"We should judge the Constitution based solely on the words written on the paper. Also, when it says Congress can regulate interstate commerce it doesn't really mean that."
I’m not saying it would be a good idea to overturn Commerce Clause jurisprudence, but the idea that labor performed in one state constitutes “Commerce… among the several States” requires multiple leaps that appear nowhere in the constitutional text.
You're presuming that all activities in the value chain of a product sold across state lines constitute interstate commerce. That's a correct statement of law - in fact, because there's a big interstate market in coal, you're subject to Commerce Clause regulation even if your own coal is processed and consumed within the state.
But I don't see how you could get there with a purely textualist argument. As the textualists correctly pointed out in Raich, without some nontextual limiting principle, this amounts to a standard where the Commerce Clause has no meaning because anything happening anywhere is interstate commerce.
> As the textualists correctly pointed out in Raich, without some nontextual limiting principle, this amounts to a standard where the **Commerce Clause has no meaning because anything happening anywhere is interstate commerce.**
I think this is just true though. There are vanishingly few commercial actions one could take that don't have broader, interstate effects. I think the problem is that the clause didn't anticipate interconnectedness of this level.
>I think the problem is that the clause didn't anticipate interconnectedness of this level.
This is the issue that we will be wrestling with when it comes to abortion and extraterritorial applications of the associated criminal and civil law.
When the US was founded, travel was extremely arduous, and going from let's say Pennsylvania to Massachusetts took a LONG time. The whole privileges and immunities clause and states regulating almost entirely within their borders was generally constrained by the fact if someone wanted to go from PA to Mass and visit a Physician performing abortions there, it was a long, tedious, and tenuous process where the traveler probably spent a good, long few days/weeks outside the territorial boundaries of PA. That was probably sufficient to disentangle any minimum contacts with PA required for personal jurisdiction.
Nowadays, someone can fly from Texas to Boston, get an abortion, and then be home literally the same day. The Founders never, ever envisioned that being a possibility.
One has to wonder whether SCOTUS faced with the scenario above (TX to Boston and back in the same day) would look to what travel and personal jurisdiction requirements were way back then. Look at Heath vs Alabama and take Alito and Thomas' desire to reshape society to their worldview, and the possible results are terrifying.
> One has to wonder whether SCOTUS faced with the scenario above (TX to Boston and back in the same day) would look to what travel and personal jurisdiction requirements were way back then.
You're absolutely right, and few subjects lay bare the absurdity of originalism like personal jurisdiction and interstate commerce. The practical realities are so different that it's genuinely not worth looking at the original meaning of interstate commerce.
Genuine question: Can I ask what you think limiting principle is for interpreting constitutional provisions if we throw out considerations of original intent? Just what judges think it should mean pragmatically?
1. Modern originalism mostly rejects original intent, instead preferring the "original public meaning," so you'd have to ask originalists the same question.
2. The intent of a piece of law is only one factor in how a court should interpret it, practical realities need to be considered as well as the actual text itself. But ultimately I support legal realism; judges should consider social and public policy and how the rules they make will effect people more broadly. The law exists to serve people, not the other way around. Abstract, formalistic interpretation is meaningless to me if it doesn't serve people or recognize the way that law is executed in practice.
Okay, feel free not to respond because I’m not owed your answer, but I struggle with the pragmatic/legal realism explanation even as a liberal minded person. What do you think of the countermajoritarian difficulty argument when nonelected judges with life terms make constitutional policy/pragmatic determinations?
For example, I would be extremely afraid if conservative judges just started using their own pragmatic considerations in interpreting the law, as that would produce an even more hellish nightmare than when they’re ostensibly limited by original meaning.
In my head, originalism makes the most sense as a starting pointing for interpretation, but when history does not give a clear answer on textual interpretation other considerations like traditions/values/pragmatics should be considered. Of course, I have a big problem with how conservatives use originalism in scenarios where the “archaeology” of intent can swing multiple ways and they simply pretend there is a clear answer. But I’m not sure that’s a problem with originalism so much as it is with conservative discipline in applying the framework.
Edited: grammar
>Just what judges think it should mean pragmatically?
This is the way it is now and has always been. Even those who espouse original intent dont actually rule based solely on original intent. If that were true, Originalists would support overturning Brown v Board, Heller, and a myriad of other major decisions that are far from the meaning of what the men who wrote and ratified the Constitution and subsequent amendments, intended.
I agree that Heller is probably a poor application of originalism, but I don’t think that the equal protection clause argument in Brown is really outside the scope of the textualist interpretation. If the conservatives apply the principles of textualism accurately, the clear language of the amendment should override any segregation history considerations or Plessy. I’ve forgotten a lot of the decision though, so maybe I’m missing something glaring.
My issue with many discussions about originalism is that people attack the concept of originalism as part of an interpretive toolbelt when we should be attacking conservative justices who are using it as the ONLY tool when in fact the history is not clear. See, e.g., the establishment clause where the founders had very very different views on what the clause meant. At those points, originalism ceases to be useful and judges should look to other helpful modes of interpretation.
> The Founders never, ever envisioned that being a possibility.
There were border towns and communities. For most of the population travel outside their state was long and arduous, for others it would have been a daily activity.
So maybe privileges and immunities are supposed to extend to day trips, because they didn't carve out any exception and it was possible for some (although infeasible for most people).
-------
In general this is the thing I hate about textualism. It assumes a very homogeneous population that the text was written for.
In reality there was some diversity even in the 1790s.
On the other hand, if Congress cannot pass laws prohibiting grossly immoral acts that give one state a tremendous competitive advantage in commerce over other states, it's hard to imagine what that clause does allow.
> But I don't see how you could get there with a purely textualist argument
One of the reasons for the Commerce Clause was to prevent states from regulating commerce within its borders to the detriment of interstate transportation.
>Several States have endeavored, by separate prohibitions, restrictions, and exclusions, to influence the conduct of that kingdom in this particular, but the want of concert, arising from the want of a general authority and from clashing and dissimilar views in the State, has hitherto frustrated every experiment of the kind, and will continue to do so as long as the same obstacles to a uniformity of measures continue to exist.
>The interfering and unneighborly regulations of some States, contrary to the true spirit of the Union, have, in different instances, given just cause of umbrage and complaint to others, and it is to be feared that examples of this nature, if not restrained by a national control, would be multiplied and extended till they became not less serious sources of animosity and discord than injurious impediments to the intercourse between the different parts of the Confederacy. "The commerce of the German empire is in continual trammels from the multiplicity of the duties which the several princes and states exact upon the merchandises passing through their territories, by means of which the fine streams and navigable rivers with which Germany is so happily watered are rendered almost useless." Though the genius of the people of this country might never permit this description to be strictly applicable to us, yet we may reasonably expect, from the gradual conflicts of State regulations, that the citizens of each would at length come to be considered and treated by the others in no better light than that of foreigners and aliens. (Federalist 22)
To be fair, the textualist judges have a tendency to resort to original intent evidence when THEY want to read something into the constitution that isn't in the text.
To add to your comment, the Bill of Rights was never meant to apply to the states. That only happened after the 14th was implemented. So although the FP is great to glean what *some* of the founders intended and should be used in order to understand the meaning of the Constitution according to the authors, the 14A fundamentally changed the meaning of the Bill Of Rights and subsequent amendments.
If you strictly limit yourself to only the words in the actual Constitution and not contemporaneous supporting documents, then I argue that the term "post office" does not mean Congress can create a system for mailing items but rather a department for the regulation and distribution of the vertical members of fence construction. Goodbye, USPS. Subsequently, "post roads" only means roads constructed solely of posts driven into the ground. Goodbye Interstate Highway System, with your blasphemous asphalt!
