Posted on 06/10/2011 3:38:56 PM PDT by justlittleoleme
One of California's largest labor unions today advanced a plan intended to result in the election of more moderate Republicans.
By creating a Republican political action committee, Service Employees International Union California officials say they hope to help send people from right-leaning areas to Sacramento who put practical solutions in front of strict conservative thinking.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.sacbee.com ...
Any candidate endorsed by SEIU is an enemy of the USA and should be soundly defeated.
what the SEIU calls a “moderate” probably wouldn’t fly with republicans . . . oh, wait. we’re talking about Californicate.
For “practical solutions” read vigorish for SEIU officials and socialist poloticians.
Join it, get to the top of it, get GOBS of money from SEIU, pick lousy candidates, lose lots of elections.
But the important points are - get GOBS of money from SEIU and lose lots of elections. Fewer bux supporting their rabid democrat candidates.
Keeerist, caving is now an art?
This is easy. The TEA party launches a plan to create lots of fake “Republican moderates” to take the SEIU’s money.
The California Republican party has been cleansed of RINO’s like Shitzenegger and Abel Maldonado. The average Republican in Sacramento is more like Darell Issa and Tom McClintock than like Mitt Romney. The problem is that they are hopelessly outnumbered. I think the SEIU will fail in their attempt.
The SEIU can keep playing their games, but the communist SOB’s are going to get what they deserve real soon.
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 communist American labor 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.
Criminalize Government employee unions, blatantly illegal mechanisms for raping taxpayers by bribing leftist politicians with money and votes in exchange for unsustainable compensation and benefits.
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]
Indeed. And those are the districts the SEIU is going to target. My guess is the real money will go to districts where a GOP legislator is being term limited out and the idea is to get a RINO to win the primary.
Does anyone believe they are going to attempt to replace the crony Demorat libturds already on their side in the legislature?
I was watching something about WalMart on CNBC last weekend and the attempts by UFCW to unionize their workers. I think they said it was something to the effect of almost 2,000,000 WalMart workers. Now, my son works at FoodMaxx and even when he was working part time, less than 30 hours a week, the UFCW made him pay an initiation fee (amortized) of over $200 and had him pay monthly dues of $37.00
I’d like the WalMart workers to know that all the UFCW is going to do for you, if you unionize, is enrich themselves to the tune of $400,000,000 from your initiation fees and then fatten themselves up by $74,000,000 a month from your dues - and you pay those dues whether you work 20 hours a week or 40 hours a week. And by the way, they will do NOTHING when WalMart starts laying off workers because they have a price-point and a bottom line. Ask the Save-Mart workers what happens when workers find their hours cut from 40 per week to 30 per week during bad months. Ask what they’ve done for working conditions.
Unions could care less about you. What they DO need is your money for their political campaigns.
Are the California Republican primaries open to people who are not registered Republicans? If so that has got to be changed.
A direct result of the insane California Proposition 14 passed last June. Why even have a “primary” anymore...just save the 100’s of millions of $$ spent on them by the counties!
http://biggovernment.com/tdelbeccaro/2010/04/01/the-great-voter-silencer-cas-prop-14/
So, they hope to subvert the GOP away from Conservative principles by funding and registering their stooges as “moderate” members of the GOP.
There are NO moderate Republicans,Just Commie RINOs.
That should be the kiss of death. Name and shame the idiots who get in bed with SEIU swine.
That doesn't even matter anymore in CA after Prop 14...it is just the top 2 "vote getters" that come out of the primary and go to the general...could be 2 Dems. Quote from the article I posted above:"Under Prop 14, all of the parties and candidates are forced into a single primary in June and then only the Top 2 vote getters square off in the Fall – no one else has a voice."
So the SEIU is shooting for their "Super-RINO" candidate and the Democrat to advance to the General in November!
Another article: http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_14,_Top_Two_Primaries_Act_%28June_2010%29
If the word “Republican” is used in the PAC, does this have to be approved by the State Republcan Party?
I’m past Pres of a Repub Club and had to submit forms to State Party, every 2 yrs, to be chartered and allowed to use the word “Republican” in Club name. Any new Club/Org must get approval of State Party before they can legally use word ‘Republican’.
A perfect opportunity for a conservative who isn’t ‘out’ to play their game, get their monetary support, win & then VOTE CORRECTLY! Come on. There’s got to be one or two out there...
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.