Posted on 02/23/2011 7:48:10 PM PST by bigbob
On Tuesday, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels declined to support a Republican-sponsored right-to-work bill that had sent Indiana House Democrats out of the state, like Wisconsin Democrats, to avoid a possible vote. And that’s not being well received by some conservative leaders.
On his Tuesday evening program, conservative talk show host Mark Levin explained why he wasn’t supporting Daniels. Levin said despite Daniels’ splash on the scene and his reluctance to tackle social issues, this latest gesture was something to take notice of.
“Mitch Daniels, almost out of nowhere, the governor of Indiana shows up at CPAC … he’s introduced by George Will, he’s promoted as this great candidate for president,” Levin said. “Of course he says you social conservatives park it and sit down. That’s not key right now. What’s key right now is the fiscal stuff – oh, OK.”
Levin pointed out that Daniels has been called “Reagan-esque,” but said he isn’t demonstrating an ability to multitask.
“But Mitch Daniels, he’s standing right up there — very Reagan-esque, isn’t he?” Levin said. “He’s got other priorities and he can’t chew gum and walk at the same time. He warned his party late last year against pursuing the so-called right-to-work legislation, right? Well he agreed with it philosophically, he said it was a big issue that needed a statewide debate. We don’t quite get it do we?”
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Bottom line, Levin nails the Indiana RINO right between the eyes:
“You’re too weak. You don’t see the full horizon. You’re ready to battle on some turf, but on way too much you’re ready to surrender the turf. You should be speaking out in defense of your fellow governor from Wisconsin and you’re not. You should be encouraging exactly what the legislature is doing in — Indiana, to attract more and more enterprise and create more jobs but you’re not. That’s why you’re not presidential.
Daniels can’t stand up to the Democrats. I don’t see him as the guy to stand up to Iran.
Yeah, Its disappointing that the sheeple and the ones they choose to govern them basically have the attention of a firefly, and are retarded compared to the wisdom of the Founders, who actually studied history, and are only several generations removed from us.
That son of a bitch Warren in US Vs. Brown threw out the provision in Taft Hartley that required union leadership to sign affidavits that they were not communists.
As a result, union leadership is comprised of nothing but.
We are getting ready to hit the CPUSA and the American communist movement so hard that they wont have time to crawl back under the rocks they came out from.
No worker in the US should be held hostage to unions period, compulsory union dues are unconstitutional under the first and 14th amendments, and the unions need to be stripped of their ability to steal money from workers paychecks on a national level.
If the workers love unions so much they will be happy to voluntarily send them dues.
There’s nothing patently illegal about a POTUS issuing an executive order immediately ending withholding of union dues nationwide, and ordering the National Labor Relations Board to get a Federal Court Order enforcing the Presidents decision
Lets fight it out in the courts, and lets make it a campaign issue, with the promise to end compulsory withholding of union dues one of the first acts of the new GOP Administration.
Its stupid to allow the left (Communists) to use the same mechanism the IRS uses to fund themselves.
U.S. Supreme Court
UNITED STATES v. BROWN, 381 U.S. 437 (1965)
381 U.S. 437
UNITED STATES v. BROWN.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT.
No. 399.
Argued March 29, 1965.
Decided June 7, 1965.
Respondent was convicted under 504 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, which makes it a crime for one who belongs to the Communist Party or who has been a member thereof during the preceding five years wilfully to serve as a member of the executive board of a labor organization. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding 504 violative of the First and Fifth Amendments. Held: Section 504 constitutes a bill of attainder and is therefore unconstitutional. Pp. 441-462.
(a) The Bill of Attainder Clause, Art. I, 9, cl. 3, was intended to implement the separation of powers among the three branches of the Government by guarding against the legislative exercise of judicial power. Pp. 441-446.
(b) The Bill of Attainder Clause is to be liberally construed in the light of its purpose to prevent legislative punishment of designated persons or groups. Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277; Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333; United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303 . Pp. 447-449.
(c) In designating Communist Party members as those persons who cannot hold union office, Congress has exceeded its Commerce Clause power to enact generally applicable legislation disqualifying from positions affecting interstate commerce persons who may use such positions to cause political strikes. Pp. 449-452.
(d) Section 504 is distinguishable from such conflict-of-interest statutes as 32 of the Banking Act, where Congress was legislating with respect to general characteristics rather than with respect to the members of a specific group. Pp. 453-455.
(e) The designation of Communist Party membership cannot be justified as an alternative, “shorthand” expression for the characteristics which render men likely to incite political strikes. Pp. 455-456.
(f) A statute which inflicts its deprivation upon named or described persons or groups constitutes a bill of attainder whether its aim is retributive, punishing past acts, or preventive, discouraging future conduct. In American Communications Assn. v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382 , where the Court upheld 9 (h) of the National [381 U.S. 437, 438] Labor Relations Act, the predecessor of 504, the Court erroneously assumed that only a law visiting retribution for past acts could constitute a bill of attainder, and misread the statute involved in United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303 , which it sought to distinguish from 9 (h), as being in that category. Pp. 456-460.
(g) The legislative specification of those to whom the enacted sanction is to apply invalidates a provision as a bill of attainder whether the individuals are designated by name as in Lovett or by description as here. Pp. 461-462.
