Compare and contrast the Supreme Court cases Muller v Oregon and Hammer v Dagenhart. Define the term Dual Federalism as it relates to the Dagenhart case.
Muller v Oregon was a case that questions the limitations of the women in the workforce. The backstory was that a women was told by her boss to work more than ten hours in a single day. The issue was brought to the Oregon Supreme Court because he was accused of violating the Oregon women work laws. The conclusion was: "The factory and laundry owners claimed that there was no reasonable connection between the law and public health, safety, or welfare." -Oyez The backstory of the Hammer v. Dagenhart was that children were being forced to work 60 to 70 hours a week day and night in hazardous conditions. Their decision was that they had to create child labor laws to shorten hours for them and make them work in safer conditions. The difference between the two is that for the women one, they did not necessarily come to a conclusion. The Child labor one was that they had to create laws to protect the kids. For the women they did not care that much, but for the children they had to. Dual federalism discusses the relationship between the national government and the states' governments. Justice Day said that Congress does not have the right to re-create laws within the already-established laws of commerce involving children. In terms of dual federalism, Day wanted the government to stay out of the whole situation in Hammer v Dagenhart. This shows anti-federalism, since Day did not want a relationship between the nation and state's government.
Muller v. Oregon was a case for the women’s movement. A owner of a laundry in Portland Oregon violated a state law limiting the number of hours a woman could work in his shop. His case went to the Supreme Court since they were taking cases of this subject at the time. The women’s movement won because the Court was presented with a mountain of evidence showing the dangers of women workers left unregulated. Hammer v. Dagenhart was a Child Labor Case. The Keating-Owen Act of 1916 prohibited interstate commerce of any merchandise that had been made by children under the age of fourteen, or merchandise that had been made in factories where children between the ages of 14 and 16 worked for more than eight hours a day, worked overnight, or worked more than six days a week. Roland Dagenhart worked in a cotton mill in Charlotte, North Carolina with his two minor sons; both would be employed at the mill under the Act, and wanted his kids to work. The difference between the two cases is that women wanted the right of healthy hours and good work conditions in the Muller v. Oregon case, but in the Hammer v. Dagenhard, Dagenhard wanted his kids to work and fought that the Keating-Owen act interfered with his sons’ right to work. Both are the same because they are both fighting for what they think is right for work hours/conditions. Dual federalism is the political theory that two different governments share sovereign power over a certain region or people. This relates to Hammer v. Dagenhart because not only was this case referring to Child labor, it was also messing with interstate commerce.
Both the Muller v. Oregon and Hammer v. Dagenhart Supreme Court cases involved issues dealing with labor laws. Curt Muller was the owner of a laundry business in Oregon. He was convicted of violating labor laws when he asked a female employer to work over ten hours in one day. When he was fined ten dollars by the state, he made an appeal to the Oregon Supreme Court, and later the United States Supreme Court.
Roland Dagenhart of Charlotte, North Carolina worked in a cotton mill with his two young sons. Under the Keating-Owen Act of 1916 (Child Labor Act), Dagenhart’s sons would be “barred from employment at the mill under the Act.” However, the Child Labor Act legally “prohibited the transportation in interstate commerce of goods produced at factories that violated certain restrictions on child labor.” Therefore, Dagenhart argued that this act did not apply to his sons because it was not a regulation of interstate commerce.
In the case of Muller v. Oregon, both the Oregon Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court “upheld the constitutionality of the labor law and affirmed his conviction.” However, in the case of Hammer v. Dagenhart, the lower district court agreed with Dagenhart; each believed that the Child Labor Act interfered with his sons’ right to work. “[The] Supreme Court upheld this ruling, declaring the statute an impermissible extension of federal commerce power. While the commerce clause—Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution—grants the federal government the right to regulate goods sold through interstate commerce, the Supreme Court in Hammer v. Dagenhart declared that while this power extends to goods that are inherently harmful, it cannot be used to control the process of their creation.”
