Tweet
Any thought about the parallel of the Communist Control Act of 1954 enacted because of the threat of communism to the USA to Islam’s threat to the USA? How many people do Muslims need to kill before the USA takes legislative action?
Communist Control Act of 1954
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commun...ol_Act_of_1954
The Communist Control Act (68 Stat. 775, 50 U.S.C. 841-844) is a piece of United States federal legislation, signed into law by President Dwight Eisenhower on 24 August 1954, which outlaws the Communist Party of the United States and criminalizes membership in, or support for the Party or "Communist-action" organizations and defines evidence to be considered by a jury in determining participation in the activities, planning, actions, objectives, or purposes of such organizations,[1]Background
Created during the period of the Second Red Scare (1946–1954), the Act was one of many bills drafted with the intention of protecting the American government from the potential threat posed by the international Communists.[2] During this time, some argued that “the pursuit of subversive aims even by peaceful means should [have been] outlawed.” [3] Thus, many opposed Communism because of its explicitly declared and historically demonstrable goal to undermine liberal democracy. In the words of Ernest van den Haag, there was “no place in democracy for those who want[ed] to abolish [it] even with a peaceful vote.” [3]Controversy
There was much controversy surrounding the Act. The Federal Bureau of Investigation and its Director, the famed J. Edgar Hoover, opposed the bill on the count that it would have forced the Communist movement underground.[2] In addition, the Michigan Law Review argued that the politically charged Act was plagued by a number of constitutional problems which would have undermined its effectiveness.[4] The Yale Law Journal lauded the Act as the “most direct statutory attack on internal communism yet undertaken [by 1955] by Congress,” [5] but stressed the “haste and confusion of the Act’s passage” which led to many “vague and ambiguous provisions.” [5] The incongruity of its provisions, a grave constitutional defect, was in part attributed to obscure language. For example, the nature of the “rights, privileges, and immunities” to be terminated by the Act was never explicitly stated as relating to state or federal jurisdiction. Also, the Yale Law Journal underlined a number of instances during which a literal interpretation of key passages would have caused entire sections to fall because of the use of comprehensive, unspecific language.[5] McAuliffe notes that, because of these complications, the Act was never “used as a major weapon in the legislative arsenal against Communism,” apart for two minor cases in the states of New York and New Jersey.[2]Further history
Only a few court cases interpreted the scope of the act's termination of the party's "rights, privileges and immunities." In 1954 the New Jersey Supreme Court held that, under the act, a candidate who was not a nominee of the party could not appear on the ballot in a state election under the party label (Salwen v. Rees). The Supreme Court upheld the judgement of the New Jersey Superior Court in favor of the defendant-election official and adopted the Superior Court judge's oral opinion as its own. That opinion explained that the plaintiff-candidate was proclaiming that he was the candidate of the Communist Party and that a vote for him was a vote for "party enthronement." "In order to make good the outlawry of the Communist Party as such," the Superior Court judge stated, "it becomes unavoidable that individuals be prevented from carrying its banner." This "peculiar method, as chosen by the [plaintiff-candidate], is a keen way of circumventing the statute, because if it were valid for him to take the course that he has chosen, it would be valid for a complete set of candidates to do the same thing, the consequence of which, of course, would be to frustrate completely the design of federal law."
In 1973 a federal district court in Arizona decided that the act was unconstitutional and Arizona could not keep the party off the ballot in the 1972 general election (Blawis v. Bolin). In 1961 the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the act did not bar the party from participating in New York's unemployment insurance system (Communist Party v. Catherwood)
However, the Supreme Court of the United States has not ruled on the act's constitutionality. Despite that, no administration has tried to enforce it. The provisions of the act "outlawing" the party have not been repealed. Nevertheless, the Communist Party of the USA continues to exist in the 21st century. Footnotes:
1 Peters, Gerhard; Woolley, John T. "Dwight D. Eisenhower: "Statement by the President Upon Signing the Communist Control Act of 1954.," August 24, 1954". The American Presidency Project. University of California – Santa Barbara. Retrieved 26 January 2014.
2 McAuliffe, Mary S. “Liberals and the Communist Control Act of 1954.” The Journal of American History. 63.2. (1976): 351-67.
3 Haag, Ernest van den. “Controlling Subversive Groups.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 300. Internal Security and Civil Rights (1955): 620-71.
4 Haerle, Paul R. “Constitutional Law: Federal Anti-Subversive Legislation: The Communist Control act of 1954.” Michigan Law Review. 53.8 (1955): 1153–65.
