Child: How come I gotta rake the lawn?

Parent: Just ‘Cause I say so.

I especially don’t like that you may be right about that. In fact that is what makes it especially galling, unfair and beneath contempt. There are limits to acceptable satire and hitting too close to the mark is definitely beyond the pale!

Now I go back to Michael and endeavor to plot our revenge. Unfortunately, satire is not my strong suit. Maybe the Sock Puppet King an help me out.

1) Children working for their parents are not subject to the Child labor provisions of the FLSA

2) The “business” likely makes less than $500,000 a year, and is also thus not bound by the FLSA

3) The child makes less than $1400 a year in “wages” and also is exempt under the domestic worker exemption

4) Even if you could stretch things to the point the child was required to be payed minimum wage; room and board is allowed to be considered part of “wages” So, you have to include that, plus all the clothing and trasnportation provided by the “employer”

See: Pinocchio v. Geppetto (1883)

Or am I just being dim?

As for the rest of your argument (which is clearly designed to get a rise out of someone making a better argument [cough]Me![cough]), you don’t distinguish between someone who is already a ward of someone else (e.g. prisoner:state::child:parents), and someone who is placed in indentured servitude without just cause.

The 13th Amendment has no reasonableness / just cause exception, let alone a grandfather clause for slaves already owned prior to its ratification. Besides, “just cause” can be argued for the draft, as well, at least if it’s used for a legitimate reason rather than the retarded one Charles Rangel is advancing.

IOW, since the parents are already legally bound to care for their wards, and those children are provided for in every freakin’ capacity known to man, how can those wards possibly be considered indentured servants?

The same way drafted soldiers can be. The state provides a lot of services to them, too.

Based on that definition, Bradley cannot be considered an indentured servant unless and until his parents threaten him with “physical retraint or injury or legal coercion.” Paying him $20 hardly meets that test, and this line of argument presupposes that, as a ward for whom the parents are required to care for, a child could even be considered a “servant” much less an “indetunred” one.

If the only consequence is nonpayment of $20, I agree. However, Bradley’s parents insist they have a right to discipline him more seriously, even to the point of physically restraining him for weeks at a time or, if push comes to shove, enlisting the assistance of the state to herd him into line. They also dropped hints they may have spanked him on occasion in the past.

Lance:

I agree with Michael. The 9th circuit bit is dirty pool;^)

Oh, c’mon. You know as well as I do that if any circuit were really to rule that way, it would be the Ninth!