“Specifically, dual federalism discusses the relationship between the national government and the states' governments. According to this theory, there are certain limits placed on the federal government.” This definition of dual federalism reflects the decision of the Hammer v. Dagenhart Supreme Court case. Limits were placed on the federal government’s control and power; ultimately, that is what struck down the limitations of the 1916 Keating-Owen Act.
Both the Muller vs. Oregon case and the Hammer vs. Dagenhart case dealt with progressive issues and their relationship to the Amendments stated in the United States Constitution.
The first case, Muller vs. Oregon dealt with the issue of women’s rights. In this case, Oregon enacted a law limiting women factory and laundry workers to 10 hour workdays. It was argued that this law violated the 14th Amendment statement that “no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The result of this case was this; there was no constitutional violation because women were seen as “unequal and inferior to men”
The second case, Hammer vs. Dagenhart, is case concerning child labor. A law was created, The Keating-Owen Child Labor Act, which prohibited the shipment of goods produced by child labor. Reuben Dagenhart’s father sued for the freedom to allow his 14 year-old child to work in a textile mill. It was argued whether the creation of this act was a violation of the Commerce Clause, the 10th Amendment, and the 5th Amendment. The result of this case was this; first, production was not commerce so Commerce Clause did not apply, second, because regulation of production was not specifically stated under the constitution, this power was delegated to the states and the people, therefore this DID violate the U.S. Constitution. This result brings about the idea of dual federalism; the idea that the state government and the federal government were sovereign relative to their own spheres of power. Because the federal government did not specifically control production, the 10th amendment gave this power to the state government. Therefore, the creation of the Keating-Owen Child Labor Act was a violation of the 10th amendment and, therefore, the U.S. Constitution.
When a case is chosen by the Supreme Court, it is seen to hold significance to the what is happening in the world and the Supreme Court can use its power to justify it. So it was with Muller v Oregon, the court decided that Oregon had the power to limit woman's working hours to in factories and laundries to 10 hours a day; Gender was found not a basis. In Hammer v Dagenhart, the Supreme Court declared the 'Keating-Owen Act (against child labor) unconstitutional on the grounds that it employs federal control of interstate commerce for noncommercial objectives and that it interferes with state police powers. ' Althought the two might deal with different subjects the thought is the same. The labor of woman and children was coming to the point where its age of being abused by big buisness would soon end. No longer would women work day and night locked in sweatshops, or children forced to end life short by the duties given to them ( chimny sweeper ect. )
Dual Federalism is the theory that the U.S.A. is run by two goverments, this is the relationship between National and state level goverments. In regards to the Dagenhart case, Day did not feel the federal goverment had a right to step into the whole situtation and re-create laws which the state gov. already made.
The case Muller v Oregon was focused of women and their rights as workers. The cause of the case was that a man , in Oregon, made a women work longer than the Oregon law prohibits which then made this controversy oh how long a women should work.
As for the Hammer v Dagenhart case this was mainly on child work laws. At the time kids was working excessively long days such as 60-70 hours a week and to add to that the environment the children was working in was very dangerous. This case created laws on children's work hours and what conditions they should be working in.
"Dual federalism, a legal theory which has prevailed in the United States since 1787, is the belief that the United States consists of two separate and co-sovereign branches of government. This form of government works on the principle that the national and state governments are split into their own spheres, and each is supreme within its respective sphere. Specifically, dual federalism discusses the relationship between the national government and the states' governments. According to this theory, there are certain limits placed on the federal government. These limits are: National government rules by enumerated powers only. National government has a limited set of constitutional purposes. Each governmental unit—state and federal—is sovereign within its sphere of operations. Relationship between nation and states is best summed up as tension rather than cooperation." -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_federalism-
The way this is concerned with the Hammer v Dagenhart case is that the Keating-Owen Child Labor Act was created and therefore caused trouble because the law was in violation to the constitution. The law "which sought to address the perceived evils of child labor by prohibiting the sale in interstate commerce of goods manufactured by children, thus giving an expanded importance to the constitutional clause giving Congress the task of regulating interstate commerce."-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating–Owen_Act- The federal law could not act on this law because it was not in their own respected sphere. Therefore this related to the dual federalism. The Act was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States.