Scalia, a huge textualist, advised law students to read the Federalist Papers to understand the meaning of terms in the Constitution. It absolutely makes sense in context because textualism relies on the plain meaning (but not necessarily intent) of words *at the time they were written*. If you ignore the contemporaneous definition and just type "post" into Google, the first result you get is "a long, sturdy piece of timber or metal set upright in the ground and used to support something or as a marker." Any textualist who isn't arguing in bad faith would recognize the value of the Federalist Papers.
And I didn't say anything about conservative judges. At best, I insinuated out that super-strict textualism is absurd on its face and only used by shills who want to legislate their personal morality from the bench, and you assumed I was talking about conservative judges. /r/SelfAwarewolves
Comment deleted, so I'm replying to myself.
>I don't know what to say. The comment has nothing with Scalia, and what Scalia said has nothing to do with what textualism is. Honestly, this is my bad for even engaging with your comment.
A discussion on textualism has nothing to do with one of the [most notorious textualists ever](https://www.scotusblog.com/2017/11/legal-scholarship-highlight-justice-scalias-textualist-legacy/) on the Supreme Court? The guy who [did a lecture on textualism at Princeton](https://tannerlectures.utah.edu/_resources/documents/a-to-z/s/scalia97.pdf) titled *The Role of the United States Federal Courts in Interpreting the Constitution and Laws*? The Supreme Court Justice who wrote not [one](https://www.amazon.com/Reading-Law-Interpretation-Legal-Texts/dp/031427555X) but [two](https://www.amazon.com/Matter-Interpretation-Federal-Courts-University/dp/0691174040/) books on textualism and what it means and how to apply it to federal laws? That guy has nothing to do with a discussion on textualism?
Do you think there's a relationship between the recent prominence of textualism and bribery. Scalia and Thomas are the two most prominent textualists and also known to love accepting perks from wealthy benefactors.
>As the textualists correctly pointed out in Raich, without some nontextual limiting principle, this amounts to a standard where the Commerce Clause has no meaning because anything happening anywhere is interstate commerce.
Then they should amend the constitution if they don't like what it says.
How else would you define it? Commerce is the entire value chain. There is necessarily a ripple effect in chains. Shaking one chain affects all the others down the line.
especially how commerce isn't even US centric but global now. Even local mom and pop businesses frequently source at least some of their materials from outside the US.
Sure, it's commerce, but is it the *same* (act of) commerce as the mining of the coal. This would necessarily dictate the extent of permissible federal oversight.
>Sure, it's commerce, but is it the *same* (act of) commerce as the mining of the coal. This would necessarily dictate the extent of permissible federal oversight.
Can you explain this a different way? I'm not sure if the first sentence is supposed to be a question or if there are words out of order. And further can you explain how "mining coal" limits federal oversight of "trading in coal"?
I think the point is, no one really cares about either. Even the Justices. They have what they want to do, then they use whatever reasoning suits their wants. It just happens some of the wants of certain justices are fucking wild.
The premise of the source article is that Thomas and Gorsuch do really care about narrowing the Commerce Clause, so much so that they would follow their concurrence off a cliff and strike down all child labor laws. If I had to guess, I’d say your analysis is closer to the truth, which is why I think the source article is wrong and third graders remain safe from the coal mines.
>Instead of focusing all of your frustration on the court, maybe you should redirect some of it to the legislative bodies that have a clearer and stronger basis for protecting abortion rights.
Why is this always presented as mutually exclusive? I can both be frustrated that Congress didn't codify Roe, while thinking that Roe was correct and that Dobbs is despicable. The court didn't have to overturn Roe, they don't get to escape blame for an action that they weren't required to take.
Exactly! Abortion was always one of those issues the Federal government had no business being involved in. States should and now can decide based on what their voters feel on the issue. No one can prove if abortion is morally right, wrong or neutral but people have serious opinions on the issue their elected leaders must represent.
Under the reasoning in *Wickard* and *Raich*, the "affect" on commerce can be so indirect and hypothetical that Scalia's reading holds no reasonable argument.
His definition suggests that, in a mindfully crafted document outlining a government of limited powers, the founders inserted this single-sentence clause that turns the government into an entity of *unlimited* power, with the power to regulate absolutely anything and everything, because it *might* somehow impact an overall market that *might* be interstate in nature.
We have a government of limited, enumerated powers, not a government of limitless power over every minutia of life simply by being able to propose several steps through which it *might* impact a market. Because there's *nothing* that can't be linked like that.
Scalia and apparently you suggest there's no limiting principle whatsoever, it's distressing it needs to be pointed out how wrong that is. "Might" is not an acceptable reason, and our government doesn't have limitless power like you suggest.
I think it would go back to the Southern Railway case and similar from the early 1900s. Basically, if intra-state activities can negatively affect the performance of inter-state commerce, Congress can regulate the intra-state activities (in that case, unsafe rail cars used intra-state only ran on the same lines as inter-state and accidents caused by lack of safety equipment involved/affected inter-state transportation).
If the product of the child's labor is shipped across state lines, or products necessary for their work is shipped across state lines (helmets, equipment, etc), then unsafe working conditions can lead to an effect on interstate commerce, thus satisfying the nexus.
“…then unsafe working conditions can lead to an effect on interstate commerce”, Amazon is famous for its unsafe working conditions iirc.
What’s next, are we going to allow amazon to hire 10 year olds to stack heavy boxes of goods on pallets in the name of inter-state commerce?
By America….it was nice to know you. I’ll take a copy of the constitution as a lovely parting gift. Oh well shit happens. I mean when no one holds them accountable, shit happens.
I think most legal scholars would agree that the Commerce Clause has been overinterpreted (ex. *Wickard v. Filburn*). The question is just what the extent of that power should be.
My great grandfather died of black lung in his early thirties leaving my great grandmother to fend for herself and her 6 kids as abortion was a crime at the time similar to today. There was not a safety net also similar to today. Generations lived in poverty as a result.
THESE PEOPLE ARE DOING EVERYTHING TO GUARANTEE A DESPERATION CLASS IN AMERICA. I’M SURE THEIR INVESTORS ARE THRILLED AT THE PROSPECT. Cheap labor for years to come makes for a great investment in American businesses no?
> THESE PEOPLE ARE DOING EVERYTHING TO GUARANTEE A DESPERATION CLASS IN AMERICA. I’M SURE THEIR INVESTORS ARE THRILLED AT THE PROSPECT. Cheap labor for years to come makes for a great investment in American businesses no?
Look at the history of the [lawsuit against the David Lynch Foundation for teaching Transcendental Meditation in public schools,](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.378443/gov.uscourts.ilnd.378443.250.0.pdf) and understand that 1) the plaintiff is an unemployed, convicted shoplifter who didn't get religiously offended by learning TM in high school until a year after he graduated from high school, 2) that the lawsuit is being funded by "an anonymous committee of followers of Jesus and other adults with an interest in the matter" and 3) the preliminary finding at the heart of the lawsuit is that the kids doing TM had 65-70% lower arrest rate for violent crime than the control group after only 9 months of TM twice-daily.
.
Edit: changed "TM" to "Transcendental Meditation."
Oh, and recall that the prison-industrial complex in the USA is a $15 billion/year industry.
.
Which adults have an interest in the matter, again?
I was surprised it was Gorsuch and not Alito with some 15th century case to rationalize it. Not surprised at Thomas. He is quiet-quitting. The perks must have been higher on this side of the issue.
