Mike Lee: Federal Child Labor Laws Are Unconstitutional (VIDEO)

Freshman Tea Party-backed Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) recently offered a provocative interpretation of the Constitution he holds so dear, arguing that federal child labor laws go beyond the bounds of the document.

Here's what Lee, a constitutional lawyer, had to say in a recent lecture about his view that the nation's founding political text had been fundamentally breached (transcript via ThinkProgress):

Congress decided it wanted to prohibit [child labor], so it passed a law--no more child labor. The Supreme Court heard a challenge to that and the Supreme Court decided a case in 1918 called Hammer v. Dagenhardt. In that case, the Supreme Court acknowledged something very interesting -- that, as reprehensible as child labor is, and as much as it ought to be abandoned -- that's something that has to be done by state legislators, not by Members of Congress. [...]

This may sound harsh, but it was designed to be that way. It was designed to be a little bit harsh. Not because we like harshness for the sake of harshness, but because we like a clean division of power, so that everybody understands whose job it is to regulate what.

Now, we got rid of child labor, notwithstanding this case. So the entire world did not implode as a result of that ruling.

As ThinkProgress notes, Lee appears to ignore some other constitutional precedents on the matter:

The Constitution gives Congress the power "[t]o regulate commerce...among the several states," and to "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution" this power to regulate commerce. Even ultraconservative Justice Antonin Scalia agrees that these powers give Congress broad authority to regulate "economic activity" such as hiring and firing. Which explains why the Supreme Court unanimously overruled Hammer v. Daggenhardt in a 1941 decision called United States v. Darby.

Watch Senator Lee:

Comments

[LASIS Blog]

12:00 PM on 02/18/2011

Years of Supreme Court precedent goes against Lee's position. New York Law School's legal reporting blog analyzes the issues: http://www.lasisblog.com/2011/02/16/sen-mike-lee%e2%80%99s-challenge-to-child-labor-laws-examining-the-flaws/

[Onania Tosser]

04:53 AM on 01/25/2011

Personal income taxes that now fund Congress aren't in the Constitution either. Why doesn't he leave the kiddie's paychecks alone and go after his own? Why am I paying for his healthcare but he is unwilling to pay for mine?

[Mary Grimaldo]

01:17 PM on 01/26/2011

Thank you!

[montestruc]

08:51 AM on 02/04/2011

That is not true. Income taxes were ruled unconstitutional in IIRC the late 19th century, then the 16th amendment was ratified in 1909 that explicitly allowed them. Many people, myself among them think that was one of the most foolish things we have ever done, but it is constitutional.

http://www.constitution.org/afterte_.htm

[linusinutah]

01:30 AM on 01/22/2011

I think I know where this Utah County, BYU graduate is headed. The Federal Government does not have the right to prohibit a state from declaring polygamy to be a legal and natural state of affairs. Woo hoo!

[Renee Hargrove]

04:35 AM on 01/21/2011

Seriously? Clearly he was born during the wrong time period.

[Justin McKenna]

09:05 AM on 01/20/2011

Great news. It's been a while since my chimney was swept. Perhaps we could pay them the same as Chinese workers and give them a run for their money. Get them back down the coal mines, get them selling newspapers on street corners and oh....maybe export some of them to other countries. God I miss the 1800's.

[Marysse]

12:28 PM on 01/19/2011

Maybe if he gets his way and a state passes a law allowing child labor he can move himself and his family there and put them to work. Personally, I think he's just making noise to bring attention to himself. It just goes to show: Empty vessels make the most noise!

[Andythelawyer]

09:09 AM on 01/19/2011

Hey Mike.....What kids do you want to employ, what do you want them to do, and if video was taken of them doing it would you get arrested?:)

[joeyfoto]

04:30 AM on 01/19/2011

No they are not. This man must have slept through the law-school courses that dealt with the US Supreme Court or else he's just a rancher raising red-meat for red-states without precedent or legal reasoning. Either way, he's wrong on the facts and on the theory of the law..

[moneelove]

03:13 AM on 01/19/2011

Here we go again, another wannabe . . . let's find something to stir up the masses. . . um, what can I pick to start things rollin . . .I wanna be elected again, soooooo, oh here we go. . . child labor laws. WOW!

[ProudMilVet]

03:10 AM on 01/19/2011

Will someone please tell me exactly what these people are for ?

[outsurgency]

02:03 AM on 01/19/2011

I'm trying to understand. So Mike Lee wants to put children to work in sweat shops or what?

[missmuffette]

01:45 AM on 01/19/2011

Great Mike, lets start by sending your kids over to shovel my walk!

[AdamWest1313]

06:22 PM on 01/18/2011

I hate to say it people, but the Constitution is old document. Yes, it has some very good ideas, and yes, it serves as a good foundation for a country. But how can anyone ACTUALLY believe that the "Founders" (Depending on which ones any given person chooses to pay attention to) thought of every problem this country would run into? I'm sorry, but sooner or later, we have to realize that this country can not just reley on the Constitution to solve all of our problems. We have to think for ourselves.

[ehorth]

08:41 PM on 01/18/2011

Most of the world's legal codes are based on laws hundreds, even a couple of thousand years old. The concepts of one vote-one person (which, admittedly, has evolved over time), representative governments, systems of senators, etc. are as old as the Roman empire - there is nothing outmoded, or irrelevant about the Constitution or our system.

When you way, "we have to think for ourselves" - what exactly do you mean? Should everyone come up with their own laws? Should we change the laws every generation to avoid becoming "stale"? I think there is a basic lack of understanding about the Constitution that has very little to do with the concepts in the document and everything to do with many who just want to junk it altogether in favor of their own personal agendas.

[sistahfriend]

08:57 PM on 01/18/2011

Thank you.

[bqueen9bee]

06:19 PM on 01/18/2011

Years ago I was telling anyone who would listen that the United States of America was going to eventually turn into a society based on slavery and serfdom due to globalization. This should surprise no one because anytime a economy is grounded in exploitation of labor (slavery, share cropping, child labor, migrant farm work, etc.) and resources in order to develop and maintain itself it has to come up with similar tactics to continue. Labor Unions, good, bad or ugly have been busted, jobs have been outsourced, and most people have been downsized! In addition, hardly any more manufacturing takes place in the United States. When the Quality Work and Responsibility Act of 1994 came into effect, many applauded this as a way to cut down on the welfare rolls (which by the way, only comprise approximated 5% of the national budget). I loss a job in 2003 and went to work for the Work Experience Program (WEP) in my area for the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) in a position which at one time paid a salary with benefits. Need I say more? By the way, I have a Bachelor's Degree in Science! My worst experience was to meet a man in the program who used to work as a auditor for the city and loss his job, back at work, working as an auditor for a welfare check and food stamps and whatever other benefits he may have needed. This was in 2004!

[ZeraLee]

05:02 PM on 01/18/2011

The commerce clause really is pushed more than it should at times, but it's not the only clause in the Constitution. His choice of argument was ill-considered and insensitive as well as inaccurate.

[Anthony Zapata]

01:42 PM on 01/25/2011

It's the Right Wing Precedent Buffet at its finest.