Persecution of communists’ in (fake) western democracies: case law summaries

Q:To what extent did public and political opinion in the west undermine the impartiality of judicial decision-making during the cold-war era?
—————————————-

USA

In a famous dissent, Justice Douglas of the US Supreme Court declared:

‘We have deemed it more costly to liberty to suppress despised minorities than to let them vent their spleen’ (Dennis v United States U.S. 494 at p. 585 (1951) (U.S.S.C.).

No western democracy has practiced the tolerance exposed [mistake in video, it should read “expoused”] by Justice Douglas-in the above statement, without at some stage censoring unpopular organizations. Douglas was in a minority of two on a US Supreme Court bench which upheld convictions entered against Communist party sympathizers for conspiring to overthrow the US government. (Joseph, P,think it’s “1998” edn., Constitutional and Administrative Law in New Zealand, ).

In Dennis v United States, above, the US Supreme Court upheld convictions against communist party officials for conspiring to teach or advocate the overthrow of the government by force or violence. Here, the Court considered that the advocacy of the communist doctrine was to be equated with conspiring to forcibly overthrow the US government.

Dennis was decided in 1951, at the height of cold-war tensions between the USSR and the US. Justice Black aligned with Justice Douglas in the minority stating:

‘Public opinion being what it is now, few will protest the conviction of these Communist petitioners. There is hope, however, that in calmer times, when present pressures, passions, and fears subside, this or some other later court will restore the First Amendment liberties to the high place where they belong in a free society.’ (Dennis, supra, at 581).

Justice Black’s statement was realized six years later in Yates v United States 354 U.S. 298 (1957) (U.S.S.C). This time, a differently constituted Supreme Court bench quashed the convictions of 14 Communist Party leaders that had been entered for similar reasons under the same Act.

With the easing of east-west relations, the Court drew a clear distinction between the advocacy of forcible overthrow of government-as an abstract doctrine, and the advocacy of action to achieve that result.

According to legal philosopher Wolfgang Friedman, it was impossible to remove the judgment of the US Supreme Court from the political tensions and public opinions that existed at that time. (W. Friedman, Legal Theory, (4th edn. , 1960, at p.95).

Australia

Australia also expressed abhorrence at communist doctrine during the post-war era. In Burns v Ransley (1949) 79 C.L.R. 101 (H.C.), the Australian High Court upheld a conviction for sedition entered against a communist speaker who, when asked, announced that, in the event of a war, he would fight on the side of the Soviet Union. He was convicted for words he had spoken in reply to a hypothetical question, and not for inciting mutiny or violence.

The following year the Communist Party Dissolution Act 1950 (Cth) declared the Australian Communist Party to be a revolutionary organization which jeopardized the defence of the Commonwealth. The statute dissolved the Communist Party and all affiliated organizations declared illegal under the Act.

The fundamental democratic principle of freedom of expression was restored when a majority of the High Court of Australia in Australian Communist Party v Commonwealth (1951) 83 CLR 1, declared the Communist Dissolution Act 1950 (Cth) to be unconstitutional and beyond the defence powers of the Commonwealth (see also R v Sharky (1949) 79 CLR 121).

New Zealand

During the early 1980s in New Zealand, Priminister Robert Muldoon took exception to the Socialist Unity Party and questioned it’s right to exist in a free and democratic society. However, a government, expounding the rule of law, must demonstrate greater justification for out-lawing a particular group or organization, for reasons other than personal enmity (Joseph, supra, at p.191).

See also New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s.14 (right to freedom of expression), and related case law; and Human Rights Act 1993, s.21(j)(prohibits discrimination on grounds of political opinion) incorporated, by reference, into s.19 NZBORA; note also- Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Act 2007; & see Flags, Emblems, and Names Protection Act 1981, s.11 (offences involving New Zealand flag)

Duration : 0:4:20

Read more about Persecution of communists’ in (fake) western democracies: case law summaries

A Case for the Civil Law over Common Law: Response to Hayek [George J. Wendt]

LibertyInOurTimehttp://gdata.youtube.com/feeds/api/users/libertyinourtimeEducationwendt, asc2010, case, for, civil, law, over, commanA Case for the Civil Law over Common Law: Response to Hayek [George J. Wendt]

Duration : 0:24:44

Read more about A Case for the Civil Law over Common Law: Response to Hayek [George J. Wendt]

WHY DO SO MANY PEOPLE WANT MARIJUANA LEGAL? (3 of 4)

Pulled form PBS Show called “The Botany of Desire pt1 Cannabis”

MARIJUANA CANNABIS MARIHUANA MEDICAL LEGALIZE WEED 420 OBAMA RON PAUL JACKSON DOPE GRASS BONG RIP JOINT KUSH DRUGS SEEDS WAR NWO NEWS VAPORIZER BOWL HASHISH BLUNTS H1N1 Flu HASH GANJA HEMP SEX LIBERTARIAN RAGE swine LEGALIZATION POT ALEX JONES PRISON PLANET LIBERAL COMPASSIONATE PRIVACY CIVIL RIGHTS LAW EDUCATION ACTIVISM HERB smoke HIGHTIMES CUP hydro HIGH ECONOMY ECONOMIC COLLAPSE MEXICO PATRIOT MARYJANE hosser420 NORML MPP DMT legalize conservative sex tits freedom GMO New Jersey nj

Duration : 0:2:49

Read more about WHY DO SO MANY PEOPLE WANT MARIJUANA LEGAL? (3 of 4)

Republicans Oppose Al Franken’s Law on Protecting Victims of Gang Rape

Watch more at http://www.theyoungturks.com

Follow us on Twitter.

