Are Unions Completely Overrun by Radicals?

The degenerate communist union bosses are pissed that their membership has been freed from compulsory witholding of union dues , thats what this is about and nonthing else.

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 American communist 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.

There’s nothing patently illegal about the next GOP POTU 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

Its stupid to allow the Communists to use the same mechanism (witholding) the Federal apparatus uses to fund itself.

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]

Mr. Arens. Now, the affidavit says, does it not, sir, the affidavit that you signed, “I am not a member of the Communist Party or affiliated with such party,” is that correct, is that the affidavit you signed?

Mr. Nelson. That is what it says.

Mr. Arens. As of the time you signed the last Taft-Hartley affidavit in 1958, were you a person who had ever been a member of the Communist Party?

Mr. Nelson. You have my answer.

Mr. Scherer. All right. We haven’t the answer. I ask you, Mr. Chairman, to direct the witness to answer that question.

Mr. Willis. You are directed to answer the question. You are not answering it.

Mr. Nelson. Mr. Chairman, I endeavored to answer the question honestly and fully that I have signed affidavits

Mr. Willis. We are not talking about affidavits at all. This is something brand new.

Mr. Nelson. - under the Taft-Hartley since 1949 which says that I am not a member of the Communist Party. And I will not go beyond the period which is covered by the affidavit. I will not go beyond that period because I do not believe it to be relevant or pertinent to the stated purpose of this particular committee.

Mr. Willis. All right. In other words, you signed or have signed non-Communist affidavits once a year, is that correct?

Mr. Nelson. At least once a year.

Mr. Willis. At least once a year. And that affidavit provides that on the day, on the respective days that you have signed those affidavits you swore that on those days, let us say maybe twelve times, that the only thing you have sworn to in those affidavits if you signed twelve of them, that on those twelve days that you signed them that you were not then a member of the Communist Party. That is all those affidavits provide for, isn’t that correct?

Mr. Nelson. Well, I am not so naive as to believe that the late Senator Taft and his associates who drew up the Taft-Hartley law were so foolish as to put in the Taft-Hartley law an amendment that covered the moment that I placed my pen on the paper. The affidavit means exactly what it says, that for the past 10 years and any given moment of those 10 years that you can name or anybody else can name, I was not a Communist, or a member of the Communist Party.

Mr., Willis. Now, let me ask you, forgetting the affidavits, have you been a member of the Communist Party at any time for 1 minute, or 3 hours, or 3 months during that period of time?

Mr. Nelson. I have not.

Mr. Willis. All right. Now, have you ever been a member of the Communist Party at any time in your lifetime?

Mr. Nelson. Prior to 1949, which was the first affidavit I signed, I decline to answer on the basis that it is remote and irrelevant and is n

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.