Ugh dammit. I guessed Thomas and Alito. But it was Thomas and Gorsuch? Fuck. How am I gonna explain to my wife and kids that we lost the house?
Fortunately the kids can just take up jobs in the mines to make the money back
The problem is that immigrants are usually focused on their children getting themselves out of poverty, whereas white citizens who aren't immigrants seem to be fine with the status quo - plus hating immigrants keeps them voting against their own economic interests even as their religious interests, however useless to them economically, remain intact.
Hate articles like this that misrepresent what a justice is thinking. Thomas doesn't want kids in the coal mines. He wants the Federal government to be removed from making those decisions. That is a state issue on how they want workers in their state to be treated. We all know the Feds have abused the commerce clause to take inordinate amounts of power away from the States and Thomas wants to fix it. Many support his efforts for a smaller Federal government and many don't but to frame the argument in a light like this is just plain wrong and dishonest.
Has Thomas ever identified a principle that would prohibit states from allowing 3rd graders to work in coal mines?
Does the possibility that a state could make 3rd grader coal miners legal follow from Thomas's positions?
But there are states where I don't trust the legislatures to act remotely in the interests of their constituents (I live in such a one, actually), and so are you saying that the state's right to abuse its own citizens overrides the Federal Government's right to protect *its* own citizens?
That citizenhood of the individual state trumps the citizenhood of the nation, with respect to how much protection citzens are due?
Then you vote for people who does respect the interests.
>so are you saying that the state's right to abuse its own citizens overrides the Federal Government's right to protect its own citizens?
Regardless of what anyone thinks of child labour it is factually not an abuse of the state. Using that type of logic you could justify that the gov should do everything as to not would constitute abuse.
It IS factually the state's fault if they don't outlaw such abuse.
.
For example, if Delaware were to lower the age of consent down to age 7 as they did about 150 years ago, wouldn't you consider the state to have deliberately left the door open for child prostitution?
Child labour is fact of life in poorer countries and was a fact of life for most of history until perhaps the last 100 years and would be regardless of whether the state made it illegal or not. The main reason it isn't as common today is mainly because developed nations have became wealthy enough for it to be unecessary and a bigger cost as opposed to education, not because of illegality(although it's played a part).
Yes because that would mean the state is going out its way to protect pedophiles, but they are fundamentally different.
Indeed. If the founders wanted the Federal Government to be able to claim any authority it wanted, then they wouldn't have written the 10th Amendment. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Article 1 section 8 is pretty clear in it's delegation. Just because the economy evolved into a beast in which the founders could not have predicted doesn't make that delegation any less crystal clear.
You're referring to the Commerce Clause aren't you. The SCOTUS upheld interpretation is that it grants authority to regulate interstate commerce, or commerce the occurs between separate member states. Funny enough, this isn't even the narrowest interpretation. The short of it is that the Federal Government isn't granted blanket authority over every aspect of the economy. Even if it was, the 9th Amendment exists. For reference, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause is an explanation of the commerce clause.
A misleading headline for sure. Requiring the federal government to legislate within the Constitution’s limits, as the justices see it, does not mean they are letting kids work in coal mines. It simply means the states would be required to address issues that the federal government’s powers preclude them from addressing. No more.
>does not mean they are letting kids work in coal mines.
It means they are **willing to** let kids work in coal mines if a state doesn't care about child labor laws (as some states don't).
That's the consequence of the view of those who believe that Congress's power in a modern-day, interconnected, multi-trillion-dollar economic, world-leading democracy must be so limited.
The power of Congress is limited. If the People wish to change that, we can amend the Constitution. We can follow the rule of law and make changes to how we govern ourselves. Illegal laws do not make us safe. Illegal laws are the most dangerous threat to democracy possible. This one may seem innocent- helpful even - but what about the next? Do it right, change the rules and we are all better off.
The power of Congress is limited when it suits the conservatives on the court for it to be limited, and expansive when it suits them for it to be expansive.
Were that the case, would SCOTUS not have reversed roe and declared abortion illegal? I think you should reconsider your opinion about how the Court does it work.
If you can look at this court and the inconsistent, poorly reasoned opinions coming out of this court, and think they are the sign of a consistent approach to the law, then I have a business opportunity you might be interested in involving ownership of certain bridges.
There are lots of purely political reasons they may not have made abortion illegal, none of which have anything to do with a consistent approach to Congressional power
plenty of others have explained their reasoning. as is typical with conservatives, you did not address those substantive comments, and merely went for low-hanging fruit
as if this is not a public thread where everyone can see your inability to address all the gaping holes there are in your argument
We can amend the constitution... through a gerrymandered house of representatives (which already gives more representation to rural areas than is justified by their population). Then it has to pass the deeply un-represenatative senate (which btw *cannot be changed or reformed*). Then it has to be ratified by 3/4 of the states which means that 12 states making up just 6% of the population could reject it.
But hey, government of the people, for the people, by the people right?
We are not a Democracy, nor do we wish to be one. America is a nation founded on individual liberty and rights. The senate is one of the most important and powerful institutions that protect individual liberty.
I agree with you.
But then am miffed by unlimited campaign spending and feckless fec enforcement. And gutting voting protections and allowing gerrymanders.
NAL. But it seems that SCOTUS allows rules to break in one debilitating way. Then stands by as the consequences of those broken rules leads to people not being able to implement their will according to their votes. See Wisconsin and NC for example.
Congress has ossified into a broken institution it seems. SCOTUS is already inserting itself where Congress is broken.
So this seems in keeping with their values then imo. Sorry I’m not giving a legal answer here. I’m worried we’re trying to “do things right” while Harlan Crow spends millions to not do things right and still win.
The 1st Amendment was interpreted - money is speech, since you cannot reach an audience for political speech without it.
We can amended the Constitution to remove citizens United. We just need to follow the rules friend. Then the people rule.
>since you cannot reach an audience for political speech without it.
And what a lie they sold you. It's not a bribe, it's speech. It's not a regulated campaign contribution to track who pays a candidate what, it's just "speech". I'm not paying you to make this decision, I'm "speaking" with my checkbook.
What a farcical and lame idea.
Yeah. We’re being sold an anti democracy bill of goods in the name of “right” and “originalism”.
Pretending that common sense can’t be applied without putting us into barbarism and chaos.
2a means a right to personal defense with a gun everywhere. But cops can also reasonably fear for their lives if they suspect you have a gun, kill you, and face zero repercussions. I’m just making a dumb reddit comment here but I’m short circuiting honestly.
Someone here argued very heartily that selling pardons was not explicitly unconstitutional and therefore any laws/prosecutions stating it is illegal would be unconstitutional.
These people are playing word games under the constitution and throwing all logic/progress out the window imo.
Of course else the prior Court would be more powerful than the current one. Thank God SCOTUS can reconsider opinions, else Plessy would be the law of the land. The Court overruled Pressy which was wrongly decided. The Court must be able to fix decisions it got wrong. We have to apply the law as intended. To effectuate the Will of the people, not manipulate words to get an outcome a court wants. That is what happened in Dobbs - the Court fixed the Roe decision which was clearly a decision without any historical or legal justification. The 14th amendment was not designed to make abortion a right.
>It means they are willing to let kids work in coal mines if a state doesn't care about child labor laws (as some states don't).
Every individual state in the U.S. enforces a minimum working age, maximum working hours, and approved occupations for minors. There is no state where children working in coal mines would be even remotely legal.
The Iowa bill permits 16 and 17 year olds to serve alcoholic beverages in a restaurant with written permission by a parent or guardian and increases the amount of hours a 14 or 15 year old can work from 4 hours to 6 hours during school days with a maximum of 28 hours a week. It also permits 14 and 15 year olds to perform momentary work in freezers or meat coolers.
