Posted on 03/19/2012 3:50:58 PM PDT by Kaslin
I don't think that the "conscientiously object" argument will stand up in Court; but the Un-Constitutionality of Mandating and Forcing me to pay cronies should!
I am curious why Obama thinks it’s OK to force Orthodox Jewish people and Catholics to fund abortions, but makes compromises in ObamaCare bill itself to comply with Sharia law, which prohibits participation in insurance as a form of “gambling.”
Very curious double standard.
“MCCAIN: This is the nastiest I have ever seen. “
McKennedy, you’ve not heard what we conservatives think about you, you smarmy piece of dog stuff that the Navy would have tossed years ago save for your Admiral dad.
You’re an idiot who screwed his way into money and bought a senatorship....sorta like Nancy (slut) Pelosi.
Hey, why not marry her so we can have a matched set of b*stard/b*tch.
Go away.
Dead Ted is calling you. He says you’ll be quite warm there.
Never forget the first time I was told that I had to pay dues to a corrupt do nothing NYC Taxi Drivers union every shift or I couldn't work.
Rick the lawyer voted against right to work legislation, and is a megalomaniac fraud.
When Obama asks muslims to forcably eat pork then I’ll reconsider the issue....until then , no go
I’m with you. Guess that makes us “conscientious objectors”. It would make a good bumper sticker. Drive the Lefties (most of my neighborhood) crazy.
I read somewhere that the Amish are excluded from the mandate. Do you know anything about that?
forceably
I believe only Union Amish got a pass......
You would do well to find out why he voted the way he did on any issue. Things aren’t always as they seem.
I sat about a foot and a half from the man as he answered every concern honestly and without hesitation.
Since you aren’t voting for Santorum, plese tell which candidate you’ve found who walks on water?
Nonsense.
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.
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 and State level.
FORCED UNIONISM IS NO DIFFERENT THAN SLAVERY
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 a 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]
To the best of my knowledge there are no “union” amish.
Yeah; well you have to READ Obamacare before you know what's IN there!
LOL
Tell me what signs of “megalomaniac” behavior you’ve seen from Rick Santorum?
Amen, Brother!
I am certain that it would be a real threat to the Democrat/Socialist/Progressive movement, as the money-laundering of Dues, which are PAID FOR BY TAXPAYERS, is how half the country now lives off others.(Pay no taxes).
Second, you would suddenly see MASSIVE refusals of Unionization, more Right-to-Work States, and the COST to Taxpayers for government-funded projects could revert to COMPETITIVE BIDDING WITHOUT FORCED UNION REQUIRED FOR BIDS.
Its a religious freedom issue, but its also a freedom-freedom issue. They are dictating to private companies what their business model must be. If they wanted to provide that service they would provide it. No government mandate would be required. If they don't want to provide it, in a free country they would not compelled to provide a service against their will.
Being compelled to provide a service against your will has been illegal in this country for about a century and a half.
Because he's a Muslim who hates Christians and Jews. And he loves killing babies.
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.