5 “The Communist Control Act of 1954.” The Yale Law Journal. 64.5 (1955): 712-65.
Communist Control Act of 1954
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commun...ol_Act_of_1954
The Communist Control Act (68 Stat. 775, 50 U.S.C. 841-844) is a piece of United States federal legislation, signed into law by President Dwight Eisenhower on 24 August 1954, which outlaws the Communist Party of the United States and criminalizes membership in, or support for the Party or "Communist-action" organizations and defines evidence to be considered by a jury in determining participation in the activities, planning, actions, objectives, or purposes of such organizations,[1]Background
Created during the period of the Second Red Scare (1946–1954), the Act was one of many bills drafted with the intention of protecting the American government from the potential threat posed by the international Communists.[2] During this time, some argued that “the pursuit of subversive aims even by peaceful means should [have been] outlawed.” [3] Thus, many opposed Communism because of its explicitly declared and historically demonstrable goal to undermine liberal democracy. In the words of Ernest van den Haag, there was “no place in democracy for those who want[ed] to abolish [it] even with a peaceful vote.” [3]Controversy
There was much controversy surrounding the Act. The Federal Bureau of Investigation and its Director, the famed J. Edgar Hoover, opposed the bill on the count that it would have forced the Communist movement underground.[2] In addition, the Michigan Law Review argued that the politically charged Act was plagued by a number of constitutional problems which would have undermined its effectiveness.[4] The Yale Law Journal lauded the Act as the “most direct statutory attack on internal communism yet undertaken [by 1955] by Congress,” [5] but stressed the “haste and confusion of the Act’s passage” which led to many “vague and ambiguous provisions.” [5] The incongruity of its provisions, a grave constitutional defect, was in part attributed to obscure language. For example, the nature of the “rights, privileges, and immunities” to be terminated by the Act was never explicitly stated as relating to state or federal jurisdiction. Also, the Yale Law Journal underlined a number of instances during which a literal interpretation of key passages would have caused entire sections to fall because of the use of comprehensive, unspecific language.[5] McAuliffe notes that, because of these complications, the Act was never “used as a major weapon in the legislative arsenal against Communism,” apart for two minor cases in the states of New York and New Jersey.[2]Further history
Only a few court cases interpreted the scope of the act's termination of the party's "rights, privileges and immunities." In 1954 the New Jersey Supreme Court held that, under the act, a candidate who was not a nominee of the party could not appear on the ballot in a state election under the party label (Salwen v. Rees). The Supreme Court upheld the judgement of the New Jersey Superior Court in favor of the defendant-election official and adopted the Superior Court judge's oral opinion as its own. That opinion explained that the plaintiff-candidate was proclaiming that he was the candidate of the Communist Party and that a vote for him was a vote for "party enthronement." "In order to make good the outlawry of the Communist Party as such," the Superior Court judge stated, "it becomes unavoidable that individuals be prevented from carrying its banner." This "peculiar method, as chosen by the [plaintiff-candidate], is a keen way of circumventing the statute, because if it were valid for him to take the course that he has chosen, it would be valid for a complete set of candidates to do the same thing, the consequence of which, of course, would be to frustrate completely the design of federal law."
In 1973 a federal district court in Arizona decided that the act was unconstitutional and Arizona could not keep the party off the ballot in the 1972 general election (Blawis v. Bolin). In 1961 the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the act did not bar the party from participating in New York's unemployment insurance system (Communist Party v. Catherwood)
However, the Supreme Court of the United States has not ruled on the act's constitutionality. Despite that, no administration has tried to enforce it. The provisions of the act "outlawing" the party have not been repealed. Nevertheless, the Communist Party of the USA continues to exist in the 21st century. Footnotes:
1 Peters, Gerhard; Woolley, John T. "Dwight D. Eisenhower: "Statement by the President Upon Signing the Communist Control Act of 1954.," August 24, 1954". The American Presidency Project. University of California – Santa Barbara. Retrieved 26 January 2014.
2 McAuliffe, Mary S. “Liberals and the Communist Control Act of 1954.” The Journal of American History. 63.2. (1976): 351-67.
3 Haag, Ernest van den. “Controlling Subversive Groups.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 300. Internal Security and Civil Rights (1955): 620-71.
4 Haerle, Paul R. “Constitutional Law: Federal Anti-Subversive Legislation: The Communist Control act of 1954.” Michigan Law Review. 53.8 (1955): 1153–65.
5 “The Communist Control Act of 1954.” The Yale Law Journal. 64.5 (1955): 712-65.
Comment