Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co.

Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U.S. 20 (1922), shari'ar Kotun Koli ce ta Amurka inda Kotun ta yanke hukuncin Dokar Harajin Ma'aikata ta Yara ta 1919 ba bisa ka'ida ba a matsayin yunkurin da Majalisa ta yi na hukunta ma'aikata ta amfani da aikin yara. Kotun ta nuna cewa harajin da dokar ta sanya a zahiri hukunci ne a ɓoye.

Kotun daga baya ta watsar da falsafar da ke haifar da shari'ar Bailey. Misali, duba Amurka v. Kahriger, 345 US 22 (1953), wanda aka soke a wasu dalilai, Marchetti v. Amurka, 390 US 39 (1968).

 Tarihi 
A ranar 24 ga Fabrairu, 1919, Majalisa ta zartar da Dokar Haraji ta Yara wacce ta sanya harajin haraji na kashi 10 cikin dari a kan ribar kamfanin da ke daukar yara aiki. Dokar ta bayyana aikin yara a matsayin "a ƙarƙashin shekaru goma sha shida a kowane ma'adinai ko dutse, kuma a ƙarƙashin shekaru goma ya kasance a cikin kowane ma'auni, kantin sayar da tukwane, bita, masana'anta, ko masana'antu. " Ma'anar ta haɗa da amfani da yara tsakanin shekaru goma sha huɗu zuwa goma sha shida waɗanda suka yi aiki fiye da sa'o'i takwas a rana ko fiye da kwana shida a mako, ko waɗanda suka yi amfani da sa'a 7:00 na yamma da 6:00 na safe. Drexel kamfani ne na masana'antar kayan ɗaki a Arewacin Carolina.  

A ranar 21 ga Satumba, 1921, wani mai tarawa daga Ofishin Haraji na Cikin Gida (yanzu Hukumar Haraji ta Cikin Gida) ya kimanta $ 6,312.79 a cikin harajin haraji don daukar yaro a ƙarƙashin goma sha huɗu a lokacin shekara ta haraji ta 1919. Drexel ya biya harajin a karkashin zanga-zangar kuma ya kai karar dawo da shi.

 Tarihin tsari 
Babban gardamar Drexel ita ce cewa harajin yunkurin da bai dace da kundin tsarin mulki ba ne don tsara masana'antu. Amurka ta yi jayayya cewa, dokar, a matsayin haraji na kai tsaye, ba ta buƙatar saduwa da ma'auni muddin ta kasance daidai da ƙasa. Bugu da kari, gwamnati ta yi jayayya cewa harajin haraji ne kawai wanda Majalisa ta karɓa a ƙarƙashin ikon haraji a ƙarƙashin Mataki na Ɗaya na Kundin Tsarin Mulki. Ƙananan kotun ta yanke hukunci a madadin kamfanin.

 Tsayawa 
Kotun Babban Alkalin Taft ta bayyana cewa harajin kan aikin yara ba bisa ka'ida ba ne saboda hukunci ne na laifi, ba haraji ba, kan aikin yara. Bugu da kari, Dokar Haraji ta Yara doka ce kan kasuwanci maimakon haraji.

Taft ya yi jayayya cewa dokar ta bayyana hanyar da aka tsara don kasuwanci kuma lokacin da suka kauce daga wannan hanyar, ana biyan kuɗi. Taft ya ce, "Masana kimiyya suna da alaƙa da hukunci, ba tare da haraji ba. " "[A] kotun dole ne ta makance ba don ganin cewa an ɗora abin da ake kira haraji don dakatar da aikin yara a cikin iyakar shekarun da aka tsara. " Taft ya cewa kotun dole ce ta ba da kanta ga mafi girman dokar ƙasar da aikin kotun, duk da cewa tana buƙatar su ƙi dokokin da aka tsara don inganta mafi kyawun abu. Ya ci gaba da cewa nagarta da ake nema a cikin dokokin da ba na kundin tsarin mulki ba suna jagorantar 'yan ƙasa da' yan majalisa a hanya mai haɗari ta karya kundin tsarin mulki da kuma ka'idojin da aka amince da su. Bugu da kari, Majalisa na iya karɓar iko da wurare da yawa na sha'awar jama'a, waɗanda Jihohi ke da iko akan waɗanda aka tanada ta Kwaskwarimar Goma, ta hanyar aiwatar da batutuwa masu tsarawa da aiwatar da su ta hanyar abin da ake kira "haraji". Wannan zai rushe iyakokin tsarin mulki a kan Majalisa kuma ya kawar da ikon mallakar Jihohi. Haraji shine tushen kudaden shiga ga gwamnati, yayin da hukunci shine tsari da hukunci ga wani hali.

