Freshman Tea Party-backed Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) recently offered an provocative interpretation of the Constitution he holds so dear, arguing that federal child labor laws go beyond the bounds of the document.
Here's what Lee, a constitutional lawyer, had to say in a recent lecture about his view that the nation's founding political text had been fundamentally breached by (transcript via ThinkProgress):
Congress decided it wanted to prohibit (child labor), so it passed a law--no more child labor. The Supreme Court heard a challenge to that and the Supreme Court decided a case in 1918 called Hammer v. Dagenhardt. In that case, the Supreme Court acknowledged something very interesting -- that, as reprehensible as child labor is, and as much as it ought to be abandoned -- that's something that has to be done by state legislators, not by Members of Congress. (...)
This may sound harsh, but it was designed to be that way. It was designed to be a little bit harsh. Not because we like harshness for the sake of harshness, but because we like a clean division of power, so that everybody understands whose job it is to regulate what.
Now, we got rid of child labor, notwithstanding this case. So the entire world did not implode as a result of that ruling.
6. He, more or less, said he wanted to duel Chris Matthews ...
Matthews was interviewing that nut during the Republican Presidential Convention in 04. Zell got angry at Matthews and said he wished he lived in a time where you could challenge some one to a duel, clearing meaning Matthews.
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.