NLRB Claims authority over Church Schools

[edjax1952]

It's in the first post in this thread. Read the thread.

I see it, but that story doesn't really get to the gist of the issue. It's more concerned with making a political statement than elucidating the core of the case. I was hoping for a link to the actual ruling. A site with pictures of Obama, Stalin and Hitler at the top of the story hardly makes for what I'd call "fair and balanced", making both their conclusions and quotations suspect, IMO.

There were 5 other links in the beggining of the thread. Try one of those.

 

[saveliberty]

I typed in NLRB v. Catholic church...

The insanity of looking things up yourself...

 

[saveliberty]

Patrick J. Reilly: Are Catholic Colleges Catholic Enough? - WSJ.com

This one was from the Wall Street Journal...

 

[konradv]

I typed in NLRB v. Catholic church...

The insanity of looking things up yourself...

It's the OP's responsibility to provide links. The original wasn't very informative. That's why I asked for the court ruling itself. My analysis didn't require a link. It's up to those who're claiming that the NLRB is wrong to provide the evidence. Complaining that others won't do your work for you, just sounds like there's something to hide.

 

[konradv]

Patrick J. Reilly: Are Catholic Colleges Catholic Enough? - WSJ.com

This one was from the Wall Street Journal...

That still doesn't explain how labor relations effects religion.

 

[Conservative]

It's in the first post in this thread. Read the thread.

I see it, but that story doesn't really get to the gist of the issue. It's more concerned with making a political statement than elucidating the core of the case. I was hoping for a link to the actual ruling. A site with pictures of Obama, Stalin and Hitler at the top of the story hardly makes for what I'd call "fair and balanced", making both their conclusions and quotations suspect, IMO.

Well, there IS this little thing called GOOGLE. Since the specific case was mention (and quoted) in the Washington Examiner piece in the OP, it's really not that much of a stretch for you (or should not be) to do a little research on your own to add to or subtract from what was in the OP.

 

[saveliberty]

I typed in NLRB v. Catholic church...

The insanity of looking things up yourself...

It's the OP's responsibility to provide links. The original wasn't very informative. That's why I asked for the court ruling itself. My analysis didn't require a link. It's up to those who're claiming that the NLRB is wrong to provide the evidence. Complaining that others won't do your work for you, just sounds like there's something to hide.

1. Wasn't my OP.
2. I quoted the source YOU could have read.
3. There was more than one link.
4. I gave you the court ruling.
5. Your complaining about not getting the answer your looking for; without searching yourself.

 

[saveliberty]

Patrick J. Reilly: Are Catholic Colleges Catholic Enough? - WSJ.com

This one was from the Wall Street Journal...

That still doesn't explain how labor relations effects religion.

It doesn't have to. It merely points out it is a first amendment infringement. End of story.

 

[Conservative]

I typed in NLRB v. Catholic church...

The insanity of looking things up yourself...

It's the OP's responsibility to provide links. The original wasn't very informative. That's why I asked for the court ruling itself. My analysis didn't require a link. It's up to those who're claiming that the NLRB is wrong to provide the evidence. Complaining that others won't do your work for you, just sounds like there's something to hide.

The OP DID provide links, dip stick. You're whining because they did not provide a link to something that was referenced within the piece they linked to? Really? How deep should an OP go? How many parts of an OP linked piece do you expect them to provide additional links to?

Get with the program.

 

[konradv]

It's in the first post in this thread. Read the thread.

I see it, but that story doesn't really get to the gist of the issue. It's more concerned with making a political statement than elucidating the core of the case. I was hoping for a link to the actual ruling. A site with pictures of Obama, Stalin and Hitler at the top of the story hardly makes for what I'd call "fair and balanced", making both their conclusions and quotations suspect, IMO.

Well, there IS this little thing called GOOGLE. Since the specific case was mention (and quoted) in the Washington Examiner piece in the OP, it's really not that much of a stretch for you (or should not be) to do a little research on your own to add to or subtract from what was in the OP.

Not my topic. If you're going to start one, at least you should have the courtesy to present the relevant facts. None of those stories talked in depth about what the NLRB ruling was, preferring to center on what I feel was a false religious issue.

 

[Conservative]

It's in the first post in this thread. Read the thread.

I see it, but that story doesn't really get to the gist of the issue. It's more concerned with making a political statement than elucidating the core of the case. I was hoping for a link to the actual ruling. A site with pictures of Obama, Stalin and Hitler at the top of the story hardly makes for what I'd call "fair and balanced", making both their conclusions and quotations suspect, IMO.

That is all you got now huh? Disagreeing with the OP quote?

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) certified unions as bargaining agents for lay teachers in schools operated by respondents, which refused to recognize or bargain with the unions; the NLRB issued cease-and-desist orders against respondents, holding that it had properly assumed jurisdiction over the schools. Exercise of jurisdiction was asserted to be in line with its policy of declining jurisdiction only when schools are "completely religious" not just "religiously associated," as it found to be the case here, because the schools taught secular as well as religious subjects. On respondents' challenges to the NLRB orders, the Court of Appeals denied enforcement, holding that the NLRB standard failed to provide a workable guide for the exercise of its discretion, and that the NLRB's assumption of jurisdiction was foreclosed by the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment.

