CL.9 - Prince v. Massachusetts Sarah Prince violated child...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Prince v. Massachusetts Sarah Prince violated child labor laws of a girl that prohibits the child from selling and working Mr. Perkins, school attendance officer, warns Prince again not to take the girl out Prince said that she has freedom religion Betty’s religious rights vs. state’s welfare of children The family wasn’t free of regulation for public interest Gives examples, education, child labor, and vaccination Another argument is 14 th Amendment because the street is their “church” The streets are public property and the law encompasses all children Three complaints against Prince: Didn’t child’s identity and age to officer Giving the magazines for her to sell on the street And allowing her to work against the law Dissent Murphy Religious activity and training are to be protected by the 14 th Amendment Presumption- There is a fundamental right and if the law is a burden, then it’s prima facie invalid, and there must be “clear evidence” that the state’s interest is legitimate because the burden of proof is on the state There was no evidence that her selling did any public harm “Religious freedom is too sacred a right to be restricted or prohibited in any degree
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 11/02/2009 for the course POLITICS CIVIL LIBE taught by Professor Kahn during the Spring '08 term at NYU.

Page1 / 3

CL.9 - Prince v. Massachusetts Sarah Prince violated child...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online