Started By
Message
re: TN judge refuses to grant divorce - refers to USSC gay marriage ruling as reason
Posted on 9/3/15 at 1:59 pm to The Spleen
Posted on 9/3/15 at 1:59 pm to The Spleen
Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251 (1918), was a United States Supreme Court decision involving the power of Congress to enact child labor laws. The Court held regulation of child labor in purely internal (to a single state) manufacturing, the products of which may never enter interstate commerce, to be beyond the power of Congress, distinguishing the Lottery line of cases, which concerned Congressional regulation of harms (e.g. interstate sale of lottery tickets) that required the use of interstate commerce
United States v. Darby Lumber Co., 312 U.S. 100 (1941)[1], was a case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, holding that the U.S. Congress had the power under the Commerce Clause to regulate employment conditions. The unanimous decision of the Court in this case overturned Hammer v. Dagenhart 247 U.S. 251 (1918), limited the application of Carter v. Carter Coal Company 298 U.S. 238 (1936), and confirmed the underlying legality of minimum wages held in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish 300 U.S. 379 (1937).
Wiki... shows 123 times that the court overruled existing rulings. Granted, I haven't researched a single one and I'm no legal scholar either. lol
United States v. Darby Lumber Co., 312 U.S. 100 (1941)[1], was a case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, holding that the U.S. Congress had the power under the Commerce Clause to regulate employment conditions. The unanimous decision of the Court in this case overturned Hammer v. Dagenhart 247 U.S. 251 (1918), limited the application of Carter v. Carter Coal Company 298 U.S. 238 (1936), and confirmed the underlying legality of minimum wages held in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish 300 U.S. 379 (1937).
Wiki... shows 123 times that the court overruled existing rulings. Granted, I haven't researched a single one and I'm no legal scholar either. lol
1
Posted on 9/3/15 at 2:07 pm to Alahunter
The "overrule" was likely claiming it is interstate commerce. If it's not, the state can decide but since all manufacturing and farming is interstate commerce the commerce clause applies.
I read the blurbs, so I could be wrong.
I do know SCOTUS likes to play fast and loose with interstate commerce. Say you want to grow a marijuana plant for your personal consumption? IC.
Why?
You know, because by growing it yourself you are not participating in the interstate black market. Thus by not participating you are having an effect on the market and, therefore, participating in the interstate black market.
I read the blurbs, so I could be wrong.
I do know SCOTUS likes to play fast and loose with interstate commerce. Say you want to grow a marijuana plant for your personal consumption? IC.
Why?
You know, because by growing it yourself you are not participating in the interstate black market. Thus by not participating you are having an effect on the market and, therefore, participating in the interstate black market.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News