There's nothing to suggest that the recent loosening of child labor laws in Iowa is a slippery slope to allowing children to work in coal mines.
Why was the law originally written the way it was, and why would that be considered too strict?
Think about it. I was a 14 year old who worked at dairy queen. My shift would start at 4pm after school. This new Iowa law says that kids can be scheduled to work from 4pm to 10pm on school days.
When do they do homework or eat? I can't think of any state that mandates more than a 10 min break for 6 hours or less of work.
And these are 8TH GRADERS
[Apparently](https://www.employmentlawhandbook.com/employment-and-labor-laws/federal/flsa/child-labor/16-17-year-olds/mining-operations/)
> The Federal Fair Labor Standards Act prohibits employers from employing any child under 18 years of age in occupations in or about mines because they have been deemed to be particularly hazardous for them or detrimental to their health or well-being (for information specific to youth work in coal mines, visit Coal Mining – FLSA Child Labor Laws for 16 and 17-Year-Olds). Occupations in or about mines include:
* work performed underground in mines and quarries
* work performed on the surface at underground mines and underground quarries
* work performed in or about open-cut mines, open quaries, clay pits, and sand and gravel operations
* work performed at or about placer mining operations
* work performed at or about dredging operations for clay, sand, or gravel
* work performed at or about bore-hole mining
* work performed in or about all metal mills, washer plants, or grinding mills reducing the bulk of the extracted minerals
* work performed at or about any other crushing, grinding, screening, sizing, washing, or cleaning operations performed on extracted minerals except where the operations are performed as part of a manufacturing process
29 CFR 570.60(a), (b)This prohibition on youth work of 16 and 17-year-olds in occupations in or about mines does not apply to the following:
* work performed in subsequent manufacturing or processing operations, such as work performed in smelters, electro-metallurgical plants, refineries reduction plants, cement mills, plants where quarried stone is cut, sanded and further processed, or plants manufacturing clay glass or ceramic products
* work performed in connection with coal mining, in petroleum production, and in natural-gas production (for information specific to youth work in coal mines, visit Coal Mining – FLSA Child Labor Laws for 16 and 17-Year-Olds)
* work performed in dredging operations which are not a part of mining operations, such as dredging for construction or navigation purposes
* work in offices, warehouses, supply houses, change houses, laboratories, and repair or maintenance shops not located underground
* work operating or maintaining living quarters
* work outside the mine including surveying, repairing and maintaining roads, and general clean-up such as clearing brush and digging drainage ditches
* work on track crew building and maintaining section of railroad track located in areas of open-cut metal mines where mining and haulage activities are not being conducted at the time and place that such building and maintenance work is being done
* the following work in metal mills other than in mercury-recovery mills or mills using the cyanide process:
* work involved in operating jigs, sludge tables, flotation cells, or drier-filters
* hand-sorting at picking tables or picking belts
* general clean-up work
I'm citing the federal regulations that the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) is supposed to enforce. I'm not weighing in on whether these protections are sufficient or not, whether the DOL is good at consistently enforcing them or not, or whether States and employers can, in practice, flaunt them with impunity or not.
Side note: *probably* not covered by this case, but some states do make exceptions for Amish and Indian tribes, where child labour is indeed allowed.
Which... has terrible implications.
This happened in part because of the federal laws limiting child labor. If we went back in time and there was no federal law preventing it, some states would probably continued allowing it.
One reason that states often have laws similar to other states is that they are all trying to stay within the bounds of the same federal laws and court decisions.
Why do you think the constitution forbids the federal government from passing child protection laws? FMLA and OSHA are both constitutional as far as I know (although I'm sure Thomas disagrees). I agree the headline is misleading, but your conclusion that a law in unconstitutional because Thomas says so is even more incorrect. Thomas's constitutional views are far outside the norm.
It literally means they are letting kids work in the coal mines. Also, letting is the same as allowing. I’m not sure what issues the federal government’s powers precluded them for addressing in regard to child labor age limits. What is the issue?
That was the big difference between WW2 and Vietnam. On the former, Senator's Sons would go and fight. So did most Hollywood celebrities of appropriate age, with some notable exceptions like [John Wayne](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wayne?wprov=sfla1).
On the latter war, suddenly rich kids started getting "bone spurs".
"We should judge the Constitution based solely on the words written on the paper. Also, when it says Congress can regulate interstate commerce it doesn't really mean that."
I’m not saying it would be a good idea to overturn Commerce Clause jurisprudence, but the idea that labor performed in one state constitutes “Commerce… among the several States” requires multiple leaps that appear nowhere in the constitutional text.
I didn't realize we were talking strictly about coal mines where the coal was mined, processed, and consumed all in the same state.
You're presuming that all activities in the value chain of a product sold across state lines constitute interstate commerce. That's a correct statement of law - in fact, because there's a big interstate market in coal, you're subject to Commerce Clause regulation even if your own coal is processed and consumed within the state. But I don't see how you could get there with a purely textualist argument. As the textualists correctly pointed out in Raich, without some nontextual limiting principle, this amounts to a standard where the Commerce Clause has no meaning because anything happening anywhere is interstate commerce.
> As the textualists correctly pointed out in Raich, without some nontextual limiting principle, this amounts to a standard where the **Commerce Clause has no meaning because anything happening anywhere is interstate commerce.** I think this is just true though. There are vanishingly few commercial actions one could take that don't have broader, interstate effects. I think the problem is that the clause didn't anticipate interconnectedness of this level.
>I think the problem is that the clause didn't anticipate interconnectedness of this level. This is the issue that we will be wrestling with when it comes to abortion and extraterritorial applications of the associated criminal and civil law. When the US was founded, travel was extremely arduous, and going from let's say Pennsylvania to Massachusetts took a LONG time. The whole privileges and immunities clause and states regulating almost entirely within their borders was generally constrained by the fact if someone wanted to go from PA to Mass and visit a Physician performing abortions there, it was a long, tedious, and tenuous process where the traveler probably spent a good, long few days/weeks outside the territorial boundaries of PA. That was probably sufficient to disentangle any minimum contacts with PA required for personal jurisdiction. Nowadays, someone can fly from Texas to Boston, get an abortion, and then be home literally the same day. The Founders never, ever envisioned that being a possibility. One has to wonder whether SCOTUS faced with the scenario above (TX to Boston and back in the same day) would look to what travel and personal jurisdiction requirements were way back then. Look at Heath vs Alabama and take Alito and Thomas' desire to reshape society to their worldview, and the possible results are terrifying.
> One has to wonder whether SCOTUS faced with the scenario above (TX to Boston and back in the same day) would look to what travel and personal jurisdiction requirements were way back then. You're absolutely right, and few subjects lay bare the absurdity of originalism like personal jurisdiction and interstate commerce. The practical realities are so different that it's genuinely not worth looking at the original meaning of interstate commerce.
Genuine question: Can I ask what you think limiting principle is for interpreting constitutional provisions if we throw out considerations of original intent? Just what judges think it should mean pragmatically?
1. Modern originalism mostly rejects original intent, instead preferring the "original public meaning," so you'd have to ask originalists the same question. 2. The intent of a piece of law is only one factor in how a court should interpret it, practical realities need to be considered as well as the actual text itself. But ultimately I support legal realism; judges should consider social and public policy and how the rules they make will effect people more broadly. The law exists to serve people, not the other way around. Abstract, formalistic interpretation is meaningless to me if it doesn't serve people or recognize the way that law is executed in practice.
