Of course. EL DUCHE showed us the way.
A neutral question - is this a proper use of federal authority?
Make the unions pass their own hat around and the unions will self destruct all by themselves.
That is a very good question. I would say no. It sounds like a state right under the 10th Amendment.
A valid question. I don’t see a problem. Just because some states are more cowed by the unions than others doesn’t justify depriving people of their basic rights.
I really dont know, but seems to me that if it isnt we should be able to unload the National Labor Relations Board too.
But if (as a layman), I had to guess, I would say the courts would allow it on grounds that unions affect interstate commerce.
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.
Time to kill the WAGNER ACT dead once and for all
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.
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.
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]
Of course. EL DUCHE showed us the way.
It's a great question to which I don't have an answer. It made me think, however: why would restrictions be improper if the original granting of special rights to the union was constitutional?
A neutral question is how in the blazes under the U.S. Constitution can a person be compelled to join a private organization he doesn’t want to join and contribute to a political organization and causes he doesn’t support.
Compulsory unionism is a usurpation of quasi-governmental power by the unions. It is intrinsically wrong and always has been. Just because a corrupt arrangement has been institutionalized doesn’t mean it’s ok.
Not so neutral. Why wouldn’t it be?
A neutral question - is this a proper use of federal authority?
That was my first thought. Isn’t this just strengthening the power on centralized government? This should be left to the states, it would seem to me.
What is alarming is that we laymen refer to the constitution, while those “heroes” on “our side” seem to be either ignorant of it, or don’t even care about it.
We live in dangerous times.
[. . . is this a proper use of federal authority?]
Rand Paul should be considering that question.
It is certainly a highly charged political issue. The Dems will fight this tooth and nail. In many cases, if you crush the unions, particularly for public employess, you deal a serious blow to the democrat party. As seen in Wisconson, the unions collect dues and "buy" politicians and political influence with taxpayer money.
In my opinion, no. The whole point of having 50 separate states is to let them govern the way they want. If a state wants to be completely socially liberal, let it. People will move or attitudes will change. But, with some of the later amendments, this will probably be justified as equal protection, or something.
-——is this a proper use of federal authority?———
That is a very good question.
The matter of unions is likely one of those powers not specifically enumerated but possibly applicable to jobs related to interstate commerce. That is having closed shop in Michigqan makes the cost of a car in Tennessee, a right to work state, more expensive than necessary. The forced unionism makes a Tennessee car buyer a party to the union dues pass through to the DNC.
The problem is union dues pass through directly to the DNC.
The political pass through should be deductible from the dues paid by those not wising to make a political contribution. As I understand it now a request can be made for a refund but that refund might not be made and the size is determined by the union.
No. Unless there is a Constitutional Amendment, this falls under the 10th Amendment. It is a state issue.
This is why, as a strict Constructionist myself, I find myself often at odds with even the most Conservative Republicans.
“A neutral question - is this a proper use of federal authority?”
___________-
Good question. Just because I agree with the idea, doesn’t mean the fed gov’t should dictate this.
A better question - can workers be forced to join a union and pay extortion ("dues") as a condition of employment?
As much as I like the idea of this legislative proposal I would think the Federal government is not permitted to involve itself in state labor arrangements.
However, there may be 14th amendment protections through the federal courts and I would be curious to know if cases have surfaced along these lines in the past.