American Communications Assn. v. Douds

AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN., O., C. I. DOUDS, REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF

et al. THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. NO. 10.

Argued 10-11, May 8, October 1949. Decided 1950. Victor argued Rabinowitz for appellants cause No. 10. With him on the B. brief was Leonard Boudin. Samuel A. Neuburger was also counsel. E. argued

Thomas Harris for petitioners cause No. Goldberg 13. With him on the Arthur brief were J. and Frank Donner.

Solicitor Perlman appellee General for argued the cause respondent No. 10 and in No. 13. With him on the Stern, Stanley Silverberg, briefs were Robert L. M. Rob- Denham, Somers, Findling, ert N. David P. A. Norman Mozart Ratner and J. G. Norton Come. in No. 10 supporting appellants amici

Briefs of curiae and Donner Frank Goldberg, Arthur J. by filed were Organi- of Industrial Congress E. Harris for the Thomas Jerome Walsh K. Fraenkel and zations; Osmond and Civil Liberties Union. American in No. appellants supporting Briefs of amici curiae Kenny, by W. Robert petitioners in No. were filed Edmund Hat- Silberstein, F. J. Richard Watt Robert Allan R. Ro- Lawyers’ Guild; and for the National field Radio & Machine Electrical, senberg for the United (C. 0.). I. Workers opinion of

Mr. Chief Justice Vinson delivered the the Court. constitutionality for decision the present

These cases Act, Relations the National Labor (h) 1947.1 Act, Relations Management amended the Labor as the non-Com referred to section, commonly This investi “No reads as follows: provision, munist affidavit Labor gation shall be made [National Relations] concerning commerce any question affecting Board of by a or raised labor representation employees, peti no section, this (c) of ganization under subsection entertained, (e) (1) shall be under section 9 tion a made charge complaint pursuant shall be issued no (b) of sec under subsection by organization a labor an affi the Board 10, is on file with tion unless there preced or within the contemporaneously davit executed labor by such period twelve-month each officer ing any national or inter the officers of organization and an affiliate or organization of which labor national 1 III) (h), 141, 136, 146, (Supp. 159 amend 29 U. S. C. 61 Stat. § § 449, 29 1935, 49 S. C. ing Act of Stat. U. the National Labor Relations seq. et 151 § that

constituent unit he is a not member of the Com Party munist or affiliated with he party, such does not in, believe and is not a or supports member of any organization that or teaches, believes in the over throw of the United States by Government force illegal or unconstitutional provisions methods. The of section 35 A of the Criminal Code shall be applicable in respect to such affidavits.”

In No. the constitutional aby issue raised was suit to restrain the Board from holding representation elec- tion in a bargaining unit in appellant which union was employee the representative, without permitting name its appear ballot, and, held, should the election be to restrain the Board from announcing the results cer- tifying victor, until a hearing granted was appel- A lant. had hearing been denied because of the non- compliance with 9 (h). § The complaint alleged that requirement this was Appellee’s unconstitutional. mo- complaint tion dismiss was granted by statutory three-judge court, 79 Supp. (1948), F. with one judge dissenting. Since constitutional issues properly were substantial, raised and we probable noted jurisdiction. 13 No. practice the outcome of unfair labor com- plaint petitioner filed with the Board unions. Board found Inland Steel had violated the Company Labor subject Relations Act refusing bargain on the pensions. L. 1 (1948). N. R. B. But the Board postponed the effective date compelling of its order company to bargain, pending compliance the unions’ with (h). appealed: Both sides company urged the Act had misinterpreted; been contended unions 9 (h) that § was unconstitutional in- therefore an valid condition of Board order. When the below court upheld counts, on both Board F. 247 (1948), 2d judge dissenting one 9 (h), §to both filed sides petitions for certiorari. petition We denied the pertain- granted issue, (1949), 336 U. S. 960 but

ing pension requirement, petition directed at the affidavit importance the manifest (1949), S. 910 because of U. constitutional issues involved. I. Labor justification the National constitutional protect inter- power Congress Act was the Relations free flow by removing state commerce obstructions Labor Board Jones of commerce. National Relations 1 (1937). That Act Corp., 301 S. Laughlin & Steel U. by caused strikes to remove obstructions designed was Congress unrest, which of industrial and other forms inequality bargaining found to the were attributable em- and their power unorganized employees between groups, employee ployers. strengthening It did so by encour- employer practices, by restraining certain bargaining. aging processes of collective Act was Relations Management Labor When the later, Congress years the view passed twelve was flow of commerce impediments to the free additional was Act It original desirable. made amendment of the that: policy in the declaration findings stated that certain demonstrated “Experience has further officers, their organizations, practices some labor effect necessary intent or the and members have the by preventing obstructing commerce burdening through commerce such goods flow of free through of industrial unrest strikes and other forms interest of the impair which concerted activities The elim- commerce. flow of such public the free necessary condition practices is ination of such herein rights guaranteed.” the assurance of III) (Supp. C. 151. U. S. One obstruction, purpose such which it of was the remove, “political the Act (h) of to was the so-called pre- strike.” Substantial amounts of were evidence Congress, sented to various of including committees immediately legislation, committees concerned with labor past of labor in Communist leaders unions had legiti- and would in continue to future subordinate objectives mate trade union when obstructive strikes by Party leaders, support dictated in policies often of a foreign government. supports And other evidence view that some union who hold to belief leaders violent overthrow of the for Government reasons other loyalty than regard to the Communist likewise Party strikes and of direct designed other forms action to serve revolutionary goals objectives ultimate primary of labor At unions which control.3 the committee hearings, fully developed the incident most was strike at the plant of Milwaukee the Allis-Chalmers Manufac- turing Company 1941, plant when that producing was vital materials for the national defense A full program. was hearing given company officials, not only to but also leaders the international and local unions involved. testimony heard Congress that the strike had been called solely obedience Party purpose orders for the starting “snowballing plants.4 of strikes” in defense purpose No useful would by setting be served at out length Congress relating the evidence before prob- to the description A detailed the aims and tactics of the Socialist Party, example, may transcript Workers be found in the States, (1943), record Dunne v. United 320 U. S. 790 certiorari only express opinion denied. We cite the record as evidence no pp. record, 267-271, whatever on the merits of the case. 273- See 274, 439, 475, 495-496, 330-332, 491-492, 535, 606, 683-688, 737, 804-805. Hearings See before House Committee Education and Labor Repeal Act, on Bills to Amend and the National Labor Relations Cong., 80th 1st Sess. 3611-3615. attempt nor can we assess the strikes,

lem say It sufficient item of evidence. validity of each it which mass material before great had a Congress proscribed and others show that Communists tended to not to organizations had infiltrated union the statute including objectives, further trade union support and but to make methods, advocacy change democratic might industry a which by them commerce device policy required political of disrupted when the dictates such action.

II. 9 (h) of necessary § that the effect unions contend The the sign who cannot impossible persons make it is to They urge that such to of labor unions. oath be officers the rights guaranteed by violates fundamental statute hold what right of union officers to the First Amendment: what with and to associate views choose political to choose will, right and the of unions groups they political government.5 without interference their officers 9 (h) that hand, § on has the other argued, Board The its sole problem because no Amendment presents First of unions noncomplying is withdrawal from the sanction using of facilities. “privilege” its complete with problem contention states the Neither effect practical It denied accuracy. cannot be place to the Board the denial of denial access merely not proceedings is representation ballot to granted but by benefits Government withhold number of restric- unions a impose upon noncomplying if had not been the Board which would not exist tions no . make law . . provides: “Congress shall Amendment The First right of or the press; abridging speech, the freedom assemble, petition the Government peaceably people grievances.” for a redress of

established.6 statute not, does however, specifically persons forbid not sign who do holding the affidavit from positions union leadership require nor their discharge from office. The 9 (h) fact well may § make it dif- ficult for if unions remain effective their officers do not sign depends the affidavits. How upon difficult the cir- cumstances of the industry, strength the union and its organizational discipline. are,We therefore, neither free to if (h) treat it merely § a privilege withdraws gratuitously granted by the Government, nor to con- able it a licensing sider prohibiting statute persons those who do sign from holding the affidavit union office. The practicalities of place the situation proscriptions 9 (h) somewhere between those two extremes. The question difficult emerges whether, consistently Amendment, Congress, First statute, pressures upon deny positions exert these unions labor of leadership to certain persons who are identified particular beliefs and affiliations.

III. can no Congress There doubt that may, under its constitutional power regulate to among commerce attempt States, prevent political several to strikes other direct designed kinds action to burden and inter- rupt the free flow of commerce. think clear, We it is in addition, provided remedy by 9 (h) rea- § bears

6 example, For union whose officers do not file an affidavit compliance (h) may shop 9 not enter into a union contract employer, passage with an as it was free to do before the National noncomplying Labor Relations Act. A union is excluded from the representation proceedings. certified, ballot If another union is noncomplying (b) (4) (C) union incurs the disabilities of 8§§ (a) (3), prior Similarly, 303 as would not have done to 1935. boycotts prohibited noncomplying certain strikes and unions (b) by (4) (B), (b) (4) (C) (b) (D) (4) 8 8 and 8 Act. §§

391 designed which the sonable relation to the evil statute was Congress rationally Com- to reach. could find utili- Party political parties is not its munist like other by which positions leadership zation of of union as means of com- bring about strikes and other obstructions many purposes political advantage, and that merce persons who believe overthrow Government tactics likely force and also resort to such violence are policy. when, as union officers, they formulate persons by their fact that the statute identifies beliefs, affiliations and which are circumstances permissible govern- ordinarily subjects irrelevant action, lead to the conclusion that such ment does not Summers, 325 In circumstances are never relevant. re 293 245 Regents, S. (1945); S. 561 Hamilton v. U. U. that aliens be barred (1934). We have held be- of a occupations reasonable relation certain because evil, apprehended Clarke that classification and tween Deckebach, (1927); Co. Pearl Assurance v. 274 U. S. 392 Con- Harrington, (1941), though U. S. even pur- banning of aliens from the arbitrary forbids stitution Raich, S. 33 Truax v. 239 U. occupations. of lawful suit Commission, v. Fish and Game (1915); Takahashi solely (1948). Even distinctions based S.U. very nature “are their ancestry, which we declared un- upheld have under a free been people,” odious Hirabayashi v. United circumstances of wartime. usual If of birth States, (1943).7 accidents 320 U. S. justify inference under circumstances ancestry some hardly it can be doubted conduct, future concerning infer- justify a similar and beliefs voluntary affiliations its on the basis of by legislature drawn ence when investigations. 7 States, (1913); 9 Mackenzie United 231 U. S. Luria v. See also Clark, (1915); Lapides App. D. C. v. U. S. Hare, 299 85 239 S. U. (1949). 101, 176 F. 2d 619

392 principle may

This be illustrated reference to stat- denying positions public importance utes groups persons identified their business affiliations. One fed- eral statute,8 provides for example, partner that no a firm employee primarily engaged underwriting a a may securities be director of national bank. This Court noted that probability the statute directed “to the or likelihood, experience based on the 1920’s, a bank director underwriting interested business his influence in the bank to use involve it or its cus- tomers in securities his underwriting which house has in portfolio its has committed itself to take.” Board of v. Agnew, 441, (1947). Governors 329 U. S. It was designed opportunities “to remove tempting from the personnel management and of member banks.” Id. p. at no showing, 449. There nor was one required, was all employees of underwriting engage firms would such conduct. Because their business connections, as do carrying loyalties, certain they interests dis- persons thought ciplines, pose continuing those were participation threat of in the harmful activities described involved, above. Political affiliations of the kind here provide no affiliations, ground less than business rational legislative judgment persons proscribed that those by 9 (h) subject “tempting opportunities” § would economy. commit acts deemed harmful to the national In (h) this unlike a stat- respect, is not host of other prohibit groups utes which specified persons from hold- because, in ing positions public power interest legislative judgment, threaten to abuse the trust necessary that is concomitant of power of office. possible If no than loss position, more were involved the foregoing dispose would of the case. the more But 1933, 162, Banking Sections 30 and 32 of Act of 48 Stat. 193, 194, amended, 684, 709, Stat. U. C. 78. S, §§

393 lines on because, drawing problem here arises difficult affiliations, though political the basis of beliefs bear of the statute proscriptions that the granted be apprehended evil, Congress a reasonable relation to political lawful exercise of undeniably discouraged the has this: otherwise, problem well. freedoms as Stated carry legitimate politi- Communists, may assume, we Con- Cantwell Beliefs are inviolate. cal activities. necticut, might (1940). Congress 296, U. 303 S. unlike mem- Communists, reasonably find, however, that persons who believe parties, and political bers of other persons by unlike force, the Government in overthrow of of dis- continuing danger beliefs, represent a of other of union positions hold ruptive political strikes when of- deny on unions to leadership. By exerting pressures (h) therein, 9§ and others identified fice to Communists commerce, to interstate undoubtedly lessens the threat discouraging effect of necessary the further but it has by First protected rights the exercise have offices often Men who hold union Amendment. up give renounce Communism or little choice but discouraged so are Unions which wish do their offices. grave office. To the electing Communists to turn our problem we must now presented thus difficult attention.

