Talk:Child Labor Amendment

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Organized Labour Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been selected for the Organized Labour Portal Article Of The Day for June 2. United States: History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as Low-importance). United States Constitution Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States Constitution, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Constitution of the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States ConstitutionWikipedia:WikiProject United States ConstitutionTemplate:WikiProject United States ConstitutionUnited States Constitution Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has not yet been assigned a subject. The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", and "Events." U.S. Congress Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has not yet been assigned a subject. The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", or "Events". Law Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: American Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Although the act, on the part of state legislatures, of "rejecting" a proposed constitutional amendment has no legal recognition, such action does have political ramifications.

What does this mean? What ramifications? 68.239.116.212 (talk) 08:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think this is an oblique reference to Coleman v. Miller. Since it is Congress which determines whether an amendment has been validly ratified, it could presumably decide to take rejections into account if it wished. Mahousu (talk) 00:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

One thing missing from this article is any discussion of what opposition was offered to the Amendment (& there must have been some) during the 1920's & 1930's. I have located a couple of Time Magazine articles from the 1920's discussing this and have linked them to the article. Also is there any evidence of subsequent attempts to pass this one after the 1930's as with the 27th Amendment?Graham1973 (talk) 00:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

A March 1935 issue of The Rotarian on Google Books has two articles by Jane Addams and C. L. Bardo arguing for and against the amendment respectively.

It would seem that the amendment became moot when Hammer v. Dagenhart was overruled in 1941. —Mrwojo (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to suggest that a map showing ratifications/partial ratifications/rejections/abstentions be included as it has with the Equal Rights Amendment article. Graham1973 (talk) 09:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

What are "partial ratifications"? SMP0328. (talk) 23:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Cases where the ratification act passes one house but not the other.Graham1973 (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)Reply