Replies

"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.

US v. Enmons ended in 5-4 decision by SCOTUS. The dissenting opinion was written by CHIEF Justice Burger.

H.R. 1870, sponsored by Rep. Joe Wilson of SC and co-sponsored by others, including Ron Paul of TX., attempts to clarify/correct the oversight by the majority in this case. Previous attempts by Strom Thurmond,Orin Hatch, etal have not gotten the job done. But I hardly think Wilson sponsored said legislation for campaign contributions. He is a steadfast conservative, strong supporter of RKBA,etc. And being a Republican in SC, me thinks his position quite secure.

_________________________

From the National Center for Policy Analysis-Wall Street Journal ed. 'Protected Thuggery' Sept.9,1997:

"The Supreme Court has held that the 1946 Hobbs Act, designed to stop violence related to labor disputes, didn't apply to efforts aimed at acheiving 'legitimate union objectives.' Thus the FBI cannot investigate, nor the U.S. Department of Justice prosecute, such-while local prosecutors lack jurisdiction in labor-related disputes covered by federal law.

Former Attorney General Edwin Meese testified at recent hearings that due to the 1973 Supreme Court ruling in Enmons, unions enjoy an exemption that 'permits union officials-alone among corporate or associational officers in the U.S.-to use violence and threats of violence to life and property to acheive their goals."

Another study, available from The CATO INSTITUTE-a Libertarian think tank cites the FREEDOM FROM UNION VIOLENCE study by David Kendrick. Here is page one of 40 page report (available in it's entirety off CATO.org)-

"Under the Supreme Court's 1973 Enmons decision, vandalism, assault, even murder by union officials are exempt from federal anti-extortion law. As long as the violence is aimed at obtaining property for which the union can assert a 'lawful claim'-for example, wage or benefit increases-the violence is deemed to be in furtherance of 'legitimate' union objectives. By the Court's peculiar logic, such violence does not count as extortion.

The result has been an epidemic of union-related violence. The National Institute for Labor Relations Research (NILRR) has recorded 8,799 incidents of violence from news reports since 1975. Those reports show only 258 convictions, suggesting a conviction rate of less than 3 percent. Moreover, local law enforcement authorities often get many more reports of strike violence than journalists can possibly cover.

Many states have taken a cue from the high court by enacting their own extortion laws with exemptions similar to those established by Enmons. As a result, employees trying to support their families during a violent strike are now denied protection against extortion under both state and federal laws.

Because the federal government for six decades has immersed itself in labor law under the rubric of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). federal action is necessary to see that violence does not accompany the exercise of powers created by that statute. One avenue for relife is the Freedom from Union Violence Act (FUVA), which targets all extortionate activity, even if committed by union militants in pursuit of 'legitimate' objectives."

_______________

David Kendrick is program director at the National Institute for Labor Relations Research.

Anyone wishing to read the entire 40 page study, simply go to CATO.org. At search function enter 'Freedom from Union Violence Act.'

Here is a brief summary of H.R.1870,

" The Freedom from Union Violence Act of 2003-Amends the Hobbs Act to authorize imposition of a fine of up to $100,000, 20 years imprisonment, or both for 1)obstructing, delaying, or affecting commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce by robbery or extortion (or attempting or conspiring to do so); and 2)threatening physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to interfere with commerce by threats or violence.

Makes provisions regarding any such interference inapplicable to conduct that: 1)is incidental to otherwise peaceful picketing during the course of a labor dispute; 2) consists solely of minor bodily injury, or minor damage to property, or threat or fear of such minor injury or damage; and 3) is not part of a pattern of violent conduct or of coordinated violent activity. Subjects such conduct to prosecution only by the appropriate State and local authorities."

This legislation introduced by Rep. Joe Wilson of SC 4-29-2003. Co-sponsored by others, including the most famous Libertarian in America, Ron Paul(R-TX).

I hope this addresses your concerns re:federalizing state law.