IV. it is determined The unions contend that once danger” speech present the “clear and case, this is a free States, v. United U. Schenck S. must apply. test See how it should (1919). they disagree But joining Appellant require applied. No. would belief in over- Party expression Communist to be a be shown of the Government force throw evil, since of some substantive present danger clear Peti- affected the statute. the doctrines those are require hand, tioner No. on the would other evil in- showing political strikes, that the substantive present danger security are a clear and to the volved, of widespread the Nation or threaten industrial unrest. suggests attempt apply

This confusion to that term, present “clear and as a mechanical test danger,” in every touching freedoms, case with- First Amendment out regard application, to the context its mistakes the form in which an was for the substance idea cast Constitution, The said provisions idea. Mr. Holmes, Justice “are not mathematical formulas their having form; they organic essence in their are living transplanted institutions Their English sig- soil. formal; nificance is gathered vital not it is to be simply by a taking dictionary, words and but considering origin their line their growth.” Gompers States, United (1914). S. U. interpretations Still less should this Court’s the Con- stitution be reduced to the status mathematical for- mulas. It is considerations that to gave birth phrase, present phrase “clear danger,” itself, not the are vital our questions decision of involving protected by liberties the First Amendment.

Although provides the First Congress Amendment shall make lawno abridging speech, press freedom of or assembly, has long it been established that those free- dependent power doms themselves are upon the of con- stitutional government to If is survive. to survive power it must have protect to against itself unlawful and, conduct under some circumstances, against incite- ments commit unlawful speech acts. Freedom of thus does not comprehend speak the right subject at any important time. question that came to this immediately Court after the First War World was not whether, but how far, permits the First Amendment suppression speech which advocates inimical conduct having speech a public thought to the welfare.9 Some be tendency might to lead to such conduct reasonable took a different punished. Justices Holmes Brandéis a danger democ thought greater view. that the They public discussion; racy suppression lies in the dangerous harmful thought ideas and doctrines therefore, with words. when force fought Only, best follow an before there is chance very likely to utterance counter-argument to have that utterance effect necessity Thus, “the which punished prevented.10 valid does not exist unless essential restriction a clear speech produce, produce, would or is intended danger of evil which and imminent some substantive pre constitutionally may to Congress] the seek State [or Brandeis, concurring Whitney in . Justice vent . . Mr. 357, By 274 S. 373. this means California, v. U. First that, under the sought convey philosophy to the every man’s views Amendment, public right has every speak man the them. Government right merely longer his are no may only him off when views cut imminently, ripen into threaten, clearly and views but public right protect has against which the conduct itself. 9 (1919); States, 47 Frohwerk v. 249 U. United S. See Schenck States, (1919); States, v. United 249 204 Debs

v. United 249 U. S. (1919); States, (1919); v. 250 U. S. 616 211 Abrams United U. S. (1920); States, Pierce v. United v. United 251 U. S. Schaefer York, States, (1920); v. 268 U. S. New 252 U. S. 239 Gitlow (1925). danger flowing clear and speech be deemed

10". . no can . apprehended is so imminent present, incidence of the evil unless the discussion. may opportunity is for full it befall before there through expose discussion the falsehood If be time to there remedy education, by processes fallacies, to avert the evil Justice speech, not silence.” Mr. applied is more enforced to be California, Whitney Brandéis, concurring in 274 U. S. (1927). are is question

But the with which we here faced not the same that Justices Holmes Brandéis found one in present convenient to consider terms of clear and danger. preventing Government’s interest here is not of Communist doctrine holding dissemination or the of particular beliefs because it is feared that unlawful speech will if practiced. action result therefrom free is Its flow of protecting interest free commerce Congress from what considers to be substantial evils of products speech conduct that are at not all. Sec- (h), words, speech tion 9 in other with does interfere speech; fears Congress consequences because regulates Congress harmful conduct which has determined by persons is carried on who be identified their political affiliations and beliefs. Board does not contend that strikes, the substantive evil at which (h) aimed, present are the or impending products advocacy doctrines of Communism or the expression of belief overthrow of the Government points force. On the contrary, it out that such strikes by persons who, called Congress so has found, have the will and power do so without advocacy per- acceptance suasion that competition seeks Speech may market.11 fought speech. False- hoods and fallacies exposed, must be not suppressed, unless there is not sufficient time the to avert evil con- sequences of noxious by argument doctrine and educa- tion. That the is command of the First Amendment. But force may must be met force. Section (h)9 designed protect public the against not what Communists and others identified therein advocate or believe, but against Congress what has concluded have likely done and are again. to do States, Holmes, Mr. in Abrams v. United dissenting See Justice 616, (1919). 250 U. S. this Court petitioner in No. 13 that contention of present create a clear find that strikes

must widespread of the Nation or of security to the danger mis- (h) similarly to sustain § industrial strife order intended to serve. phrase was purpose the that conceives certainty evil conduct relative that view, In that the future, but the speech in immediate will result from the be meas- evil must gravity of the substantive extent and But case. “test” laid down in the Schenck ured every case “The question Court said that: there the used in such circumstances is whether the words used are present a a nature to create clear and are of such evils substantive they will bring that about danger v. United prevent.” has a Schenck right Congress States, (Emphasis supplied.) at 52. supra imminent concerned, far Schenck

So as the case itself is prevent Congress danger substantive evil this Since that time speech. restriction of justifies the likelihood that great Court has decided however speech and result, will a evil restrictions substantive itself is “substan- sustained unless evil press cannot be J., concurring “relatively serious,” Brandéis, tial” and 377, California, 374, or sometimes Whitney supra v. at S. Bridges California, 314 U. serious,” “extremely harmful it follows therefrom that even (1941). And justify upon speech unless sub- restrictions conduct cannot in suggest- at But society stake. interests stantial and sub- evil must serious ing that substantive lay Court to this stantial, it was never intention danger measured terms down an absolutist test or ordinance statute Nation. When effect is rela- Amendment freedoms upon First the exercise protected to be public and the interest tively small rigid requiring that a test show- substantial, isit obvious security Nation is danger to ing of imminent want of recently dismissed for sub- absurdity. We 398 an in

stantiality appeal group which a church contended rights a mu- its First Amendment were violated nicipal zoning building ordinance of preventing the in Corporation churches certain residential areas. the of Presiding Bishop the Church Jesus Christ Latter- of of of Day Porterville, (1949). Saints v. 338 805 And U. S. contempt by publi- recent cases in this Court involving cation no meaning danger likewise have if imminent peril national is the criterion.12 On contrary, however, right public protected conduct, though evils even First rights persons Amendment in groups are thereby some manner infringed, frequent has received and con recognition by sistent have this Court. We noted that the blaring sound truck invades privacy home may drown out who others towish be heard. Kovacs v. 77 Cooper, (1949). pa 336 U. S. The unauthorized rade through city by a religious political group streets disrupts may prevent traffic and discharge of the most essential obligations government. of local Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 (1941). U. S. 574 The exercise of particular First rights may Amendment the face fly public interest health children, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 (1944), U. S. 158 or of the whole community, Massachusetts, Jacobson v. 197 11 U. S. (1905), and it be offensive to the moral standards Reynolds community, States, v. United 98 U. S. Beason, 145 (1878); Davis v. S. (1890). 133 U. 333 And obligation provide Government’s public efficient service, Mitchell, United Public Workers v. S. 75 U. (1947), and its interest the character of members of Summers, In bar, (1945), U. S. 561 re sometimes upon admit of rights limitations set out the First Giboney Co., Amendment. And v. Empire Storage see 12Bridges California, (1941); Pennekamp v. S.U. v. Florida, (1946); Harney, Craig (1947). 328 U. S. 331 U. S. 367 held that have never (1949). 499-501 We U. S. plain. is As Mr. The

such are absolute. freedoms reason liberties, guaranteed put it, “Civil Hughes Chief Justice organized an existence of by Constitution, imply the the liberty which society maintaining public order without unrestrained abuses.” in the excesses of itself would be lost supra at 574. Hampshire, Cox v. New of the interest particular regulated conduct is When indirect, in an con- public order, regulation and the results duty of the speech, the abridgment of ditional, partial in- .conflicting two is which of these courts to determine par- protection under greater demands the terests in which high place presented. ticular circumstances you will was think, and speak, assemble as right and is held Rights the Bill by the Framers of held a means and liberty both as today those who value by view with which we must the solicitude end indicates recognize, We must freedoms. personal assertion all too fre- of “conduct” has moreover, regulation authority as cloak employed public quently been re- have been censorship unpopular ideas. We hide we now country that “It not often in this minded speaking stop and candid efforts with direct meet rights on these Modern inroads publication as such. other fac- speaking with some associating come bring the whole regulate so as to which the tor state within official control.”13 attempts protect hand, legitimate the other

On of noxious possible effects from the remote public, not con- direct, active present but from excesses ideologies, bad because interfere duct, presumptively the exer- and, manifestations, restrain some its Reynolds v. United rights. of First Amendment cise Massachusetts, supra; Cox v. States, Prince v. supra; Collins, 323 Jackson, concurring in Justice Thomas Mr. (1945). 516, 547 U.S.

New Hampshire, supra; Giboney v. Empire Storage Co., In supra. essence, problem weighing one probable effects upon statute the free exercise of speech right of and assembly against congres- sional determination that evils strikes are of con- duct which cause substantial harm to interstate commerce and that Communists (h) others identified pose continuing public threats when in interest positions of union leadership. must, therefore, un- We dertake the “delicate and difficult task ... weigh the to appraise circumstances and substantiality of the support reasons advanced in of regulation of the free enjoyment State, rights.” of the Schneider v. 308 U. S. 147, (1939).

V. The “reasons in support regulation” advanced are of weight, considerable opponents even the of (h)9 agreed. They § are far being legis- from “[m]ere preferences or respecting lative beliefs of public matters regulation convenience well support directed [which] personal at activities, other justify but be insufficient to such as rights diminishes the exercise of so vital to the of maintenance democratic institutions.” It should be emphasized Congress, courts, primarily charged with determination of the regulation need for of affecting activities interstate commerce. This Court must, regulation if such personal unduly infringes freedoms, the statute declare invalid under the First opportunities Amendment’s command that for free public discussion be maintained. But insofar as the problem drawing is one of concerning inferences the need regulation particular of of forms conduct con- flicting evidence, position this Court no to substitute judgment its as to necessity of the stat- desirability State, (1939). 147, 161 Schneider v. 308 U. S. v. Public Workers Congress. that of Cf. United

ute for California, Mitchell, Bridges 102. In supra at kinds on particular restrictions supra, we said even appraisal utterances, legislature of if enacted after armor in the need, to this “encased come Court S.U. by prior legislative deliberation.” wrought York, 268 S. 652 at 261. v. New U. Compare Gitlow legislative (1925). The due determination deference upon particular conduct need for restriction forms opinions. expression in this Court’s repeated found has regulations deal compared with ordinances and When of house ing littering with of the streets or disturbance preachers, significance relative holders itinerant problem strikes complexity apparent. at once with their leaders becomes how deal (h)9 is not isolated It must be remembered that problems subject statute divorced from the dealing com peace generally. part It is a some very labor for the plex up by set the Federal Government machinery of labor purpose the encouraging peaceful of settlement be scheme, unions which disputes. statutory Under the of for representatives groups bargaining come collective union of the only members employees represent often unions as or of other nonunion workers members but strong unions to of the to have Because necessity well. individual strong employers, bargain equal terms with rights which, law to required by are sacrifice employees I. Co. them. See J. Case valuable to cases, some Board, of in (1944). 332 The loss v. Labor U. S. results group benefit of the greater for rights dividual representa power in a tremendous increase power with union. is never group tive of the But —the authority part And when derives responsibility. out scales, the exercise thumb on the from Government’s akin, closely private persons becomes power of that itself. by Government respects, its exercise in some Graham v. Firemen, See Brotherhood Locomotive (1949); U. S. 232 Co., Steele v. & Louisville N. R. U. 192 (1944); S. Tunstall v. Brotherhood Locomotive Firemen, 323 S. 210 (1944); Corp. U. Wallace v. Labor Board, 248, 323 U. S. 255 (1944); Railway Mail Associa si, tion v. Cor (1945). 326 U. S. suggest

We do not that labor unions which utilize facilities of the National Labor Relations Board become agencies Government or may regulated as But such. plain Congress when bargaining clothes the representative powers “with comparable pos- to those by legislative sessed body both to create and restrict rights of those whom it represents,”15 the public interest in the good faith power exercise of that is very great.

ofWhat (h) effects of 9 upon the rights speech assembly proscribed by those its terms? The prevent statute does not punish by or criminal sanctions making a speech, any the affiliation with organiza- tion, or holding belief. But as noted, we have fact that no punishment direct restraint or imposed upon speech or assembly does not determine the free speech question. circumstances, Under some indirect “discouragements” have the undoubtedly same coercive upon effect the exercise of First rights Amendment imprisonment, injunctions fines, A requirement taxes. particular that adherents of religious faiths parties wear identifying arm-bands, example, is ob- viously of this nature.

