Many in fact were prosecuted for their political beliefs. Remember that Yates' conviction was reversed by the Supreme Court on the basis that they never showed he did anything other than distribute Communist literature. Additionally I don't think you can look at the shift in Supreme Court precedent between Whitney v. California and Yates v. United States and conclude that the Supreme Court eventually decided that prosecuting for mere party membership and political belief was falling out of favor in the party.
> Still, of course, maintaining legal representation even to the worst of the worst is the important part of the due process, so I guess he has a place in the picture too.
Sure, and defending such rights at the cost of one's job and even being kicked out of the ACLU when the ACLU didn't want to touch the issue requires a certain degree of courage.
> As for the practice of taking the Fifth, I can appreciate that people associating with organisation with official goal of overthrowing US government and which is financed and directed by Joseph Stalin would feel the need of some defensive tactics when the same government their organisation is trying to overthrow comes in and asks questions.
Taking the 5th started after people were prosecuted for refusing to testify before the state legislature in Washington State.
But a goal in the abstract is just a political belief. It is not until it is paired with concrete steps to make it happen that it is actionable. This is what Yates turned on, unless you think the Supreme Court in Yates got it wrong and the Smith Act never should have been castrated.
But if the Communist Party's goal in the abstract of overthrow of our government at some indefinite point in the future makes them illegal, then surely the National Rifle Association's view that the 2nd Amendment protects the right of the people to rebel violently against the government would be illegal too, is it not? There is not much difference between "things are such that at some point we will have to take over the country by violent revolution if necessary" and "this provision of the Constitution is to ensure that if and when the government overreaches, we can exercise our duty and take over the country by violent revolution if necessary." Drawing a line between the CP and the NRA is surprisingly difficult.
I want to underscore this by saying one of my most memorable conversations with John was about gun control back in the early 1990's and I thought it was interesting that he made the arguments almost exactly that the Supreme Court accepted in Heller years later.
My question to you is whether you think the Supreme Court got it wrong in Yates v. United States, when it held that arguing for actions in the abstract with no tangible steps to make it happen was fully protected under the first amendment even when it came to advocating the moral desirability of violent overthrow of the government. Maybe you think that was wrong and the NRA should tone down their rhetoric too. After all the "cold dead hands" mantra is a threat to rebel if sufficient gun control laws are enforced.
>>>> But if the Communist Party's goal in the abstract of overthrow of our government at some indefinite point in the future makes them illegal
Membership in CPUSA per se is not illegal. However, membership in this organisation may very well make the member unfit for employment both in the eyes of the government and in the eyes of his peers. Membership in Stormfront or KKK today in not illegal either, but I think you'd want to know if somebody in the government was a member.
>>>> Drawing a line between the CP and the NRA is surprisingly difficult.
Not difficult at all. NRA never been controlled by a totalitarian state led by the homicidal dictator, never performed mass massacres, never advocated totalitarian restrictions of human rights, never facilitated transfer of top secret defense information to the hands of the enemy. How hard is that?
>>>> My question to you is whether you think the Supreme Court got it wrong in Yates v. United States
No, I think they were absolutely right - people have the right to proclaim any crazy stuff they want, as long as it is not organizing and facilitating actual violence, it is protected by the 1st amendment. However, that does not mean advocating these crazy things would not have consequences for those people beyond governmental prosecution (or rather absence of it) for the speech. If you are advocating crazy stuff, be prepared that people would not want to associate with you or hire you.
>>>> After all the "cold dead hands" mantra is a threat to rebel if sufficient gun control laws are enforced.
If "sufficient control laws" - i.e. laws that violate the US Constitution and human rights - are being enforced, what one has left to do? Flee, submit or fight. It has nothing to do, however, with communist actions - they weren't some Tea Party activists going too far. Only use they had for the constitution was when it protected them personally, but if they ever succeeded, all constitution right were to be abolished immediately - look at any communist state.
> Membership in Stormfront or KKK today in not illegal either, but I think you'd want to know if somebody in the government was a member.
In fact membership in the KKK was held to be Constitutionally protected specifically because membership in the Communist Party had become protected. Remember that Brandenburg (can't prosecute for KKK membership or for shouting "Kill the niggers... we intend to do our part," quoted from majority opinion footnote 1, at a KKK rally) overturned Whitney v. California, a 1920's precedent allowing prosecution for mere Communist Party membership.
> Membership in CPUSA per se is not illegal.
Yes it was. Look at the portions of the Yates indictment from the Supreme Court's syllabus. The Smith Act prohibited among other things organizing groups which advocated overthrow of the United States government and that was essentially what Yates was charged with.
You talk about taking the 5th but keep in mind that people were being prosecuted and thrown in jail for advocating Marxist ideas. In such, taking the 5th was perfectly legitimate.
> Not difficult at all. NRA never been controlled by a totalitarian state led by the homicidal dictator, never performed mass massacres, never advocated totalitarian restrictions of human rights, never facilitated transfer of top secret defense information to the hands of the enemy. How hard is that?
I meant a line regarding Constitutional liberty. I am sorry if I was unclear. I think you agree with me on that, given that you say the Supreme Court got it right in Yates so this is probably just a miscommunication.
As far as non-criminal matters, it is worth noting that the Supreme Court struck down prosecutions for people refusing to testify before HUAC at the same time Yates was decided in Watkins v. United States, ruling that Congress's power of investigation was limited to legitimate goals of Congress (see http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vo...), and overturning a misdemeanor conviction of contempt of congress for someone refusing to answer certain questions before HUAC.
> Flee, submit or fight. It has nothing to do, however, with communist actions - they weren't some Tea Party activists going too far.
My point is that where statute and Constitution are at issue the same lines would probably apply to both, and so the protections of one protect the other too.
> Still, of course, maintaining legal representation even to the worst of the worst is the important part of the due process, so I guess he has a place in the picture too.
Sure, and defending such rights at the cost of one's job and even being kicked out of the ACLU when the ACLU didn't want to touch the issue requires a certain degree of courage.
> As for the practice of taking the Fifth, I can appreciate that people associating with organisation with official goal of overthrowing US government and which is financed and directed by Joseph Stalin would feel the need of some defensive tactics when the same government their organisation is trying to overthrow comes in and asks questions.
Taking the 5th started after people were prosecuted for refusing to testify before the state legislature in Washington State.
But a goal in the abstract is just a political belief. It is not until it is paired with concrete steps to make it happen that it is actionable. This is what Yates turned on, unless you think the Supreme Court in Yates got it wrong and the Smith Act never should have been castrated.
But if the Communist Party's goal in the abstract of overthrow of our government at some indefinite point in the future makes them illegal, then surely the National Rifle Association's view that the 2nd Amendment protects the right of the people to rebel violently against the government would be illegal too, is it not? There is not much difference between "things are such that at some point we will have to take over the country by violent revolution if necessary" and "this provision of the Constitution is to ensure that if and when the government overreaches, we can exercise our duty and take over the country by violent revolution if necessary." Drawing a line between the CP and the NRA is surprisingly difficult.
I want to underscore this by saying one of my most memorable conversations with John was about gun control back in the early 1990's and I thought it was interesting that he made the arguments almost exactly that the Supreme Court accepted in Heller years later.
My question to you is whether you think the Supreme Court got it wrong in Yates v. United States, when it held that arguing for actions in the abstract with no tangible steps to make it happen was fully protected under the first amendment even when it came to advocating the moral desirability of violent overthrow of the government. Maybe you think that was wrong and the NRA should tone down their rhetoric too. After all the "cold dead hands" mantra is a threat to rebel if sufficient gun control laws are enforced.