United States v. Wurzbach
| Citation | 50 S.Ct. 167,74 L.Ed. 508,280 U.S. 396 |
| Decision Date | 24 February 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 66,66 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. WURZBACH |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
The Attorney General and Mr. Richardson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.
Mr. Hugh R. Robertson, of San Antonio, Tex., for appellee.
The respondent was indicted under the Federal Corrupt Practices Act, 1925, Act of February 28, 1925, c. 368, § 312, 43 Stat. 1053, 1073 (U. S. Code, title 18, § 208 (18 USCA § 208)), on charges that being a representative in Congress he received and was concerned in receiving specified sums of money from named officers and employees of the United States for the political purpose of promoting his nomination as Republican candidate for representative at certain Republican primaries. Upon motion of the defendant the District Court quashed the indictment on the ground that the statute should not be construed to include the political purpose alleged, and, construed to in clude it, probably would be unconstitutional (31 F.(2d) 774). The United States appealed.
The section of the statute is as follows:
'It is unlawful for any Senator or Representative in, or Delegate or Resident Commissioner, to, Congress, or any candidate for, or individual elected as, Senator, Representative, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, or any officer or employee of the United States, or any person receiving any salary or compensation for services from money derived from the Treasury of the United States, to directly or indirectly solicit, receive, or be in any manner concerned in soliciting or receiving, any assessment, subscription, or contribution for any political purpose whatever, from any other such officer, employee, or person.'
This language is perfectly intelligible and clearly embraces the acts charged. Therefore there is no warrant for seeking refined arguments to show that the statute does not mean what it says unless there is some reasonable doubt whether so construed it would be constitutional-the doubt that was felt by the Court below.
The doubt of the District Court seems to have come from the assumption that the source of power is to be found in article 1, § 4, of the Constitution concerning the time, place and manner of holding elections, etc.; and from the decision that the control of party primaries is purely a State affair. Newberry v. United States, 256 U. S. 232, 41 S. Ct. 469, 65 L. Ed. 913. But the power of Congress over the conduct of officers and employees of the Government no more depends upon authority over the ultimate purposes of that conduct than its power to punish a use of the mails for a fraudulent purpose is limited by its inability to punish the intended fraud. Badders v. United States, 240 U. S. 391, 36 S. Ct. 367, 60 L. Ed. 706. It hardly needs argument to show that Congress may provide that its officers and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whitney v. Municipal Court of City and County of San Francisco
...S.Ct. 329, 330, 96 L.Ed. 367; United States v. Ragen, 314 U.S. 513, 523-524, 62 S.Ct. 374, 378, 86 L.Ed. 383; United States v. Wurzbach, 280 U.S. 396, 50 S.Ct. 167, 71 L.Ed. 508; Hygrade Provision Co. v. Sherman, 266 U.S. 497, 45 S.Ct. 141, 96 L.Ed. 402; Fox v. Washington, 236 U.S. 273, 35 ......
-
White Coat Waste Project v. Greater Richmond Transit Co.
...mean that "[w]herever the law draws a line there will be cases very near each other on opposite sides." United States v. Wurzbach , 280 U.S. 396, 399, 50 S.Ct. 167, 74 L.Ed. 508 (1930). Imprecise language does not necessarily make a statute or regulation unconstitutionally vague. "The preci......
-
Davis, In re
...1, 7, 67 S.Ct. 1538, 91 L.Ed. 1877; United States v. Ragen, 314 U.S. 513, 523, 62 S.Ct. 374, 86 L.Ed. 383; United States v. Wurzbach, 280 U.S. 396, 399, 50 S.Ct. 167, 74 L.Ed. 508.) Courts have looked far afield for aids in construing statutes in such a way that language, which at first gla......
-
State v. Henry
...make him take the risk." Hamling v. United States, supra, 418 U.S. at 124, 94 S.Ct. at 2911; quoting, United States v. Wurzbach, 280 U.S. 396, 399, 50 S.Ct. 167, 169, 74 L.Ed. 508 (1930). The Hamling principle has its Oregon constitutional parallel. In discussing the constitutional principl......
-
Garcetti v. Ceballos: judicially muzzling the voices of public sector employees.
...(1952); Garner v. Bd. of Pub. Works, 341 U.S. 716 (1951); United Pub. Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75 (1947); United States v. Wurzbach, 280 U.S. 396 (103.) Connick, 461 U.S. at 144. Loyalty oaths developed during a time when an extraordinary fear of communism existed in America. Cooper, s......
-
The Party's Over: Partisan Gerrymandering and the First Amendment
...9, forbade employees and officers of the executive branch from taking any active part 288 106 U.S. 371 (1882). 289 Id. at 382. 290 Id. 291 280 U.S. 396 (1930). 292 Id. at 398. 293 Id. at 398–99. 294 Hatch Political Activity Act, Pub. L. No. 76-252, 53 Stat. 1147 (1939) (limiting federal emp......
-
The vagueness of partial-birth abortion bans: deconstruction or destruction?
...vague, but violated the First Amendment on its face). (85) Id. (White, J, concurring). (86) See, e.g., United States v. Wurtzbach, 280 U.S. 396, 399 (1930) ("Whenever the law draws a line there will be cases very near each other on opposite sides. The precise course of the line may be uncer......
-
The Hatch Act Cases
...27 People v. Murray, 307 III. 349, 138 N.E. 649 (1923); Commonwealth v. McCarthy, 281 Mass. 253, 183 N.E. 495, 85 A.L.R. 1141 (1932). 28 280 U.S. 396, 74 L. Ed. 155 Mass. 216, 29 N.E. 517 (1892).30 Swindall v. State Election Board, 168 Okla. 97, 32 P. (2d) 691 (1934).31 Martin v. Francis, 1......