But we have here no which frankly statute is either at suppression dangerous aimed ideas16 nor one 15 Co., (1944). v. 192, Steele Louisville & N. R. 323 S. 202 U. 16 9, supra, Whitney California, Cf. cases cited note and v. (1927); Kansas, (1927); 274 357 v. U. S. Fiske 274 U. S. 380 Stromberg California, Minnesota, (1931); v. v. 283 U. S. 359 Near (1931); Jonge Oregon, (1937); 283 De v. U. S. 697 299 U. 353 S. Lowry, (1937). Herndon v. 301 U. 242 S. regulation of

which, ostensibly aimed at the although conduct, may of arbi- actually “be made the instrument Hague of v. trary suppression expression of free views.” Organization, S. Industrial U. Committee for (1939).17 of There here involved none the elements censorship prohibition of of of in- or the dissemination present mainly formation that were in the cases relied upon attacking “discourage- those the statute.18 The (h) of 9 not proceed, against groups ments” the be- therein, against liefs identified but of only combination 17 Grosjean Co., (1936); Cf. v. American Press 297 U. S. 233 (1945). Collins, Thomas v. 323 U. S. Hampshire, (1941), v.

18 In Cox New S. 569 Mr. Chief U. Hughes, speaking Court, for Justice a unanimous stated the con thought controlling in a number of “In siderations these cases: Griffin, 444], prohibited v. the dis Lovell U. S. the ordinance [303 any any time, any place, kind tribution of literature of at at striking any city manager, permit manner from the thus without a by subjecting very press of at the foundation of the freedom the Hague censorship. v. Industrial to license In Committee for 496], Organization, exercise U. S. the ordinance dealt [307 communicating views; right assembly purpose of of for of of it did make comfort or in the use streets convenience absolutely official action enabled the local standard official but pre opinion would permit on his mere that such refusal refuse a assemblage.’ 'riots, disorderly The ordinance disturbances or vent arbitrary disclosed, created, as an instrument thus the record public said that suppression opinions questions. The court a privilege be made suppression of the cannot ‘uncontrolled official duty in connection with the to maintain order substitute for the 163) State, (p. right.’ Schneider v. U. S. 147] exercise In [308 canvassing at and banned unlicensed com was directed ordinance advocacy any cause, from door views, munication only police to determine door, subject power of a officer to the might might and who be distributed censor what literature 305) Connecticut, (p. U. S. it. In Cantwell 296] distribute [310 religious causes of funds dealt with the solicitation statute religious was a whether the cause an official to determine authorized not, thus establish permit if it was he determined one and to refuse a ing censorship religion.” at 577-578. 312 U. S. a occupancy position

those affiliations or with of of beliefs great power economy country. Congress over the of the harm, direct, has concluded substantial the form of positive action, expected may be from that combination. In this legislation, Congress not did restrain the activities of the as a Party political organization; Communist nor attempt did Compare Virginia to beliefs. stifle West Barnette, Board State Education v. U. S. (1943).19 (h) Section 9 a only touches handful relative of persons, leaving persons great majority of the identified completely affiliations and beliefs free from re- And straint. it leaves those few who are affected free subject to maintain their and only affiliations beliefs possible positions Congress loss which has concluded being injury abused to public of the by members groups. described previously

We have had occasion to consider other regulations statutes and in which the interests involved were, measure, like large those now being considered. In Mitchell, United Public supra, Workers we upheld case,

19 In the Barnette point the Court was careful to out that the sole securing uniformity interest the State was in of belief by compelling prescribed pledge, utterance of a and that refusal comply punishment State order resulted in for both parent appellees and child: “The freedom asserted these does bring rights by any them into collision with asserted other frequently require It is such most individual. conflicts which inter rights vention the State determine where of one end and begin. persons par those of another But the refusal of these ticipate ceremony deny rights does not interfere with or any question do is others to so. Nor there in this case that their peaceable orderly. behavior and The sole conflict between authority rights and power individual. The State asserts public making to condition on prescribed sign access to education profession pun at same time coerce attendance ishing parent right both and child. The latter stand of self- opinion personal determination in matters touch individual attitude.” 319 U. S. at 630-631. Federal employees of the provided which

a statute participate partisan could not Government if right, Amendment activities, concededly a First put was not The decision positions. would retain their privi- is employment a government the upon ground that will. For was withheld at lege to be conferred or regulation "enact a Congress may that not recognized be Negro or shall Republican, that no Jew providing employee or that no federal appointed office, to federal missionary in part any Mass take active shall attend But rational connection work.” at 100. the 330 U. S. objects, and its prohibitions of the statute between the scope of First Amendment abridgment limited of the the efficiency in interest the rights, large public and the found necessi- Congress which had government service, that the statute statute, led us to the conclusion tated the First consistently with Amendment. may stand the Summers, upheld supra, we in In re Similarly, membership to admit to supreme refusal of a state court person ground the sole qualified of its bar an otherwise scruples war would against had that he conscientious any under circumstances. prevent wrong use force not court justices state not, he could so the Since the state constitu- uphold faith to found, good swear militia in time of tion, requires which service law practice him permit that war, we held refusal to its commands Amendment, as did violate the First not Four- Clause of the in the Due Process incorporated Again, Amendment. the relation between teenth required membership bar service obligations limited effect of the war, in time of by the state strong assembly, and the holding upon speech and state’s persons who court has every interest which state thought sufficient of the court were become officers Regents, Hamilton v. See also the state action. justify supra. principle

It contended that the that statutes touching First freedoms must be narrowly Amendment drawn dic- tates a that statute aimed at strikes should make the strikes calling such unlawful but should attempt bring officers, about the removal of union upon with its rights. attendant effect First Amendment think, however, legislative We that judgment protected interstate must be from continuing commerce a permissible threat of strikes such one in this case. The fact injury commerce would interstate accomplished be an fact before sanctions could be applied, possibility large number of such might strikes a time called at of external internal practical and the crisis, difficulties which en- would be countered in detecting illegal activities of kind are this persuasive factors Congress which are not should powerless be to threat, pun- remove the not to limited ishing recently the act. “nothing We said that in the prevents Congress from time acting to Constitution prevent potential injury economy to the national from becoming reality.” a North American Co. v. Securities Commission, & Exchange 686, (1946). 327 U. S. 711 may While this subject statement qualifi- to some cation, it indicates the wide scope congressional power keep from the channels commerce that which would hinder obstruct such commerce.

VI. Previous discussion considered has the constitutional questions raised 9 by (h) they apply as alike to mem- bers of the Communist Party and affiliated organizations persons and to who believe in overthrow of the Gov- by ernment provision force. The breadth of the con- cerning belief overthrow of the Government force would raise additional if questions, however, it were read under might, who

very literally persons to include all belief. any subscribe to that circumstances, conceivable broadly. so no statute But we see reason construe the duty of this Court to and is the power It is within the uncon danger so as to avoid the construe statute in consonance with the stitutionality if it be done Congress Indus legislative purpose. United States United Organizations, 106, 120-121 (1948); U. trial S. Co., U. 407- S. States v. Delaware & Hudson as its (h), Congress In had (1909). enacting § objective protection of interstate commerce proscribe or disturb interference, any direct not intent bring within Its was to purpose beliefs as such. manifest beliefs only persons whose terms the statute those strikes engage a will to strongly indicate officers, as when, direct and other forms of action purpose is congressional direct union activities. he does clause, “that served if we construe the therefore any or supports a member of in, not believe and is not teaches, the overthrow organization that believes or by force Government of the United States persons apply methods,” illegal unconstitutional in violent overthrow who believe organizations under the Con presently exists as it the Government Con merely prophecy. objective, stitution be persons who find might well that such gress —those of the present form the Government that of lieve illegal force or other changed by should be United States objective into their conduct carry that methods —would designed strikes by calling affairs of union people, whether American weaken and divide the near to be of the Government actual overthrow consider intended persons (h) those § It is to that or distant. therefore, hold, that only them. We apply, objective in is belief (h) in 9 a the belief identified or unconstitutional by by any illegal force or of overthrow methods of the Government of the United States as now exists under the Constitution and laws thereof. provision think construed,

As thus we that the “belief” presents problem present from the oath no different that in part having membership that of the section to do with Party. agree in that one the Communist Of course we may imprisoned not or par- be executed because he holds “thought ticular beliefs. But to man attack the straw ignore control” is to the fact that sole effect one who in upon statute believes overthrow the Govern- deny ment force and violence —and his does not belief— may is that a relinquish position he be forced to his union leader. That fact in was crucial our discussion of the statute as it in membership relates to the Com- Party. quote, pertinent munist To an substitutions, apt principle, post, p. statement of that 434: “The Act suppress does or outlaw in overthrow [belief Government], prohibit nor it or hold who [those engaging any activity aboveboard .... belief] No individual is forbidden to or a philosophi- be to become cal in overthrow of aor full- [believer Government] fledged group member of which holds that No [a belief]. penalized one is for writing speaking in favor of [such a philosophy. Also, or its require the Act does not belief] or forbid anything any whatever to person merely because he believer overthrow [a Government applies only It to one who becomes officer force]. of a labor union.”

If the principle that one under may no circumstances required any subject state his beliefs on nor suffer right privilege the loss because of his beliefs be a one, application valid its possible other situations Suppose, becomes relevant. example, that federal provides person statute no become member protect Secret Service assigned force the President he unless swears he does not believe assassination Congress, of power beyond Is this the of the President. An by investigations? its revealed the need whatever un- reason hardly commends itself to answer affirmative into Rights Bill has been converted less, indeed, the 1,S. Chicago, 337 U. pact.” Terminiello a “suicide example chosen is opinion). Yet the (1949) (dissenting absurdity of the manifest only far-fetched because can have a One an oath in upon such situation. reliance in the process selection screening no doubt deeper probes far than positions persons occupy such oath-taking possibly can do. mere on the other permissible, is that such oath To hold which one admit under hand, is to that the circumstances which consequences to state his belief and asked is a par- or his disclosure from his refusal do so flow dif- for the difference. The reason ticular make belief First, pointed length out at above. has been some ference life or particular position is not the loss the loss of the distinction is one liberty. have noted We of the stat- it this reason that the effect degree, and is for restraining in effect beliefs—like its proscribing ute carefully be of association —must freedom speech determining balance courts whether weighed Con- comports of the with dictates by Congress struck (h) as speak §of But it is inaccurate to stitution. beliefs, any “forbidding” holding of “punishing” membership in the Com- punishes it or forbids more than Party. munist ascertaining one’s at

Second, public interest stake zero without automatically assigned at beliefs cannot If it inquiry. circumstances of consideration action, springs to becomes that beliefs are admitted person who asked whether whether the highly relevant is a force he overthrow the Government believes five hundred men at his command thousand general argue To constable. that because latter village or a 410 necessarily

may not be asked the former must his beliefs a to exempt be is to make fetish of beliefs. The answer implication upheld if is the the that this statute “then power government of over beliefs is as unlimited as its power open over conduct and the is to force disclosure way of social, attitudes on all manner of moral and economic, political p. issues,” post, 438, is that that result does not 20 follow giv- “while this Court The circumstances sits.” ing rise inquiry, then, to the are likewise factors be to the weighed by courts, giving course, due to the weight, congressional judgment In concerning short, the need. problem balancing the conflicting the individual and na- tional problem interests involved is no different from the presented by proscriptions upon political based affiliations. a

Insofar as distinction between beliefs and is upon based in affiliations absence act” “overt relevant, the it if case, all, former is in at connection with problems proof. In proving that one falsely swore Knox, (1928) (dis Panhandle Oil Co. v. U. S. senting opinion). The Holmes, words of Mr. Justice while written concerning very problem, rereading a different are well worth in this connection: right. to say

