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.'"

Comments

New laws

[jmv]

Is it just me or is there an increase in the number of new laws (not just in the US) that basically state that it's illegal to do illegal stuff? I'm trying to find the rational explanation for that, but so far I've failed.

Lobbyist Groups?

[GrubLord]

From TFA - this is any group that "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".

Lobbyist groups are all about controlling the government (via substantial bribes). Does this mean they need to register?

Just a wee bit unconstitutional

[bit9]

Sounds like an end-run around the First Amendment. The legislators probably realized that an outright ban on such groups would amount to prior restraint of free speech, so they figured they could achieve essentially the same effect by attempting to regulate your right to free speech, knowing that no sane person (or group) would willingly put themselves under the government's microscope. This is straight out of the playbook of J. Edgar Hoover. I am not a lawyer.

We aren't going to take this!

[hey!]

Anarchists, unite!

Re:Too bad

[sictransitgloriacfa]

Well, the law does say it has to be "by force or violence or other unlawful means". However, I see a problem here. Suppose a group wants some kind of change in government, and holds a peaceful protest, and it turns out they've broken some law against protesting without a permit or such? Bingo. They're advocating controlling the government, and they're doing it by unlawful means. And here come the guys with the riot sticks.

Obviously such an abuse would not hold up in a court for a moment, but it could sure as hell be used to intimidate people until it's struck down.

First and Last solution?

[headkase]

How about something like this (feel free to democratically suggest improvements or point out issues): When a law finally makes it's way through all the courts and the Supreme Court finds it unconstitutional how about putting *every single last bastard* who voted for it on trial for treason? The Supreme Court could decide if it was an obvious case which would make it more difficult to get out of, an hysteria case which would allow reparations to more easily flow, or a subtle case which a voter could get out of with a slap on the wrist simply by admitting their stupidity. Seriously, a little bit of responsibility? I know politicians hate that word when applied to *them*, but come on: throwing insult after insult at the wall knowing that a few of them will stick is the antithesis of what I thought the USA was. It you are going to, as a politician, betray the blood spilled by countless of your ancestors for the freedom you enjoy, well, I'd like to see yours spilled in return.

Re:First and Last solution?

[larry bagina]

From what I've read and remember, in ancient Greece, a legislator who sponsored a law which was struck down by the court (??) was fined.

Re:First and Last solution?

[Teancum]

I would prefer a constitutional amendment that goes something like this:

Any law which isn't enforced and has no public record of ever having been enforced for a certain period of time, say 20 years or perhaps less, that the law in question simply is null and void.

A constitutional provision is one thing, such as procedures for impeachment or something that is rarely invoked for a good reason, but for laws that impact ordinary citizens, a failure to even enforce these laws (such as the anti-sodomy laws and co-habitation/fornication laws) ought to be simply declared obsolete due to lack of enforcement.

A token enforcement merely to keep the law on the books would not be considered acceptable. A pattern of widespread enforcement of such a law would have to be demonstrated for it to be considered valid under such a provision.

In this particular case with the terrorist registration law, I have my doubts that such a law would ever be proven to be enforced and its only purpose is to expand and exaggerate sentences in an effort to stifle free speech. Simply asking a state officer to testify in court about how many people actually engaged in registration would be sufficient in this case to show non-enforcement of such a law.

Too bad that such a provision or legal concept is not typically a part of common law.

Re:First and Last solution?

[DaleSwanson]

I'd rather just place a time limit on all laws after which they would need to be renewed or become null and void. The period would range between 2-25 laws based on what majority (which ever house was less) it passed with (say 50-60 = 5, 60-70 = 10, 70-80 = 20, 80+ = 25). All new laws would be 5 year regardless of the majority (to prevent panic laws like Patriot Act from starting with 25 years). All existing laws would start with whatever period they should have based on the scale (exempt from 5 year mandatory first period). A law could only be renewed in the year it was due for renewal (to avoid parties from passing pet laws when they had control).

Re:First and Last solution?

[Eunuchswear]

Ok. How often does someone get arrested for cannibalism, or necrophilia? After 20 years it becomes legal?

I'll worry about that after you've explained why canibalism and necrophilia should be illegal.

(I'm serious - why should they be illegal?)

Can I register from a distance?

[Just Some Guy]

I live in Nebraska, but I'd like to register anyway. I have advocated "controlling and conducting" the government by means of encouraging others to vote for the candidates I like and by donating time and money to their campaigns. By South Carolina's standard, I'm a subversive. Would I get a registration form I could hang on my wall next to my college diploma, a share of SCOX stock, and a Church of the SubGenius ordination certificate?

Actually, I'm kind of serious about that. In a dream world, I'd like to see a few hundred million people register as South Carolina subversives.

George Soros

[kenh]

Any chance George Soros would count as a foreign organization plotting the overthrow of the US Gov't?

Just a thought...

Any reason to think this would withstand a constitutional challenge?