 Sakamakon 
Ɗaya daga cikin zargi mai yuwuwa shine cewa yanke shawara a Drexel ya kasance juyawa ne daga matsayin Kotun Koli kan haraji tun daga farkon karni na 19 kuma wannan yanke shawara ba ta dace da hukunce-hukuncen Kotun Kolai kafin da bayan. A matsayin doka ta gaba ɗaya, kotun ta sau da yawa ta goyi bayan ikon tarayya don haraji. A wasu lokuta, kotun ta amince da harajin haraji na Majalisa akan miyagun ƙwayoyi, wiwi, da bindigogi. Ko da tare da shari'ar bindigogi, Kotun ta yarda cewa dokar ba shakka manufar doka ce don tsarawa maimakon haraji.

Duk da wannan juyin juya halin falsafar game da ikon Majalisa na tsarawa ta hanyar tsarin haraji, ma'anar Kotun game da Harajin Ma'aikata na Yara a matsayin hukunci saboda halayenta ya nuna a cikin ra'ayi mafi rinjaye a cikin Ƙungiyar Kasuwanci Mai Zaman Kanta ta Kasa v. Sebelius, wanda Babban Alkalin John Roberts ya rubuta a cikin 2012. Ra'ayin ya nuna cewa umarnin mutum a tsakiyar Dokar Kare Marasa Lafiya da Kulawa mai araha ba ya cika kowane ɗayan halaye (watau, nauyin haraji don ko da ƙananan laifuka, abin da ake buƙata na masanin kimiyya wajen karɓar haraji, da kuma amfani da Ma'aikatar Ayyuka don taimakawa wajen tilasta) wanda ya ba Kotun damar la'akari da Harajin Ma'aikata na Yara a waje da "Ikon Sauka da Karɓar Haraji, Ayyuka, Haraji da Haraji", sabili da haka, ana iya la'akari na mutum a cikin wannan iko.

A baya, a cikin Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 US 251, Kotun ta yanke hukuncin dokar da ta hana sufuri a cikin kasuwancin jihohi na kayan da aka ƙera tare da aikin yara ba bisa ka'ida ba ne. Bayan kotun ta ki amincewa da yunkurin da Majalisa ta yi na tsara aikin yara, Majalisa ce ta ba da shawarar gyare-Gyaran kundin tsarin mulki wanda zai ba gwamnatin ƙasa ikon tsarawa da hana aikin yara, ba tare da lokacin da jihohi za su tabbatar da shi ba. Ba a taɓa tabbatar da gyare-gyaren da aka gabatar ba, saboda dokokin aikin yara na jihar sun sa ya zama dole, da kuma juyawa daga baya na shawarar Bailey bayan karar da aka shigar da Sashe na 212 na Dokar Ka'idojin Ma'aikata, wanda ya haramta jigilar kayayyaki a cikin kasuwancin jihohi da aka yi daga "aikin yara mai zalunci".

 Dubi kuma 

 Jerin shari'o'in Kotun Koli ta Amurka, kundi na 259
 Lokacin <i id="mwSQ">Lochner</i>
 Lochner v. New York (1905) 

 Manazarta 

 Haɗin waje 

 Ayyukan da suka shafiShari'ar Harajin Aiki na Yaraa Wikisource
 Text of Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co.,259 Amurka20  (1922) yana samuwa daga: Cornell  Mai ba da izini  Findlaw  Masanin Google   Justia  Laburaren Majalisa    Ka saurari (magana ta baki)