“It seems me that the State Court was I should plainly right, but for the effect certain dicta of Chief Justice Marshall which in upon culminated or rather were founded his often quoted proposition power power destroy. that the to is tax to recognized days In it not today those was as it is that most of the degree. distinctions of the law are distinctions If the States had any power they it power, was assumed that all had necessary altogether. deny alternative was to But this Court attempt which so ways often has defeated the to tax in can certain attempt an go defeat to discriminate or otherwise too far without wholly abolishing power power tax. The tax not the power destroy power while this Court sits. to fix rates is power destroy unlimited, if but this Court while it endeavors prevent fixing prevent confiscation does not of rates. A tax regulation every an unconstitutional case where absolute prohibition Reardon, of sales would be one. Hatch U. S. 152, 162.” Party joining Communist, act of he is not swearing he does

is crucial. Proof that one lied force, of the Government not believe overthrow of his mental state. hand, proof must consist other To that extent differ. recognize that difference, however, is but to

To state the directly, objective proved facts the state while says things must he man’s mind be inferred “as- agree Of that the courts cannot course we does. the had no outward manifesta- thought that has certain juries day pass upon knowl- every But courts and tion.” of having and intent —the men’s edge, belief state minds — than of their them no more evidence words before experience, human men- conduct, which, ordinary Evidence Wigmore, tal be See 2 may condition inferred. seq. 256 et swearing signing (3d ed.) False 244, §§ state must, where mental the affidavit as other cases manifestations of issue, proved by outward is be the manifestations, In such state of mind. the absence the joining acts” as the act which are much “overt prosecution can no Party, Communist there be successful swearing.21 for false prob- surrounding

Considering the circumstances con- congressional judgment deference lem—the due affecting inter- regulation the need for of conduct cerning upon rights state and the effect of the statute commerce assembly (h) and belief —we conclude that 9 speech, 21 ordinarily only of mind relevant While it is true that state is of, to, quality some overt determines the when it is incidental (1934); (but Regents, In re Sum v. 293 U. S. cf. Hamilton act (1945)), mers, not be overlooked that the fact must U. S. issue, Wigmore, Evidence in such cases a distinct mental state may (3d 266, may not ed.) “overt act” be which the §§ by surrounding a any proof. example, physical death For facts may finding of as murder. shooting as consistent with a accident proved by Wilfullness, premeditation therefore be malice and must apart shooting. wholly from the act of evidence Act, Labor Relations as amended National unduly Management Act, 1947, Labor Relations does not infringe protected by freedoms First Amendment. who, found, has would Congress Those so subvert public because, all at escape regulation interest cannot they time, carry legitimate political same activities. Chrestensen, Cf. 52 (1942). Valentine 316 U. S. To encourage displace great from positions unions them power economy, over the national while at the same time leaving free which pursue legiti- the outlets persuasion mate activities of and advocacy, does not seem to us purposes contravene the of the First requires Amendment. That per- Amendment that one be mitted to It requires believe what he will. that one be permitted to advocate he what will unless there a clear and present danger that public a substantial evil will result therefrom. It does require per- that he be mitted to be keeper of the arsenal.

VII. There remain two contentions which merit discussion. (h) One is that 9§ is unconstitutionally vague. The other is that it violates the mandate I, of Art. 9 of § the Constitution that “No Bill of post Attainder or ex Law passed.” facto shall be

The argument as to vagueness stresses the breadth of such “affiliated,” terms as “supports” and “illegal or un- constitutional methods.” There is little im- doubt that agination conjure up can hypothetical cases in which the meaning of these terms will be in question. ap- nice The plicable standard, however, wholly is not one of consistent definition academic of abstract It is, rather, terms. practical criterion of fair notice those to whom the stat- ute is directed. The particular important. context is all

The only punishment criminal specified ap- is the plication (A) §of 35 Criminal 18 Code, U. S. C. 1001, § which covers only those false statements made

413 criminal in question willfully.” “knowingly and must affidavit a non-Communist involving prosecution good in faith affiant acted whether therefore support beliefs, affiliations, concerning his lied knowingly vice constitutional And since etc. organizations, injustice is the indefinite statute vague in nature offense, the for an him on trial placing accused punish- warning, fact fair given no of which he knowledge to acts done ment is restricted objection untenable. makes this the statute contravene Hagen, v. States out United pointed As this Court upon mind willful (1942), “A intent U. S. 524 314 surprised innocence.” Cf. is inconsistent with evasion Idaho, Hygrade (1918); 246 S. 343 v. U. Omaechevarria Sherman, (1925); 266 S. 497 Screws v. v. U. Provision Co. States, (1945). considering, 325 U. S. Without United the words used therefore, whether circumstances other unconstitutionally vague in 9 (h) would render statute indefinite, (A) think that that under 35§ we the fact interpretation honest, no of the Criminal Code untainted punishable possibility removes the of those words is infirmity. constitutional argument

The unions’ bill of attainder cites the Lovett, cases, familiar v. United States 328 U. S. 303 Garland, (1946); parte (1867); Cum- Ex Wall. Missouri, mings (1867). Wall. Those cases also, this according argument, proscrip- to the involve occupations tion of a group according certain classified loyalty. belief and But is a there decisive distinction: previous in the decisions the individuals involved were being punished past fact in this actions; whereas they subject case possible only are to of position loss be- is ground there congressional cause substantial for the judgment loyalties that their beliefs and will be trans- course, history formed into conduct. Of the future past conduct is the foundation for judgment the as what not alter be; future conduct is but that does likely (h) prevent conclusion that is intended future § past than to punish action rather action. emphasized by

This distinction is the fact mem- that (h) groups bers those identified in § free serve any union if at officers time renounce the alle- giances which constituted signing bar to the affidavit conduct, past. actual or Past threatened their previous adherence to affiliations and mentioned in beliefs (h), resumption position. is not bar to In § upon by cases relied hand, the unions on the other this Court emphasized that, disqualifica- has since the basis tion past loyalty, was action or nothing persons that those proscribed by its terms could ever do change would result. Lovett, See v. United States supra, p. 314; at Missouri, Cummings supra, p. at 327. Here in- tention tois forestall future dangerous acts; there is no one may not, by who a voluntary loyal- alteration of the impel ties which him to action, eligible become to sign the affidavit. We cannot conclude that this is a section bill of attainder.

In argument their point, on this unions seek some advantage from to English history references pertinent to a religious test oath. experience That is written into our Constitution in following provision of Article VI: Representatives “The Senators and mentioned, before and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all judicial executive and Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no re- ligious Test shall ever required Qualification as a or public Office Trust under the United States.” It that obvious not all oaths abolished; were the mere fact 9 (h) oath form hardly rises to the stature of a objection. constitutional All was forbidden was a “religious Test.” We do think the oath that falling as within be taken rightly can here involved category. requirement permits the Constitution

Clearly itself. uphold the Constitution officeholders oaths unwilling take is that implication those The obvious For public to be barred from office. an oath are such Con- forth in the specific oath was set President, detailed II, Congress 1. And has § stitution itself. Art. Fram- Obviously, the an for other federal officers.22 oath of an the exaction thought ers of the Constitution that was loyalty minimal to the Government affirmation of free- deprivation individual price worth the whatever All we need hold was involved. dom of conscience mold of oath (h) of 9 into the casting § is here if it is otherwise constitutional. it, not invalidate does Rela- (h)9 the National Labor conclude that § We Management Rela- Act, as amended the Labor tions compatible with 1947, construed, herein Act, tions as judgments stand. the Federal Constitution are therefore below the courts Affirmed. and Mr. Mr. Justice Clark Douglas, Mb. Justice part in the no consideration Minton took Justice cases. decision of these in the Court's concurring Frankfurter,

Mr. Justice except VII. opinion as to Part in the United “Scarcely any political question arises early de as States,” perceptive Tocqueville observed later, resolved, into as “that is not sooner or 1835, (Brad- judicial Democracy America 280 question.” 1948). ley expected And so it was to be ed. more dividing the world conflict of ideas now founded would than since this nation was pervasively adjudication by for this Court. give rise to controversies 23 Stat. S. C. 16. U. judicial “The Power” which alone this Court operation only into invested comes issues that long history appropriate tradition of our has made disposition by judges. questions prop- When such are erly they disposed here are to be of within those strict legal reasoning laymen confines of which deem too often invidiously technical. This to justiciable restriction is- in disposed sues to be the unrhetorical manner of opinion-writing respect by judiciary reflects the for its limited, however in very great, proper function the dis- authority political tribution of in our so as to scheme avoid autocratic rule. No doubt issues now like those us completely political before cannot be severed from the and emotional context out of which emerge. For adjudication very reason touching such matters go should not one whit beyond the immediate issues decision, requiring support and what is said adjudication should insulate the as as Court far is ration- possible from ally the legal conflict beneath the issues.

The problem presented by central the enactment now power challenged part the of Congress, as of its com- prehensive peace, keep scheme for industrial to Com- positions munists out of controlling in labor as unions opportunities condition to utilizing by afforded Act, the National Labor Relations as amended by Management Act, Wrapped up Labor Relations 1947.1 1 (h) requires seeking Section each officer a union to invoke machinery Management the Labor Relations Act to submit Party an affidavit “that he is not a member the Communist or party, in, affiliated with such and that he does not believe and is supports any organization not a member or that believes teaches, overthrow the United States Government force any illegal or unconstitutional methods.” 61 Stat. III) (h). (Supp. provisions U. C. S. of what is now 18 § 1001, formerly (A) Code, U. S. C. made Criminal are § applicable respect to such affidavits. of our democratic great concerns problem in this two and social society of association for economic right —the political pur- for right of association and the betterment Congress the deny day It is too late poses. far-flung in all promote peace industrial power to end, Congress To that commerce. of interstate range protect interstate com- measures appropriate take fairly related to disruptive not conduct against merce framework. within our democratic industrial betterment merely political thought thing forbid heretical It is one thing It a different thought. quite as heretical another attempts bring about to restrict Congress appeal to reason and society, through scheme of democracy pursued through- has been use of ballot effort to dis- an associated history, through our but out rupt industry. upon inroads stated, it would make undue

Thus deny right it the power Congress of to policy-making country by exclud- peace of the protect to the industrial avail which seek to leadership trade unions ing machinery Management the Labor themselves of the against for action those who are united Relations Act Congress is because process. This so not our democratic subject it to condition facility can affording sorts may It withhold all pleases. Congress it cannot. them it can- but if it affords of facilities a better life way obviously arbitrary in an make them available purpose unrelated to the surrender of freedoms exact for certain surely provide can Congress of the facilities. on the responsibility clearly qualifications relevant machinery invoking the of trade unions part of leaders The essen- Management Relations Act. of the Labor may determine Congress now is whether question tial membership in the Communist of union officers peace- to the hazard Party creates such obvious machin- access to the promoting Act that purposes ery may prefer the Act be denied unions which their freedom to have officers who are Communists to their opportunities under the Act. dealing conflicting

When we are with freedoms, we are on the us, dealing large issues before we with concepts that readily explosive too lend to themselves rhetoric. We are also which dealing as to matters in phrasing different nuances the same conclusion lead emphasis thereby different eventually lead to different in slightly conclusions different situations. point From view my these are issues as which it would desirable for the members Court write full-length opinions. individual Court’s business being our time it precludes what this. It must suffice for me say judgment Congress trade unions guided by which are officers who are committed of membership ties to the Party Communist forego must the advantages of the Labor Management Relations Act reasonably accomplishment related to the pur- poses which Congress constitutionally a right had pursue. deny To that that is a judgment which Congress may, as of experience, matter enforce even though it involves upon the indicated restrictions freedom would be to requirement make na'iveté a judges. Since the Court’s opinion, main, expresses in the point of view I very inadequately which have I sketched, join except qualified as in what follows.

