Talk:Smith Act

message: 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has this law been repealed?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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Old comments

message: 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)
thread_title: Conspiracy

message: 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)
thread_title: Article name

message: 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)
thread_title: Who removed the names?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Illegal to do what?

message: 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)
thread_title: Howard Smith = Right Wing Legislator?

message: "Prosecutions continued until a string of decisions by the United States Supreme Court, which counted among its membership at the time FDR nominees Justices Felix Frankfurter, Hugo Black, and William O. Douglas, threw out numerous convictions under the Smith Act as unconstitutional."
The text "FDR nominees" is very misleading.  It attributes the recasting of the Smith Act to FDR's judicial appointees.  That's very false: Eisenhower appointees made the difference.  First, Frankfurter joined with the majority in the godawful Dennis convictions, so he's a hardly a hero (though he did join the majority in Yates).  FDR appointee Jackson also upheld Smith Act convictions in Dennis.  Secondly, Black and Douglas were on the court in Dennis, so their presence was not decisive.  It was Republican Eisenhower appointees, Earl Warren and Harlan, who swung the balance away from Dennis.  Harlan wrote Yates. Eisenhower appointee Brennan did not participate in Yates, probably because of a conflict, but the liberal Brennan surely would have supported the Yates reversal.  Warren, Harlan, Brennan -- all appointed by Eisenhower -- that's the milestone in ending the Red Scare at the Supreme Court level.
The Dennis convicts were targeted by Democrat President Truman.  In fact, the biggest reason Frankfurter upheld the Dennis convictions was deference to Truman's authority.  Truman appointed CJ Vinson, who authored Dennis.  Truman was more militantly anti-Communist than Eisenhower.  Both The Korean and Viet Nam wars (both started by Democrats) implement the belligerent anti-Communist Truman Doctrine.  Ike ended Korea and predicted that U.S. intervention in Viet Nam would be 'the worst tragedy he could imagine.'  It may be that Eisenhower's moderated belligerency shifted the Red Scare climate enough that Yates was possible.  Truman was worse than McCarthy.  McCarthy was looking for Soviet spies.  Truman jailed Dennis just for teaching Marxism.
I'm going to remove that 'FDR nominees' text.  It's virtually a lie.  How can you credit FDR's Black and Douglas, yet not credit Eisenhower's Warren and Harlan?  Sorry, but that's just ignorant partisanship. If you happen to be a radical, and you think Democrats will be any less brutally repressive than Republicans if a new war breaks out, I'm sorry but you're on dope.  Japanese Internment:FDR.  Dennis:Truman.  COINTELPRO:LBJ.  Why do you think the Smith Act is still on the books?  Ten-K (talk) 08:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: FDR?

message: The Smith Act was wholly wrong and blatantly unconstitutional. It is ridiculous now, and very tragic, in hindsight, to realise now, how very stupid all those prosecuted under the Smith Act were, and all those accused and punished for being communist, throughout the period of the hysterical Senator McCarthy communist witch hunts in America, who didn't know how to protect themselves. Brought before the Courts and the various tribunals that went on during this period many of those accused pleaded the fifth ammendment; asserting they did not wish to incriminate themselves. Far better, had they only know their true rights living in a democracy, they ought to have proudly asserted that they were communist; and, being, "Weary of Government" they sought to overthrow it.
They ought to have claimed their right to conspire to 'overthrow government' asserting the precedent created by Abraham Lincoln. President Abraham Lincoln in his First Inaugural Address said this:
"When the People shall grow weary of Government they may exercise their democratic right to ammend it or their revolutionary right to overthrow it."
Everyone subjected to the tyranny of the US Justice System during this communist witch-hunting period of the US ought to have quoted this as their defence; and, they should have challenged the rotten legal system; to justify where they refute the 'father of American democracy' for what he had said. If only Ethel and Julius Rosenberg instead of pleading the fifth, had asserted their right as expressed by President Abraham Lincoln; and the American People had properly understood that, they might not have been executed at all. They had the right to be communist and they had the right to conspire against government; if they were "Weary of Government, as President Abraham Lincoln said.
GJS 91.104.124.15 (talk) 12:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smith Act wholly wrong - in a democracy everyone has the right to conspire to overthrow Government... 

message: I came here from this page:
U.S._government_response_to_the_September_11_attacks#Domestic_response
Because of this quote: Following the attacks, 80,000 Arab and Muslim immigrants were fingerprinted and registered under the Alien Registration Act of 1940. 8,000 Arab and Muslim men were interviewed, and 5,000 foreign nationals were detained under Joint Congressional Resolution 107-40 authorizing the use of military force "to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States."[9]
But there is nothing here about this. Is the above not correct? 209.152.45.35 (talk) 00:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That material was unsourced. I've expanded it with citations. Nothing to do with the Smith Act. See also: National Security Entry-Exit Registration System. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-9/11 use? 

message: It would be nice to have an explanation what that is, beyond apparently nazi. 130.149.205.108 (talk) 14:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:   Crusader White Shirts? 

message: The article is in the present tense, does this mean that the Act is still current? If it's been repelled then it should be mentioned here. Same thing if its provisions are still part of the US code though no longer applied. 
Also it's hard to believe that a law that limits political speech in such a broad way was never challenged in court, yet there's no mention of a court case in this article.
207.45.249.149 (talk) 11:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:   Current status? 

message: Since "The Senate did not take a recorded vote," the template mangles the legislative history "and by the on  ."  There's probably an easy fix, but in a half-hour of searching through help, templates . . . and an attempt at manual removal, I didn't find it.
KVWS (talk) 15:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info box problem