Held: Schools operated by a church to teach both religious and secular subjects are not within the jurisdiction granted by the National Labor Relations Act, and the NLRB was therefore without authority to issue the orders against respondents. Pp. 440 U. S. 499-507.

(a) There would be a significant risk of infringement of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment if the Act conferred jurisdiction over church-operated schools. Cf. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S. 602, 403 U. S. 617. Pp. 440 U. S. 501-504.

(b) Neither the language of the statute nor its legislative history discloses any affirmative intention by Congress that church-operated schools be within the NLRB's jurisdiction, and, absent a clear expression of Congress' intent to bring teachers of church-operated schools within the NLRB's jurisdiction, the Court will not construe the Act in such a way as would call for the resolution of difficult and sensitive First Amendment questions. Pp. 440 U. S. 504-507.

559 F.2d 1112, affirmed.

BURGER, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which STEWART, POWELL, REHNQUIST, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, J.

NLRB V. CATHOLIC BISHOP OF CHICAGO, 440 U. S. 490 :: Volume 440 :: 1979 :: Full Text :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

Translation: The NLRB can go fuck themselves.

 

[konradv]

I typed in NLRB v. Catholic church...

The insanity of looking things up yourself...

It's the OP's responsibility to provide links. The original wasn't very informative. That's why I asked for the court ruling itself. My analysis didn't require a link. It's up to those who're claiming that the NLRB is wrong to provide the evidence. Complaining that others won't do your work for you, just sounds like there's something to hide.

The OP DID provide links, dip stick. You're whining because they did not provide a link to something that was referenced within the piece they linked to? Really? How deep should an OP go? How many parts of an OP linked piece do you expect them to provide additional links to?

Get with the program.

It was a hit piece. I'm afraid I'm not down with that "program". IMO, the OP might as well have not cited anything at all, considering that the article wasn't very informative.

 

[saveliberty]

Translation: The NLRB can go fuck themselves.

Missionary position please.

 

[saveliberty]

It was a hit piece. I'm afraid I'm not down with that "program". IMO, the OP might as well have not cited anything at all, considering that the article wasn't very informative.

Really? You don't find the Obama adminstration ignoring a Supreme Court decision TWICE informative?

 

[konradv]

Patrick J. Reilly: Are Catholic Colleges Catholic Enough? - WSJ.com

This one was from the Wall Street Journal...

That still doesn't explain how labor relations effects religion.

It doesn't have to. It merely points out it is a first amendment infringement. End of story.

But it doesn't explain how labor relations effects religious liberty. Many would be up in arms, if the USSC ruled that way in favor of a Muslim school. The same people that are knocking the government now would be screaming "sharia law" in that case.

 

[edjax1952]

It's in the first post in this thread. Read the thread.

I see it, but that story doesn't really get to the gist of the issue. It's more concerned with making a political statement than elucidating the core of the case. I was hoping for a link to the actual ruling. A site with pictures of Obama, Stalin and Hitler at the top of the story hardly makes for what I'd call "fair and balanced", making both their conclusions and quotations suspect, IMO.

That is all you got now huh? Disagreeing with the OP quote?

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) certified unions as bargaining agents for lay teachers in schools operated by respondents, which refused to recognize or bargain with the unions; the NLRB issued cease-and-desist orders against respondents, holding that it had properly assumed jurisdiction over the schools. Exercise of jurisdiction was asserted to be in line with its policy of declining jurisdiction only when schools are "completely religious" not just "religiously associated," as it found to be the case here, because the schools taught secular as well as religious subjects. On respondents' challenges to the NLRB orders, the Court of Appeals denied enforcement, holding that the NLRB standard failed to provide a workable guide for the exercise of its discretion, and that the NLRB's assumption of jurisdiction was foreclosed by the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment.

Held: Schools operated by a church to teach both religious and secular subjects are not within the jurisdiction granted by the National Labor Relations Act, and the NLRB was therefore without authority to issue the orders against respondents. Pp. 440 U. S. 499-507.

(a) There would be a significant risk of infringement of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment if the Act conferred jurisdiction over church-operated schools. Cf. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S. 602, 403 U. S. 617. Pp. 440 U. S. 501-504.

(b) Neither the language of the statute nor its legislative history discloses any affirmative intention by Congress that church-operated schools be within the NLRB's jurisdiction, and, absent a clear expression of Congress' intent to bring teachers of church-operated schools within the NLRB's jurisdiction, the Court will not construe the Act in such a way as would call for the resolution of difficult and sensitive First Amendment questions. Pp. 440 U. S. 504-507.