Congress was concerned with it justifiably what deemed to be the disorganizing purposes of Communists who hold positions power of official unions, labor or, at least, what it might well deem their lack of disinterested devo- tion to the basic tenets of the American trade union movement of a higher loyalty because to a potentially conflicting Congress cause. But did not merely choose to limit the freedom of labor unions which seek the of the advantages Labor Management Relations toAct mem- disavow willing are not who by officers led be ' legis- scope of its Party. Communist bership more extensive. much lation was deal purposes, may its to effectuate order Legislation, a mis- incidence of immediate beyond the radiations with scope of is within the mischief particular If a chief. must be allowed wide discretion power, congressional is not effectively. It with it dealing for Congress narrowly too Congress to restrict this Court business of How of remedies. or the nature the extent defining effective; the reach will be evil, what remedies curb scope appropriate therefore evil and particular of a main matters' are in the it—all these remedy against of a judicial open not condemnation. policy of legislative in devis- specific restrictions course, some are, There may policy what its notions of No matter remedies. ing Congress example, for bars Amendment, be, Eighth I do punishments.” and unusual inflicting “cruel Congress ask arguable even could suppose their ballots at how union officers cast disclosure of ballot presidential though election even the secret the last relatively Wigmore, institution. See The Aus- is a recent System 3, 15, (1889). Congress So tralian Ballot also keep process” within the contours of the “due must Amendment, vague the Fifth are. requirement of be Congress In order to a mischief cannot so indefi- curb requirements nite in its that effort to them raises meet hazards unfair to those who seek or involves obedience fairly surrender of freedoms which what exceeds scope These of legis- exacted. restrictions on the broad merely application lative discretion are the law’s homely baby saws that one not throw should out the the bath or burn house in pig. order to roast the my

In Congress view has cast its too indiscrimi- net nately in provisions some of (h). To ask one in, avowal that “does not believe and is not a member supports or in . . organization believes . the overthrow of United States by any Government ... illegal unconstitutional methods” is to ask assurances regarding open men matters that door too wide speculation to mere or uncertainty. It asking more than be rightfully may ordinary asked men to take oath that a method is not or “illegal” “unconstitutional” constitutionality when or legality is frequently deter- by mined this Court the chance single of a vote.2 It difficulty does not meet the to suggest that the hazard prosecution of a perjury great for is not since the con- perjury victions for must be founded willful falsity. on suggest might To that a judge justified not in allowing be go case to to a or that jury, jury justified would not be in convicting, or that, possible happening of these events, appellate compelled court would to reverse, be or, finally, that resort could be had to this Court for review on a petition certiorari, for affords safeguards too Utah, tenuous to neutralize danger. Musser v. See 333 U. S. 95. The hazards that were found to be fatal to the legislation York, under review v. Winters New 333 U. appear S. trivial comparison with what is here involved.

It is prosecution the hazard of merely perjury dependent on a correct determination to the implications of a man’s belief or the belief of others with whom he be in an organization associated concerned with political and social issues. It should not be assumed will lightly oaths taken; fastidiously scrupulous regard for them encouraged. should be Therefore, becomes most relevant whether an oath which Congress asks men to may may take not be thought to touch scope toAs the dubious statute, term “affiliated” see Wixon, Bridges U. S. 135. compulsory avowal subjected to may that not be matters uncertainty of the reach In disbelief. of belief or because of con- an oath one withhold (h), § disclosure beliefs whose scruples that it covers scientious scruples a man has exact. If not in terms Congress could to whether uncertainty taking an oath because about inviolate, the sur- that are it beliefs encompasses some ambiguity is invited render of abstention opin- exaction. As congressional Jackson’s Justice Mr. thoughts trenches indicates, probing into men’s ion rightly we freedom which of individual aspects those Western civiliza- aspects of as the most cherished regard of our civilization article of faith tion. cardinal A man can of the individual. is the inviolate character as a function of individual and not be as an regarded possible only protected largest if he is the state the citadel and in his beliefs as thoughts extent in his justified, that can person. Entry into citadel his a that that strictly if if the belief all, only at confined so fair as to leave no reveal is defined man is asked to so what he to disclose room for doubt that he not asked to withhold. right has that than I do strongly

No one could believe more be made favor every indulgence rational should I constitutionality by Congress. of an enactment possible limits go to farthest duty my deem Con finding to avoid construing legislation as so g., e. See, powers. limits of its exceeded the gress has Lovett, Shapiro 303, 318, United States v. 329; S. U. O., C. I. States, States v. United v. United 1, 36; 335 U. S. 106, 124, 129. S.U. possibly could, questions to avoid of unconsti- If I requirements (h) I construe the of 9 tutionality would membership in to disavowal of actual be restricted Party, organization or in an the Communist belief, or of active Party cover for that fact a controlled present as a policy, matter overthrow of the Government But what United States force. Congress permit has written a gloss does not such nor Cong Eng deletion what it has written. See Yu Trinidad, I 271 U. S. 500. it within cannot deem rightful authority of Congress probe opinions into only involve an argumentative demonstration of parallelism some coincidental of belief some of the policy beliefs of those who direct the of the Communist Party, though without any allegiance to it. require To oaths as open up possibilities to matters that such invades the inner life of men whose compassionate thought or hopes doctrinaire any be as far dan- may removed gerous kinship the Communist creed as were those of present political parties founders orthodox in this country. provisions offensive (h)9 leave unaffected, §

however, portions the valid In the section. Con- gress express has made provision for such severance. Since the judgments in below were based part what I deem unconstitutional requirements, I cannot affirm but give would remand to opportunity obey merely the portions valid (h). 9§

Mr. Justice Jackson, and concurring dissenting, each part. If the statute before required us labor union officers membership forswear Republican in the Party, Party Democratic or the Socialist I Party, suppose all agree that it would be why, unconstitutional. But if it is valid as to the Party? Communist

The answer, me, is in the decisive differences be- tween the Communist Party every and other party of any importance in the long experience of the United States with party government. In order today’s decision precedent not be as useful for suppression any institutions, with our free compatible

political opposition explicitly grounds and distinctions I limit concurrence to Act regard I should this herein, without which set forth as unconstitutional. impor- both controlling definitively

To criteria state Party difficult, Communist activi- tant and because those closely resemble those public ties visible out, or are often Parties, whether office party. other speech freedoms of in their use and abuse of irresponsible unpopular per- They scapegoats all make press. sincerity promises make of dubious or classes and sons parties, win All when feasibility order to votes. Govern- and embarrass the opposition, strive to discredit untruths day spreading exaggerations ment unreasoning discontent, inciting prejudiced and by injure prestige among the Nation’s hesitating even at least out- Party, of nations. The Communist family political tech- only exaggerates these well-worn wardly, just of it many persons led to think niques are thus political party. nothing If were radical another more that, legislation I think would be unconstitu- but this however, between what are, contradictions tional. There my which, in eye covertly done, what meets upon issues, provide a which view of the rational basis reasonably have concluded1 that could Congress any Party something fact Communist different may known, hence party we have other substantial something different in law. be treated as constitutionally 1 express any or course, it for member of this Court to Of is not wisdom, any opinion may effectiveness upon he have as to the to act legislative legislation. “inquiries, where the or need of this Our whether judgment question, be restricted to the issue is drawn must reasonably be assumed or which state facts either known could Co., Products support United affords for it.” States Carotene 144, 154. 304 U. S.

424

I. From information before its several Committees and general from facts of knowledge, Congress could ration- ally that, conclude behind party its fagade, the Party conspiratorial Communist is a and revolutionary junta, organized to reach ends and to use which methods incompatible are with our system. constitutional A compressed rough and grouping this data2 per- would mit Congress to draw important these its conclusions distinguishing characteristics. 2 unnecessary It is comprehensive to set compendium out Congress may

materials which considered, could have or to review the voluminous evidence before its Committees, several much of already which is opinion. referred in the Court’s Most of this information would be admissibility credibility of doubtful in a judicial proceeding. persuasiveness, validity credibility Its for legislative purposes Congress, 1, for supra. see n. I no intimate opinion sufficiency purposes toas its of a criminal trial. subject An introduction the literature on the be found in: Fuchs, Challenge Cohen and Constitution, Communism’s and the Q. 182; Moore, Party A., Cornell L. 34 Communist the U. S. 31; Timasheff, 39 Am. Rev. Pol. Sci. The Schneiderman Case—Its Aspects, 209; Note, Georgetown Political Ford. L. Rev. L. J. 405, 411-418; Helfeld, Loyalty Among Emerson & Government Em ployees, 1, 61-64; Jones, Program Yale L. J. Donovan & For a Democratic Counter Attack to Communist Penetration Government Service, Notes, 1211, 1215-1222; Yale L. J. and see 48 Col. L. Rev. 381; 85; 253; 96 L. Rev. L. 23 Notre U. Pa. Stanford Rev. Dame Lawyer 577; 34 Va. L. Rev. 450. (1948) Mills, 186-200; also The New Men Power Leven See Manage

stein, Today (1945) Teller, 159-177; Labor and Tomorrow Smith, Bargaining (1947) 401-410; ment Functions under Collective (1946) 63-67, 79-82; Taft, Spotlight 40-43, Eco Labor Unions (1948) 499-501, 722; Saposs, Labor nomics and Problems Left Bryan (1937) (1926) Wing 48-65; Foster, From to Stalin Unionism (1940) in La 334-395; 275-277; Gitlow, I The Communist Confess York, America, Today (Research New Institute of bor Relations Liberties, 28, 1946); Baldwin, and Civil Union Administration March (U. Dept. of 1947, 54, 59; Abroad, No. 5 S. Dec. 248 Annals Labor powers is to Party seize goal Communist 1. of minority rather than a government and of It a power through the vote electorate. acquire of free or of Con- change administration, of merely seeks not within constitutional legislation or reform gress, prop- merely to socialize program Its is not framework. parties extensively than other erty rapidly more and parties other difference between While the doing. pace, the Communist as to largely in these matters is one of direction. Party’s difference only with seizure program begins The Communist impose upon then a means government, which becomes op- principles fundamentally society organization It by our Constitution. posed presupposed those political and purposes our whole social forcibly to recast police-state dic- the Muscovite model of structure after her- rejects religious and cultural tatorship. It the entire civilization, American eco- as well as the itage Western movement political systems. Communist nomic and This American Revolu- counter-revolution belated Independence, tion, undo the designed to Declaration and Rights, Bill of overturn Constitution, and our free, self-government. system representative our tradition and to American so extreme offensive Goals ap- aspiration obviously could not attained If, by their tranquility. or with proached through order successful, were discipline, organization better it would be to an admit that more candid Communists Statistics) Abroad, No. Labor, Labor Feb. 3; of Labor Bureau Statistics) 1-3; (U. Dept. Labor, Postwar Bureau of Labor S. (U. Dept, Italy, Monthly S. Labor Review Labor Movement Statistics) story American Labor, 49. For the Bureau of Labor (2d ed., 1945); Binkley, Parties parties American Political see (2d 1891); and on the Bryce, ed. rev. The American Commonwealth Odegard cited, Party, above to materials addition Communist (1938) 795-797. Helms, Politics American accompaniment but at violence, they the same time responsibility disclaim by blaming upon the violence those reprisal. who in resistance or engage It matters little by whom the first blow would be struck; no one can an doubt that era of violence and oppression, confisca- liquidations tions and would be regime concurrent with a of Communism. goals up a cleavage

Such set us among too fundamental composed to be by processes. democratic Our constitu- tional of elections scheme will not settle issues between large groups when the price of losing to suffer extinc- tion. When dissensions deeply, cut too men fight, will hopelessly, they even before will submit.3 And this is the kind struggle projected by the Communist Party and inherent program. its

3Such is view society, of students of Western with outlook opposed so as Lord Balfour and Harold Laski. Balfour wrote: alternating though

“Our Cabinets, belonging parties, to different have never differed about the of society, foundation and it is evident political machinery that presupposes our whole people so fundamen- tally they at one bicker; can afford to and so sure of their own they dangerously moderation by are not disturbed the never- ending May always din of conflict. be so.” Preface English Bagehot’s World’s Classics Constitution, edition p. xxiii. Laski commented: interesting passage [citing

“In an Lord Balfour above] has drawn attention to the fact that the success of the British Con- stitution in Century the Nineteenth adding general is worth —it government of representative success upon agreement built —was parties upon between principles. the state fundamental There was, is, a upon large issues; kindred fighting outlook and since comparative detail, was confined to prepared matters men were sway reason its let have the realm of sig- conflict. For it is depth feeling nificant that in one realm passionate— where was rapidly Irish home moved sword; rule —events the test of the and the made was effected settlement violence and not reason.” Laski, Liberty State, in the Modern 238. rule,

If we substitute the Civil War for Irish home these statements applicable England. become as to the United States as American Party among alone 2. The Communist by controlled parties past is dominated present satrap which, to party It is a foreign government. into betrayal disorder, adds the threat threat of civil alien hands. Ameri- Kremlin to the

The chain of command from the usually invisible, but it party stoutly can denied and Communist unmistakably the American was disclosed in the with synchronism in shifts Party somersaulting Munich, policy Soviet foreign policy. Kremlin’s Before Communists was anti-German —“anti-fascist”—and con- However, Stalin country in likewise. when this were and pact with Hitler Nazi Ger- nonaggression cluded war, in partners many and the Soviet Union became everything power within their here did the Communists ren- policy States’ and embarrass the United retard by that aggression of war dering aid short to victims and partners again fell out those partnership. evil When anti-German, Com- more became policy Russian once and abrupt an fierce re- country made munists this in their demands and were unconscionable versal they delayed soldiers, had and equipment whose American in a front sabotaged, premature second be sacrificed Communists, like Communists American spare Russia. demand above world, placed Moscow’s elsewhere every patriotic interest. will composition Party and the Communist

By lineage The control. susceptible this alien peculiarly remain program, grievances, of Communism —its apparatus entire for vocabulary and evolved Eastern propaganda —were political whose social and condi- Europe, Central gifted own. However no semblance to our tions bear Party’s founders may have been the Communist Lenin and Stalin —not one Marx, Engels, leaders — experienced conditions, America, our them ever lived spirit of our institutions. Communist or imbibed Party country not native to beginnings this its here were not effort of Americans to prob- answer American response quest by lems. Nor is American political European for lessons from experiences. leaders a consequence, As leaders the American Com- Party person- munist have been otherwise insignificant personal alities, aptitudes without followings or our political methods, adapted by training only way boring minority their into the labor movement, groups and coteries of naive liberals, and confused whose organizations they captured have and discredited and among whom wait lie for further orders.

