Due Process Clause

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution each contain a due process clause. Due process deals with the administration of justice and thus the due process clause acts as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the government outside the sanction of law; the Supreme Court of the United States interprets the clauses broadly, concluding that these clauses provide three protections: procedural due process, substantive due process, a prohibition against vague laws, as the vehicle for the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. The clause in the Fifth Amendment reads: No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. While the clause in the Fourteenth Amendment says:...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. Clause 39 of Magna Carta provided: No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.

The phrase "due process of law" first appeared in a statutory rendition of Magna Carta in 1354 during the reign of Edward III of England, as follows: No man of what state or condition he be, shall be put out of his lands or tenements nor taken, nor disinherited, nor put to death, without he be brought to answer by due process of law. New York was the only state that asked Congress to add "due process" language to the U. S. Constitution. New York ratified the U. S. Constitution and proposed the following amendment in 1788: o Person ought to be taken imprisoned or disseized of his freehold, or be exiled or deprived of his Privileges, Life, Liberty or Property but by due process of Law. In response to this proposal from New York, James Madison drafted a due process clause for Congress. Madison cut out some language and inserted the word without, which had not been proposed by New York. Congress adopted the exact wording that Madison proposed after Madison explained that the due process clause would not be sufficient to protect various other rights: Although I know whenever the great rights, the trial by jury, freedom of the press, or liberty of conscience, come in question in that body, the invasion of them is resisted by able advocates, yet their Magna Carta does not contain any one provision for the security of those rights, respecting which the people of America are most alarmed.

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law... Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law... The Supreme Court has interpreted the due process clauses in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment identically, as Justice Felix Frankfurter once explained in a concurring opinion: To suppose that'due process of law' meant one thing in the Fifth Amendment and another in the Fourteenth is too frivolous to require elaborate rejection. In 1855, the Supreme Court explained that, to ascertain whether a process is due process, the first step is to "examine the constitution itself, to see whether this process be in conflict with any of its provisions". In 1855, the U. S. Supreme Court said, The words, "due process of law", were undoubtedly intended to convey the same meaning as the words, "by the law of the land", in Magna Carta.

In the 1884 case of Hurtado v. California, the Court said: Due process of law in the refers to that law of the land in each state which derives its authority from the inherent and reserved powers of the state, exerted within the limits of those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions, the greatest security for which resides in the right of the people to make their own laws, alter them at their pleasure. Due process applies to the creation of taxing districts, as taxation is a deprivation of property. Due process requires public hearings prior to the creation of a taxing district. Due process applies to U. S. territories, although they are not States. It does not apply to Puerto Rico; the due process clauses apply to both natural persons as well as to "legal persons" as well as to individuals, including both citizens and non-citizens. The Fifth Amendment due process was first applied to corporations in 1893 by the Supreme Court in Noble v. Union River Logging.

Noble was preceded by Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad in 1886; the due process clauses apply to non-citizens who are within the United States – no matter whether their presence may be or is "unlawful, involuntary or transitory" – although the U. S. Supreme Court has recognized that non-citizens can be stopped and denied past immigration officials at points of entry without the protection of the Due Process Clause because, while technically on U. S. soil, they are not considered to have entered the United States. In Bucklew v. Precythe, 587 U. S. ___, the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause expressly allows the death penalty in the United States because "the Fifth Amendment, added to the Constitution at the same time as the Eighth, expressly contemplates that a defendant may be tried for a ‘capital’ crime and ‘deprived of life’ as a penalty, so long as proper procedures are followed". The U. S. Supreme Court has interpreted the term "liberty" in the due process clauses broadly: A

United Packinghouse Workers of America

The United Packinghouse Workers of America the United Packinghouse and Allied Workers, was a labor union that represented workers in the meatpacking industry. Between the mid-1800s and mid-1900s, the Midwestern United States supplied nearly all the nation's beef and pork; the companies supplying this meat were known as the "Big Four" of meatpacking. The companies that made up the "Big Four" were Armour, Swift and Cudahy. Butchers at "Big Four" stockyard plants in Chicago, Kansas City, Omaha formed the backbone of the Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen; the AMCBW was chartered by the American Federation of Labor in 1897, was the original labor union to represent retail butchers and packinghouse workers. In the early years of the twentieth century the AMCBW experienced some success, however the union was divided and unorganized, lost two major strikes in 1904 and 1921-1922. After experiencing failure in the nationwide strike of 1921-1922, the AMCBW lost many members. After the passage of the National Industrial Recovery Act in 1933, the AMCBW started gaining back more members, however it was not as successful as new packinghouse unions of the Congress of Industrial Organizations.

The Packinghouse Workers Organizing Committee was chartered by the CIO, established on October 24, 1937. The PWOC organized locals throughout the nation with the greatest concentrations in the Midwestern and Great Plains states. Like many unions in the CIO, the PWOC tried to organize all workers in a given plant regardless of skill or trade. Unlike the AMCBW, the PWOC recruited not only butchers, but masses of unskilled packinghouse laborers; the formation of the PWOC gave direction and coherence to a fragmented movement. The PWOC provided more organization and structure, thus allowing union activists from different plants and different cities to coordinate movements; the PWOC was successful in recruiting African American workers, who dominated the packinghouses in Chicago and Kansas City. It was successful in recruiting rural white workers, succeeded in overcoming ethnic and racial antagonisms that had plagued similar, previous efforts. Active in both black and white neighborhoods, the PWOC functioned as an important social and cultural institution in addition to its primary role as a union.