P.S. Sorry i wasn't able to put this up earlier my internet was PMSing on me through out the weekend so i wrote it down till the internet got fixed also i know you missed me in school today but i got the cold so im in bed drinking orange juice.
In the case of Muller v. Oregon, Curt Muller, a laundry business owner in Oregon, was convicted of violating labor laws when he asked a female employer to work over ten hours in a single day. Moreover, Oregon had enacted a law that limited women to ten hours of work in factories and laundries. In turn, the business owner was fined ten dollars by the state, and he made an appeal to both the Oregon Supreme Court and United States Supreme Court. The question remains: Did the Oregon law violate a woman's freedom of contract implicit in the liberty protected by due process of the Fourteenth Amendment? The final decision displayed the fact that there was not any sort of constitutional violation
In the case of Hammer v. Dagenhart, Roland Dagenhart worked in a cotton mill with sons in North Carolina. Moreover, under the Keating-Owen Act Child Labor Act, the shipment of goods produced by Dagenhart’s sons would be prohibited. However, Dagenhart argued that this act did not apply to his sons because it was not a regulation of interstate commerce. The lower district court agreed with Dagenhart, for Dagenhart was simply suing on the behalf of his son’s freedom to allow him to work.
Both cases deal with labor acts within a given state, making dual federalism relevant in these cases. Dual federalism is a “view of federalism that considers the national and state governments equal, but independent partners, with distinct responsibilities. According to this view, the two levels of government should not interfere with the work of the other” (www.historycentral.com). This theory relates to these cases because the federal government had limitations. Both the states of Oregon and North Carolina had their own regulations, apart from that of the Supreme Court.
Muller v. Oregon and Hammer v. Dagenhart were two landmark Supreme Court cases dealing with labor laws. Muller v. Oregon was a case that involved Curt Muller, the owner of a laundry business. Muller was charged with violation of an Oregon State Law that limited women to ten hours of work in factories and laundries. Muller asked a woman to work over the maximum hours and was charged a $10 fine. He appealed the fine to the Oregon Supreme Court, and his case eventually found itself in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court ruled that the Oregon law did not violate the constitution because of the “differences between the sexes.”
Hammer v. Dagenhart was another labor case. This time it was a case dealing with child labor. The case was as follows: “The Keating-Owen Child Labor Act prohibited the interstate shipment of goods produced by child labor. Reuben Dagenhart's father had sued on behalf of his freedom to allow his fourteen year old son to work in a textile mill.” The court ruled that the act was unconstitutional because “production was not commerce, and thus outside the power of Congress to regulate, and the regulation of production was reserved by the Tenth Amendment to the states.”
Basically while both these cases dealt with labor issues, they were both ruled in completely opposite ways. Muller v. Oregon said that the state did have the power to regulate how much people work, and that limits must be placed on the work hours of the “weaker sex,” but in Hammer v. Dagenhart, the court says that the federal government does not have the right to interfere with such things as production as it was guaranteed in the Constitution for the state to have that power.
Dual federalism is “the belief that the United States consists of two separate and co-sovereign branches of government.”(wikipedia) This is shown in the case of Hammer v. Dagenhart because the court decided that the state's sovereignty overruled the federal government's powers.
