1,750,946 research outputs found
James G. MacDonald Civil War letter
No full textThis collection consists of one letter written by James G. MacDonald, a resident of Arkansas, while he was serving with the Helena Light Artillery Battery
The Right to Strike under the United States Constitution: Theory, Practice, and Possible Implications for Canada
No full textAnswering critics of the Canadian Supreme Court's judgment in B.C. Health, the author argues that the Court laid the foundation for a principled and durable doctrine protecting constitutional labour rights, one that goes directly to the heart of the matter — the inequality of workers’ power in the employment relation. In the author’s view, two paths could lead from B.C. Health to the recognition of Charter protec- tion for a right to strike: one that treats the right as an accessory to col- lective bargaining, and one that upholds the right directly on the basis of the Charter values of equality and participation. The author supports the latter approach, contending that constitutional rights should be defined in relation to fundamental values, in a way that is not contingent on time-bound or fact-sensitive assessments about the role of strikes within a particular collective bargaining regime. Although a Charter right to strike may involve the courts in difficult choices about when to defer to legislative policy decisions, and courts may lack the institutional capac- ity to deal effectively with labour law issues, the author points out that judges can look to ILO standards for expert guidance. Noting that the U.S. experience in this area might be of considerable use to Canadians, the author concludes by providing an overview of American case law concerning a constitutional right to strike.Peer reviewe
James G. Birney portrait
No full textJames G. Birney (1792-1857) was born on February 4, 1792, in Danville, Kentucky. An anti-slavery advocate from the beginning, he called for a gradual end to slavery and even moved to Alabama to help spread his message there. He eventually moved to Cincinnati in 1835, where he began publication of a newspaper, "The Philanthropist", which called for an immediate end to slavery and equal rights for African-Americans. He was unpopular both in the South and in Cincinnati and twice had his printing press destroyed by local mobs, but continued to publish until 1843. In September 1837, he moved with his family to New York, where he became the secretary of the American Anti-Slavery Society. He ran unsuccessfully for president of the United States in 1840 and 1844
James G. Gordon papers, 1851-1872
No full textThis collection contains correspondence, receipts, and financial papers of James G. Gordon (1796-1854) of Ashwood, Louisiana, concerning Gordon's land and product sales and his estate, which was administered by John Routh after his death, and his business affairs in Jefferson County, Arkansas, conducted by his agent, Theron Brownfield of Pine Bluff, Arkansas.James G. Gordon papers, 1851-187
Honorable James G. O'Hara
No full textCommencement address given by Honorable James G. O'Hara, U.S. Representative from Michigan, to the Autumn 1973 graduating class of The Ohio State University, St. John Arena, Columbus, Ohio, December 14, 1973
James G. Owen, Jr.'s Telegram
No full textTelegram from James G. Owen, Jr., vehemently encouraging the Ozark Society to stop the proposed dams on the Buffalo Rive
Clarke, James G. an Herman Grimm (1 Brief)
No full textCLARKE, JAMES G. AN HERMAN GRIMM (1 BRIEF)
Clarke, James G. an Herman Grimm (1 Brief) (Br751)
Brief 751 (Br751
If you would love me / words by Elizabeth Jacobi ; music by James G. MacDermid.
No full textFor low voice and piano.Cover title.Lyrics printed as text on page [3]."Sung by John McCormack"--Cover.Archived web conten
How American Workers Lost the Right to Strike, and Other Tales
No full textAs a veteran labor scholar once said, if you want to know where the corpses are buried in labor law, look for the of course statements in court opinions. This essay traces the historical origins of five such of course statements, each of which has had a devastating impact on the American labor movement. The five statements are: (1) Workers have no right of self-defense against employers that commit unfair labor practices (NLRB v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corporation); (2) Employers enjoy the right permanently to replace economic strikers (NLRB v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Company); (3) The National Labor Relations Board has no power to deter unfair labor practices (Consolidated Edison Company v. NLRB); (4) Employers may exclude union organizers from their property (Lechmere, Inc. v. NLRB); (5) Employers may close operations out of spite against workers who choose to unionize (Textile Workers Union v. Darlington Manufacturing Company). The essay argues that in each of the five cases, the Court revived Lochner-era constitutional doctrines - supposedly defunct since the switch in time that saved nine in 1937 - and applied them to cut back on statutory labor rights. Although the five statements were not considered especially dangerous at the time, their impact has since been magnified by social and economic change. Taken together, they may account for a substantial proportion of the decline in the American labor movement. As in the pre-New Deal period, then, judges have deprived workers of the rights to organize and strike based on constitutional concerns. This time, however, they have avoided the forthright constitutional reasoning of the pre-1937 period, thereby insulating their rulings against changes in constitutional jurisprudence.Peer reviewe
Section 1 of the Thirteenth Amendment and the Badges and Incidents of Slavery
No full textThis Article presents the first comprehensive treatment of the basic and officially “open” question whether Section 1 of the Thirteenth Amendment directly bans the badges and incidents of slavery. Surprisingly, in light of present-day uncertainty, the historical record is relatively clear on this issue. Members of the Thirty-Ninth Congress generally agreed that Section 1 banned at least some of the badges and incidents; they parted company over which ones. The Democrats and their allies, nearly all of whom had opposed the Amendment, claimed that it outlawed only the core incidents of slavery, for example chattelization and physically or legally forced labor. But their Republican opponents, all of whom had supported the Amendment, maintained that it banned a far broader set including—at a minimum—denials of the rights enumerated in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, namely to enjoy the same rights to make contracts, own property, and participate in court as were enjoyed by white citizens. Until 1968, courts also assumed that the issue of badges and incidents hinged on Section 1. Contrary to the received wisdom, Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., decided in that year, announced for the first time that the identification of badges and incidents might be a task for Congress under the Section 2 power to enact “appropriate” enforcement legislation. Although the Court has maintained for nearly half a century that the question is “open,” the practical reality is that courts honor the narrow reading of Section 1 proposed by the unsuccessful Democratic opponents of both the Amendment and the 1866 Civil Rights Act, a reading later introduced to jurisprudence in the now-overruled Jim Crow decisions of Plessy v. Ferguson and Hodges v. United States. It is not too late to resolve the official uncertainty by embracing the Republican reading. This choice would re-start the process, commenced by the Thirty-Ninth Congress but derailed in Plessy and Hodges, of determining what it means to ensure that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude “shall exist.” The Article concludes by exploring some of the basic interpretive issues and their implications for the constitutional law of racially disparate impact, race-based affirmative action, gender equality, and reproductive freedom.Peer reviewe
- …