In 1943 the PWOC was chartered as the UPWA. In October 1943, the PWOC became the UPWA, its headquarters was located in Chicago. The UPWA's rival union was the Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen, an older AFL craft union; the Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen was a conservative union, whereas the UPWA was a more radical, left wing union. In the 1940s, the UPWA won nationwide contracts with companies including all members of the "Big Four" of meatpacking: Armour, Swift and Cudahy. Contracts for members of the UPWA were more stable than those of the AMCBW, they offered better working conditions. Outside of labor rights, the UPWA was a major driving force behind many community reform movements, such as the Back of the Yards Neighborhood Council founded in Chicago in 1939; the UPWA was committed to interracial cooperation, starting in 1949 the union began pursuing anti-discrimination activities. In 1950, the UPWA created an Anti-Discrimination Department, dedicated to ending racial discrimination in meat packing plants and working against segregation in local communities.

The three goals of this department were: to break down all-white plants, to end discriminatory practice in communities, to facilitate work with other civil-rights community organizations, such as the NAACP. In the 1950s and 1960s, the UPWA was at the forefront of union support for the Civil Rights Movement and was a strong ally of Martin Luther King Jr. Historians regard the UPWA's civil rights activity as a prime example of social unionism. During the 1950s, the UPWA made workplace equality for women a central goal. Though the idea never gained as much prominence as the fight for racial equality, the UPWA was still able to make a difference for women in the workplace. Ending men's and women's wage differentials was the focus of the UPWA. Ending discrimination against pregnant women workers was another important focus; as a result of the UPWA's work, pregnant women were able to receive up to one full year of unpaid leave and up to eight weeks of half-paid leave, under the union's sick-leave provisions.

The meatpacking industry restructured in the post World War II years. The "Big Four" lost their dominance, a new "Big Three" took power. IBP, ConAgra, Cargill were the companies that made up the "Big Three." By establishing plants in areas closer to animal populations, by introducing new technologies that required less skill, the "Big Three" drove many older companies out of business. Packing plants represented by the UPWA closed in large numbers. In 1968, the UPWA and AMCBW joined forces, UPWA dissolved into the Amalgamated Meat Cutters. History of packinghouse unions in Chicago

B ľaga languages

The Bʼaga languages known as Gumuz, form small language family spoken along the border of Ethiopia and Sudan. They have been tentatively classified as closes to the Koman languages within the Nilo-Saharan language family. There are four to five Bʼaga languages. Grammatical forms are distinct between Southern Gumuz. Yaso is at least a divergent dialect distinct enough to count as a separate language. Daatsʼiin, discovered in 2013, is closest to Southern Gumuz, while Kadallu in Sudan is attested by only two short word lists. A comparative word list of Daatsʼiin, Northern Gumuz, Southern Gumuz is available in Ahland & Kelly. Dimmendaal notes that mounting grammatical evidence has made the Nilo-Saharan proposal as a whole more sound since Greenberg proposed it in 1963, but that such evidence has not been forthcoming for Songhay, Bʼaga/Gumuz: "very few of the more widespread nominal and verbal morphological markers of Nilo-Saharan are attested in the Coman languages plus Gumuz... Their genetic status remains debatable due to lack of more extensive data."

And "In summarizing the current state of knowledge... the following language families or phyla can be identified —... Mande, Ubangian and the Coman languages plus Gumuz." This "Coman plus Gumuz" is what Greenberg had subsumed under Koman and what Bender had called Komuz, a broader family consisting of Gumuz and the Koman languages. However, Bender separated Gumuz as at least a distinct branch of Nilo-Saharan, suggested that it might be a language isolate. Dimmendaal, who tentatively included Koman within Nilo-Saharan, excluded Gumuz as an isolate, as it did not share the tripartite singulative–collective–plurative number system characteristic of the rest of the Nilo-Saharan language families. Ahland, reports that with better attestation, Gumuz does indeed appear to be Nilo-Saharan, closest to Koman, it has grammatical forms that resemble what might be expected from an ancestral proto-Nilo-Saharan language. Gumuz may thus help elucidate the family, diverse and has been difficult to substantiate.

Dimmendaal, Ahland & Jakobi summarize earlier work that the evidence suggests that Gumuz and Koman may indeed form two subgroups within a broader "Komuz" family and that there is some evidence that these two language families may indeed be part of a broader Nilo-Saharan phylum, albeit outliers in the family. Gumuz word lists Colleen Anne. "The Classification of Gumuz and Koman Languages", presented at the Language Isolates in Africa workshop, December 4, 2010 Lionel Bender, 2000. "Nilo-Saharan". In Bernd Heine and Derek Nurse, African Languages: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press. Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. 2000. "Number marking and noun categorization in Nilo- Saharan languages". Anthrolopological Linguistics 42:214-261. Gerrit Dimmendaal, 2008. "Language Ecology and Linguistic Diversity on the African Continent", Language and Linguistics Compass 2/5:842. Video of Colleen Ahland speaking on the classification of Koman and Gumuz Gumuz basic lexicon at the Global Lexicostatistical Database