559 F.2d 1112, affirmed.

BURGER, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which STEWART, POWELL, REHNQUIST, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, J.

NLRB V. CATHOLIC BISHOP OF CHICAGO, 440 U. S. 490 :: Volume 440 :: 1979 :: Full Text :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

Does this satisfy (thanks saveliberty).

It amazes me that people in this discussion board use these tactics to disqualify or deny things when they can't figure out how to agrgue against it.

 

[Conservative]

I see it, but that story doesn't really get to the gist of the issue. It's more concerned with making a political statement than elucidating the core of the case. I was hoping for a link to the actual ruling. A site with pictures of Obama, Stalin and Hitler at the top of the story hardly makes for what I'd call "fair and balanced", making both their conclusions and quotations suspect, IMO.

That is all you got now huh? Disagreeing with the OP quote?

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) certified unions as bargaining agents for lay teachers in schools operated by respondents, which refused to recognize or bargain with the unions; the NLRB issued cease-and-desist orders against respondents, holding that it had properly assumed jurisdiction over the schools. Exercise of jurisdiction was asserted to be in line with its policy of declining jurisdiction only when schools are "completely religious" not just "religiously associated," as it found to be the case here, because the schools taught secular as well as religious subjects. On respondents' challenges to the NLRB orders, the Court of Appeals denied enforcement, holding that the NLRB standard failed to provide a workable guide for the exercise of its discretion, and that the NLRB's assumption of jurisdiction was foreclosed by the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment.

Held: Schools operated by a church to teach both religious and secular subjects are not within the jurisdiction granted by the National Labor Relations Act, and the NLRB was therefore without authority to issue the orders against respondents. Pp. 440 U. S. 499-507.

(a) There would be a significant risk of infringement of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment if the Act conferred jurisdiction over church-operated schools. Cf. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S. 602, 403 U. S. 617. Pp. 440 U. S. 501-504.

(b) Neither the language of the statute nor its legislative history discloses any affirmative intention by Congress that church-operated schools be within the NLRB's jurisdiction, and, absent a clear expression of Congress' intent to bring teachers of church-operated schools within the NLRB's jurisdiction, the Court will not construe the Act in such a way as would call for the resolution of difficult and sensitive First Amendment questions. Pp. 440 U. S. 504-507.

559 F.2d 1112, affirmed.

BURGER, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which STEWART, POWELL, REHNQUIST, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, J.

NLRB V. CATHOLIC BISHOP OF CHICAGO, 440 U. S. 490 :: Volume 440 :: 1979 :: Full Text :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

Does this satisfy (thanks saveliberty).

It amazes me that people in this discussion board use these tactics to disqualify or deny things when they can't figure out how to agrgue against it.

or are simply too lazy to look up something they want to know, and instead expect others to do their research for them.

Had the OP stated only the part about the Supreme court decision and nothing else, and THEN not provided a link, there would be a valid beef here. Such is not the case.

 

[saveliberty]

If you will permit me:

(a) There would be a significant risk of infringement of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment if the Act conferred jurisdiction over church-operated schools. Cf. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S. 602, 403 U. S. 617. Pp. 440 U. S. 501-504.

Meaning it blurs the distinction between separation of church and state. It infringes on religious freedom and expression of those beliefs also, according to the court.

 

[saveliberty]

Does this satisfy (thanks saveliberty).

It amazes me that people in this discussion board use these tactics to disqualify or deny things when they can't figure out how to agrgue against it.

Your welcome. Apparently it is lacking according to our friend konradv.

 

[Ravi]

A regional official of the National Labor Relations Board has ruled that Saint Xavier University, a Roman Catholic institution in Illinois, is not sufficiently religious to fall outside that agency's jurisdiction, and has cleared the way for the institution's roughly 240 adjunct faculty members to hold a unionization vote.

In a ruling issued last week, Joseph A. Barker, the director of the NLRB's regional office for the Chicago area, held that Saint Xavier "is not a church-operated institution" under the terms of a key 1979 U.S. Supreme Court decision that defined what characteristics make an institution religious enough that any federal oversight of its labor relations would violate the First Amendment's clauses separating church and state.

In both the Manhattan College ruling and last week's decision involving Saint Xavier University, which operates a main campus in Chicago and a satellite campus in Orland Park, Ill., the regional directors based their determinations mainly on the Supreme Court's 1979 ruling in National Labor Relations Board v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago. In that decision, the Supreme Court held that the NLRB cannot exercise jurisdiction over parochial schools that are focused on the propagation of religious faith because doing so would cause it to run afoul of the First Amendment's clauses barring the government from establishing religion or prohibiting its free exercise. That decision, which the NLRB applies to colleges on a case-by-case basis, opened the door for the NLRB to develop a test for determining whether educational institutions are of a "substantial religious character."

Labor Board Rejects Religious Exemption for Saint Xavier U. and Says Adjuncts Can Unionize - Faculty - The Chronicle of Higher Education

Makes sense to me.