NationStates Jolt Archive

Here, in line with Neo Art's proposal to "educate" us about various things, I propose that he illuminate the Smith Act - and take us beyond the Wikipedia entry.

From Wikipedia:

he Alien Registration Act or Smith Act (18 U.S.C. § 2385) of 1940 is a United States federal statute that makes it a criminal offense for anyone to
“ knowingly or willfully advocate, abet, advise or teach the duty, necessity, desirability or propriety of overthrowing the Government of the United States or of any State by force or violence, or for anyone to organize any association which teaches, advises or encourages such an overthrow, or for anyone to become a member of or to affiliate with any such association. ”

It also required all non-citizen adult residents to register with the government; within four months, 4,741,971 aliens had registered under the Act's provisions.

The Act is best known for its use against political organizations and figures, mostly on the left. Prosecutions continued until a series of United States Supreme Court decisions in 1957 threw out numerous convictions under the Smith Act as unconstitutional. The statute remains on the books, however.

The Act was proposed by Congressman Howard W. Smith of Virginia, a Democrat and a leader of the "anti-labor" bloc of Congressmen. It was signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

While several convictions were overthrown, and prosecutions under the Smith Act ceased, the statute remains on the books.

On June 5, 1961, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld by 5-4 the conviction of Junius Scales under the "membership clause" of the Smith Act. Scales, who was indicted in North Carolina in 1954, began serving a six-year sentence October 2, 1961, following the June Supreme Court decision.

I would ask Neo to illuminate the case of Junius Scales, and tell us whether or not the Smith Act could be applied to, say, members of terrorist organizations. If so, how so (however limited by the Scales decision), and if not, why not?

And, under what constitutional viewpoint were the other convictions overthrown? Was there any inconsistency in SCOTUS between the overthrown decisions and the upheld decision?

Why is the law still on the books?

I also figure the Smith Act is a more contentious and interesting topic than most of the ones on the proposed list.

If you wish to speak with me directly, please do so in the method that's allowed, by sending me a telegram which, considering it's from you, will be significantly easier to delete.

This comes to mind:


http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/Gravlen/NSG/motivator601088.jpg


Enjoy your personal vendetta, DK. :p

Neo Art: Not your personal lawyer.

-SNIP-

Ok, since I am not going to go to four years of Law school just so I can read this...confusing Wiki article, can someone please put it in laymen terms?

We should violently overthrow the government of the United States and make me King of America. My first act will be to dissolve the legislature and give governors I appoint direct control over their states. Then I'll brutally tax the populace to fund the construction of a giant laser on a space station that moves so that I can force other countries to pay me, not America, tribute.

Who's with me?

We should violently overthrow the government of the United States and make me King of America. My first act will be to dissolve the legislature and give governors I appoint direct control over their states. Then I'll brutally tax the populace to fund the construction of a giant laser on a space station that moves so that I can force other countries to pay me, not America, tribute.

Who's with me?

I will, if I get to be a Chief Henchman. Qualifications - I'm an (Evil) European with scars, tattoos and a hook for a hand.

I will, if I get to be a Chief Henchman. Qualifications - I'm an (Evil) European with scars, tattoos and a hook for a hand.
Would you be willing to walk around in a black suit with a lite-brite strapped to your chest?

We should violently overthrow the government of the United States and make me King of America. My first act will be to dissolve the legislature and give governors I appoint direct control over their states. Then I'll brutally tax the populace to fund the construction of a giant laser on a space station that moves so that I can force other countries to pay me, not America, tribute.

Who's with me?

:hail: Oh!!! can I be in charge of the giant laser?

We should violently overthrow the government of the United States and make me King of America. My first act will be to dissolve the legislature and give governors I appoint direct control over their states. Then I'll brutally tax the populace to fund the construction of a giant laser on a space station that moves so that I can force other countries to pay me, not America, tribute.

Who's with me?

