Section 1. The Congress shall have power to limit, regulate, and prohibit the labor of persons under eighteen years of age.
Section 2. The power of the several States is unimpaired by this article except that the operation of State laws shall be suspended to the extent necessary to give effect to legislation enacted by the Congress.
The first thing that I thought seeing this as an unratified amendment was that obviously we have done some things without the amendment. There aren't factories full of child workers, at least in this country.
When that did happen, children had accidents at a higher rate than adults. Their development was stunted, both physically and intellectually. As people begin advocating for the children, some states began passing laws about child labor. This raised concerns that states that protected children were at an economic disadvantage by competing against states that still exploited the little beggars.
(And, they could have been literal beggars without the jobs; many of the child laborers had parents who could not afford to feed them without the additional income.)
The first attempts to handle the competitive issue involved prohibiting imports from states who used child labor into states that did not, or placing a fine on the businesses that used child labor. When these laws were contested, they were ruled unconstitutional.
This is actually quite sensible. The laws were taking a child labor issue and turning it into an interstate commerce issue. That led to the amendment proposal, specifically regulating the labor of persons under eighteen years of age.
Technically it could still be ratified, and would require another ten states, but it probably doesn't seem like a need. I remember in my youth that I could get a work permit at age fourteen, but I did not bother because I would not have been able to work past 7 PM. At sixteen there were more options and I started my stint in fast food and retail.
Except, I did still work before that, in unregulated ways. I babysat, where it was always until past 7 and often until 11 PM. I picked berries in the summer, which probably did have some regulations on it, but all I remember was needing a signed permission slip.
Hold that thought.
A lot of changes came with the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. It does have rules regarding child labor, but it was probably more significant that it also provided for 40 hour work weeks, overtime pay, and a national minimum wage. Providing better remuneration for the parents probably made it much less necessary to have the children work anyway, which should have been an additional incentive for keeping the law.
Most people are aware there are some limitations to the protections provided. Employees who can reasonably expect to get tipped do not have to be paid the minimum wage. Certain industries are exempt from paying overtime:
http://www.lni.wa.gov/WorkplaceRights/Wages/Overtime/Exemptions/default.asp
There are practical considerations, but it does still leave some room for exploitation, and a lot of that wiggle room is in agriculture. That may explain the school bus full of teenage berry pickers that I remember, but I am sure it also explains this:
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/l0fvyd/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-nicoteens
We don't need a constitutional amendment to fix this, but we would need to decide it was a problem. Perhaps we would decide that their parents need to be paid more, and that would mean the teenagers don't need to be there. Perhaps we would only decide that the employers should provide the gear and breaks.
There could be a lot of different ways to go, but nothing happens if people don't care.
Sunday, October 16, 2016
Sunday, October 9, 2016
Unratified amendments
Wikipedia lists six unratified amendments.
Some of them probably don't matter much.
There is one on how to apportion House representatives, but Congress has managed to function without its ratification. There was a proposed amendment that accepting titles of nobility would end US citizenship, but that doesn't come up that often. We can probably get by.
One would have been very bad. The Corwin Amendment attempted to protect slavery, so that Federal decisions would not have been able to overturn it on the state level. It was an attempt to draw back the seceding states - a reminder that many would have been willing to sacrifice human rights for peace. There was some strong support, but it is better that it didn't pass.
The D.C. Voting Rights one is interesting, because it would overturn the 23rd Amendment and bring the voting rights of residents of the District of Columbia more in line with the voting rights of those who reside in states. There is still progress to be made there, and perhaps it would make sense to look at the rights of other US possessions there.
That leaves two more, and they become interesting not merely in terms of what does and does not get supported, but also in what you can do with legislation that does not require amendment.
More on that next week.
Some of them probably don't matter much.
There is one on how to apportion House representatives, but Congress has managed to function without its ratification. There was a proposed amendment that accepting titles of nobility would end US citizenship, but that doesn't come up that often. We can probably get by.