The Old World be rich in lessons which our states- advantage. men could thing consult But it is one to from or a support learn foreign power because that policy serves interests, American and another to thing support policies they American because will foreign serve country interests.4 In each where the Communists have control, they seized so have foreign denationalized its policy as to make ait satellite and vassal of the Soviet Union policy and enforced domestic in complete con- formity with pattern, the Soviet tolerating no deviation any people’s deference separate to history, tradition or national interests. compare against To attacks against Thomas Jefferson with attacks generally g. Dennis, Communist leaders —as Communists do [e. (1947) People

Let meaningful only Know 13] if his —would comparable character and motives were to those the Commu nist leaders. When we consider that Jefferson was the author Virginia’s Religious Liberty, Statute was war Governor of Vir ginia, sign Independence, risked his life to the Declaration was Secretary Washington’s of State in President Cabinet and became through President of the United States the influence of Alexander Hamilton, sacrilegious sup it seems to liken Jefferson’s motives porting phases policy allegiance certain of French with Communist to the Kremlin. are calculated means

3. and undemocratic Violent to attain the Communist methods indispensable and expect na'iveté incredible Party’s goal. It would be only forego of this movement American branch anywhere has come Party by methods which Communist dominates In now power. not one of the countries into aby free or contestible chosen Party was Communist by it be election. election; in not one can evicted crept has over Eastern police state The international d’etat, and coup terrorism Europe by deception, coercion, and overpowered its critics only Not has it assassination. Ameri- liquidated them. The usually it has opponents; copied organizational struc- Party has can Communist been schooled the same tech- and its leaders have ture tutors. by and the same nique imported the totali- American Communists have techniques, notwith- disciplines and organization’s tarian them and other standing country that this offers the fact by way peaceful revolution elements a discontented citizens, they persuade enough If ballot.5 can inaugurate policies, new name new only officials they can abolish Constitution, but, amendment of the government Rights up Bill absolute set press speech, liberties legal given methods. They their present people assembly them to enable lawful peaceful and proposals propaganda and resting their however extreme. But instead changes, in their appeal inherent upon persuasion and case Party adopts the principles, and the Communist ideas pass- names, forged cabal —false techniques of a secret these it ports, meetings. clandestine To messages, code threatening methods, adds terroristic occasional wrought Changes by those most revolutions resulted as decisive as 1828, 1800, Lincoln in of Jefferson in Jackson from the election and Roosevelt in 1932. 1860.

such as picketing juries, courts and political strikes sabotage.

This cabalism and terrorism is in the understandable light of they what want accomplish and what have to overcome. The program pres- Communist does not ently, nor in foreseeable future elections, commend it- enough self to American politi- voters be a substantial cal force. Unless Party the Communist can obtain some powerful on leverage population, it is doomed to re- main a negligible factor United Hence, States. violence, conspiracy, intimidation and coup d’état are all keep hope alive the Communist breast.

4. sought The Communist Party gain has this lever- age and hold on the American population acquiring control the labor political parties movement. All have wooed labor and its leaders. But what other parties seek principally vote labor. The Com- Party, munist other hand, primarily is not inter- in labor’s vote, ested for it expect does not to win votes. It strives for control of power— labor’s coercive strike, sit-down, slow-down, sabotage, other producing means of paralysis. industrial Congress has legalized the strike as weapon labor’s for improving its own lot. But where Communists have labor control, the strike can be and perverted sometimes is to a party weapon. In 1940 undisclosed Communists used their labor officesto sabotage this Nation’s effort to rebuild its own defenses. Disguised as leaders of free American labor, they partisans were truth secret of Stalin, who, in partnership with Hitler, was overrunning Europe, send- ing honest labor leaders to camps, concentration and re- ducing slavery labor to in every land either them was occupy. important able to other No party in our history attempted has strike foreign use the nullify aor policy adopted domestic by those chosen under our representative system. however, can be obtained usually leverage,

This labor from the union Communist tie only by concealing the American workmen grievances Whatever membership. too intel- employers, they are with American have a Com- remedy through seek a and informed to ligent conscription labor, Party defends Soviet munist which police state. Hence camps and the forced labor the resentment concealment, hence resort Party ties. The compel of Communist laws to disclosure bargaining power, membership likely to entrust its such hands. When treasury and its records, its helpless captive more or less the union finds itself a does, be inter- Party. Its officers cease to of the Communist worsen and grievances but seek to correcting ested strikes than exploit they winning care less for them; disruptive. always They long, bitter knowing even Party line, Communist without follow the promising objectives. its The most course its source or capture Party been the undercover of the Communist has a lever- power strategic labor unions as of the coercive people. power over the American age magnify its agent Party is an Every member the Communist 5. program. What constitutes to execute the Communist United Major political parties States party? organizations. knit closely never or secret have been usually party ticket reckoned Anyone who votes applied for or been member, although he has not membership, pays dues, no has taken no admitted to he Fol- vote, speak free and act as wills. and is pledge, acceptance of together by are held rather casual lowers leaders, influence of and sometimes principles, the general Membership in the power patronage. by the cohesive the member carries with it little assurance party all principles in its and none at or believes understands may quar- One from its leaders. he will take orders and bolt its candidates return party rel with again regular. a were as much member those who And it is often a of grief source those who have labored long vineyard in the arrivals late are taken into party parties the councils from other without scrutiny. course, is of party organization Of when this character, there is little for inference all ground are members party plans committed to or that are agents for their execution.

Membership Party totally the Communist is dif- a Party ferent. The is secret conclave. Members are only upon acceptance admitted as reliable and after policies, indoctrination its to which the member is fully They provided committed. are with cards or cre- usually dentials, issued under false so that names only by Party identification can be made officers of the who pledges hold the code. uncondi- Moreover, each authority. tional obedience to party Adherents are known They secret code names. “cells” constitute factory, office, political society, or the labor union. For any party deviation from the line they are purged excluded. membership

Inferences organization such an justifiably are different from those to be drawn from membership in type the usual Indi- party. viduals who obligations chargeable, assume such conspiracy principles, ordinary with responsibility for and participation in all up Party’s that makes program. The conspiracy principle has traditionally employed been protect society against “ganging up” all or concerted action in violation of its passes laws. term No that this Court does not sustain convictions based on that doctrine for violations antitrust laws or other statutes.6 pains point

6 I taken have out whole doctrine con spiracy presents danger and its abuse to the fair administration States, justice. Concurring opinion, Krulewitch v. United U. S. 445. poli- entered the dialectic

However, recently there has conspiracy application condemn tics a cliché used to by association” is to Communists. “Guilt principle except that epithet explained, used and little frequently “guilt accompanied by slogan, it another generally may be is; personal guilt personal.” Of course but act conspiracy. That of association joining incurred committed responsible for acts others makes one is a wholly question in of It pursuance the association. imply to sufficiency of the evidence association all certainly conspiracy. There is sufficient evidence the Communist allegiance every owe detail of members help duty actively Party program and have assumed a conspiracy could, familiar it, Congress so that execute for responsibility member with principles, charge each Party. and means of goals could Congress then is the which background Such reasonably exerting find its constitutional basis judiciary disregard test- powers, and which the cannot hypothesis may we revert con- ing them. On this unconstitutionality of this of the sideration contention Party of Communist requires as it disclosure oath insofar membership or affiliation.

II. protect power to Congress I has less cannot believe than it Party domination union from Communist labor Court has uncom- employer from domination. This has labor power Congress upheld to disestablish promisingly and to eradi- company-dominated they where unions only through influence, when employer even exerted cate any person not the em- written words which spoken or to utter.7 ployer would be free important upon labor unions has conferred Congress trans- industry, that affect powers and matters rights Collins, in Thomas v. 323 U. S. 548. collected cases See port, communications, Congress commerce. And has any self-government not now union nor pro- denied full any choosing hibited union It from Communist officers. protect doing seeks to union from unknowingly. so And if deliberately put members choose the union the hands of officers, Congress Communist withdraws the assumption privileges it has conferred on the will be devoted to It the welfare of their members. would be strange constitutionally pro- indeed if it powerless were misappro- tect these delegated functions abuse and priation to Party the Communist service Soviet Our Union. Constitution not a covenant organized nonresistance disruption toward efforts at betrayal, or country. either labor a civil-rights free-speech Counsel stress that this is aor a free-press But important case. what to note this Act suppress does do. Act does not outlaw the Party, prohibit Communist it or nor its members from engaging activity aboveboard normal in party struggles political system. under our It continue candidates, to nominate meetings, hold conduct cam- paigns just propaganda, parties and issue may. other individual No is forbidden or a philosophi- to be to become cal or a Communist full-fledged member No Party. one penalized for or writing speaking in favor Party philosophy. Also, or its require Act does not or anything person forbid whatever to any merely be- a of, cause he is with, member affiliated the Com- Party. only It applies munist who one becomes an officer of a labor union.

I am aware that the oath is by many resented labor leaders of unquestioned loyalty suspicion and above connections, Communist who indeed some have them- selves taken bold and steps difficult to rid the labor move- ment I suppose of Communists. no one likes to be com- pelled to exonerate himself connections he has never I must file I acquired. why have sometimes wondered I a get I can my not ear before papers showing did steal are thieves experience But shows there license for it. drivers, and are Communists that there among automobile welfare, identifying public among labor leaders. The dignity. any affront to individual both, outweighs activity is above particular In claims that weighing to do so law, responsibility a high we have the reach nostalgic ideal- present-day actualities, light simpler age. world, organ- for Our own izations valid into liberty, deadly competition ized for has been forced world, are faced organized power. We with another infiltrate and disin- effort to ruthless lawless involving Congress In efforts our cases tegrate society. upon clearly struggle this we are called to deal with Judiciary appointive an rule that long-standing apply democratic produced by the strike down no act should system unless unconstitu- representative of our processes tionality and certain. is clear power to take deny Congress

I that we cannot conclude require Clause to under the Commerce measures these in or membership union to disclose their labor officers Party. affiliation with the Communist III. dis- has, however, required additional Congress serious consti- my view does encounter claimer, which also A union officer must swear objections. tutional of the United in . . . the overthrow does not believe “he uncon- by any illegal force or States Government methods.”8 stitutional lays do not requirements for the oath which down other The Act mem as, example, “is not a discussion, for the clause

require extended teaches, or any organization believes in supports or ber of For reasons by force.” of the United States Government overthrow undoubtedly power have II, Congress I would parts set forth If Congress power any privilege or right has to condition n9 of an upon American citize and disavowal of disclosure obviously belief on it is But the any subject, this one. Congress power proscribe serious issue whether has is opinion belief which has not manifested itself or any overt forepart requires act. While the of oath relationships depend disclosure and disavowal of which afterpart overt acts of or membership affiliation, the demands, opinions, revelation and of or denial mere beliefs they may even ‘though any act never have matured into given whatever or fact, even been utterance. In the oath requires express one to form and conviction on ab proposition stract which if many good citizens, have thought of it all, at have considered too academic and remote to bother about.

