Alarm Bells - Radical Union Leader Appointed to Important Trade Post

President Barack Obama has appointed a far left labor unionist to a security sensitive U.S. trade post.

On February 16, 2011, Obama announced the appointment of United Auto Workers president Bob King to the Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations.

As U.S. trade positions and data are always key targets of foreign intelligence services, one would think that appointments to such a body would be subject to thorough scrutiny.

Either this was not done in King's case, or affiliation with far left organizations, is no longer considered any sort of danger to national security in today's Washington.

As a long time leader of the U.A.W. King would have to be closely linked to America's largest Marxist organization, Democratic Socialists of America. Many of U.A.W. leading officials in recent years have been D.S.A. members or sympathisers, including King's long time fellow union Vice Presidents Elizabeth Bunn and Richard Shoemaker.

U.A.W. leaders have, over several years, placed (presumably paid) advertisements in D.S.A.'s Democratic Left magazine, praising the publication as a "strong voice for social and economic justice."

Bob King, Elizabeth Bunn, Richard Shoemaker and many othe U.A.W. leaders have signed these ads.

It is worth remembering that former D.S.A. National Political Committee member Kurt Stand is currently serving 17 years imprisonment for spying for East Germany and the former Soviet Union. Many D.S.A. members have ties to Cuba and the organization also works closely with the Communist Party USA and other foreign affiliated radical groups.

Named after the famed communist U.A.W. lawyer Maurice Sugar, the Center is openly affiliated to the communist founded National Lawyers Guild and to the International Association of Democratic Lawyers. Once a well documented Soviet front, the I.A.D.L. is still run by communists, mainly from Cuba, India, Palestine, Vietnam and former East Bloc nations.

I.A.D.L. president Jeanne Mirer serves on the board of the Sugar Law Center, as does her I.A.D.L. board member colleague and N.L.G. leader Marjorie Cohn.

Evenson, Hurwitz and Cohn, all signed an October 2008 statement in support of former Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers - then under attack his close associations with Barack Obama.

In November 2010, Bob King welcomed to Detroit, another well known Obama associate - "former" communist and ex "Green Jobs Czar" Van Jones.

The Sugar Law Center presented Jones with its annual "Maurice Sugar Voice for Justice Award."

Bob King served on the Sugar Center's honorary host committee, alongside D.S.A. member David Elsila, ultra radical Detroit City Council member JoAnn Watson, Communist Party affiliate and pro Palestine activist Hasan Newash and retired Detroit judge and life long communist "sympathizer" Claudia Morcom.

In his new position, Bob King may well be privy to some very sensitive U.S. trade data - which if it got into the wrong hands could severely damage U.S. economic, strategic and security interests.

Given his associations, is Bob King the kind of man to be entrusted with such information?

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]

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.