One would have been very bad. The Corwin Amendment attempted to protect slavery, so that Federal decisions would not have been able to overturn it on the state level. It was an attempt to draw back the seceding states - a reminder that many would have been willing to sacrifice human rights for peace. There was some strong support, but it is better that it didn't pass.
The D.C. Voting Rights one is interesting, because it would overturn the 23rd Amendment and bring the voting rights of residents of the District of Columbia more in line with the voting rights of those who reside in states. There is still progress to be made there, and perhaps it would make sense to look at the rights of other US possessions there.
That leaves two more, and they become interesting not merely in terms of what does and does not get supported, but also in what you can do with legislation that does not require amendment.
More on that next week.
Sunday, October 2, 2016
Conference Break
I want to spend some time on the US legal code beyond the Constitution. It's pertinent to previous posts, and important, especially in this particular election year. (No, I'm not studying for the LSAT.)
However, first here on General Conference weekend, I want to confess something. In April I got mad in almost every session. There are two things I specifically still remember. One was the guy who kept emphasizing that Halloween wasn't his favorite holiday, implying we shouldn't like it either without coming right out and saying it. The other was one who mentioned entitlement, assuming that the issue is people receiving aid without working, when if you look into how the system works at all you know that many food aid and housing aid recipients are working and being underpaid, so maybe the real entitlement issue are the job "creators" who will do anything to avoid paying a fair share of taxes or living wages when it would cut into their share.
If you are concerned now that I am apostate or a heathen (or finally have confirmation of what you knew all along), back it up a scooch. I still go to church, pray, read scriptures, fulfill my callings, and all of those things. It does concern me that I am not as enthusiastic for conference as I have been, but I can live with it. I have been thinking about it.
While the one brother did not come right out and say Halloween was evil, it felt like he wanted to. I believe the reason he didn't is because the church celebrates it all the time. As a group we don't believe it's evil. There are other churches that do, and there may have been an increase in that as part of a greater conservative backlash against acceptance of others and liberals (and minorities) holding office. That can affect other people. I think he got the idea from others.
(And I take it personally because I love Halloween, which I have always been very clear about.)
In the same way, it has been very common for conservatives to talk about entitlement as a problem with "other" people, and it sounds good because hard work is a good value, but it pushes a false understanding of how the system currently works, who is receiving aid and what their lives are like, and it reinforces a harsh and not Christ-like attitude. It is reinforced by politicians and pundits and if you didn't look around you could easily believe that the world is full of lazy people looking for handouts and that's the only problem with it. That's not reality, and Christ did not put any caveats on his commandments to help the poor.
When I hear these things in conference, I am not terribly surprised. God uses imperfect people to do His work, which is necessary or I wouldn't be any help, and certainly the members have had a real tendency toward conservatism (and being judgmental).
However, I also see that we have members infected by the world. It's not by the partying, feel-good drugs and sex part of the world. We get scared of that, but it doesn't really have that much appeal for a lot of us. Instead, it's the Pharisaical part of the world and - make no mistake - that is still worldly. And it's even more insidious because it comes with so many trappings of righteousness.
I'm not really saying this as something to keep in mind while watching conference; it's more for the rest of your life. Do you feel love toward others? Can you understand them and their needs? Can you bear to read articles or listen to news that doesn't exactly support your views?
Are the fruits of the Spirit a part of your life? Even on Halloween.
However, first here on General Conference weekend, I want to confess something. In April I got mad in almost every session. There are two things I specifically still remember. One was the guy who kept emphasizing that Halloween wasn't his favorite holiday, implying we shouldn't like it either without coming right out and saying it. The other was one who mentioned entitlement, assuming that the issue is people receiving aid without working, when if you look into how the system works at all you know that many food aid and housing aid recipients are working and being underpaid, so maybe the real entitlement issue are the job "creators" who will do anything to avoid paying a fair share of taxes or living wages when it would cut into their share.
If you are concerned now that I am apostate or a heathen (or finally have confirmation of what you knew all along), back it up a scooch. I still go to church, pray, read scriptures, fulfill my callings, and all of those things. It does concern me that I am not as enthusiastic for conference as I have been, but I can live with it. I have been thinking about it.
