Facts: The petitioners, the leaders of the Communist Political Association (CPA), reorganized the Association into the Communist Party through changing its policies of peaceful cooperation with the United States and its economic and political structure to into the Marxist-Leninist doctrine of the Communist Party. The Communist Party set itself apart from other political parties by disregarding the normal process of change set forth by the constitution. From the literature, statements, and activities of the petitioners, the Communist Party leaders, it is clear that their goal was to achieve a successful overthrow of the government of the United States through the use of force and violence. Procedural History: Petitioners, leaders of the Communist Party, were convicted of violation of sec.
2 and 3 of the Smith Act due to the fact that the pretrial motion to stop the indictment on the grounds that the statute was unconstitutional was denied. The Court of Appeals upheld the conviction, and the defendants once again appeal the verdict. A writ of limited certiorari was granted by the Supreme Court. Issues: 1.
) Are sec. 2 and 3 of the Smith Act violates the First Amendment and other provisions of the Bill of Rights? 2. ) Are the rights to advocate the overthrow of the government protected by the First and Fifth Amendments? Holdings: The convictions are affirmed because the court ruled that the Smith Act was constitutional and that the governments’ right to self-preservation at times overrules the rights granted by the Bill of Rights. Analysis of Majority Opinion: Schenck vs. United States 249 U. S.
The Essay on Communist Party
Conservatism is today, in 2009, a word without meaning. It can refer to a Christian agrarianism, urban free market capitalism, the Objectivist world of Ayn Rand and the libertarians, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and the imams of Syria and Saudi Arabia. It can refer to the love of free trade and protectionism. It can refer to a strong state, such as Franco’s Spain, or a weak one, ...
47 (1919) created the precedent allowing for the right of freedom of speech to be violated when there is a “clear and present danger” to the government. The petitioners clearly intended to overthrow the government because they advocated this action. This is important because it passes one of the major tests of justice in America, intent. It is understandable for the government to put forth its best efforts to protect itself from rebellion making the Smith Act entirely reasonable. Analysis of Concurring Opinion- Frankfurter: The individual is not the only one who as the right to self-preservation, the government shares this right as well as it is shown through the Smith Act. Whereas the individual has a right to self-preservation, the government as well shares this right, and it is manifested in the Smith Act.
Also, the Constitution does not entirely guarantee the freedom of speech which was set forth in the early years of the Constitution to prove this. In short, the government was granted the right from the Smith Act to protect itself from a violent and forceful overthrow. Analysis of Concurring Opinion- Jackson: Communist conspiracies should never be put up with because of the revolution in Czechoslovakia. There were no infringements of an individual’s Constitutional rights due to the Smith Act, therefore the conviction is upheld.
Analysis of Dissenting Opinion- Black: Because the leaders of the Communist Part have not yet attempted to overthrow the government, they should not be convicted of any crime. They have also not yet attempted any type of forceful or violent revolution; therefore there is no “clear and present danger.” With that said, there is no reason to withhold their First Amendment rights. Analysis of Dissenting Opinion- Douglas: While the leaders of the Communist Party taught a doctrine that promotes revolution, they have not taught how to go about creating a revolution. Therefore, Section 3 of the Smith Act is unconstitutional because it stops the expression of free thought. Legal Terms: Certiorari: a request written by a higher court to obtain records on a case from a lower court so that the case can be reviewed. Statute: a law created by the legislative body.
