Replies

Why then are the unions fighting passage of this Act (H.R.1870)?

Have you reviewed the legislation?

Here is another brief summary from NRTW Newsletter-July 2003:

"In the 1973 U.S. v. Enmons case, the Supreme Court exempted unions from the 1946 Hobbs Anti-Extortion Act, which forbids the obstruction of interstate commerce through violence or blackmail."

"...Thanks to the Enmons loophole, however, organized labor can escape federal Hobbs Act prosecution, provided its mayhem furthers 'legitimate union objectives,' such as higher wages."

If this is mere propaganda from NRTWC, as you claim, then why did Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) write legislation to "...end the Enmons exemption?"

Anyone who feels the "Enmons exemption" from union violence is NRTWC propaganda, or a figment of my imagination, simply got to GOOGLE-enter 'Enmons Exemption,' and prepare for hours of reading...read what Harvard Law School Dean, Roscoe Pound had to say about this Exemption in 1958. Many others attest to the FACT it exists.

"The District Court granted the appellees' motion to dismiss the indictment for failure to state an offense under the Hobbs Act. 335 F. Supp. 641. The court noted that the appellees were union members on strike against their employer, Gulf States, and that both the strike and its objective of higher wages were legal. The court expressed the view that if "the wages sought by violent acts are wages to be paid for unneeded or unwanted services, or for no services at all," then that violence would constitute extortion within the meaning of the Hobbs Act. Id., at 645. But in this case, by contrast, the court noted that the indictment alleged the use of force to obtain legitimate union objectives: "The union had a right to disrupt the business of the employer by lawfully striking for higher wages. Acts of violence occurring during a lawful strike and resulting in damage to persons or property are undoubtedly punishable under State law. To punish persons for such acts of violence was not the purpose of the Hobbs Act." Id., at 646. The court found "no case where a court has gone so far as to hold the type of activity involved here to be a violation of the Hobbs Act." Id., at 645. [410 U.S. 396, 399]"

It is clear that the court ruled that the Hobbs Act didn't address the charges made in the case. Rather, it relied upon state law to prosecute those engaging in such acts. The court's ruling simply doesn't provide anyone with protection from prosecution for the commission of criminal acts not address by the Hobbs Act.
Representative Wilson may have introduced such legislation because he wished to carry on a long tradition of Republican Party allegience to Corporate American instead of blue collar America. He may have also performed the act to garner a campaign contribution or to further federalize state law. In the latter case this is something that I very much oppose as a conservative.