Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Do you really want to delete this prezi?
Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.
Make your likes visible on Facebook?
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.
02.04 Federalism: Honors Extension
Transcript of 02.04 Federalism: Honors Extension
Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918)–child labor
What was the rationale for the justices’ opinions on the case?
First, he argued that the law was not a regulation of commerce. Secondly, he believed the Tenth Amendment left the power to make rules for child labor to the states. Finally, his liberty and property protected by the Fifth Amendment included the right to allow his children to work.
What were the majority and minority opinions of the Supreme Court?
Minority->Oliver W. Holmes
Background of Case
The background of this case is that children would work long hours in factories, mills, and industrial places of this kind. Public had concerns on the effects of this kind of work and hours on a childs body. Also, some families depended on what there child made during the week. Some states passed laws forbiding child labor in the given state.
Who brought the case to the Supreme Court and why?
Roland H. Dagenhart brought the case to the Supreme Court. Roland Dagenhart of North Carolina worked at a textile mill with his two teenage sons. He believed the law was unconstitutional and sued, eventually taking his case to the Supreme Court.
How is the case an issue of federalism?
Congress passed the Keating-Owen Act of 1916. This law forbade the shipment across state lines of goods made in factories which employed children under the age of 14, or children between 14 and 16 who worked more than eight hours a day, overnight, or more than six days/week.
In my opinion,
I supporting the minority
ruling because children should
not be worked as hard as they
were during this time. Even if this is
is a families source of income. Even
though Dagenhart won, his children
Sent in mail