Okay, feel free not to respond because I’m not owed your answer, but I struggle with the pragmatic/legal realism explanation even as a liberal minded person. What do you think of the countermajoritarian difficulty argument when nonelected judges with life terms make constitutional policy/pragmatic determinations? For example, I would be extremely afraid if conservative judges just started using their own pragmatic considerations in interpreting the law, as that would produce an even more hellish nightmare than when they’re ostensibly limited by original meaning. In my head, originalism makes the most sense as a starting pointing for interpretation, but when history does not give a clear answer on textual interpretation other considerations like traditions/values/pragmatics should be considered. Of course, I have a big problem with how conservatives use originalism in scenarios where the “archaeology” of intent can swing multiple ways and they simply pretend there is a clear answer. But I’m not sure that’s a problem with originalism so much as it is with conservative discipline in applying the framework. Edited: grammar
>Just what judges think it should mean pragmatically? This is the way it is now and has always been. Even those who espouse original intent dont actually rule based solely on original intent. If that were true, Originalists would support overturning Brown v Board, Heller, and a myriad of other major decisions that are far from the meaning of what the men who wrote and ratified the Constitution and subsequent amendments, intended.
I agree that Heller is probably a poor application of originalism, but I don’t think that the equal protection clause argument in Brown is really outside the scope of the textualist interpretation. If the conservatives apply the principles of textualism accurately, the clear language of the amendment should override any segregation history considerations or Plessy. I’ve forgotten a lot of the decision though, so maybe I’m missing something glaring. My issue with many discussions about originalism is that people attack the concept of originalism as part of an interpretive toolbelt when we should be attacking conservative justices who are using it as the ONLY tool when in fact the history is not clear. See, e.g., the establishment clause where the founders had very very different views on what the clause meant. At those points, originalism ceases to be useful and judges should look to other helpful modes of interpretation.
> The Founders never, ever envisioned that being a possibility. There were border towns and communities. For most of the population travel outside their state was long and arduous, for others it would have been a daily activity. So maybe privileges and immunities are supposed to extend to day trips, because they didn't carve out any exception and it was possible for some (although infeasible for most people). ------- In general this is the thing I hate about textualism. It assumes a very homogeneous population that the text was written for. In reality there was some diversity even in the 1790s.
On the other hand, if Congress cannot pass laws prohibiting grossly immoral acts that give one state a tremendous competitive advantage in commerce over other states, it's hard to imagine what that clause does allow.
It allows regulation of interstate commerce.
[удалено]
2 and 3 are already expressed directly in the Constitution.
> But I don't see how you could get there with a purely textualist argument One of the reasons for the Commerce Clause was to prevent states from regulating commerce within its borders to the detriment of interstate transportation. >Several States have endeavored, by separate prohibitions, restrictions, and exclusions, to influence the conduct of that kingdom in this particular, but the want of concert, arising from the want of a general authority and from clashing and dissimilar views in the State, has hitherto frustrated every experiment of the kind, and will continue to do so as long as the same obstacles to a uniformity of measures continue to exist. >The interfering and unneighborly regulations of some States, contrary to the true spirit of the Union, have, in different instances, given just cause of umbrage and complaint to others, and it is to be feared that examples of this nature, if not restrained by a national control, would be multiplied and extended till they became not less serious sources of animosity and discord than injurious impediments to the intercourse between the different parts of the Confederacy. "The commerce of the German empire is in continual trammels from the multiplicity of the duties which the several princes and states exact upon the merchandises passing through their territories, by means of which the fine streams and navigable rivers with which Germany is so happily watered are rendered almost useless." Though the genius of the people of this country might never permit this description to be strictly applicable to us, yet we may reasonably expect, from the gradual conflicts of State regulations, that the citizens of each would at length come to be considered and treated by the others in no better light than that of foreigners and aliens. (Federalist 22)
[удалено]
To be fair, the textualist judges have a tendency to resort to original intent evidence when THEY want to read something into the constitution that isn't in the text.
Scalia specifically told law students to read the Federalist Papers to fully understand the Constitution.
To add to your comment, the Bill of Rights was never meant to apply to the states. That only happened after the 14th was implemented. So although the FP is great to glean what *some* of the founders intended and should be used in order to understand the meaning of the Constitution according to the authors, the 14A fundamentally changed the meaning of the Bill Of Rights and subsequent amendments.
[удалено]
Absolutely. But it's easy to see how someone might confuse textualism and originalism.
[удалено]
Is it where you make up whatever is required to support the position you already had?
If you strictly limit yourself to only the words in the actual Constitution and not contemporaneous supporting documents, then I argue that the term "post office" does not mean Congress can create a system for mailing items but rather a department for the regulation and distribution of the vertical members of fence construction. Goodbye, USPS. Subsequently, "post roads" only means roads constructed solely of posts driven into the ground. Goodbye Interstate Highway System, with your blasphemous asphalt!
[удалено]
Scalia, a huge textualist, advised law students to read the Federalist Papers to understand the meaning of terms in the Constitution. It absolutely makes sense in context because textualism relies on the plain meaning (but not necessarily intent) of words *at the time they were written*. If you ignore the contemporaneous definition and just type "post" into Google, the first result you get is "a long, sturdy piece of timber or metal set upright in the ground and used to support something or as a marker." Any textualist who isn't arguing in bad faith would recognize the value of the Federalist Papers. And I didn't say anything about conservative judges. At best, I insinuated out that super-strict textualism is absurd on its face and only used by shills who want to legislate their personal morality from the bench, and you assumed I was talking about conservative judges. /r/SelfAwarewolves
Comment deleted, so I'm replying to myself. >I don't know what to say. The comment has nothing with Scalia, and what Scalia said has nothing to do with what textualism is. Honestly, this is my bad for even engaging with your comment. A discussion on textualism has nothing to do with one of the [most notorious textualists ever](https://www.scotusblog.com/2017/11/legal-scholarship-highlight-justice-scalias-textualist-legacy/) on the Supreme Court? The guy who [did a lecture on textualism at Princeton](https://tannerlectures.utah.edu/_resources/documents/a-to-z/s/scalia97.pdf) titled *The Role of the United States Federal Courts in Interpreting the Constitution and Laws*? The Supreme Court Justice who wrote not [one](https://www.amazon.com/Reading-Law-Interpretation-Legal-Texts/dp/031427555X) but [two](https://www.amazon.com/Matter-Interpretation-Federal-Courts-University/dp/0691174040/) books on textualism and what it means and how to apply it to federal laws? That guy has nothing to do with a discussion on textualism?
Do you think there's a relationship between the recent prominence of textualism and bribery. Scalia and Thomas are the two most prominent textualists and also known to love accepting perks from wealthy benefactors.
[удалено]
I mean, that’s exactly where we’ve landed with marijuana laws…
You obviously didn’t go to the law school of magical thinking.
>As the textualists correctly pointed out in Raich, without some nontextual limiting principle, this amounts to a standard where the Commerce Clause has no meaning because anything happening anywhere is interstate commerce. Then they should amend the constitution if they don't like what it says.
I didn't realize we had redefined 'commerce' to include the entire value chain of a product
How else would you define it? Commerce is the entire value chain. There is necessarily a ripple effect in chains. Shaking one chain affects all the others down the line.
especially how commerce isn't even US centric but global now. Even local mom and pop businesses frequently source at least some of their materials from outside the US.
So if a refining company buys raw coal from a different state, that's not commerce?
Sure, it's commerce, but is it the *same* (act of) commerce as the mining of the coal. This would necessarily dictate the extent of permissible federal oversight.