While the one brother did not come right out and say Halloween was evil, it felt like he wanted to. I believe the reason he didn't is because the church celebrates it all the time. As a group we don't believe it's evil. There are other churches that do, and there may have been an increase in that as part of a greater conservative backlash against acceptance of others and liberals (and minorities) holding office. That can affect other people. I think he got the idea from others.
(And I take it personally because I love Halloween, which I have always been very clear about.)
In the same way, it has been very common for conservatives to talk about entitlement as a problem with "other" people, and it sounds good because hard work is a good value, but it pushes a false understanding of how the system currently works, who is receiving aid and what their lives are like, and it reinforces a harsh and not Christ-like attitude. It is reinforced by politicians and pundits and if you didn't look around you could easily believe that the world is full of lazy people looking for handouts and that's the only problem with it. That's not reality, and Christ did not put any caveats on his commandments to help the poor.
When I hear these things in conference, I am not terribly surprised. God uses imperfect people to do His work, which is necessary or I wouldn't be any help, and certainly the members have had a real tendency toward conservatism (and being judgmental).
However, I also see that we have members infected by the world. It's not by the partying, feel-good drugs and sex part of the world. We get scared of that, but it doesn't really have that much appeal for a lot of us. Instead, it's the Pharisaical part of the world and - make no mistake - that is still worldly. And it's even more insidious because it comes with so many trappings of righteousness.
I'm not really saying this as something to keep in mind while watching conference; it's more for the rest of your life. Do you feel love toward others? Can you understand them and their needs? Can you bear to read articles or listen to news that doesn't exactly support your views?
Are the fruits of the Spirit a part of your life? Even on Halloween.
Sunday, September 25, 2016
The Malheur Occupation
The Bundy clan and their pocket Constitutions were not the only reason that I decided to do this review, but there was an influence. So many people complain about infringement on their Constitutional rights, and yet what they are saying does not sound quite right. After all, I hadn't really read the whole thing since high school, so maybe it was time to do it again.
Nothing in all of the review seemed to offer even a tiny toehold to the occupiers. I thought I'd read at one point that it had to do with an overly expansive reading of how the rules set up for Washington DC affect the federal government's ability to own land, but that doesn't really fly. Doing some internet searches, some have suggested an opposite interpretation of Article IV (section 3, clause 2):
http://lawatthemargins.com/2331-2/
That at least relates to land ownership, but again, you have to think it means the opposite of what it says.
I also read some reasoning that once Oregon became a state that it would invalidate federal claims to land, but even if you went there, then any actions should be on the state of Oregon's behalf, which they clearly were not.
So it was puzzling, but I think the answer to this conundrum is found not in the United States Constitution, but in other contrasts between things that the occupiers said and did.
Consider that the Bundy's bragged about how their actions in Nevada were peaceful and effective, without acknowledging that among the people they drew to the area to stand up to authority were people that killed police shortly after.
Consider that they said that if the Hammond's didn't want them there, or that if the locals did not want them there, they would go. After the Hammond's and many local people made it clear they did not want the occupiers there, they stayed.
Consider that Ammon Bundy is calling himself a political prisoner. He is not in jail for heading an opposition party, or voting wrong, or running an underground newspaper or radio broadcast. He is in jail for illegal actions.
We could probably go on quite a bit, but I don't think there's a point. They can continue to hold their unique interpretations of the law, but they will be judged by a more conventional and fact-based interpretation of the law, as it should be.
Their real motivation seems to be that they should be able to do and have what they want. So if they believe that it's okay to not pay grazing fees, but continue to graze, and not turn over land that they don't own and aren't paying for, well that's what they want!
If they protest to defend ranchers who have set illegal fires, endangering some lives and threatening others, when even those particular criminals don't want the protest, so what? This is what they want!
