<span>The Court's ruling took the public by complete surprise. It did not, however, diminish its support for the objectives of the Keating Owen Act. The New York Times concluded that child labor, like the sale of alcoholic beverages, might better be left to the control of the local authorities; but others regarded the decision as a blow to justice and thus an aberration. Clearly, the Court remained unconvinced that child labor was in itself a social evil. Congress reacted angrily, acting, only months after the opinion had been issued, to amend the Revenue Bill of 1919 to include a prohibitive tax on the products of child labor, a provision later ruled invalid by the child labor tax case of 1922 (Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Company). During the First World War, the War Labor Policy Board, under the direction of Felix Frankfurter, inserted a clause in all federal contracts of the time making the provisions of the Keating Owen Act mandatory for anyone selling equipment and other war material to the government. Before long, advocates of child labor reform discovered yet another alternative by which to achieve the implementation of a national policy restricting child labor--the amendment of the Constitution itself. In 1924 a proposed amendment was submitted to the states for consideration, but was never ratified by the requisite number. Once again, conditions had begun to change. The introduction of new technologies and innovative manufacturing techniques encouraged the employment of better motivated and more highly educated workers. Hostility toward child labor continued to grow, but the passage of higher state mandatory educational requirements and vigorous enforcement of truancy laws made employing children increasingly burdensome and uncertain. The 1920 census reflected this situation by recording a decline in child labor, a decline that would continue into the 1930s with the passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which established minimum wage and hour standards nationwide, discouraging the employment of minors. By setting minimum wages, it decreased incentives to hire children.</span>
Answer:
Plessy v. Ferguson
Explanation:
In the 19th century, the 14th amendment was passed to allow equal treatment between all men. Still, Plessy was soon arrested for sitting in a train car that was reserved for whites only. Plessy argued to the Supreme Court that this arrest violated the 14th amendment. However, the Supreme Court that segregation in facilities was allowed as long as treatment was equal. Black men and white men may be separated, but they were still seen as equal.
Answer:
The immediate causes for the war included a series of escalating steps taken by the Arabs: the concluding of a Syrian-Egyptian military pact to which Jordan and Iraq later joined, the expulsion of the UN Emergency Force (UNEF) from the Sinai Peninsula and the concentration of Egyptian forces there, and finally the closure by Egypt of the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, constituting a casus belli for Israel.
When Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Lebanon moved their forces toward the Israeli border, Israel mobilized its reserve forces, and launched a diplomatic campaign to win international support to end the Egyptian blockade of Israeli shipping through the Straits of Tiran.
When this failed, and in reaction to Arab threats of wiping Israel out, the war began with an Israeli pre-emptive aerial strike on 5 June 1967. It ended on 10 June 1967 with Israel's victory.
Explanation:
(happy to help)
