It wouldn't be the first time in human history, it's even happening right now in some parts of the world.

a reply to: ketsuko

Note the post I was responding to. But actually... why can't States regulate their own policies for making school mandatory or not and if so for how long? If States can regulate their child labor laws why can't they make their own education laws? There's nothing in the Constitution about education.

That way, States could have children working 80 hours a week from age 5 if they wanted to.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: chrismarco

I'm just opening a discussion.

Child labor laws are not mentioned in the Constitution what so ever, if they were there would be no discussion to be had.

Child labor unquestionably affects commerce. Try reading Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution.

a reply to: Kali74

There isn't but there is a wide body of Federal Law and an entire Federal alphabet grown up around education. It's hardly a simple state to state local thing anymore. And with the implementation of Common Core, it become even less so.

a reply to: F4guy

I know. I already mentioned it.