It is technically illegal to be a communist in America...

[Creative Destruction]

I just found this out. The Communist Control Act of 1954 has never been repealed and the U.S. Supreme Court never ruled on the entire act's constitutionality.


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 The provisions of the act "outlawing" the party have not been repealed.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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Control_Act_of_1954

That's a little unnerving. :unsure:

[thriller]

If you read it, it says "Communist Party" and "party" a lot. If anything it's just limiting the rights of the Communist Party is relation to other parties. However no, it does not make being a communist illegal. It was never recognized at a federal level, so some places may give the party a hard time but not declare it illegal. Plus not many communists (at least here on RL) really work with or follow the CPUSA anymore, considering it's back & forth, left-to-right, politics. One doesn't have to be a member of the CPUSA to be a communist.

[Creative Destruction]

If you read it, it says "Communist Party" and "party" a lot. If anything it's just limiting the rights of the Communist Party is relation to other parties. However no, it does not make being a communist illegal. It was never recognized at a federal level, so some places may give the party a hard time but not declare it illegal. Plus not many communists (at least here on RL) really work with or follow the CPUSA anymore, considering it's back & forth, left-to-right, politics. One doesn't have to be a member of the CPUSA to be a communist.

No one has been prosecuted under the act, that's true, but it being signed into law by a president is pretty much being "recognized" at the federal level.

Aside from that, the act refers to organizations who are involved in "communist front organizations," so it wasn't just relegated to the CPUSA. In effect, it makes being a communist and being involved in activism illegal. What is unnerving is that the law is on the books and there is a crazy fuckin' political faction in this country (the Tea Partiers) who, if they were ever to hold an office like the presidency, wouldn't have any issue in using it. Even if it is just relegated to the CPUSA, that doesn't make the fact it's on the books any better.

[#FF0000]

I doubt they'd try to enforce it -- and doubt the Supreme Court would go along with it if anyone did.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

I doubt they'd try to enforce it -- and doubt the Supreme Court would go along with it if anyone did.

I doubt they'd try to enforce it now as communists aren't a threat.
But when communists will get bigger they will most likely use such laws. Or even things that will get less resistance because they are more hidden, likethey've done with COINTELPRO. And didn't plans exist to kill important figures in Occupy?

This law is from the 50s and while they maybe haven't used this law all too often they have found other ways (Mccartheyism with its blacklists, union-busting etc.). They maybe won't use this exact law in the future but I think it is safe to say they'll find a way to prosecute or hinder leftists.

[Popular Front of Judea]

I would be far more worried about a possible resurrection of the Smith Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act), which is still on the books.

[ComradeLeninist]

Its freaky, I'm more worried about the Smith Act, If another red scare (unlikley) happens who know what would happen. The Communist Control Act basicly just outlaws support and membership to the CPUSA. Like the quote, Its not enforced. But I would worry about the resurrection of the Smith Act since theres still talks about a communist revoultion in the United States. So another red scare is possible but slim.

[BOZG]

Indeed, eagle eyed sectologists will have spotted that Socialist Alternative, the US section of the CWI, always refers to its members as supporters of the CWI, rather than actual members because of the legal ambiguity surrounding being a member of an international communist organisation.

[Os Cangaceiros]

As if the difference between "member" and "supporter" will even matter if and when shit really hits the fan again, lol

I wouldn't worry about old laws. The authorities would have no problem with simply creating a new self-justifying bill and call it "the American Loyalty Freedom Act" or something.

[Red Commissar]

The only people who have to worry about declaring questionable political sympathies as far as the US is concerned are immigrants. The US has some laws in the books which basically prohibited members of certain political groups from immigrating to the US, at least if you publicly declared yourself as such. More recently this has taken the form of groups being blocked as "terroristic" in some manner, with a catch-all category being the 3B classification which basically says if the group has ever taken up arms against any sitting government, they are terrorists and blocked under 3B regardless of their expressed ideology.

The easy solution there is to not declare political sympathy, but if you are high placed enough they have ways of finding out. This is also a way for the US to use a stick in making sure groups that decide to throw in completely with the US stay that way, or they will begin refusing visas or residency to their members.

Besides that most (active) communist parties in the states usually avoid openly saying that a violent revolution is necessary, or at least repeatedly saying so, this is largely to avoid criminal charges that can be thrown on them. This is due to the Smith Act which PFJ posted above. Likewise as BOZG said this is also why groups in the US avoid saying that they are members of international organizations.