Muller v Oregon was a case that questions the limitations of the women in the workforce. The backstory was that a women was told by her boss to work more than ten hours in a single day. The issue was brought to the Oregon Supreme Court because he was accused of violating the Oregon women work laws. The conclusion was: "The factory and laundry owners claimed that there was no reasonable connection between the law and public health, safety, or welfare." -Oyez
ReplyDeleteThe backstory of the Hammer v. Dagenhart was that children were being forced to work 60 to 70 hours a week day and night in hazardous conditions. Their decision was that they had to create child labor laws to shorten hours for them and make them work in safer conditions. The difference between the two is that for the women one, they did not necessarily come to a conclusion. The Child labor one was that they had to create laws to protect the kids. For the women they did not care that much, but for the children they had to.
Dual federalism discusses the relationship between the national government and the states' governments. Justice Day said that Congress does not have the right to re-create laws within the already-established laws of commerce involving children. In terms of dual federalism, Day wanted the government to stay out of the whole situation in Hammer v Dagenhart. This shows anti-federalism, since Day did not want a relationship between the nation and state's government.
Muller v. Oregon was a case for the women’s movement. A owner of a laundry in Portland Oregon violated a state law limiting the number of hours a woman could work in his shop. His case went to the Supreme Court since they were taking cases of this subject at the time. The women’s movement won because the Court was presented with a mountain of evidence showing the dangers of women workers left unregulated.
ReplyDeleteHammer v. Dagenhart was a Child Labor Case. The Keating-Owen Act of 1916 prohibited interstate commerce of any merchandise that had been made by children under the age of fourteen, or merchandise that had been made in factories where children between the ages of 14 and 16 worked for more than eight hours a day, worked overnight, or worked more than six days a week. Roland Dagenhart worked in a cotton mill in Charlotte, North Carolina with his two minor sons; both would be employed at the mill under the Act, and wanted his kids to work.
The difference between the two cases is that women wanted the right of healthy hours and good work conditions in the Muller v. Oregon case, but in the Hammer v. Dagenhard, Dagenhard wanted his kids to work and fought that the Keating-Owen act interfered with his sons’ right to work. Both are the same because they are both fighting for what they think is right for work hours/conditions. Dual federalism is the political theory that two different governments share sovereign power over a certain region or people. This relates to Hammer v. Dagenhart because not only was this case referring to Child labor, it was also messing with interstate commerce.
Heather Roberts
Both the Muller v. Oregon and Hammer v. Dagenhart Supreme Court cases involved issues dealing with labor laws. Curt Muller was the owner of a laundry business in Oregon. He was convicted of violating labor laws when he asked a female employer to work over ten hours in one day. When he was fined ten dollars by the state, he made an appeal to the Oregon Supreme Court, and later the United States Supreme Court.
ReplyDeleteRoland Dagenhart of Charlotte, North Carolina worked in a cotton mill with his two young sons. Under the Keating-Owen Act of 1916 (Child Labor Act), Dagenhart’s sons would be “barred from employment at the mill under the Act.” However, the Child Labor Act legally “prohibited the transportation in interstate commerce of goods produced at factories that violated certain restrictions on child labor.” Therefore, Dagenhart argued that this act did not apply to his sons because it was not a regulation of interstate commerce.
In the case of Muller v. Oregon, both the Oregon Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court “upheld the constitutionality of the labor law and affirmed his conviction.” However, in the case of Hammer v. Dagenhart, the lower district court agreed with Dagenhart; each believed that the Child Labor Act interfered with his sons’ right to work. “[The] Supreme Court upheld this ruling, declaring the statute an impermissible extension of federal commerce power. While the commerce clause—Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution—grants the federal government the right to regulate goods sold through interstate commerce, the Supreme Court in Hammer v. Dagenhart declared that while this power extends to goods that are inherently harmful, it cannot be used to control the process of their creation.”
“Specifically, dual federalism discusses the relationship between the national government and the states' governments. According to this theory, there are certain limits placed on the federal government.” This definition of dual federalism reflects the decision of the Hammer v. Dagenhart Supreme Court case. Limits were placed on the federal government’s control and power; ultimately, that is what struck down the limitations of the 1916 Keating-Owen Act.
