Law Commons^™

The Supreme Court - October 1958 Term, Bernard Schwartz

Michigan Law Review

The Supreme Court, reads a famous passage by Bryce, "feels the touch of public opinion. Opinion is stronger in America than anywhere else in the world, and judges are only men. To yield a little may be prudent, for the tree that cannot bend to the blast may be broken."

The history of the highest Court bears constant witness to the truth of Bryce's statement. Supreme Court action which has moved too far in one direction has always ultimately provoked an equivalent reaction in the opposite direction. Even an institution as august as the high tribunal cannot escape the law …

"Congress Shall Make No Law…":Ii, O. John Rogge

Michigan Law Review

The framers of the federal bill of rights by the First and Tenth Amendments sought to deny Congress power over utterances unless they were connected with criminal conduct other than advocacy. Any power over such utterances was to reside in the states. However, the Supreme Court departed from the framers' intent.

One of the factors in this development was the emergence of an undefined federal police power. This occurred largely under the commerce and postal clauses. It began over a century ago. As early as 1838 Congress passed a law requiring the installation of safety devices upon steam vessels. Beginning …

"Congress Shall Make No Law..."*, O. John Rogge

Michigan Law Review

It is the position of the writer that, at least so far as Congress is concerned, speech is as free as thought, and that unless and until speech becomes a part of a course of conduct which Congress can restrain or regulate no federal legislative power over it exists. State power, despite the Fourteenth Amendment, may be somewhat more extensive. Certainly the framers of the First Amendment intended that it should be. This article will deal with federal power over speech.

Compelling The Testimony Of Political Deviants, O. John Rogge

Michigan Law Review

Besides the two specific problems which the new federal act presents, namely, whether it imposes nonjudicial functions on federal courts, and whether it should, does and can protect against the substantial danger of state prosecution, there is a general objection that one can raise against it, and to other acts of the same type: they relate to the area of belief and opinion, the very area which was involved when the English people, spearheaded by the Puritans, engaged in the struggle with the Crown that finally resulted in the establishment of a right of silence. At least if we are …

Labor Law - Arbitration - Right Of Employer Of Discharge Employer Who Refuses To Testify Concerning His Communist Affiliation, Mary Lee Ryan

Michigan Law Review

A member of the United Electrical Workers Union was discharged from the J. H. Day Company because of his refusal to testify concerning his communist affiliation before the Ohio Un-American Activities Committee and because of the unfavorable publicity which had resulted. Under grievance procedure, the union brought the matter before arbitration. Findings, there was no just cause for dismissal. The employee is entitled to back pay and to reinstatement subject to security clearance. J. H. Day Company,. 22 LAB. Aim. RBP. 751 (1954).