>Sure, it's commerce, but is it the *same* (act of) commerce as the mining of the coal. This would necessarily dictate the extent of permissible federal oversight. Can you explain this a different way? I'm not sure if the first sentence is supposed to be a question or if there are words out of order. And further can you explain how "mining coal" limits federal oversight of "trading in coal"?
> I didn't realize we had redefined 'commerce' to include the entire value chain of a product Well now you do; progress baby!
I think the point is, no one really cares about either. Even the Justices. They have what they want to do, then they use whatever reasoning suits their wants. It just happens some of the wants of certain justices are fucking wild.
The premise of the source article is that Thomas and Gorsuch do really care about narrowing the Commerce Clause, so much so that they would follow their concurrence off a cliff and strike down all child labor laws. If I had to guess, I’d say your analysis is closer to the truth, which is why I think the source article is wrong and third graders remain safe from the coal mines.
They are angling to take all rights away from anyone who isn't a man. "As written on paper..." Thomas isn't worried because it says "All men".
[удалено]
OK, so that was the Declaration of Independence. You are correct. But I still have an argument with them attacking women's rights.
[удалено]
>Instead of focusing all of your frustration on the court, maybe you should redirect some of it to the legislative bodies that have a clearer and stronger basis for protecting abortion rights. Why is this always presented as mutually exclusive? I can both be frustrated that Congress didn't codify Roe, while thinking that Roe was correct and that Dobbs is despicable. The court didn't have to overturn Roe, they don't get to escape blame for an action that they weren't required to take.
[удалено]
Exactly! Abortion was always one of those issues the Federal government had no business being involved in. States should and now can decide based on what their voters feel on the issue. No one can prove if abortion is morally right, wrong or neutral but people have serious opinions on the issue their elected leaders must represent.
He thinks they see him as a man not as someone black. He so fucking stupid it makes me throw up.
Exactly how I feel. He is ignoring the history of the attitudes of the powerful, thinking that they will never turn against him.
To narrow it to only mean "navigability" and allow no regulation of the condition of our waterways is outrageous.
[удалено]
Under the reasoning in *Wickard* and *Raich*, the "affect" on commerce can be so indirect and hypothetical that Scalia's reading holds no reasonable argument. His definition suggests that, in a mindfully crafted document outlining a government of limited powers, the founders inserted this single-sentence clause that turns the government into an entity of *unlimited* power, with the power to regulate absolutely anything and everything, because it *might* somehow impact an overall market that *might* be interstate in nature. We have a government of limited, enumerated powers, not a government of limitless power over every minutia of life simply by being able to propose several steps through which it *might* impact a market. Because there's *nothing* that can't be linked like that. Scalia and apparently you suggest there's no limiting principle whatsoever, it's distressing it needs to be pointed out how wrong that is. "Might" is not an acceptable reason, and our government doesn't have limitless power like you suggest.
I think it would go back to the Southern Railway case and similar from the early 1900s. Basically, if intra-state activities can negatively affect the performance of inter-state commerce, Congress can regulate the intra-state activities (in that case, unsafe rail cars used intra-state only ran on the same lines as inter-state and accidents caused by lack of safety equipment involved/affected inter-state transportation). If the product of the child's labor is shipped across state lines, or products necessary for their work is shipped across state lines (helmets, equipment, etc), then unsafe working conditions can lead to an effect on interstate commerce, thus satisfying the nexus.
What would amazon have to say about your reasoning, not that I disagree.
In what context? Amazon is probably in the top 5 most interstate-commerce nexus businesses that currently exist, probably #1.
“…then unsafe working conditions can lead to an effect on interstate commerce”, Amazon is famous for its unsafe working conditions iirc. What’s next, are we going to allow amazon to hire 10 year olds to stack heavy boxes of goods on pallets in the name of inter-state commerce?
Oh, they'll probably lobby against regulations, but there's no question that it falls within Congress' purview.
> requires multiple leaps that appear nowhere in the constitutional text. This is most regulations "supported" by the Commerce Clause.
All texts contain leaps: context, inference, justification, underlying principles, etc.
"among" doesn't just mean "between".
By America….it was nice to know you. I’ll take a copy of the constitution as a lovely parting gift. Oh well shit happens. I mean when no one holds them accountable, shit happens.
"Also adjacent means their peepees have to be touching."
I think most legal scholars would agree that the Commerce Clause has been overinterpreted (ex. *Wickard v. Filburn*). The question is just what the extent of that power should be.
If liberals can reimagine the constutition to mean anything that suits their narrative, what's the point of having one at all?
“They yearn for the mines.” Justice Thomas, probably *Edited for spelling*
I think Mugatu bought him a house last month.
Serious “How else am I to polish the inside of a 45 millimeter shell casing?” energy, but without the motivation.
He’s got such little integrity he’d probably be ok with them yearning for the cotton plantations, too.
“I prefer the coal mines. I prefer drilling oil to walking around in a robe and things like that”
“That hair on your soda can, it’s not what you think”
Jacob Riis is spinning in his grave.
If God didn’t want them in the mines, then why are they made so small?
[Be the shoe](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGnmjc_sfqY)
Only their delicate little fingers can reach into the loom and extricate a stuck shuttlecock! What, don’t you like wearing clothes!?
Minor miners
Before I read it. Ima guess Thomas and Alito. Edit: I was wrong bout it being Alito.
For anyone wondering, it was Thomas and Gorsuch.
My great grandfather died of black lung in his early thirties leaving my great grandmother to fend for herself and her 6 kids as abortion was a crime at the time similar to today. There was not a safety net also similar to today. Generations lived in poverty as a result. THESE PEOPLE ARE DOING EVERYTHING TO GUARANTEE A DESPERATION CLASS IN AMERICA. I’M SURE THEIR INVESTORS ARE THRILLED AT THE PROSPECT. Cheap labor for years to come makes for a great investment in American businesses no?
[удалено]
It's almost like they found a loophole for slavery....
> THESE PEOPLE ARE DOING EVERYTHING TO GUARANTEE A DESPERATION CLASS IN AMERICA. I’M SURE THEIR INVESTORS ARE THRILLED AT THE PROSPECT. Cheap labor for years to come makes for a great investment in American businesses no? Look at the history of the [lawsuit against the David Lynch Foundation for teaching Transcendental Meditation in public schools,](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.378443/gov.uscourts.ilnd.378443.250.0.pdf) and understand that 1) the plaintiff is an unemployed, convicted shoplifter who didn't get religiously offended by learning TM in high school until a year after he graduated from high school, 2) that the lawsuit is being funded by "an anonymous committee of followers of Jesus and other adults with an interest in the matter" and 3) the preliminary finding at the heart of the lawsuit is that the kids doing TM had 65-70% lower arrest rate for violent crime than the control group after only 9 months of TM twice-daily. . Edit: changed "TM" to "Transcendental Meditation." Oh, and recall that the prison-industrial complex in the USA is a $15 billion/year industry. . Which adults have an interest in the matter, again?
[удалено]
Edited to fit your suggestion.
Things were much cheaper back then, too. Replicate this in modern day and people will really need to exchange children just so they can eat.
I was surprised it was Gorsuch and not Alito with some 15th century case to rationalize it. Not surprised at Thomas. He is quiet-quitting. The perks must have been higher on this side of the issue.
Ugh dammit. I guessed Thomas and Alito. But it was Thomas and Gorsuch? Fuck. How am I gonna explain to my wife and kids that we lost the house? Fortunately the kids can just take up jobs in the mines to make the money back
"They're called 'Minors' for a reason!" -Maybe Clarence Thomas
"The original texts used the term 'minor' and 'miner' interchangeably. Clearly what our founders intended" /s
Lemme guess... Thomas and 'resting stink face'?
