Slashdot Mirror
Subversive Groups Must Now Register In South Carolina
Hugh Pickens writes "The Raw Story reports that terrorists who want to overthrow the United States government must now register with South Carolina's Secretary of State and declare their intentions — or face a $25,000 fine and up to 10 years in prison. The 'Subversive Activities Registration Act' passed last year in South Carolina and now officially on the books states that 'every member of a subversive organization, or an organization subject to foreign control, every foreign agent and every person who advocates, teaches, advises or practices the duty, necessity or propriety of controlling, conducting, seizing or overthrowing the government of the United States ... shall register with the Secretary of State.'"
To the US government, there is no difference between a terrorist and a constitutional patriot. Any opposition to the present-day government is to be supressed, silenced, destroyed and/or killed.
This is just like those "marijuana tax stamp" acts. Laws like that typicly just end up being used to tack on extra years when you get convicted, and/or to assist the prosecutors since the more laws you break the easier it is to convict. IMHO, it's a waste of time since any serious act (ie, assault, murder) comitted by such a group is going to get them life or worse (does SC have the death penalty?)
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Oddly enough North Carolina had a right to revolution written into their constitution. http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Legislation/constitution/article1.html (section 3D).
Their neighbors to the south, not so much.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
England did think of it, and they tried to stop the colonists from meeting up, which is precisely why "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" was put into the first amendment.
Indeed. The text of the law says it should not be construed to authorize censorship or infringe upon freedom of speech but I just don't see how you can do that.
This law is a ace up the sleeve for selective prosecution, nothing else.
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
In case you didn't notice ... registration is required in South Carolina; the right to revolt is written in the North Carolina State Constitution. North != South.
The first amendment doesn't end in the air.
To quote my self "Insightful? I think this is a joke." I was more responding to the mod that modded it "insightful"
...is currently planning on overthrowing the existing government of the United States. Have they registered?
Hahaha. If you bothered to read the statute, there is a useful clarification (emphasis added):
"(1) 'Subversive organization' means every corporation, society, association, camp, group, bund, political party, assembly, body or organization, composed of two or more persons, which directly or indirectly advocates, advises, teaches or practices the duty, necessity or propriety of controlling, conducting, seizing or overthrowing the government of the United States, of this State or of any political subdivision thereof by force or violence or other unlawful means;"
I'm pretty sure they mean by way of a coup.
Federal employees are required as a condition of their employment to swear under penalty of perjury that we will not overthrow the federal government, but we're still allowed to vote for members of the party that currently isn't in power.
"every corporation, society, association, camp, group, bund, political party, assembly, body or organization, composed of two or more persons, which directly or indirectly advocates, advises, teaches or practices the duty, necessity or propriety of controlling, conducting, seizing or overthrowing the government of the United States [or] of this State."
If you advocate the propriety of the people to control their government in a democratic country, you fall under this law. It definitely covers more than planning to take actual action - it also covers advocating, advising or teaching.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Anachronistic religious motives for the ban clearly being unconstitutional as per the legal tradition of separation of church and state
It's high time the Sunday Alcohol bans got challenged in a court of law.
Can't there be some commerce clause spin on this? Given that much of Alcohol is produced out of state, there's interstate commerce involved here.
Just too add this would also violate the 5th, admitting one wished to break a law is incriminating himself.
What, the average Obama supporter?
There is a big issue with this portion:
Sec. 5. Allegiance to the United States.
Every citizen of this State owes paramount allegiance to the Constitution and government of the United States, and no law or ordinance of the State in contravention or subversion thereof can have any binding force.
That is not legal, as no person or other entity has the constitutional right to force anything to claim allegiance to any person or entity(within the United States, of course). Since I doubt North Carolina would have the balls to do any of that today(as most of the first half on that document came out of Reconstruction), I doubt anyone will try to challenge it in court.
As a "F.Y.I." moment, did you know that Texas has it written in their Constitution(sort of) the right to secession from the Union? Lincoln did believe that secession never occurred, because it was not covered in the Constitution, but since entrance into the Union was and still is voluntary and really any state could secede. The problem is that most states have written an allegiance to the Constitution and the U.S Government, whereas Texas only swears allegiance to the Constitution alone.
Now, go forth and impress your history teacher/professor.
Ironic that this is passed by the state that STARTED THE CIVIL WAR!
Down here it's called the War of Northern Aggression.
since I left South Carolina, and I've never looked back. Charleston, while a beautiful city in many ways, was hellish: the overt racism and classism I experienced still disgust me.
Impress them with what? Your gullibility? You are quite misinformed and would do well to educate yourself before speaking urban legend as fact.
http://www.burntorangereport.com/diary/8425/can-texas-secede-from-the-union-no
Or this fine piece of Secessionist literature.
http://www.texassecede.com/faq.htm
Notice in the first answer it takes special pains to emphasize "note that it does not state "...subject to the President of the United States..." or "...subject to the Congress of the United States..." or "...subject to the collective will of one or more of the other States...".
All that is well and good, but the gret secessionist geniuses down in Texas seem to forget the fact the Constitution of the United States does in deed outline our form of *guberment*, in particular the President, Congress, and the rights of States. That means they are getting exactly what they signed up for.
brandelf -t FreeBSD
Somewhere, there's an irony in this being passed by the state that was first to secede from the Union and instigate the Civil War.
Says the guy advertising a neo-nazi political group in his sig.
(Seriously, go on and look up the traditional definition of the "third position," and read through the A3P's political positions. I'm not calling them Nazis simply for the sake of being hyperbolic. They're one of the few groups that actually makes the law being discussed in TFA seem like a good idea.)
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
But, then you wrote this;
And it's exactly that ammendment which this law is blatantly contrary too...
Except for the fact that if you read the law, you would see there is no contradiction at all. For the law explicitly states that this applies to groups who advocate violence to their grievances.
So, you see, this law does not violate the first amendment. It only violates the version you have constructed in your imagination, based on the summary which leaves out that rather important detail.
As far as I can see, if your interest in overthrowing the government is purely recreational, you're not covered by this law.
-- Old Man Kensey
According to Eugene Volokh, the law was actually passed in 1951, is something of a dead letter, and they're currently trying to repeal it. Sorry to spoil all the hand-wringing.
No statement is true, not even this one.
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. -- Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms
Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.