I'm in. I can apply my computer programming and leadership skills in any capacity that Your Majesty desires. Perhaps I can program the laser's targeting system. All I ask in payment is my own private harem.

Ok, since I am not going to go to four years of Law school just so I can read this...confusing Wiki article, can someone please put it in laymen terms?

You don't need to insult yourself like that Wilgrove, I'm sure you'd manage to get through lawschool in the usual 3 years.

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/Gravlen/NSG/motivator601088.jpg


Mmmm....Jon Stewart can be my monkey anytime. ;)

here's my topical and semi-serious post for this thread...

is the Smith Act still being used today? I thought that was replaced by the Patriot Act?

Mmmm....Jon Stewart can be my monkey anytime. ;)

why? so you can spank him? :p

Mmmm....Jon Stewart can be my monkey anytime. ;)

Wouldn't you prefer being his?

why? so you can spank him? :p

Heh, more like the other way around. *daydreams*

We should violently overthrow the government of the United States and make me King of America. My first act will be to dissolve the legislature and give governors I appoint direct control over their states. Then I'll brutally tax the populace to fund the construction of a giant laser on a space station that moves so that I can force other countries to pay me, not America, tribute.

Who's with me?

I'm in! I like to blow shit up! pay no attention to my barely-concealed plans to stab you in the back and take over as evil mastermind!

Neo Art: Not your personal lawyer.

http://img125.imageshack.us/img125/9342/moneybaitph3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

*pulls fishing wire into courtroom*

Ok, since I am not going to go to four years of Law school just so I can read this...confusing Wiki article, can someone please put it in laymen terms?

its actually the secret code of the peanut illuminate....or rather its lawyer speak for a law that is essentially dead but which the govenrment has dug up to use in the past (when it was also dead)

You don't need to insult yourself like that Wilgrove, I'm sure you'd manage to get through lawschool in the usual 3 years.

it only takes 3 years to pass law school? :eek:

What if the Unitied States government itself is guilty?

http://img125.imageshack.us/img125/9342/moneybaitph3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

*pulls fishing wire into courtroom*
http://img383.imageshack.us/img383/9087/funnierbv0.jpg

it only takes 3 years to pass law school? :eek:
Depends on where you get your education and how good you are ;)

If you wish to speak with me directly, please do so in the method that's allowed, by sending me a telegram which, considering it's from you, will be significantly easier to delete.

If I wanted you to be an ass, instead of contributing to the forum, as you proposed in your post on telling us about the law, I would have sent a TG.

Looks like you prefer to be an ass though.

If I wanted you to be an ass, instead of contributing to the forum, as you proposed in your post on telling us about the law, I would have sent a TG.

Looks like you prefer to be an ass though.

Enjoy your victory. I'm confident it means a lot.

If I wanted you to be an ass, instead of contributing to the forum, as you proposed in your post on telling us about the law, I would have sent a TG.

Looks like you prefer to be an ass though.

Yea, this is going to end well for you.

*sits back and watch with popcorn and bottle of water*

Yea, this is going to end well for you.

*sits back and watch with popcorn and bottle of water*

*gets out all the candy I snuck in because I will have to be a syphilis-ridden corpse before I pay £5 for popcorn*

yes you heard me, and thats not even with the drink *fumes*

*gets out all the candy I snuck in because I will have to be a syphilis-ridden corpse before I pay £5 for popcorn*

yes you heard me, and thats not even with the drink *fumes*

It would appear that Neo doesn't actually want to do what he proposed in his thread about teaching us about the law.

A serious thread, a serious proposal, and he walks away...

It would appear that Neo doesn't actually want to do what he proposed in his thread about teaching us about the law.

A serious thread, a serious proposal, and he walks away...

He does have the option to not teach ya know. There's this thing call "free will", it's annoying I know.

He does have the option to not teach ya know. There's this thing call "free will", it's annoying I know.

Called him on his fake offer to teach then.

Called him on his fake offer to teach then.

Proof of this offer?

Also, this is an internet forum, nothing we do here will matter. Nothing.

