In this case, the supreme Court analyzed the constitutionality the a federal legislation banning the shipment across state currently of items made in factories which employed youngsters under the period of fourteen. In a decision overturned years later, the Court organized that Congress had actually overstepped the constitutional power in attempting to control the manufacturing of goods.

You are watching: In 1916 the supreme court ruled that it was constitutional to

Resources

Activity

Directions: have students check out the arrival below, then testimonial the resources above. Then have them prize the understanding questions.

Introduction: roughly the turn of the twentieth century in the US, it was not uncommon for children to job-related long hours in factories, mills and other industrial settings. Countless families relied on the earnings earned by your children. Publicly concern around the result this type of work had actually on children started to rise. Advocates for boy labor legislations pointed out that youngsters who functioned such long hrs (sometimes as lot as sixty or seventy hours a week) to be deprived the education, new air, and also time come play. They additionally worried about the physical risks: children in factories had actually high accident rates. Some claims passed laws restricting boy labor, however these placed states with constraints at an financial disadvantage.

In solution to this concerns, conference passed the Keating-Owen act of 1916. This law forbade the shipment across state present of goods made in factories which employed youngsters under the period of 14, or children between 14 and 16 that worked much more than eight hours a day, overnight, or more than six days/week. Congress asserted constitutional authority for this legislation because short article I, ar 8 provides it the strength to manage interstate commerce.

Roland Dagenhart of north Carolina functioned at a textile mill v his 2 teenage sons. He believed the regulation was unconstitutional and also sued, at some point taking his situation to the can be fried Court. He made three constitutional arguments. First, he said that the regulation was no a regulation that commerce. Secondly, he thought the Tenth revised left the power to do rules for boy labor to the states. Finally, his liberty and property safeguarded by the 5th Amendment consisted of the best to allow his children to work.

In Hammer v. Dagenhart, Court agreed with Dagenhart and also struck under the Keating-Owen Act as unconstitutional. The Court held that if Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce, “the produce of products is not commerce.” Furthermore, the Court reasoned, the Tenth Amendment do clear that powers no delegated to the national government remained with the states or the people. The strength “to control the hours of labor of kids in factories and also mines in ~ the states, is a purely state authority.” The Court listed that all states had some constraints on boy labor already. Also if says with very restrictive kid labor regulations were in ~ an economic disadvantage, conference did not have the constitutional strength to impose uniform rules because that the country.

See more: What Can You Feed Red Ear Slider Turtles, What Do Red

The ruling in this case was i turned down in US v. Darby lumber Company (1941) where the Court construed the commerce Clause as providing Congress the power to manage labor conditions.

Comprehension and an important Thinking Questions

What was the Keating-Owen act of 1916?Why walk Dagenhart think it was unconstitutional?How walk the can be fried Court dominion in Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918)?The majority stated, “It need to never it is in forgotten that the country is comprised of claims to which are entrusted the powers of neighborhood government. And to them and to the civilization the powers not expressly delegated to the National government are reserved.” critics of the ruling allude out that the Tenth revised does no in truth use words “expressly.” Why could that it is in important?How go the Court interpretation of the commerce Clause different in the instance of US v. Darby timber Company (1941)? What has been the trend in terms of Court rulings around federal strength under the business clause due to the fact that then?