Skip to comments.Unions protected from prosecution by Supreme Court opinion (US v Enmons)
Posted on 12/12/2012 12:25:33 PM PST by cotton1706
Exemption from prosecution for union violence.
The most egregious example of organized labors special privileges and immunities is the 1973 United States v. Enmons decision. In it, the United States Supreme Court held that union violence is exempted from the Hobbs Act, which makes it a federal crime to obstruct interstate commerce by robbery or extortion. As a result, thousands of incidents of violent assaults (directed mostly against workers) by union militants have gone unpunished. Meanwhile, many states also restrict the authority of law enforcement to enforce laws during strikes.
From Wikipedia: The case involved a labor strike in which union members fired rifles at three utility company transformers, drained the oil from another, and blew up an entire company substation. The labor union in question was seeking a higher-pay contract and other benefits from their employer, the Gulf States Utilities Company. The Court decided that the union involved was immune from prosecution because their violent acts were in pursuit of a legitimate union objective.
As I've said many times, unions are a legalized form of organized crime.
Does it protect them from the “Stand Your Ground” law?
That kinda logic ought to blow your fricken mind!!!
Two UAW workers beat Vincent Chin to death in Highland Park Michigan in 1982. Neither man served any jail time.
Interestingly enough, “The attack was considered by many a hate crime, but pre-dated hate crime laws in the United States. Nevertheless, during a 1998 House of Representatives hearing on the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1997, Congressman John Conyers, Jr. suggested that the problem in making people sufficiently aware of the causes for and injustices of the Vincent Chin case was that it was a political “hot potato” that did not get picked up for “political reasons” with respect to the automobile industry.”
“Does it protect them from the Stand Your Ground law?”
Only if used in conjunction with level IIIA body armor.
But it's important to note that Enmon was based on the Court's interpretation of the language of the Hobbs Act. That means that: (1) Congress could change that result any time it wanted; and (2) the decision does not prevent prosecution of union violence under state criminal laws, or even under other federal criminal laws.
Just like our government.
Does making Mi. a 'right to work state', negate the protection the union enjoys?
Seems before there was no opposition to claim 'standing', but now there is.
Is this true?
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
See my post #8. Answer is yes, sort of.
Not for purposes of the Hobbs Act, no. But any union violence can be prosecuted by the State of Michigan under state criminal laws.
I remember this decision because:
1. This was one of the WTF? moments in my life.
2. I worked in a union environment and immediately after this decision union violence became common. I had the door on my car kicked in by protestors during a strike. The only way we could stop it was to install a video camera to monitor their picket line.
3. I will say that any violence was prosecuted by the state unlike to today’s unprofessional activities by both cops and DAs.
This decision should be overturned as it is endangering nonunion personnel.
I suspect that the stand your ground rule does apply in this case and I doubt whether a jury would convict if someone was attacked and ended up drilling a union thug in self defense.
Don’t patriots understand that we have to question every decision that post-FDR era Supreme Court makes?
Also, the states have long forgotton the following. The states have the unique, Article V power to ratify proposed amendments to the Constitution, and thus have absolute control over the federal government. In other words, even if Congress proposed amendments to the Constitution all day long, the states can simply ignore them.
It is important to understand that the states have the unique power to ratify proposed amendments for the following reason. When the Article V state majority doesn’t like the way that the Surpreme Court decides a case, then the states can effectively “overturn” the Court’s decision by ratifying an appropriate amendment to the Constitution.
In fact, the 11th, 17th and 19th Amendments are examples of the states “reversing” Supreme Court decisions. Although impeaching justices was probably a better idea when the Court decided United States v. Enmons in the union’s favor, the states also had the Article V option to overturn the Enmons decision, that is, if state lawmakers actually understood the Constitution that they swear to defend better than the voters who elected them to office did.
Article V of the Constitution is the best kept secret of the unconstitutionally big federal government imo.
Stand Your Ground law aside, what about equal protection under the law? If the union precipitates violence, is the other party exempt if they respond with violence?
If a union thug attacked me there would be a need for a body bag to fit this filthy piece of garbage.
Besides they’d be dead so nobody would be alive to prosecute.
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.