how-to block ads
|
LegoPower77
Abecedarian
Premium
join:2002-08-03
Arlington, VA
| reply to pnh102
Unless it was union thugs
Unless of course, they were union members pursuing "legitimate union objectives."
In the Unites Sates v. Enmons 410 U.S. 396 (1973) case, three members of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) were indicted for firing high-powered rifles at three utility company transformers, draining the oil from a transformer, and blowing up a substation.
However, the U.S. District Court in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, dismissed the charges on the grounds that, in the context of a strike, the militants' actions were not illegal since they were in pursuit of "legitimate" union objectives. On direct appeal, a divided Supreme Court affirmed 5-4.
--
"It is a melancholy reflection that liberty should be equally exposed to danger whether the government have too much or too little power."—James Madison
It's right, it's free. | |
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA
| said by LegoPower77  :Unless of course, they were union members pursuing "legitimate union objectives." In the Unites Sates v. Enmons 410 U.S. 396 (1973) case... That isn't a very accurate summary of the case.
The court held that a specific federal law dealing with interruption of interstate commerce could not be used in this case. The court even suggested in its opinion that these people could be tried on more appropriate state charges. The issue here is federalism. | |
LegoPower77
Abecedarian
Premium
join:2002-08-03
Arlington, VA
| Federalism. As if. . .
The courts routinely use interstate commerce to encroach on states' rights. (Medical marihuana, anyone?)
That being said, in this case, the court didn't rule the way it did on interstate commerce grounds, making it a constitutional ruling; if it had, congress would have to change the Constitution (or enact a law out of the purview of the court) to change the situation. The currently introduced Freedom from Union Violence Act (H.R. 239/S. 618) would be moot if enacted.
If the court had found against the specific law, the Federal Anti-extortion law (Hobbs Act) would have been thrown out in it's entirety. The Hobbs Act defines extortion as "the obtaining of property by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence or fear. . ."
Congress had enacted the Hobbs Act specifically to eliminate the safe harbor for "legitimate" union goals. Nonetheless, the Court noted that the IBEW’s destruction of company property was part of a strike for higher wages. Since the demand for higher wages could not be considered "wrongful," neither could the use of violence to gain higher wages.
It was that word "wrongful" upon which the court's decision hinged. So now, the Hobbs injunction against extortion applies to rival businesses or individuals, just not to union members pursuing so-called "legitimate" union objectives.
--
"It is a melancholy reflection that liberty should be equally exposed to danger whether the government have too much or too little power."—James Madison
It's right, it's free. | |
|