It is interesting to me that their political protests seemed to be increasing at about the same time that their outside success in the world was decreasing. I guess failed business owners have more time on their hands anyway, but it seems like there might be a lesson on toxic masculinity there. However, that's something I tend to address more on a different blog.
So, for this particular post, it seems more like this is a case of those people who mistake their First Amendment right of freedom of religion for the right to impose that religion on others, and get offended when others live differently. And the only thing I can really say to that is that is not how the Constitution works. Fortunately! It would be awful if it worked that way.
Nothing in all of the review seemed to offer even a tiny toehold to the occupiers. I thought I'd read at one point that it had to do with an overly expansive reading of how the rules set up for Washington DC affect the federal government's ability to own land, but that doesn't really fly. Doing some internet searches, some have suggested an opposite interpretation of Article IV (section 3, clause 2):
http://lawatthemargins.com/2331-2/
That at least relates to land ownership, but again, you have to think it means the opposite of what it says.
I also read some reasoning that once Oregon became a state that it would invalidate federal claims to land, but even if you went there, then any actions should be on the state of Oregon's behalf, which they clearly were not.
So it was puzzling, but I think the answer to this conundrum is found not in the United States Constitution, but in other contrasts between things that the occupiers said and did.
Consider that the Bundy's bragged about how their actions in Nevada were peaceful and effective, without acknowledging that among the people they drew to the area to stand up to authority were people that killed police shortly after.
Consider that they said that if the Hammond's didn't want them there, or that if the locals did not want them there, they would go. After the Hammond's and many local people made it clear they did not want the occupiers there, they stayed.
Consider that Ammon Bundy is calling himself a political prisoner. He is not in jail for heading an opposition party, or voting wrong, or running an underground newspaper or radio broadcast. He is in jail for illegal actions.
We could probably go on quite a bit, but I don't think there's a point. They can continue to hold their unique interpretations of the law, but they will be judged by a more conventional and fact-based interpretation of the law, as it should be.
Their real motivation seems to be that they should be able to do and have what they want. So if they believe that it's okay to not pay grazing fees, but continue to graze, and not turn over land that they don't own and aren't paying for, well that's what they want!
If they protest to defend ranchers who have set illegal fires, endangering some lives and threatening others, when even those particular criminals don't want the protest, so what? This is what they want!
It is interesting to me that their political protests seemed to be increasing at about the same time that their outside success in the world was decreasing. I guess failed business owners have more time on their hands anyway, but it seems like there might be a lesson on toxic masculinity there. However, that's something I tend to address more on a different blog.
So, for this particular post, it seems more like this is a case of those people who mistake their First Amendment right of freedom of religion for the right to impose that religion on others, and get offended when others live differently. And the only thing I can really say to that is that is not how the Constitution works. Fortunately! It would be awful if it worked that way.
Sunday, September 18, 2016
The Twenty-Seventh Amendment
XXVII
No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
This ended up being the most surprising amendment for me. I knew what it was about, and seeing that it was the most recent, I had thought that it came about sometime around Newt Gingrich and a Congress full of hostility and spite.
It was actually one of the first amendments proposed, and it received votes for ratification, though not in the timeliest manner. I'm linking to the Wikipedia article. While it is common for their amendment articles to have a list of which states ratified it and by which dates, the range on this one is fascinating:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Six states ratified it between 1789 and 1792, then Ohio in 1873, and the next vote happened over one hundred years later. Many of the votes were protests. New Jersey and Rhode Island rejected the amendment in the 18th century, but ratified it in the 20th.
Of course the protest votes do indicate some of that political animosity I suspected, and it may not be a coincidence that the college student whose research led to its eventual ratification was studying in Texas, but it's an interesting interlude.
It does seem like the kind of thing where it would be fine written in procedures or legal code or rules of order somewhere, rather than being specifically enshrined as an amendment, but fine. Americans may mistrust their government, and they may wish to punish a legislator for increasing pay by voting out the greedy lawmaker.
So be it.
No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
This ended up being the most surprising amendment for me. I knew what it was about, and seeing that it was the most recent, I had thought that it came about sometime around Newt Gingrich and a Congress full of hostility and spite.