Check Out TYT Interviews http://www.youtube.com/user/TYTInterviews

Duration : 0:6:2

Read more about Republicans Oppose Al Franken’s Law on Protecting Victims of Gang Rape

Why Do Hot Girls Wan’t Weed Legal? (& Ugly Girls Like Beer Instead?)

LEGALIZE MARIJUANA CANNABIS HIGH MARIHUANA MEDICAL WEED 420 OBAMA RON PAUL PIPE BONG JOINT KUSH DRUGS SEEDS WAR NEWS VAPORIZER BOWL HASHISH BLUNTS HASH GANJA HEMP legal cops POT PRIVACY CIVIL RIGHTS LAW ACTIVIST HERB smoke HIGHTIMES CUP hydro ECONOMIC COLLAPSE MEXICO PATRIOT MARYJANE conservative NEW YORK JERSEY CHRONIC NWO freedom GMO LIBERTARIAN ALEX JONES PRISON PLANET toke Sinsemilla HOSSER420 BAKED MSNBC CNN CBS marc emery BARRY COOPER love health cancer prop 19 California fox news ABC bp

Duration : 0:15:4

Read more about Why Do Hot Girls Wan’t Weed Legal? (& Ugly Girls Like Beer Instead?)

People and Power – Chiquita: Between life and law – 10 June 09

Fined $25m by the US federal court for funding a terrorist organisation, Chiquita, the US-based banana distribution company, is now facing a number of new lawsuits.

Duration : 0:23:56

Read more about People and Power – Chiquita: Between life and law – 10 June 09

Constitutional Law, Legal History and Civil Liberties at the University of Virginia School of Law

Professor Risa Goluboff discusses the Law School’s constitutional law, legal history and civil liberties programs during an Admitted Students Open House.

Duration : 0:8:52

Read more about Constitutional Law, Legal History and Civil Liberties at the University of Virginia School of Law

Why You Must Vote Yes to Make Cannabis Legal!

LEGALIZE MARIJUANA CANNABIS HIGH MARIHUANA MEDICAL WEED 420 OBAMA RON PAUL PIPE BONG JOINT KUSH DRUGS SEEDS WAR NEWS VAPORIZER BOWL HASHISH BLUNTS HASH GANJA HEMP legal cops POT PRIVACY CIVIL RIGHTS LAW ACTIVIST HERB smoke HIGHTIMES CUP hydro ECONOMIC COLLAPSE MEXICO PATRIOT MARYJANE conservative NEW YORK JERSEY CHRONIC NWO freedom GMO LIBERTARIAN ALEX JONES PRISON PLANET toke Sinsemilla HOSSER420 BAKED MSNBC CNN CBS marc emery BARRY COOPER love health cancer prop 19 California fox news ABC bp

Duration : 0:10:56

Read more about Why You Must Vote Yes to Make Cannabis Legal!

War Room: “Bubba Effect” – Martial Law, Looting, Hyperinflation, Depression, Chaos, America Implodes

Are you a Bubba? If not then you are doomed, but don’t let that bum you out, because it’s possible that none of this stuff will even happen. If any or all of this happens, I will be with my family and close friends in a compound of our own making. No outsiders will be allowed, and trespassers will be shot on site. It will be every man for himself. I hope that you are all ready for what is coming, and that you are a member of a Militia. Glenn Beck has warned you of this doomsday scenario, now it is up to you, you will have to take it from here.
jbranstetter04

Washington Post
Monday, December 1, 2008

The U.S. military expects to have 20,000 uniformed troops inside the United States by 2011 trained to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic catastrophe, according to Pentagon officials.

The long-planned shift in the Defense Department’s role in homeland security was recently backed with funding and troop commitments after years of prodding by Congress and outside experts, defense analysts said.

There are critics of the change, in the military and among civil liberties groups and libertarians who express concern that the new homeland emphasis threatens to strain the military and possibly undermine the Posse Comitatus Act, a 130-year-old federal law restricting the military’s role in domestic law enforcement.

But the Bush administration and some in Congress have pushed for a heightened homeland military role since the middle of this decade, saying the greatest domestic threat is terrorists exploiting the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

The first 4,700-person unit, built around an active-duty combat brigade based at Fort Stewart, Ga., was available as of Oct. 1, said Gen. Victor E. Renuart Jr., commander of the U.S. Northern Command.

Bert B. Tussing, director of homeland defense and security issues at the U.S. Army War College’s Center for Strategic Leadership, said the new Pentagon approach “breaks the mold” by assigning an active-duty combat brigade to the Northern Command for the first time. Until now, the military required the command to rely on troops requested from other sources.

18th Amendment : The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. ยง 1385) passed on June 16, 1878 after the end of Reconstruction, with the intention (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) of substantially limiting the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement. The Act prohibits members of the federal uniformed services (the Army, Air Force, and State National Guard forces when such are called into federal service) from exercising nominally state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain “law and order” on non-federal property (states and their counties and municipal divisions) in the former Confederate states.
The statute prohibits federal military personnel and units of the National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The Coast Guard is exempt from the Act.

For troops to be deployed, a condition has to exist that, (1) So hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or (2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws. In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.
http://www.datehookup.com/Thread-218695.htm

Duration : 0:10:48

Read more about War Room: “Bubba Effect” – Martial Law, Looting, Hyperinflation, Depression, Chaos, America Implodes

Steelers QB “Big Ben” Roethlisberger rape accusations discussed on Kelly’s Court

Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger accused of rape by a Harrah’s employee. Accusations discussed on Fox News Kelly’s Court by Megyn Kelly, defense attorney Mark Eiglarsh and Fox News Legal Analyst Arthur Aidala.

Duration : 0:5:1

Read more about Steelers QB “Big Ben” Roethlisberger rape accusations discussed on Kelly’s Court