That this is question power difference decisive on the becomes when we unmistakable consider measures en- forcement. The only sanction prescribed, probably only possible dealing one with a affidavit, false punishment If perjury. one falsely accused of stating of, he not or was member with, affiliated Party, Communist his depend conviction would upon proof of visible and knowable overt or acts courses of conduct sufficient to establish that relationship. But if falsely one swearing is accused that he did not believe require membership organization disclosure in an which had Party characteristics the Communist or other characteristics gravity. drawn, might, however, of similar apply As this clause membership philosophical in a group. mere discussion part obviously This persons oath was intended to disclose Party members of with the affiliated Communist but who part were a of the undertow of the Communist movement. It was probably suggested by long-standing requirement somewhat is, immigration similar oaths and naturalization matters. There however, analogy Congress no require of aliens as between what may require citizenship a condition of admission or and what of a citizen. revolve believe, trial must really he that did

something candidly exposed he as to whether conjecture around the mind. his state state, mental but inquire as to law does sometimes to, and deter- I incidental far as recall when

only so From of, question. act quality some overt mines the circumstances, must decide whether its courts sometimes its intentionally or whether re- an was act committed was whether the action taken intended, or sults were deliberation, knowledge or with of cer- or after malice, the mind pries the law into But in such cases tain facts. culpability act, of an nature and determine the only to I circumstance, and know aggravating mitigating as a citizen incur civil or no in which a situation infers an disability a court liability or because criminal occurred.10 Our where no act at all has mental state evil inferring for clumsy unsatisfying processes trial but do actions, which are incidental cogitations has had pretend thought to ascertain the not even Attempts of the courts to manifestation. no outward would of an accused modern meditations fathom in the infamous as the efforts be as futile and mischievous religious beliefs. of old to fathom heresy trials precludes explicitly punishment Our Constitution serious of treason, state alone as most malignant mental of adherence mental state political crimes, all of which the duly wit- part. requires It enemy essential enemy. of aid comfort to the overt act nessed States, 1. It is U. S. true Cramer United for treason of olden men were tried England times the death imagining indiscretions such mental end intended to such But our was king. Constitution periods human his- Only in the prosecutions. darkest II, IV, Law, pp. Holmes, III and The Common Lectures See 65-68, seq. 132 et

tory government has itself with Western concerned belief, mischievous, mere however eccentric when it if action; practice has matured into overt in anywhere, survives it is the Communist countries whose philosophies we loathe. sys-

How far we must revert toward these discredited tems if by we to sustain this oath is made vivid the applies Court’s reasoning only that Act to those strongly po- “whose beliefs a will engage indicate in litical .” Congress strikes . . . Since has never outlawed itself, strike the Court be holding must Congress may which, out mere if root ideas even acted upon, would result in paradox not crime. It is a strange if be may one forbidden to have in an idea mind that put apart he is free into execution. But from this, efforts to weed erroneous beliefs from the minds of men have always supported by been argument which the Court invokes today, that beliefs are springs action, that evil thoughts tend to become forbidden deeds. Probably if power so. But power to forbid acts includes to forbid contemplating them, power then of gov- ernment over beliefs is as power unlimited as its over way open conduct and the is to force disclosure of atti- on all manner of social, tudes economic, politi- moral and cal issues.

These be suggestions discounted as fanciful and But farfetched. we must not forget country our are evangelists many and zealots of political, different and religious persuasions economic whose fanatical con- viction thought divinely is that all is classified into two is kinds —that which their own and that which is false dangerous. only Communists are not faction put which would us all in jackets. mental strait Indeed all ideological struggles, religious political, are pri- battles for over marily dominance people. minds of It supposed is not to be age-old readiness to pressure instead

try suppression, minds to convert protection is extinct. Our persuasion, reason whom extremists, fanatics and none of against all kinds of power others, over lies with unlimited can trusted limitations of our forbearance but their Constitution. representative happens that the belief overthrow

It Congress and violence which condi- government force But ágree I erroneous. tionally is one that is proscribes that more any principle “if of the Constitution there imperatively for than other calls attachment who thought free for those principle thought of free —not that we hate.” agree the-thought but freedom us Schwimmer, in United States J., Holmes, dissenting power Moreover, judging 644, U. 654-55. S. ignore deny otherwise, a think we cannot privilege to to in revolu- originated own Government the fact that our by if force legitimate only tion is overthrow and sometimes justified. That circumstances sometimes be an American old justify it doctrine but is Communist belief.11 forcibly overthrow struggle

The who led the to men sup- moral lawfully authority found constituted British a law which their revolu- port by asserting natural under they broadly these justified, proclaimed tion and was our freedom. Such in the document basic to beliefs given ardent and rather ex- have also been sentiments every Nothing pernicious radical more than the idea that is every person a “Com is “Communistic” liberal-minded measure tragedies of time is the confusion between munist.” One of the our friends which both the reform Communism —a confusion to and contributed, failing by to take the one and enemies of reform have Communism the other against Communists and and a clear stand characterizing suggestion of reform as “Com most moderate even the idola Unquestioning as “Communists.” munistic” and its advocates quo characteristic. try been an American of the status has never travagant expression by patrio- Americans of undoubted tism.12 Most these utterances were a against directed tyranny which no way change by left to It suffrage. perversion a seems to meaning them, me of their to quote as the Communists often do, sanction violent attacks upon representative a government which does afford such means. But I think Congress may while make it crime 12 surprising A catalogue of compiled. statements could be The following Mencken, Dictionary Quota are selected from A New tions, government under the rubric “Revolution”:- “Whenever [life, liberty becomes destructive of pursuit these ends and the happiness] right people it, to alter or abolish government, laying to institute a new its prin foundations on such ciples, organizing powers in form, its such as them shall likely safety happiness.” seem most to effect their Thomas Jefferson, Independence, July 4, The Declaration 1776. “The community indubitable, inalienable, right hath and indefeasible reform, government, alter or abolish in such be manner shall community judged public most conducive weal.” Pennsylvania Rights, Declaration of 1776. “It is an observation profoundest inquirers of one of the into human affairs that a revo government strongest proof given by lution of can people good Adams, Diary, of their virtue and sense.” John 1786. country preserve can “What its liberties if their rulers are not people preserve spirit time warned from to time that their Jefferson, resistance? Let them take arms.” Thomas Letter Smith, oppressed people W. S. 1787. “An Nov. are authorized Henry Clay, can to rise and whenever break their fetters.” Representatives, Speech 4,1818. “Any people the House of March anywhere, being having right power, inclined and the the to have up government existing off rise and shake the and form a new one Lincoln, Speech suits better.” Abraham in the House that them recognize right Representatives, of “All the of 1848. men revolu to, is, right allegiance resist, to refuse and to the tion: that inefficiency great government tyranny and when its or its are unen Thoreau, Essay Disobedience, An on H. D. Civil 1849. durable.” institutions, belongs people to country, “This with its who in weary government they grow existing shall of habit it. Whenever right amending it, they their of or their can exercise constitutional Lincoln, right revolutionary or overthrow it.” dismember Abraham Address, govern- of Inaugural March 1861. “Whenever the ends step or or force to take one overt to use to incite violence Government, light I see how against our do not right a history our a mere belief that one has natural subject do so Ameri- under some circumstances to can prejudice any than possession can citizen to more Can we of our say other erroneous belief. men propositions time think about must even liberty manifestly perverted, public endangered, and ment are and ineffectual, may, people of redress are all other means and right old, ought government; to reform the establish a new a arbitrary oppression against power and the doctrine of non-resistance absurd, good happiness and is slavish and destructive of the Maryland, right Rights mankind.” Declaration of 1867. “The people oppressed by one. When are their of revolution an inherent they enjoy government, right themselves natural relieve by strong enough, oppression, if either withdrawal are it, by overthrowing substituting government it and more from Grant, Memoirs, 1,1885. acceptable.” U. Personal S. indefinitely. Quotations multiplied of similar statements could course, of their quotations are out of their context and out Of these revolt, also despite theories it should times. And their abstract about uncompro- Adams, Jefferson, were Lincoln and Grant be noted mising putting any show of rebellion toward the Government down they headed. revolutionary origin has inclined of our own Government

The loosely liberty a means to revolution as Americans to value is, however, The fact are liberals. think that all revolutionists long than in the run rare which do more violent revolutions are cycle way tyranny for another. one to make overthrow bloody years in the than a score of to reaction has taken less revolt led under Cromwell great The Puritan Commonwealth revolutions. escaped from the Restoration; the French revolution but dictatorship Napoleon; the Russians reign to the of Louis XVI Stalin; the dictatorship of Lenin and the Czar and won the overthrew dictatorship fell victims of a deposed the Kaiser and Germans serve do not that force and violence Hitler. I am convinced Fischer, See Gandhi liberty as well as nonviolence. cause Stalin, passim. im- strong appeal to the quoted have I have

But sentiments in American tradition. petuous deeply imbedded justified? may they which our own Or Revolution was think, provided they only reach one conclusion —and that opposite Mr. Jefferson’s? the Governments, Federal,

While State and have ex- pansive powers powers to curtail and action, some small speech to writing, any curtail or I think has power, neither any pretext, directly indirectly attempt or fore- closure of line of Our thought. forefathers found thinking evils free more to be endured than the inquest They evils of suppression. gave or the status of almost absolute rights individual to the outward means of expressing I open belief. cannot believe left way legislation for embarrass impede the mere processes by expressions intellectual which those of belief and examined formulated. This is only because presents individual thinking danger no society, but because thoughtful, independent bold and minds are essential to wise considered self-government. "“Progress generally skepticism begins accepted about truths. right Intellectual freedom means the to re-ex- amine much long that has been taken granted. A free man a reasoning must be man, and he must dare legislative doubt what a majority may electoral most passionately danger assert. The that citizens serious, will think wrongly is but dangerous less than atrophy from not thinking at Our all. Constitution re- lies on our complete electorate’s ideological freedom to independent nourish responsible intelligence pre- serve our democracy from that submissiveness, timidity and herd-mindedness of the masses which would foster a tyranny of mediocrity. priceless heritage of our society is the unrestricted constitutional right each member to think as he Thought will. copy- control ais right of totalitarianism, and we have no claim to it. It is not the function of our keep Government error; citizen from into falling it is the function falling into error. keep to the Government citizen censorship only when the censors justify We could error than the censored. against are better shielded protect individual a Constitution should The idea that and is the last nonconformity essentially is American will tolerate. Noth- in that Communists thing the world their demands for freedom the bitterness of exceeds ing except the bitterness of country this for themselves for others where intolerance of freedom their profession or An exaction of some of belief power.13 precisely what the Communists would en- nonbelief is adopt must the ideas that are individual act—each philosophy Their whole group. the ruling common to to increase the minimize man as an individual and is to any single If char- acting man in the mass. power of democracy from Communism our distinguishes acteristic a personality the individual as it is our recognition jigsaw puzzle in the part than as a soulless rather is state. the collectivist expressed, I whether have heretofore

I adhere to views Virginia Board Education v. West agreed, the Court Barnette, dissenting or see 624, disagreed, U. S. Ballard, 78, 92, S. opinion United States v. U. gov- and local general excludes both our Constitution ideas, opinions and beliefs from the realm ernments religious political, and or heresy orthodoxy, doubts, and speak out, publish, or also to right scientific. recently constantly get hypo Attlee stated: “I Prime Minister alleged infringements against protesting freedom resolutions critical get keep places out from where country. protests because we I this This from people who cannot be trusted. is carried on secret work their in Communist countries know that fellows Communists who anyone ruthlessly from office purge remove carry on a constant deviating their rulers con slightest sign of from what shows the who Times sickening hypocrisy.” London orthodoxy. It sider Edition, July 1949. Weekly presently protected clearly when it does not injury society which the

threaten some Government protect. Separate Thomas v. right opinion, has Collins, I protested degra- 323 U. S. 516. But have of these constitutional dation liberties immunize approve movements, mob whether mobs be religious those political, conservative, radical illiberal, liberal or Jeannette, Douglas City 157; 319 U. Terminiello S. v. Chicago, 1, 13, pressure 337 U. S. or to groups authorize amplifying to use devices to drown out the natural voice destroy peace and the of other Saia v. individuals. York, People 558; Cooper, New 334 U. S. Kovacs of 336 U. And I pointed S. 77. have that men out cannot enjoy their to right personal freedom if fanatical masses, mission, thoughts whatever their can strangle individual personal Struthers, and privacy. invade Martin v. U. S. dissent at A catalogue rights 166. of was placed in view, our in Constitution, my protect to individual in his individuality, and which neither statutes put rights mercy those at judicial of nor officials put decisions which them mercy at the of the mob are consistent with its or spirit. text its

I think that under our system, it enough is time lay the law to hold of the he citizen when acts illegally, or in some rare circumstances when his thoughts are given I illegal utterance. think we must let his mind alone.14 appears recognize The compound Court the constitutional and, part

weakness of this statute to save this of oath from unconstitutionality, “very literally.” declines read the text It renders the Act to call for disclaimer of belief in forcible overthrow only objective an prophecy. as but furthermore, not as a And one overthrow, is allowed to believe in objective, forcible as even long so as the belief does not relate to the Government “as it now exists.” I think do making we not make an Act constitutional only vague compound invalidity. Winters v. New but its Cf. York, S.U. 507. IV. a balance between maintain The Court to task this new condi- authority done, is never because liberty yesterday. today upset equilibriums tions up makes most power between freedom seesaw out, on Bryce which, points as history governments, cycle from painful repeating a long view consists of day-to- again. The Court’s anarchy and back tyranny name of civil day reject false, as claims task is au- impair paralyze would liberty which, granted, if reject society, and to of our thority to existence defend under- which would security name false, claims way oppression. open our freedoms and mine judg- involved competing considerations are the These suppress take to ing any government which measures and critics. disadvantage opponents its discharged by only today’s I task can conclude which disclosure parts require oath that all of this holding Com- membership of affiliation or overt acts competence Congress to within the Party munist of it call for a disclosure any parts and that that enact beyond act overt are its unconnected of belief power.15 dissenting. Black,

Mr. Justice think is absolute of “Freedom to We have said that pow is nature; tyrannical government its own most 1 mind.” workings inward erless to control have people be, can and in less democratic countries But conclusion, require prevailed, if it would decision This invalidity applicability of the partial on the whole and the effect question prevail, severability As not discussion of clause. it does be academic. would 618, adopted Opelika, Dissenting opinion in Jones U. S. v. Con See also Cantwell opinion in 319 U. S. 103. as the Court’s necticut, 296, 303. 310 U. S.

been, conjectured made to suffer for their admitted or thoughts. Dionysius Blackstone recalls that “recorded a subject, to have executed for dreaming that he barely had killed which for a him; proof, was held sufficient that thought waking he had his thereof hours.” Such result, while too barbaric be tolerated our nation, illogical if government tamper can the realm thought penalize “belief” ground on the that it might to illegal lead conduct. Individual freedom govern mental thought-probing together. cannot live As the Court admits even today, under the First Amendment “Beliefs are inviolate.”