It was actually one of the first amendments proposed, and it received votes for ratification, though not in the timeliest manner. I'm linking to the Wikipedia article. While it is common for their amendment articles to have a list of which states ratified it and by which dates, the range on this one is fascinating:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Six states ratified it between 1789 and 1792, then Ohio in 1873, and the next vote happened over one hundred years later. Many of the votes were protests. New Jersey and Rhode Island rejected the amendment in the 18th century, but ratified it in the 20th.
Of course the protest votes do indicate some of that political animosity I suspected, and it may not be a coincidence that the college student whose research led to its eventual ratification was studying in Texas, but it's an interesting interlude.
It does seem like the kind of thing where it would be fine written in procedures or legal code or rules of order somewhere, rather than being specifically enshrined as an amendment, but fine. Americans may mistrust their government, and they may wish to punish a legislator for increasing pay by voting out the greedy lawmaker.
So be it.
Sunday, September 11, 2016
The Twenty-Fifth Amendment
XXV
Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.
Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.
Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.
Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
This is a fairly long amendment, due to its specificity, and that was exactly its point.
The processes had been mostly in place before. By the time of the amendment there had been presidential deaths from assassination and illness, impeachment, and long periods without a vice president. There had also been a time of an incapacitated president (Woodrow Wilson) where the situation was hidden by his wife and doctor.
Hammering out all of the details took a while, with many different proposals. In the case of Senator Estes Kefauver - for whom the disability question was very important - his own death kept him from seeing how things turned out.
However, since its ratification we have been through Nixon's resignation and an assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan. And even though the reaction of Reagan's Secretary of State, Alexander Haig, to the attempt ("I am in control here") while Vice President Bush was out of town seemed a little eager, things have nonetheless gone smoothly.
The amendment appears to have worked out.
Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.
Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.
Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.
Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
This is a fairly long amendment, due to its specificity, and that was exactly its point.
The processes had been mostly in place before. By the time of the amendment there had been presidential deaths from assassination and illness, impeachment, and long periods without a vice president. There had also been a time of an incapacitated president (Woodrow Wilson) where the situation was hidden by his wife and doctor.
Hammering out all of the details took a while, with many different proposals. In the case of Senator Estes Kefauver - for whom the disability question was very important - his own death kept him from seeing how things turned out.
However, since its ratification we have been through Nixon's resignation and an assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan. And even though the reaction of Reagan's Secretary of State, Alexander Haig, to the attempt ("I am in control here") while Vice President Bush was out of town seemed a little eager, things have nonetheless gone smoothly.
The amendment appears to have worked out.
Sunday, September 4, 2016
The Twenty-Fourth Amendment
XXIV
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
This is another one that I thought of treating with other amendments. It relates to the Reconstruction Amendments (13, 14, and 15), and yet part of the need for the 24th amendment is that after the Reconstruction Amendments a poll tax was one method used to keep the newly enfranchised from exercising it.
It also could go with some of the other amendments we treated together recently (19, 23, and 26), as different groups were given the right to vote, and yet the poll tax has also been used against poor white men, who previously always had the vote.
And so we return to that Section 2, and its many friends. We know that the nature of men will constantly work on new ways to strip the rights from others, and we must continually be on guard, via new legislation and enforcement of existing legislation, to keep the vote safe for all.
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
This is another one that I thought of treating with other amendments. It relates to the Reconstruction Amendments (13, 14, and 15), and yet part of the need for the 24th amendment is that after the Reconstruction Amendments a poll tax was one method used to keep the newly enfranchised from exercising it.
It also could go with some of the other amendments we treated together recently (19, 23, and 26), as different groups were given the right to vote, and yet the poll tax has also been used against poor white men, who previously always had the vote.
And so we return to that Section 2, and its many friends. We know that the nature of men will constantly work on new ways to strip the rights from others, and we must continually be on guard, via new legislation and enforcement of existing legislation, to keep the vote safe for all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)