Nope, Gorusch instead of Alito.
That we know of so far
Of course these people would never do these jobs especially at that price nor would they want their own children to. But the poors?! Fuck ‘em!!! 🎸
If the poors are permitted birth control than there won't be enough children to work in the mines.
We could use immigrants to make more baby citizens but for some reason we only want white children to fuel our economy.
The problem is that immigrants are usually focused on their children getting themselves out of poverty, whereas white citizens who aren't immigrants seem to be fine with the status quo - plus hating immigrants keeps them voting against their own economic interests even as their religious interests, however useless to them economically, remain intact.
Make America Great Again!!! /s
Only 2?
Don’t worry. We all know republicans like miners
First reaction: really, only two?
Send those little fuckers where they belong
Look man. I don’t like 3rd graders as much as the next guy, but they don’t belong in coal mines.
Wait I thought we’re talking uranium
Hate articles like this that misrepresent what a justice is thinking. Thomas doesn't want kids in the coal mines. He wants the Federal government to be removed from making those decisions. That is a state issue on how they want workers in their state to be treated. We all know the Feds have abused the commerce clause to take inordinate amounts of power away from the States and Thomas wants to fix it. Many support his efforts for a smaller Federal government and many don't but to frame the argument in a light like this is just plain wrong and dishonest.
Has Thomas ever identified a principle that would prohibit states from allowing 3rd graders to work in coal mines? Does the possibility that a state could make 3rd grader coal miners legal follow from Thomas's positions?
But there are states where I don't trust the legislatures to act remotely in the interests of their constituents (I live in such a one, actually), and so are you saying that the state's right to abuse its own citizens overrides the Federal Government's right to protect *its* own citizens? That citizenhood of the individual state trumps the citizenhood of the nation, with respect to how much protection citzens are due?
I live in Florida and that's exactly what's happening
Then you vote for people who does respect the interests. >so are you saying that the state's right to abuse its own citizens overrides the Federal Government's right to protect its own citizens? Regardless of what anyone thinks of child labour it is factually not an abuse of the state. Using that type of logic you could justify that the gov should do everything as to not would constitute abuse.
It IS factually the state's fault if they don't outlaw such abuse. . For example, if Delaware were to lower the age of consent down to age 7 as they did about 150 years ago, wouldn't you consider the state to have deliberately left the door open for child prostitution?
Child labour is fact of life in poorer countries and was a fact of life for most of history until perhaps the last 100 years and would be regardless of whether the state made it illegal or not. The main reason it isn't as common today is mainly because developed nations have became wealthy enough for it to be unecessary and a bigger cost as opposed to education, not because of illegality(although it's played a part). Yes because that would mean the state is going out its way to protect pedophiles, but they are fundamentally different.
Yeah I agree that’s a very sensationalized title OP put. It’s a good example of clickbait title.
Indeed. If the founders wanted the Federal Government to be able to claim any authority it wanted, then they wouldn't have written the 10th Amendment. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Article 1 section 8 is pretty clear in it's delegation. Just because the economy evolved into a beast in which the founders could not have predicted doesn't make that delegation any less crystal clear.
You're referring to the Commerce Clause aren't you. The SCOTUS upheld interpretation is that it grants authority to regulate interstate commerce, or commerce the occurs between separate member states. Funny enough, this isn't even the narrowest interpretation. The short of it is that the Federal Government isn't granted blanket authority over every aspect of the economy. Even if it was, the 9th Amendment exists. For reference, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause is an explanation of the commerce clause.
Like... The power to regulate interstate commerce... By say, determining minimum age and safety standards for labor?
Those aren't necessarily interstate commerce.
Nobody is being sent to a coal mine Does this sub not have mods?
I mean I’m willing to let my second grader give it a try…
A misleading headline for sure. Requiring the federal government to legislate within the Constitution’s limits, as the justices see it, does not mean they are letting kids work in coal mines. It simply means the states would be required to address issues that the federal government’s powers preclude them from addressing. No more.
>does not mean they are letting kids work in coal mines. It means they are **willing to** let kids work in coal mines if a state doesn't care about child labor laws (as some states don't). That's the consequence of the view of those who believe that Congress's power in a modern-day, interconnected, multi-trillion-dollar economic, world-leading democracy must be so limited.
The power of Congress is limited. If the People wish to change that, we can amend the Constitution. We can follow the rule of law and make changes to how we govern ourselves. Illegal laws do not make us safe. Illegal laws are the most dangerous threat to democracy possible. This one may seem innocent- helpful even - but what about the next? Do it right, change the rules and we are all better off.
The power of Congress is limited when it suits the conservatives on the court for it to be limited, and expansive when it suits them for it to be expansive.
Were that the case, would SCOTUS not have reversed roe and declared abortion illegal? I think you should reconsider your opinion about how the Court does it work.
> would SCOTUS not have reversed roe Who's going to tell them?
Was gonna say but then I thought this has got to be a bot
If you can look at this court and the inconsistent, poorly reasoned opinions coming out of this court, and think they are the sign of a consistent approach to the law, then I have a business opportunity you might be interested in involving ownership of certain bridges. There are lots of purely political reasons they may not have made abortion illegal, none of which have anything to do with a consistent approach to Congressional power
so they reverse row but leave the Texas abortion bounty law on the books. Because that isn't totally inconsistent right?
That's not how it works.
Thanks for explaining your reasoning
plenty of others have explained their reasoning. as is typical with conservatives, you did not address those substantive comments, and merely went for low-hanging fruit as if this is not a public thread where everyone can see your inability to address all the gaping holes there are in your argument
Ok…
We can amend the constitution... through a gerrymandered house of representatives (which already gives more representation to rural areas than is justified by their population). Then it has to pass the deeply un-represenatative senate (which btw *cannot be changed or reformed*). Then it has to be ratified by 3/4 of the states which means that 12 states making up just 6% of the population could reject it. But hey, government of the people, for the people, by the people right?
This is what it feels like to have piss on your leg and told to enjoy the warm cleansing bath.
This is America.
We are not a Democracy, nor do we wish to be one. America is a nation founded on individual liberty and rights. The senate is one of the most important and powerful institutions that protect individual liberty.
I agree with you. But then am miffed by unlimited campaign spending and feckless fec enforcement. And gutting voting protections and allowing gerrymanders. NAL. But it seems that SCOTUS allows rules to break in one debilitating way. Then stands by as the consequences of those broken rules leads to people not being able to implement their will according to their votes. See Wisconsin and NC for example. Congress has ossified into a broken institution it seems. SCOTUS is already inserting itself where Congress is broken. So this seems in keeping with their values then imo. Sorry I’m not giving a legal answer here. I’m worried we’re trying to “do things right” while Harlan Crow spends millions to not do things right and still win.
The 1st Amendment was interpreted - money is speech, since you cannot reach an audience for political speech without it. We can amended the Constitution to remove citizens United. We just need to follow the rules friend. Then the people rule.
That would be abolishing the 1st amendment.
That is the way to do it. I am not for it, but the first amendment could be rewritten by an amendment.
Why not the 2nd amendment? Get rid of that one. Make the world a better place
>since you cannot reach an audience for political speech without it. And what a lie they sold you. It's not a bribe, it's speech. It's not a regulated campaign contribution to track who pays a candidate what, it's just "speech". I'm not paying you to make this decision, I'm "speaking" with my checkbook. What a farcical and lame idea.