Proof of this offer?

He posted a lengthy thread OP where he offered to hold forth on items of US Constitutional interest.

I also figure the Smith Act is a more contentious and interesting topic than most of the ones on the proposed list.
It may well be, but that wasn't how I read his offer in the first place.

I wouldn't presume to speak for Neo Art, but my reading of that OP of his (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=560773) was that he was mooting the possibility of "creating a series of threads about various issues in the law" and that the specific pieces of legislation that he was talking about (as far as I could gather from the short list he posted) would be those that we often see misinterpreted or misrepresented on this forum.

It was also stated at the time that each of these posts would require that he spend time researching and writing up his material, so that they could be viewed as definitive statements of the state of play, to date, regarding each of the subject areas covered.

With that in mind, I can't see why you would reasonably expect him to spend time and effort researching what appears to be a contentious and rarely-enforced piece of law, unless your reasons are just that you want to continue your tiresome little spat with him. Perhaps you should simply consult someone from the harem of lawyers-on-retainer/lawyer friends that you mention from time to time... I'm sure they'd be perfectly happy to indulge your every whim.

It may well be, but that wasn't how I read his offer in the first place.

I wouldn't presume to speak for Neo Art, but my reading of that OP of his (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=560773) was that he was mooting the possibility of "creating a series of threads about various issues in the law" and that the specific pieces of legislation that he was talking about (as far as I could gather from the short list he posted) would be those that we often see misinterpreted or misrepresented on this forum.

It was also stated at the time that each of these posts would require that he spend time researching and writing up his material, so that they could be viewed as definitive statements of the state of play, to date, regarding each of the subject areas covered.

With that in mind, I can't see why you would reasonably expect him to spend time and effort researching what appears to be a contentious and rarely-enforced piece of law, unless your reasons are just that you want to continue your tiresome little spat with him. Perhaps you should simply consult someone from the harem of lawyers-on-retainer/lawyer friends that you mention from time to time... I'm sure they'd be perfectly happy to indulge your every whim.

I'm not engaged in a "tiresome little spat". And it's a piece of law that's still on the books, and parts of it are still Constitutional.

Perhaps Neo isn't as learned as you believe.

I'm not engaged in a "tiresome little spat".
Your posting history, together with the issues that have been raised about it in the Moderation forum in the not-too-distant past, seem to suggest otherwise.

it's a piece of law that's still on the books, and parts of it are still Constitutional.
Yeah, I get that. What I don't get is why you seem to believe that this particular fact means that he, or anyone else, should pander to your request.

Perhaps Neo isn't as learned as you believe.
As the saying goes, 'I have no strong feelings one way or the other'. I don't know him but, by the same token, I have no reason to doubt that he is a qualified practitioner of Law in the US. All that that means (to me) is that if he takes the time to put together a comprehensive explanation of a piece of legislation I'll be happy to read it and then, if there's anything that's unclear to me, I'll either ask for clarification or I'll go research it myself.

As noted, my offer was based around providing general primers of legal matters that are oft discussed, confused, and questioned here on the forums, as to allow an index of sorts, of those common issues. As the Smith Act has, heretofore never to my knowledge been raised on this forum, as such it is certainly not an area that’s oft discussed, confused, and questioned.

Essentially this is a 70 year old statute, never before mentioned or discussed here, of dubious constitutionality that was only partially upheld in a 5 to 4 decision in 1961. I would need to go through at minimum a primer on first amendment protections of free speech and free association, before I even begin to address the underlying issues of the Act, and even THEN it would only be my personal opinion of the constitutional validity of a statute that hasn’t faced a challenge in almost fifty years

Moreover, while the general topics I listed are ones that can be addressed between my own memory, my personal library of texts, and my alumni lexis, to do a full on research project of this nature would likely be beyond these meager resources, and I’m not about to breach my employment contract and use firm westlaw access for your sake.

