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
2.04 Federalism Honors
Transcript of 2.04 Federalism Honors
Background of the case
Back in 1918, child slavery was an issue because of the conditions of the factories that they were employed at. The citizens had concerns with the long hours and the health of the kids working. Some arguments from families were that they depended on these kid's wages to support the family. Others were very against this law.
Who brought the case to the Supreme Court and why?
Roland Dagenhart brought this case to the Supreme Court when the textile mill where he and his sons were employed, refused to allow Dagenhart's 14-year-old son to work, Dagenhart turned to the courts. facing the fact that the Commerce Clause did not give Congress the authority to regulate manufacturers.
How is the case an issue of federalism?
The Tenth Amendment prevented the federal government from intervening in labor issues, Dagenhart and his attorneys argued that the Keating-Owen Act was unconstitutional.
The majority opinion were against the case~ William Day and the minority opinion was for the case~ Oliver Wendell Holmes.
What was the rationale for the justices’ opinions on the case?
They believe that the act is "in a two-fold sense is repugnant to the Constitution." and it "exerts a power as to a purely local matter to which the federal authority does not extend."
The majority opinion was the right decision because there was an issue of child slavery and it needed to be fixed, but the case that was at hand was not about the child labor. It was about his son being denied employment due to his age but then he tried to throw up the child labor in their face when he sued them. The act does violate the constitution for the tenth amendment which is “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.” That means they were right that the court could not override the commerce of the preventing the goods that were made in the child labored factories. This goes over their constitutional rights that Congress has no authority to control the regulation of the movement of the goods. This is a thin line of overstepping federalism beliefs because its is the combining of the regional government with the general government with shared equal powers of a province. If the Congress took over and sided with Dagenhart it owuld create a bigger problem than the anger of child labor.
2.04 Federalism Honors
Hammer vs. Dagenhart
U.S. Gov Honors