Boop the Bottle! Don't Annoy the Baby!
All Babies Love Their Bottles
Donate monthly and end FReepathons!
Sponsors will donate $10
For each new monthly sign-up
Posted on 01/17/2012 12:39:03 PM PST by Sub-Driver
In Scott Walker recall, Wisconsin Dems tout 1 million recall signatures
By: MJ Lee January 17, 2012 02:38 PM EST
Organizers behind the recall of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker collected 1 million signatures to be submitted to the state’s Government Accountability Board on Tuesday, dwarfing the required number of names and virtually ensuring that a recall election will take place later this year.
A total of 540,208 valid signatures, or 25 percent of all of the votes cast in the election that put Walker in office last January, were needed to force a recall election, but organizers had aimed for hundreds of thousands more than the minimum requirement to ensure that they met the threshold even if some signatures are disqualified.
The Wisconsin Democratic Party was quick to dub the recall effort — which also targeted Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch and a handful of Republican state legislators — the “biggest” in American history, and boasted that organizers had gathered a whopping 460,000 extra signatures for the recall of Walker, who infuriated many in his state last year by pushing through a law that ended most collective bargaining rights for many public workers.
Meagan Mahaffey, executive director of United Wisconsin – the group behind the recall efforts – told POLITICO that Tuesday’s results sent a “crystal clear message to Scott Walker that voters are done with his extreme policies and his destruction that he’s doing to our state.”
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Don't underestimate the left's mission to recall Walker. They've got a ton of union money to spend in the recall election on scary ads and lies. We all need to donate some $'s to him to help counter them.
Me, too, & I’m looking forward to it. Live in MN & we all know how franken stole his seat.
Throw out all those submitted by greedy union members and you can count the remainder on one hand.
Wow ; after all the Mickey mouse’s, Donald Ducks and Adolph Hitlers are weeded out, they just might make it.
I’ll bet there are a few hundred thousand duplicate signitures.
I would challenge anything illegible, fishy or out of the ordinary.
God Speed my brother.
Once the inevitably large number of invalid signatures is established be sure to use that to push for voter id.
Amen!!!
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 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 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 not pertinent to the stated purpose of this particular hearing.
So they’re admitting that they know that vast numbers of signatures are invalid, but they don’t have a clue how many.
Years and years of creating fake registrations has come back to haunt them.
How many dead people signed those petitions?
Wisconsin Recall Signatures Ping
If you want to be on, or off, this Wisconsin interest ping list, just FReep Mail me and it shall be done.
are these the same dems who claim it costs too much to implement voter ID procedures?
a judge then said the rats on the GAB couldn’t do this...
Wis. judge: Remove fake names from recall petition
State election officials must “take affirmative steps” to remove fake or duplicate names from recall petitions, a judge ruled Thursday, handing a victory to Republican officials who felt the Government Accountability Board wasn’t planning to be aggressive enough in vetting signatures.
Fortunately, the Voter ID law takes effect in Feb, which means it should be in effect for the Walker election. Count on the ACLU to push forward with their federal suit against it, and call for a federal judge to suspend it while it's being argued.
““crystal clear message to Scott Walker that voters are done with his extreme policies and his destruction that he’s doing to our state.””
Just exactly what destruction IS that? The state is projecting a surplus and the school districts are now running in the black. To the best of my knowledge no teachers were fired.
Where’s the destruction?”
This is all about union dues and how they are collected from government workers, period. Fiscal sanity be damned.
Great assessment - thanks!
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.