In short, this is of no general interest, has never been raised here before, is not germane to any issues or questions common to the forum, is not of any personal interest to me, would require laying the foundation on some fairly complex areas of law that I'm not entirely convinced are not beyond you, and would take considerable time to answer the question that I can only conclude is only for your sake, and, frankly, you’re really not worth my time.

If, however, on the other hand, you are seeking the services of an attorney to do some legal research on a particular matter of concern, I would be open to providing those services.

My standard retainer is two thousand dollars, and should just about cover this research. I’ll begin as soon as I get your check.

As noted, my offer was based around providing general primers of legal matters that are oft discussed, confused, and questioned here on the forums, as to allow an index of sorts, of those common issues. As the Smith Act has, heretofore never to my knowledge been raised on this forum, as such it is certainly not an area that’s oft discussed, confused, and questioned.

Essentially this is a 70 year old statute, never before mentioned or discussed here, of dubious constitutionality that was only partially upheld in a 5 to 4 decision in 1961. I would need to go through at minimum a primer on first amendment protections of free speech and free association, before I even begin to address the underlying issues of the Act, and even THEN it would only be my personal opinion of the constitutional validity of a statute that hasn’t faced a challenge in almost fifty years

Moreover, while the general topics I listed are ones that can be addressed between my own memory, my personal library of texts, and my alumni lexis, to do a full on research project of this nature would likely be beyond these meager resources, and I’m not about to breach my employment contract and use firm westlaw access for your sake.

In short, this is of no general interest, has never been raised here before, is not germane to any issues or questions common to the forum, is not of any personal interest to me, would require laying the foundation on some fairly complex areas of law that I'm not entirely convinced are not beyond you, and would take considerable time to answer the question that I can only conclude is only for your sake, and, frankly, you’re really not worth my time.

If, however, on the other hand, you are seeking the services of an attorney to do some legal research on a particular matter of concern, I would be open to providing those services.

My standard retainer is two thousand dollars, and should just about cover this research. I’ll begin as soon as I get your check.

Then do one of the topics you've promised. You haven't even started one of those yet.

If, however, on the other hand, you are seeking the services of an attorney to do some legal research on a particular matter of concern, I would be open to providing those services.

My standard retainer is two thousand dollars, and should just about cover this research. I’ll begin as soon as I get your check.

Hmm, would you be willing to travel if it meant I'd pay you a $2,000 retainer?

Then do one of the topics you've promised. You haven't even started one of those yet.

Jeez, what are you, his puppet master?

Hmm, would you be willing to travel if it meant I'd pay you a $2,000 retainer?

Travel is "expenses", which are always extra.

Travel is "expenses", which are always extra.

That question was for Neo Art...

Jeez, what are you, his puppet master?

He proposed - I still have yet to see it. It would improve the forum - at least the topics would be different.

We don't even discuss most of the topics he listed as often as he says. Rarely is a better word for most of them.

That question was for Neo Art...

I doubt he'll say that I'm wrong on the "expenses" part.

Hmm, would you be willing to travel if it meant I'd pay you a $2,000 retainer?

travel expenses are, I fear, extra, and while I can prepare a report of law in general, I'm likely not permitted to practice law in your state.

Then do one of the topics you've promised.

Promised? Pray tell, where did I promise anything?

travel expenses are, I fear, extra, and while I can prepare a report of law in general, I'm likely not permitted to practice law in your state.

Hmm, ok, thank you for your time on posting a response.

Hmm, ok, thank you for your time on posting a response.

I mean, if you have a general question, send me a TG and I'll see what I can come up with, but even if I could represent you in a matter:

1) It's highly doubtful my area of law is an area that would be useful to you
2) my contract prohibits private representation of law for profit
3) the $2k is a retainer. A deposit. It only covers the first 8 hours.

travel expenses are, I fear, extra, and while I can prepare a report of law in general, I'm likely not permitted to practice law in your state.

? I thought it would be possible to practice in another state provided the client specifically asked for you.

if you set up an office there, then you need to be part of that state's bar association or something...