美国law assignment代写 第一修正案

2020-03-30 03:02

这些问题使人质疑《第一修正案》中的言论权和结社权,以及《第十四修正案》中的非工会雇员的正当程序权。在本案中,最高法院认为工会侵犯了这两项权利(芝加哥教师工会诉哈德森,1985年)。反对程序对反对者并不公正,因此违反了非工会雇员第十四修正案的正当程序权。工会也违反了非工会雇员的第一修正案,因为对代理费的来源缺乏明确的解释,因此很难理解这种费用是否通过财政支持某些政治观点而影响了他们的结社和言论自由(芝加哥教师工会诉哈德森,1985年)。这次会议取得了巨大成功,因为它给工会规定了一个责任标准,要求工会确保雇员的权利被视为第一优先事项。然而,本案的一个同样重要的结果是,它如何指出将工会的政治行动和非政治行动的相关费用分开的困难,32年后的今天,美国最高法院在Janus诉AFSCME一案中第三次审理了同样的代理费问题。在本案中,原告Mark Janus是一名政府雇员,就要求非工会成员支付代理费一事对被告美国州、县和市政雇员联合会提出异议.
美国law assignment代写 第一修正案
These issues gave cause to question whether the First Amendment rights of expression and association, along with the Fourteenth Amendment rights of the non-union employees to due process. In this case the supreme court held that both of these rights were violated by the union (Chicago Teachers Union v, Hudson,1985). The procedure for objection was not found to be impartial towards the objector, therefore violating the non-union employees Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. The union was also in violation of the non-union employee’s First Amendment due to the lack of clear explanation as to the origin of the agency fees, therefore making it difficult to understand if the fee impacts their freedom of association and expression by financially supporting certain political views (Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson,1985). This holding was a great success in that it placed a standard of liability on unions which requires them to ensure that the rights of the employees are considered to be the first priority. Yet an equally important result of this case was how it pointed out the difficulty associated with separating the costs associated with a union’s political actions and non-political actions.Now, 32 years later, the same issue of agency fees is heard by the United States Supreme Court for a third time in the court case of Janus v. AFSCME. In the case the plaintiff, Mark Janus, is a government employee arguing against the defendant, American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, as to required payment of agency fees by non-union members is constitutional under the First Amendment
本段内容来自网络 并不是我们的写手作品 请勿直接剽窃,查重100%,造成后果与本站无关。如需定制论文请记得联系我们。