Gibbons Vs. Ogden's

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) Wickard v. Filburn (1942) Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918)

Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918)

As for the 5th and 10th amendment it made a clear statement allowing certain rules to be specifically incorporated in our daily lives. As for Roland Dagenhart he followed these 2 amendments but has the opinions of many explaining to the judge that he is wrong for having his 2 teenage sons working in his factory for long hours. Going by the law he's done nothing wrong according to what the 10 amendments are. The child labor law states if the child's surroundings are unsafe and unhealthy including the fact that they're under age then that is when it's considered against the law. With the fact that his teenage sons weren't under age it gave another reason as to why it wasn't wrong to have his own sons there. Dagenhart's children not attending school so often gave W.C Hammer who was an appellant adding a statement which was according to the Child Labor Law children must go to school up to a certain age, in which his children weren't so this was put against Roland. As for many other opinions including mines I believe even though his children were in good conditions it still gives no reason to keep your own children out of school. Congress doesn't have to much power over this all because they don't have the right to regulate the manufacture goods simply because the goods might be shipped in interstate commerce. With all of this happening it's harder to put something against Dagenhart from whats hes doing.