Posted on 03/29/2003 9:18:29 AM PST by cgbg
All that said, any law can be enforced in a partisan fashion. Certainly the same can be said of certain provisions of the PATRIOT Act, such as those that define terrorism in terms of violence or "intimidation" that's supposedly designed to compel government to alter its behavior in some way. The first amendment can be a tough thing to nail down.
From the Thomas Cooper link I provided above, here are some comments on the Constitutionality of the Sedition Act based on Jefferson and Madison's thoughts about the issue:
The resolution continued by spelling out why the Alien and Sedition Acts were unconstitutional. With respect to the Sedition Act, the second resolve reasoned that the states delegated to Congress the power to punish but a few specific crimes, such as treason, counterfeiting, and piracy. Thus, in light of the Tenth Amendment's unmistakable declaration that what is not given is reserved, the Sedition Act failed constitutional examination.The third resolve examined the Sedition Act in light of the First Amendment. Jefferson argued that because the First Amendment operated as a restraint only on the national government, the states "retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech ... may be abridged" (Virginia Commission 1964, 14). Though today it seems obvious that the Sedition Act was a violation of the First Amendment, in 1798 that understanding was not universal, and Jefferson's argument was in the libertarian vanguard.
Taken to its logical conclusion, this means that it would be unconstitutional for the federal government to punish any act of violence done to its officers. I'm not sure how many Founders would have agreed about this.
Jefferson's other point about the first amendment is tempting to agree with, but again, it makes the federal government dependent upon the states for its ability to defend itself against libel, slander, and even outright threats. The Constitution was written with the intention of enabling the federal government to operate without the assistance of the states, in contrast to the way it was forced to operate under the Articles of Confederation.
The Founders didn't specifically list murder in the Constitution although it was certainly a recognized crime. I imagine that at the time of the Sedition Act ordinary cases of murder were handled by the state courts, just like ordinary cases of libel. Crimes committed in the course of breaking laws that were specifically delegated to the US Congress (treason, piracy, counterfeiting, etc.) might have fallen under the following Constitutional powers of Congress:
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
What is the definition of a federal crime as opposed to a state crime? The Federal Criminal Code deals with treason, smuggling, counterfeiting and the like which might seem to fall under the Constitution per the above clause, but it also deals with street gangs, kidnapping, domestic violence, stalking, etc. How did these latter items become to be considered federal crimes? Did the Federal Government simply assert that they had jurisdiction?
The Constitution was written with the intention of enabling the federal government to operate without the assistance of the states, in contrast to the way it was forced to operate under the Articles of Confederation.
In certain spheres it did operate independently of the states. The Federal Government was delegated the power to conduct foreign affairs, coin money, negotiate treaties, etc. The bulk of the ordinary course of life remained governed by state and local governments so long as their laws did not violate the Constitution. We have (or had) a federal form of government, not a national one.
From the Constitution again:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States
The whiskey tax was an excise tax that Hamilton conceived to pay off state debts the Federal Government had assumed. Sounds like the Feds had the right under the Constitution to impose the tax and enforce it. As I remember, the Feds used Pennsylvania militia to put down the rebellion.
The whiskey tax was very unpopular in more places than just Pennsylvania. Jefferson repealed it and we didn't have another excise tax until the War Between The States.
I just visited the Louisiana home of a leader of the Whiskey Rebellion. He left Pennsylvania to avoid going to jail for the rebellion and set up a beautiful plantation in St. Francisville.
I don't know. A quick perusal of Paul Johnson's "A History of the American People" indicates that people were prosecuted under it "for criticizing the Red Cross, the YMCA, and even the budget." Yikes!
No the 1918 law was very restrictive because of WW1. However; Many posts on boards such as DU would fall squarely under the present code should the government decide to use them. There are daily posts advocating that the UN come in and take over the United States along with very thinly veiled references to assassination of Bush and his Cabinet. ANY publication that actively calls for the violent overthrow of the government or any group that advocates such an act is subject to that law. The very fact that the Internet is full of such groups and publications should show you that the United States Government is very tolerant of these idiots.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.