prompt 2 and 3.edited
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Kenyatta University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
MISC
Subject
Law
Date
Nov 24, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
6
Uploaded by PrivateOxide20005
1
Students Name
Professor's Name
Subject
Date
PROMPT 2
1.
To what extent did the Supreme Court's interpretation of the commerce clause protect American workers from the abuses by American industry? (Incorporate both the Gilded Age and the New Deal in your response. Reference at least THREE cases in your response.)
In this prompt, I will discuss how the Supreme Court has interpreted the commerce clause on how to protect the workers and how successful it has been over the years. Conventionally, the commerce clause has been read as implicitly forbidding state laws and regulations that discriminate against or obstruct interstate commerce and giving Congress approving authority. The mentioned interpretation of implied prohibition refers to the clause known as "dormant" commerce. When interpreted positively, the commerce clause provides the legal basis for a large portion of the government's regulatory authority. The complete freedom of commerce and relations between the states that may or may not come before manufacturing and take precedence
over transportation from the point of purchase is covered and safeguarded by the authority of Congress.
Section 7 of the commerce clause states that employees’ rights include the ability to self-
organize, form, join, or support labor organizations, engage in coordinated activities for the goal of collective bargaining or other forms of mutual aid or protection, and bargain collectively through representatives of their choosing. Therefore, as it currently stands, the statute only
2
protects employees’ freedom to self-organize and choose representatives for collective bargaining or other forms of mutual protection without interference from their employer. That is an essential right for all legitimate reasons; employees have the same unambiguous right to organize and choose their representatives as the respondent to set up their company and select their officers and agents. It is appropriate when competent legislative authority condemns discrimination to prevent employees from freely exercising their right to self-organization and representation.
In class, we explained that the union was necessary to give workers a chance to deal with their employers on an equal footing, that they were organized due to the necessity of the situation, and
that a single employee was helpless in dealing with an employer that he was usually dependent on his daily wage for the maintenance of himself and his family. According to the Supreme Court ruling, when considering the Railway Labor Act of 1926, we restated these opinions—
acknowledging the legitimacy of employees taking collective action to protect their legitimate interests.
Congress could protect the rights of the employees, but it was not obligated to do so. Congress could work to turn legitimate employee collective action into a tool for peace rather than conflict.
We stated that if interference with freedom of choice rendered representation meaningless, such collective action would be laughable. Thus, instead of invading either party's constitutional right,
it was based on recognizing both rights. The Congress forbade interfering with the choice of representatives for negotiation and conferences between employers and employees.
2
Should the New Deal be considered a legal success? (Reference at least THREE cases in your response.)
According to the new deal of commercial commerce, we find that it's not entirely
3
successful. The constitution did not specify the methods that could be used to defend the freedom of commercial intercourse and traffic established for the benefit of all union citizens when it gave Congress authority over commerce with other countries and among the various states. It was prudent to refrain from restricting the use of that authority other than those that stem from the nature of the government in general or those enshrined in the core rights to property and liberty. During the NIRA, the legal challenges to the New Deal program in 1933, the president authorized the regulation industry for fair wages and prices and created the NRA and PWA.
One of the successes of this new deal is that it expressly grants Congress the power to enact any laws that are appropriate and necessary to carry out the power to regulate commerce. The National Labor Relations Act in 1935 authorized Congress to control and investigate any unfair business practices in commercial activity that affected interstate commerce. Whether a law passed by Congress to accomplish a goal for which the general government is qualified falls within the purview of this power will be decided by applying the standard that Chief Justice Marshall established over 75 years ago and that this court has upheld time and time again.
PROMPT 3
1.
Compare the Constitutionality of the use of military commissions to try detainees in World War II and the Global War on Terror.
The government took advantage of the military sent to war in this prompt. We will discuss how the military could defend itself against the government and how this affected the government during World War II and the Global War on Terror. The military commission was established out of necessity and is a tribunal that is neither referenced in the constitution nor established by law. The commission was established in 1847, although it had been partially
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
4
anticipated by previous tribunals such as the Board of General Officers, which General Washington called to try British Major John Andre for espionage during the Revolutionary War. This is referenced from G. Davis, A Treatise on the Military Law of the United States 308(2d ed.
1909). That year, General Winfield Scott ordered the creation of a council of war to try crimes against the law of war and a military commission to try common crimes committed in the occupied territory. As a commander of occupied Mexican territory, he had no other tribunal.
In contrast, the military authorities should not be obligated to adhere to norms of regulatory action appropriate for regular times, given the critical military situation in the Pacific Coast area in 1942 and the pressing need to secure defense installations and military operations against the risk of sabotage and espionage. Despite the potential benefits of the proposed procedure, the military authorities could have legitimately concluded at the time that it was not possible to make
fast decisions that could have resulted in tragedy regarding the loyalty and reliability of individual Japanese Americans living in a large and dispersed group on the West Coast. This is according to Justice Murphy's excerpt from the Concurring Opinion in Hirabayashi V. U.S. (1942).
2.
Evaluate the validity of the following statement in the context of the Cold War. Confine your response to the historical period from 1945 to 1991. (Reference at least THREE cases in your response.)
During the Cold War, the military planned to overthrow the government. There is undoubtedly a significant enough interest for the government to censor speech if it means overthrowing the government with force and violence. This is, in fact, the ultimate value of any society since no subordinate value can be safeguarded if the community cannot defend its basic framework against violent internal attack. If this interest is to be protected, the literal issue that arises is what
5
is meant when the term “clear and present danger" refers to statements that create an evil that Congress has the authority to punish
During World War II, the legislature created sufficiently covert propaganda to go unnoticed in a classroom. As a result, it is challenging to gauge the threat posed by such infiltration. It was also believed that strict enforcement of the laws banning members of such groups from getting or keeping a job in public schools was necessary to shield the kids from this influence. The Feinberg law was created to disqualify and terminate public school superintendents, teachers, and staff in any city or school district in the State who support overthrowing the government through illegal means or who belong to groups that share similar goals. This is according to the excerpts from the Decision in Alder V. Board of Education (1951).
In contrast, it is also evident that they are not entitled to work in the public education system for the State on their terms. Mitchell V. United Public Workers, 330 U.S. 75. If the appropriate New York authorities set reasonable terms, they may work for the school system. They can go elsewhere and keep their affiliations and beliefs if they do not want to work under these conditions. According to the relevant statutes, these individuals may not be allowed to work for the new State yorks school system for two reasons: either they have openly advocated for the overthrow of the government through force or violence, or they have mysteriously joined an organization that the school authorities have discovered, following notice and a hearing, to teach and promote the use of force or violence to overthrow the government.
6
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help