selective reading of the constitution
Jan. 15th, 2011 09:29 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
walkitoutMy husband told me today he heard about a guy claiming that the Supreme Court held that child labor laws were unconstitutional. I heard the same clip that my husband saw -- the case the guy had zeroed in on was from 1918 and ignored a later case (in 1941, IIRC) which reversed that earlier decision.
Sample coverage over at Think Progress (I'm not saying they broke this -- I have no idea where R. saw it; I saw it on Countdown):
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/14/lee-child-labor/
FWIW, this would be like ignoring Brown vs. the Board of Education and arguing that segregation is constitutional because of Plessy vs. Ferguson.
Or, saying it's _not_ okay to be gay, but it _is_ okay to eat shrimp.
Sample coverage over at Think Progress (I'm not saying they broke this -- I have no idea where R. saw it; I saw it on Countdown):
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/14/lee-child-labor/
FWIW, this would be like ignoring Brown vs. the Board of Education and arguing that segregation is constitutional because of Plessy vs. Ferguson.
Or, saying it's _not_ okay to be gay, but it _is_ okay to eat shrimp.