Sources: http://www.milestonedocuments.com/documents/view/hammer-v-dagenhart/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muller_v._Oregon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_federalism
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0208_0412_ZS.html
Both the Muller vs. Oregon case and the Hammer vs. Dagenhart case dealt with progressive issues and their relationship to the Amendments stated in the United States Constitution.
ReplyDeleteThe first case, Muller vs. Oregon dealt with the issue of women’s rights. In this case, Oregon enacted a law limiting women factory and laundry workers to 10 hour workdays. It was argued that this law violated the 14th Amendment statement that “no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The result of this case was this; there was no constitutional violation because women were seen as “unequal and inferior to men”
The second case, Hammer vs. Dagenhart, is case concerning child labor. A law was created, The Keating-Owen Child Labor Act, which prohibited the shipment of goods produced by child labor. Reuben Dagenhart’s father sued for the freedom to allow his 14 year-old child to work in a textile mill. It was argued whether the creation of this act was a violation of the Commerce Clause, the 10th Amendment, and the 5th Amendment. The result of this case was this; first, production was not commerce so Commerce Clause did not apply, second, because regulation of production was not specifically stated under the constitution, this power was delegated to the states and the people, therefore this DID violate the U.S. Constitution. This result brings about the idea of dual federalism; the idea that the state government and the federal government were sovereign relative to their own spheres of power. Because the federal government did not specifically control production, the 10th amendment gave this power to the state government. Therefore, the creation of the Keating-Owen Child Labor Act was a violation of the 10th amendment and, therefore, the U.S. Constitution.
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1901-1939/1907/1907_107
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1901-1939/1917/1917_704
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am5
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_federalism
When a case is chosen by the Supreme Court, it is seen to hold significance to the what is happening in the world and the Supreme Court can use its power to justify it. So it was with Muller v Oregon, the court decided that Oregon had the power to limit woman's working hours to in factories and laundries to 10 hours a day; Gender was found not a basis. In Hammer v Dagenhart, the Supreme Court declared the 'Keating-Owen Act (against child labor) unconstitutional on the grounds that it employs federal control of interstate commerce for noncommercial objectives and that it interferes with state police powers. ' Althought the two might deal with different subjects the thought is the same. The labor of woman and children was coming to the point where its age of being abused by big buisness would soon end. No longer would women work day and night locked in sweatshops, or children forced to end life short by the duties given to them ( chimny sweeper ect. )
ReplyDeleteDual Federalism is the theory that the U.S.A. is run by two goverments, this is the relationship between National and state level goverments. In regards to the Dagenhart case, Day did not feel the federal goverment had a right to step into the whole situtation and re-create laws which the state gov. already made.
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1901-1939/1907/1907_107
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1901-1939/1917/1917_704
-Doug
The case Muller v Oregon was focused of women and their rights as workers. The cause of the case was that a man , in Oregon, made a women work longer than the Oregon law prohibits which then made this controversy oh how long a women should work.
ReplyDeleteAs for the Hammer v Dagenhart case this was mainly on child work laws. At the time kids was working excessively long days such as 60-70 hours a week and to add to that the environment the children was working in was very dangerous. This case created laws on children's work hours and what conditions they should be working in.
"Dual federalism, a legal theory which has prevailed in the United States since 1787, is the belief that the United States consists of two separate and co-sovereign branches of government. This form of government works on the principle that the national and state governments are split into their own spheres, and each is supreme within its respective sphere. Specifically, dual federalism discusses the relationship between the national government and the states' governments. According to this theory, there are certain limits placed on the federal government. These limits are:
National government rules by enumerated powers only.
National government has a limited set of constitutional purposes.
Each governmental unit—state and federal—is sovereign within its sphere of operations.
Relationship between nation and states is best summed up as tension rather than cooperation."
