Talk:Smith Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(formerly Talk:Alien Registration (Smith) Act)
Wouldn't Alien Registration Act be the superior page title here? Page titles should encourage easy linking with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity for newbies. This case isn't particularly important, but the above is something to keep in mind in the future. I see you graciously provide redirects David -- most people don't. --maveric149
probably should be fixed
-- dml
has this law been repealed? if not, then why is the article phrased in the past tense? Vroman 23:41, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- I will have to research it, but I seem to recall it was ruled unconstitutional around 1960 or so. The other question I have is whether any Nazis were ever prosecuted under the Act, as the article suggests.
--MMcCallister 05:31, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
The law remains on the book as 18 U.S.C. 115. While never overturned, it is generally viewed as having been significantly weakened by Yates v. United States (holding that the mere advocacy of a the abstract principle of revolution is may not be criminalized), Scales v. United States (holding that "active" rather than "nominal" membership in a revolutionary political organization is necessary to sustain a conviction under this act) and Noto v. United States (reversing a Smith Act conviction where the evidence failed to prove that the advocacy of action was "broadly based"). According to Kathleen M. Sullivan and Gerald Gunther of Stanford, Scales was the last defendant convicted under the Smith Act, which would mean that, while never overturned, the act has not been effectively used since 1961. (See Sullivan & Gunther, Constitutional Law: 15th Edition Foundation Press, New York, 2004 pp. 1030-1.) --Dph 16:16, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Conspiracy
The biggie here, and hence my edit, is that the Smith Act (by far the better-known name IMO) made it illegal to conspire to advocate the violent overthrow of the government. Therefore you didn't have to try to do it, you didn't have even to advocate it openly, you just had to get together (personally, telephonically, or, presumably, even by mail) with those who desired to advocate it and not express any objection to their plan, making you a "conspirator". This essentially meant that you could be prosecuted for an idea, or listening to someone share an idea. That was the constitutional problem. However, I don't know if it was still under the Smith Act or not, but I remember all sorts of TV time being dedicated to "public service announcements" this time of year reminding all aliens that they had to go to the nearest Post Office and reregister each January, filling out the card and then returning to the postal clerk, not mailing it themselves. These ads ran into the late 1960s or early 1970s. (Perhaps those provisions were not overturned, or not overturned until later.) The early and mid 60's version featured a cartoon of a big hand grabbing a very sterotyped and degrading caricature of an alien, as I recall (obviously, I'm lots older than most Wikipedians). This was somewhat corrected and softened in later years, as I recall, making me think that alien registration went on into the 1970s. Rlquall 16:01, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Article name
Smith Act is the better name as a) that is what it is more commonly known as and the way it is referred to in academic literature and b) it makes more sense to have Smith Act listed on Category pages than Alien Registration Act as the title of the act actually obscures its principal impact, ie as a piece of anti-sedition legislation. Those looking on the category pages are more likely to be familiar with the Smith Act as a concept than the Alien Registration Act. AndyL 00:09, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Who removed the names?
Who removed the names of some of the defendants at the Great Sedition Trial? What was the reasoning behind this? KNewman 03:51, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
Must have happened by accident when the article was moved. I'll put them back in. AndyL 08:26, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Illegal to do what?
If I am reading that correctly, doesn't it say that it's illegal to advocate the overthrowing of the government of the US.. or ANY STATE? Wait a minute, don't US politicians do this regularly? A recent example is the government of saddam hussein in Iraq. Is there some kind of legal loophole in the act that provides a way of legally advocating the overthrow in the case of 'rogue states'? 26 May 2005
Wait a minute. It ONLY means to nail commie pink's and to stop them from from subverting the union!. Look at the sympathetic commie here!! And no, just to bust evil pink's who ty to overthrow the government! (68.227.211.175 22:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC))
- The wording implies, by association, that the State is a member of the United States and ought to be read as follows: "...of overthrowing the Government of the United States or [Government] of any State..." I think that the spirit of the act also did not account for the US Government's actions against other nations. Zaulus 09:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Howard Smith = Right Wing Legislator?
Seems POV to me. Since Smith was a Democrat, further substantiation is required to identify him as a "right wing legislator." However, since the terms "right wing" and "left wing" are so arbitrary, why not remove the phrase altogether?
I agree also, its POV.
68.126.232.191 09:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Isn't this against the indy declaration othe consitution?
Doesn't the declaration of independence or the us constitution explicitly state that people have the unalienable right and duty to overthrow the gov't when it has become oppressive?
No you moron!! But we do have the right to stop left-wing commie pinkos! A duty to overthrow the gov't?!! LMAO!! (68.227.211.175 22:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC))
Your satirical "left-wing commie pinkos" comment trivializes the nearly 100 million killed by Stalin and Mao in the name of equality. Moreover, the Declaration indeed states that the people have a right and duty to overthrow an oppressive government. 1 January 2007
- "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."
- Abraham Lincoln - First Inaugural Address (4 March 1861)
- Too Old 11:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
