Are Child Labor Laws Unconstitutional, Should They Be Repealed?

a reply to: ketsuko

It doesn't matter how many Federal laws and policies there are, not even Common Core. States can reject almost any Federal regulations on education if they choose to.

a reply to: Kali74

Uh-huh.

If that's so, then why haven't any states done so ... Oh, I know why ... because of the money.

a reply to: ketsuko

Exactly. They choose the Federal dollars. The fact remains a State can reject quite a bit of Federal control, if they want to.

I don't have an answer to your question. But, TBH, I hate that it's even a question since nothing seems off the table anymore in America 2016.

a reply to: kosmicjack

Thank-you and yes, this very issue may become relevant again.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: ketsuko

Exactly. They choose the Federal dollars. The fact remains a State can reject quite a bit of Federal control, if they want to.

But then again, there is a difference between simply rejecting federal control and refusing to follow federal law too. There would certainly be court cases for example. And if the court decides in the favor of the feds, then what? If the state continues to rebel, the government would be within its rights to take punitive action, possibly force.

a reply to: ketsuko

Well, laws and policies are, in general, written specifically to be in compliance with federal law/policy so they could simply be repealed by State Legislatures. If the federal government gets snotty about it, it has to challenge the State in court and decisions against the State can be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, much like what happened with the ACA. Of course what SCOTUS decides goes but in that whole meantime the law can remain repealed giving the State the opportunity to prove the merit of its action.

originally posted by: Kali74
Child labor laws are not mentioned in the Constitution what so ever, .

Neither are cars, planes or mobile phones....

a reply to: hellobruce

Right. They would fall under the purview of the Commerce Clause and cars and planes would additionally, I think, fall under Freedom of Movement.

Obviously the current ruling on the Constitutionality of child labor laws depends on the Commerce Clause as well. There are those that disagree with this ruling and its justification, I'm curious as to how many ATSers agree with that or disagree with that.

so, if you give the states the power to decide that the kids (or their parents) can opt out of school at the sixth grade level and because of it, they turn out to be unemployable, can the surrounding states also decided not to let those uneducated now adults move into their states?

I think doing so would be unconstitutional since it would interfere with the free movement of us citizens across state lines, but I also think that any state that would short change kid's education either for cheap labor or just to reduce the cost of education should be left holding the bag if those kids aren't prepared to enter the workforce and shouldn't be able to pawn those kids off on more responsible states that made sure their kids are prepared. and considering the same states that might consider doing this would also be those states that would love to drop any welfare programs.... it just doesn't seem to be a good way to unify a country.

And you know for a fact that these working kids would turn out to be unemployable? It seems to me the opposite. An uneducated adult who has many job skills is more employable right now than someone with a high education and no usable skills.

I know this from experience. I have several skills, but because of my back and some other things I can no longer use those skills. So now I must start from scratch. Because of my experience and education, I am unemployable due to 'over-qualification' for entry-level positions. So the uneducated and inexperienced is more hire-able than I am.

As for who controls education level. Ultimately that is up to individual communities as mandated by the individual states. Again, the states can qualify for kick-backs from the fed if they fall in line.

It is much the same as the drinking laws. The federal age limit for drinking alcohol is 18, but if a state makes their requirement 21, then they get federal funding for roads. This is how they get around the whole, 'well you're old enough for the military and to vote, but you can't have a drink yet' dilemma.

Little Johnny doesn't want to learn how to read?

To the salt mines with them!

a reply to: JDeLattre89

I'm in much the same spot as you are, except maybe a tad bit older. physically unable to do the job I have experience in, and too old to want to invest in training to do something different. but, I have to tell ya, my mom didn't have much more than that 6th grade education, and back then 6th graders probably knew quite a bit more than they do now. oh ya, she could get a job, working in the canning factory for minimum wage or working under the table at the bar... but nothing she could support a family on. the men probably would have had better luck back then though. now though, I think it's rather difficult for anyone without at least a ged to land a decent paying job (one that would put you above the food stamp qualifications.)

That's not to say that I wouldn't like to see the schools change their teaching methods some so that the last couple of years the kids are either studying hard to enter college or deciding which direction they would like to go and be given a chance to be in a situation that provides something that resembles actual hands on work experience.

but, like I said, we don't need more workers in the low skilled areas, we have way too many adults out of work. and with the advances in automation, that will probably only get worse. we don't need young children coming in and replacing parents... parents are supposed to be taking care and supporting kids, not the kids supporting their parents.