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_federalism-
The way this is concerned with the Hammer v Dagenhart case is that the Keating-Owen Child Labor Act was created and therefore caused trouble because the law was in violation to the constitution. The law "which sought to address the perceived evils of child labor by prohibiting the sale in interstate commerce of goods manufactured by children, thus giving an expanded importance to the constitutional clause giving Congress the task of regulating interstate commerce."-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating–Owen_Act-
The federal law could not act on this law because it was not in their own respected sphere. Therefore this related to the dual federalism. The Act was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States.
P.S. Sorry i wasn't able to put this up earlier my internet was PMSing on me through out the weekend so i wrote it down till the internet got fixed also i know you missed me in school today but i got the cold so im in bed drinking orange juice.
In the case of Muller v. Oregon, Curt Muller, a laundry business owner in Oregon, was convicted of violating labor laws when he asked a female employer to work over ten hours in a single day. Moreover, Oregon had enacted a law that limited women to ten hours of work in factories and laundries. In turn, the business owner was fined ten dollars by the state, and he made an appeal to both the Oregon Supreme Court and United States Supreme Court. The question remains: Did the Oregon law violate a woman's freedom of contract implicit in the liberty protected by due process of the Fourteenth Amendment? The final decision displayed the fact that there was not any sort of constitutional violation
ReplyDeleteIn the case of Hammer v. Dagenhart, Roland Dagenhart worked in a cotton mill with sons in North Carolina. Moreover, under the Keating-Owen Act Child Labor Act, the shipment of goods produced by Dagenhart’s sons would be prohibited. However, Dagenhart argued that this act did not apply to his sons because it was not a regulation of interstate commerce. The lower district court agreed with Dagenhart, for Dagenhart was simply suing on the behalf of his son’s freedom to allow him to work.
Both cases deal with labor acts within a given state, making dual federalism relevant in these cases. Dual federalism is a “view of federalism that considers the national and state governments equal, but independent partners, with distinct responsibilities. According to this view, the two levels of government should not interfere with the work of the other” (www.historycentral.com). This theory relates to these cases because the federal government had limitations. Both the states of Oregon and North Carolina had their own regulations, apart from that of the Supreme Court.
oyez.com
wikipedia.com
CHRIS PRICE!
Muller v. Oregon and Hammer v. Dagenhart were two landmark Supreme Court cases dealing with labor laws. Muller v. Oregon was a case that involved Curt Muller, the owner of a laundry business. Muller was charged with violation of an Oregon State Law that limited women to ten hours of work in factories and laundries. Muller asked a woman to work over the maximum hours and was charged a $10 fine. He appealed the fine to the Oregon Supreme Court, and his case eventually found itself in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court ruled that the Oregon law did not violate the constitution because of the “differences between the sexes.”
ReplyDeleteHammer v. Dagenhart was another labor case. This time it was a case dealing with child labor. The case was as follows: “The Keating-Owen Child Labor Act prohibited the interstate shipment of goods produced by child labor. Reuben Dagenhart's father had sued on behalf of his freedom to allow his fourteen year old son to work in a textile mill.” The court ruled that the act was unconstitutional because “production was not commerce, and thus outside the power of Congress to regulate, and the regulation of production was reserved by the Tenth Amendment to the states.”
Basically while both these cases dealt with labor issues, they were both ruled in completely opposite ways. Muller v. Oregon said that the state did have the power to regulate how much people work, and that limits must be placed on the work hours of the “weaker sex,” but in Hammer v. Dagenhart, the court says that the federal government does not have the right to interfere with such things as production as it was guaranteed in the Constitution for the state to have that power.
Dual federalism is “the belief that the United States consists of two separate and co-sovereign branches of government.”(wikipedia) This is shown in the case of Hammer v. Dagenhart because the court decided that the state's sovereignty overruled the federal government's powers.
Mike Peak
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muller_v._Oregon
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1901-1939/1917/1917_704
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_federalism
The free robux hack is used for the free roblox robux game to generate free robux for the free roblox free robux game to play free online.
ReplyDelete