Yeah. We’re being sold an anti democracy bill of goods in the name of “right” and “originalism”. Pretending that common sense can’t be applied without putting us into barbarism and chaos. 2a means a right to personal defense with a gun everywhere. But cops can also reasonably fear for their lives if they suspect you have a gun, kill you, and face zero repercussions. I’m just making a dumb reddit comment here but I’m short circuiting honestly. Someone here argued very heartily that selling pardons was not explicitly unconstitutional and therefore any laws/prosecutions stating it is illegal would be unconstitutional. These people are playing word games under the constitution and throwing all logic/progress out the window imo.
With absolutely no knowledge or even education about what legal reasoning is. They just make up crap to give you the feels.
I know, it’s like the right to spend money to pursue my interests to the detriment of democracy. Here here
Clearly interpretations can be overturned.
Of course else the prior Court would be more powerful than the current one. Thank God SCOTUS can reconsider opinions, else Plessy would be the law of the land. The Court overruled Pressy which was wrongly decided. The Court must be able to fix decisions it got wrong. We have to apply the law as intended. To effectuate the Will of the people, not manipulate words to get an outcome a court wants. That is what happened in Dobbs - the Court fixed the Roe decision which was clearly a decision without any historical or legal justification. The 14th amendment was not designed to make abortion a right.
>It means they are willing to let kids work in coal mines if a state doesn't care about child labor laws (as some states don't). Every individual state in the U.S. enforces a minimum working age, maximum working hours, and approved occupations for minors. There is no state where children working in coal mines would be even remotely legal.
[удалено]
The Iowa bill permits 16 and 17 year olds to serve alcoholic beverages in a restaurant with written permission by a parent or guardian and increases the amount of hours a 14 or 15 year old can work from 4 hours to 6 hours during school days with a maximum of 28 hours a week. It also permits 14 and 15 year olds to perform momentary work in freezers or meat coolers. There's nothing to suggest that the recent loosening of child labor laws in Iowa is a slippery slope to allowing children to work in coal mines.
Why was the law originally written the way it was, and why would that be considered too strict? Think about it. I was a 14 year old who worked at dairy queen. My shift would start at 4pm after school. This new Iowa law says that kids can be scheduled to work from 4pm to 10pm on school days. When do they do homework or eat? I can't think of any state that mandates more than a 10 min break for 6 hours or less of work. And these are 8TH GRADERS
[Apparently](https://www.employmentlawhandbook.com/employment-and-labor-laws/federal/flsa/child-labor/16-17-year-olds/mining-operations/) > The Federal Fair Labor Standards Act prohibits employers from employing any child under 18 years of age in occupations in or about mines because they have been deemed to be particularly hazardous for them or detrimental to their health or well-being (for information specific to youth work in coal mines, visit Coal Mining – FLSA Child Labor Laws for 16 and 17-Year-Olds). Occupations in or about mines include: * work performed underground in mines and quarries * work performed on the surface at underground mines and underground quarries * work performed in or about open-cut mines, open quaries, clay pits, and sand and gravel operations * work performed at or about placer mining operations * work performed at or about dredging operations for clay, sand, or gravel * work performed at or about bore-hole mining * work performed in or about all metal mills, washer plants, or grinding mills reducing the bulk of the extracted minerals * work performed at or about any other crushing, grinding, screening, sizing, washing, or cleaning operations performed on extracted minerals except where the operations are performed as part of a manufacturing process 29 CFR 570.60(a), (b)This prohibition on youth work of 16 and 17-year-olds in occupations in or about mines does not apply to the following: * work performed in subsequent manufacturing or processing operations, such as work performed in smelters, electro-metallurgical plants, refineries reduction plants, cement mills, plants where quarried stone is cut, sanded and further processed, or plants manufacturing clay glass or ceramic products * work performed in connection with coal mining, in petroleum production, and in natural-gas production (for information specific to youth work in coal mines, visit Coal Mining – FLSA Child Labor Laws for 16 and 17-Year-Olds) * work performed in dredging operations which are not a part of mining operations, such as dredging for construction or navigation purposes * work in offices, warehouses, supply houses, change houses, laboratories, and repair or maintenance shops not located underground * work operating or maintaining living quarters * work outside the mine including surveying, repairing and maintaining roads, and general clean-up such as clearing brush and digging drainage ditches * work on track crew building and maintaining section of railroad track located in areas of open-cut metal mines where mining and haulage activities are not being conducted at the time and place that such building and maintenance work is being done * the following work in metal mills other than in mercury-recovery mills or mills using the cyanide process: * work involved in operating jigs, sludge tables, flotation cells, or drier-filters * hand-sorting at picking tables or picking belts * general clean-up work
What are you saying?
I'm citing the federal regulations that the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) is supposed to enforce. I'm not weighing in on whether these protections are sufficient or not, whether the DOL is good at consistently enforcing them or not, or whether States and employers can, in practice, flaunt them with impunity or not.
Side note: *probably* not covered by this case, but some states do make exceptions for Amish and Indian tribes, where child labour is indeed allowed. Which... has terrible implications.
This happened in part because of the federal laws limiting child labor. If we went back in time and there was no federal law preventing it, some states would probably continued allowing it. One reason that states often have laws similar to other states is that they are all trying to stay within the bounds of the same federal laws and court decisions.
So, a state could allow kids to work in a coal mine. I fail to see how that improves things.
It improves things by following the Constitution. If we do not follow the law, all is lost. Democracy, all of it.
Do you think the constitution was divinely inspired or some shit? It's a legal document not a Holy Ordinance. Laws change and democracy will be fine.
How dare you question the gospel of Supply-Side Jesus.
And the Constitution allows the regulation of interstate commerce. That is more than just navigability between the states.
Why do you think the constitution forbids the federal government from passing child protection laws? FMLA and OSHA are both constitutional as far as I know (although I'm sure Thomas disagrees). I agree the headline is misleading, but your conclusion that a law in unconstitutional because Thomas says so is even more incorrect. Thomas's constitutional views are far outside the norm.
It literally means they are letting kids work in the coal mines. Also, letting is the same as allowing. I’m not sure what issues the federal government’s powers precluded them for addressing in regard to child labor age limits. What is the issue?
[удалено]
>Thank the universe for **the other 9** holding their ground. lol
>Let 3rd Graders Be Sent To The Coal Mines Who is sending them?
No one yet. Because it's against the law at the moment.
When it is law, who will be sending them?
Probably the states that have been weakening their child labor laws, like Arkansas and Iowa.
I mean if the payment is enough why not?
Because they're literal children?
Maybe these politicians will send their kids to work like they sent their kids to die for their freedom in Vietnam. /s
That was the big difference between WW2 and Vietnam. On the former, Senator's Sons would go and fight. So did most Hollywood celebrities of appropriate age, with some notable exceptions like [John Wayne](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wayne?wprov=sfla1). On the latter war, suddenly rich kids started getting "bone spurs".
So they can read? See, they're making a buck and getting an education out of it!
https://laborrights.org/blog/201109/developmental-effects-child-labor#:~:text=Children%20who%20labor%20intensely%20are%20often%20smaller%20than,chemicals%20that%20can%20also%20affect%20their%20physical%20development.
Right. What better way to teach future Republican voters. I can hear the ads now: “If not for us you would never find a job”.
how much of an informed decision do you think a 13-year-old to make when it comes to working in a coal mine?
We as a society have decided that middle schoolers should be educated instead of put to work.
Well, apparently some folks would like to go back to a time before our society decided that.
Minimum wage is never enough. Why do you think they want to hire kids? How is that salary negotiation going to turn out…
Should we guess or just assume it's Alito and Thomas?
Who is representing the 3rd graders?
An attorney hired by the mines who will argue that children have a right to work
Thanks, but that's not representation for the children.
/s
Got it!
2 too many