334 F.2d 488, affirmed.
Solicitor General Cox argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Assistant Attorney General Yeagley, Nathan Lewin, Kevin T. Maroney and George B. Searls.
Richard Gladstein argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Norman Leonard.
Briefs of amici curiae, urging affirmance, were filed by Melvin L. Wulf for the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California et al., and by Victor Rabinowitz and Leonard B. Boudin for the Emergency Civil Liberties Committee.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case we review for the first time a conviction under 504 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, which makes it a crime for a member of the Communist Party to serve as an officer or (except in clerical or custodial positions) as an employee of a labor union. 1 Section 504, the purpose of which is to protect [381 U.S. 437, 439] the national economy by minimizing the danger of political strikes, 2 was enacted to replace 9 (h) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended by the Taft-Hartley Act, which conditioned a union’s access to the National Labor Relations Board upon the filing of affidavits by all of the union’s officers attesting that they were not members of or affiliated with the Communist Party. 3 [381 U.S. 437, 440]
Respondent has been a working longshoreman on the San Francisco docks, and an open and avowed Communist, for more than a quarter of a century. He was elected to the Executive Board of Local 10 of the International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union for consecutive one-year terms in 1959, 1960, and 1961. On May 24, 1961, respondent was charged in a one-count indictment returned in the Northern District of California with “knowingly and wilfully serv[ing] as a member of an executive board of a labor organization . . . while a member of the Communist Party, in wilful violation of Title 29, United States Code, Section 504.” It was neither charged nor proven that respondent at any time advocated or suggested illegal activity by the union, or proposed a political strike. 4 The jury found respondent guilty, and he was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, reversed and remanded with instructions to set aside the conviction and dismiss the indictment, holding that 504 violates the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. 334 F.2d 488. We granted certiorari, 379 U.S. 899 .
Respondent urges - in addition to the grounds relied on by the court below - that the statute under which he was convicted is a bill of attainder, and therefore violates Art. I, 9, of the Constitution. 5 We agree that 504 is void as a bill of attainder and affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals on that basis. We therefore find it unnecessary to consider the First and Fifth Amendment arguments. [381 U.S. 437, 441]
Mark Levin is...wish he would run.
It would be one hell of a campaign!
c-o-u-r-a-g-e.
The governor of Wisconsin is showing courage and leadership. The media is trying to paint him in a bad light, but I don't think middle America is buying that story.
LLS
One more illustration of how irrelevant an appearance at CPAC has become. Don' mean nothin'.
For those that don’t know levin is available on his web site as well as iTunes, no charge. I take him with me every day.
If you'd leave it up to me to come up with a real Republican legislative agenda there'd be stuff on there that'd send chills down your spin.
The only problem in Indiana is that the Republicans don't quite have the votes to have a Constitutional majority for a quorum.
That's 'cause the public didn't vote for enough of them. It wasn't quite a "power sweep".
The Governor faces the prospect of shutting down state government ~ obviously he doesn't want to blamed for it. Hence, the continuing effort to blame legislators ~
I remember years ago where the legislature there worked into the night and for several days beyond the lawful close of a session simply by designating an "official clock" which they would regularly reset by running the hands backwards.
There's no trick they haven't used, and no matter how strange it may seem to you they are all positioning themselves for blame avoidance when there's no accepted budget or appropriations at the close of the session.
I think the Democrats are losing in this one. Now that hotter heads know where they're holed up there's no telling how this might end. I'm sure the Governor doesn't want to be accused of stirring up somebody to go shoot some Democrats, and the guys in the legislature don't want the blame for that either. Doesn't mean they don't want the event ~ they don't want the blame. They want the Democrats to take the blame for all the violence (if any) and for shutting down the old folks homes!
You might think that the only thing at stake here is the RTW law, but it's really the existence of the Democrat party for the next few decades. It is entirely possible that the Democrats will manage to agitate and posture themselves into permanent minority status.
Mark, having grown up in New York, probably has little appreciation for something that would actually exterminate the Democrats as a viable party in Indiana. Not that he'd oppose it, but New Yorkers just can't think that way ~ they've been conditioned to believe the Democrats are a permanent fixture in American politics ~ literally the gold standard of politics.
I was liking the guy, but he’s lost me.
For starters...Mark wasn't born or raised in NY.
About Daniels, I could go on...
when you have the establishment so quick to support him, it make you pause and wonder
“Daniels can’t stand up to the Democrats. I don’t see him as the guy to stand up to Iran.”
I think that pretty well sums things up.
Nope. We need Levin right where he is; to educate and give us (conservatives) hope and encouragement.
Nope. We need Levin right where he is; to educate and give us (conservatives) hope and encouragement.
Mitch can't walk in Palin high heels, wait a minute, yes he can and ware her panties too, sissy!
Palin/2012
Mitch Daniels - just the latest flash in the pan. Here today gone tomorrow, no scratch that, make that gone later tonight. Plop plop all fizzed out.
Wardaddy to Mark Levin.
You are right as always..well almost
Why is membership in the Communist party such a big secret?
Surely they have members. But none of them are known, other than a few token names.
Are honesty and sincerity anywhere to be found in the communist mind?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.