Today’s rejects decision fundamental principle. admits, Court must, as “proscriptions” of 9 (h) of the National Labor Relations Act amended Taft-Hartley Act rest on political “beliefs and affiliations,” that “Congress undeniably has dis- couraged the political lawful exercise of freedoms” which “protected by the First Amendment.” These ines- facts, capable compel should a holding (h) 9§ conflicts with the First Amendment.

Crucial contrary to the Court’s holding premise is the that congressional power regulate trade and traffic power includes proscribe “beliefs and affilia- tions.” No case cited provides the Court the least vestige of support for thus holding that the Commerce Clause restricts the right to think. On the contrary, the First Amendment was added after adoption of the Con- stitution express purpose for the of barring Congress from using previously granted powers to abridge belief or its ex- pression. Freedom to think is inevitably abridged when penalized by imposition beliefs are of civil disabilities. (h) passed Since 9 was to exclude certain beliefs from one arena of the national economy, it was quite natural

2 Blackstone, (6th 4 1775). Commentaries 79 ed. Dublin History as a attests weapon. to utilize the test oath penalties for and efficacy inflicting that instrument It one of the on obnoxious minorities. was disabilities France, major Huguenots used and against devices Spanish Inquisition. It during “heretics” against helped identify Catholics, rulers and outlaw English and con- Quakers, Baptists, Congregationalists groups— political as dangerous religious sidered for well as reasons.3 in- vogue, spies And wherever the test oath was and rewards far more than truth.4 tempting formers found espionage made thought Painful awareness of the evils punishment increasing imposed on these restrictions and examples. groups following In 1558 Parliament are shown prescribed oath, take, which no conscientious could for Catholic Queen, ministers, receiving pay judges, from the all ecclesiastical those taking university degrees; years the oath was and those four later schoolmasters, sheriffs, lawyers, officers. In extended to and court required Anglican and were to attend services 1593 all Protestants religious meetings. And Catholics forbidden to hold nonconformist regularly Anglican were re failing to attend services convicted of dwellings. Catholics five miles of their In 1609such stricted to within serving executors, guardians, physicians, even from were barred right prosecute apothecaries, suits in court was and their con practically abolished; be converted or it was also made treason to 1677, and Parliament anyone to Catholicism. Between 1661 vert else services, any non-Anglican religious re at outlawed attendance civil, military, municipal holding office to subscribe quired those non-Anglican effectively barred Catholics and an oath which many and the similar for violations of these Punishment Protestants. imprisonment and death. to exile ranged from fines and statutes 4, 2;1, cc. 1; 1; 35 Eliz. cc. Jac. I See, g., c. 5 Eliz. c. e. 1 Eliz. 1, 4, 1; II 2, 6; 13 & 14 Car. cc. 5; 13 Car. II Stat. c. 7 Jac. I cc. 2; 2. 1; 25 c. II Stat. 33; 22 c. Car. II Car. Car. II statutes, objectives of these As motivations 2, quoted in note Eliz. g., purpose in 35 c. see, e. the declaration 7 infra. England practice was standard monarchs Under the Stuart his victim. give fines collected an informer one-third sufficiently daring un- g., few I 5. And were E. 3 Jac. c. “an of na- such abomination to the founders this oaths Summers, tion,” 561, opin- In dissenting re 325 U. S. ion. religious, political, both, Whether test oaths By implacable thought. approving of free their im- foes a position, injected compromise Court has into field this compromise. where the First Amendment forbids The Court today’s assures us that encroachment liberty one, statutory is a just particular small this a provision of persons, “touches relative handful only leaving great majority persons of the identified completely affiliations and beliefs free from restraint.” But not the least of the virtues the First Amendment protection its each of the member smallest and most minority. experience testify unorthodox Centuries at laws aimed one or religious group, how- ever rational these laws -in their beginnings, gen- prejudices erate hatreds which rapidly spread beyond control. Too it inspires often is fear which passions, such nothing contagious. is more reckless or In the result- ing hysteria, popular indignation tars with the same brush scrupulous satisfying to obtain the more reward fame. A notori- example place England during reign ous took of Charles II: political atmosphere “The . . strange was electric. . Thus Oates, Anglican clergyman Titus that when who had been recon- year Rome, August, 1678, ciled the before to came forward in against conspiracy King’s denounce a vast Jesuit life and the religion, degree Protestant his tale of wild with lies met a of credence ages perhaps Pope, later would have refused to it. . . . The declared, commanded, undertaken, conquest he had and the Jesuits kingdom; said, arrangements been, of the .... In all the he had he emissary mostly conspirators, a trusted .... Over a hundred Jes- uits, were mentioned name was examined at .... Oates caught King lying, Council Board. The him but the extent and gravity charges investigation; impor- his demanded . . . . In one point story ‘plot’ . tant was . . There was no Oates’ confirmed. sense; quite enough plotting in Oates’ but there was to cost men English Cambridge law . . .” 5 their heads under of treason . History Modern 220-221. member who been associated

all have ever those which, or who hold view under attack group essential Americans as by revered though supported own by that for its adopted group democracy, has been purposes. pro- circumstances, imposed such restrictions

Under rate of static,5 though even seldom groups scribed from geometric progression expansion may not move and worse. Thus to arm-band to ghetto discrimination merely holding one which I Court’s as regard cannot nothing- holding from union office Communists bars forcibly to reasoning apply just would as more. For its sym- suspected Communists and their barring statutes mere member- political office, pathizers from election holding any getting from ship unions, and in fact a whereby living. could earn jobs that we need assurance The Court comfort its finds belief political fear much restriction legislative too expression, That “while Court sits.” or association this con- particular felicitous, validity has no this while assumption from the springs field. For stitutional constitutionally can freedom be that individual mental a of this Court finds any majority abridged whenever this before has reason. Never satisfactory legislative any for reason Government could held Court affiliations. political beliefs or persons for their attaint today. It does so to be the “political happens affiliation”

Today the an ex-Communist testimony of Party: Communist “political had called union officers some Communist legislation in comment on such supra. And see the See note 3 1829): (London, History England Hallam, Constitutional aggravate the laws to consequence of restrictive “It is the natural a pretext; and thus create served as their disaffection which has steps, pass still its necessity legislature will not retrace for a severity.” in the course of onward uphold coercing held a law union

strikes” is sufficient to Under members not to elect Communist as an officer. parties political with other reasoning, this affiliations there just validly. could Of proscribed course practical major party that either is no possibility though weapon other, would turn this on the even mem a party “political of one lockouts” bers were accused years ago charged now few members the other are But fostering system. “welfare state” alien to our wholly fanciful. parties possibility with minor is not socialism; One, instance, alleg advocates another “line”; repeat Communist still another is edly follows edly purpose deprive Negroes with desire and charged equal job opportunities. today’s opinion Under Con validly bar gress parties could all members of these officership corporations; only in unions or industrial the required testimony would be members showing some attempts positions had, by party’s such to further their purposes, unjustifiably fostered industrial strife which hampered interstate commerce. opinion indicated, although

It is the is not thus limited and is based threats to commerce rather than to security, national that members the Party Communist individually or its “affiliates” can be attainted without danger to others because there is some evidence that as a group they act obedience to the commands a foreign power. precise This was the given reason in Sixteenth- England for Century attainting all Catholics unless wholly to test incompatible subscribed oaths with their 6Proscriptions Party based on affiliation the Socialist are not unprecedented. In Assembly, upon allegations 1920 the New York disloj'ul, party suspended legislators was the five on the elected vigorous protests The of a com Socialist ticket. Bar Association by Hughes, Charles mittee headed Evans later Chief Justice this Court, O’Brian, Loyalty no Lord avail. See John Tests and were of 592, Association, by 61 Harv. L. 593. Guilt Rev. overwhelming crisis, hour of Yet the

religion.7 persecuted thus rallied Catholics majority English of the Spain its and against defend their homeland loyally country Jefferson and troops.8 And in our own Catholic subversive alle- earnestly accused of his followers were civil dis- imposition giance time, to France.9 At political party must have all members his ability on For (h) today. 9§ seemed at least as desirable does newly- many believed, at so was the survival of stake, interruptions merely potential few nation, founded “political" strikes rather than economic commerce in origin. example, “sundry wicked and 35 Eliz. c. was aimed at Catholicks, Persons, being terming in who themselves and

seditious hiding Spies Intelligencers, . . . and their most detestable deed and Religion Con Purposes and devilish under a false Pretext within this science, secretly and shift from Place to Place do wander Realm, corrupt Majesty’s Subjects, and to stir and seduce her them to Sedition and Rebellion.” supra, quoted test statute in note As evidenced imposed oaths, punishment on Catho the drastic restrictions and the politically assumption all were on the Catholics lics were “based Queen, Allen were at one with Jesuits hostile country by conquest Spain. seeking deposition and the her through crisis of patriotic at home action of Catholics assumption. proved of this In Spanish Armada the weakness Queen English loyalty peril placed to their Catholics the hour of injustice . country . . before all other considerations. population proved treachery was imputing to the whole Catholic History Cambridge 351. beyond 3 Modern question.” “jacobins,” a “French his Castigating Jefferson and followers jacobins “subversion,” Ames warned: guilty of Fisher “[T]he faction” trained, they of perfect: discipline made their own have at last subordination, that in manner regimented ficered, and formed to as certain as yet it is equalled. . . . never [A]nd our militia have against laws as be, they will take arms any event can that future of Fisher Ames, Laocoon, printed in Works they . ." dare . . soon as 1809). (Boston, 94,101,106 Ames experiences These underline wisdom of the basic precept penalties constitutional imposed should be person’s only for a own conduct, for his beliefs or the conduct of may others with whom he associate. Guilt imputed solely should not be from association or political parties affiliation with or other organization, however much we abhor the ideas which advocate. States, Schneiderman v. 118, United 320 U. S. 136-139.10 Like anyone else, individual Communists who commit overt acts violation of valid can and pun laws should be postulate But ished. First Amendment is our proscrib free institutions can maintained be without ing penalizing political belief, speech, press, assem bly, party affiliation. This a far philosophy bolder see, g., O’Brian, Loyalty And e. John Lord Tests and Guilt Association, 61 quotes Harv. L. Rev. 592. That article the follow ing from Assembly by a Memorial submitted to the New York special City committee of the Bar Association of the of New York protesting suspension legislators: of five “it Socialist is of the liberty recognized essence of guilt the institutions of that it be personal holding opinion and cannot be attributed or to mere points intent the absence of acts . . . .” overt O’Brian out “largely by” that this Memorial was Hughes. written Charles Evans Id. at 594. any among “If be there us who would wish to this dissolve Union change republican form, or to its let them stand undisturbed as safety opinion may monuments of with which error of be tolerated know, indeed, where reason is left free to combat it. I that some government strong; republican men fear honest that a cannot government enough. strong that this is not But would honest patriot, experiment, govern in the full tide of successful abandon a firm, kept has far us on the ment which so free theoretic and visionary government, hope, this best fear that world’s Jefferson, by possibility energy preserve want itself?” Thomas along Inaugural Address, address, First March 1801. This guaranteed by Amendment, is writings on freedoms the First other (Harvard reprinted Jones, Primer of Freedom 142 Intellectual 1949). University Press, It the heart afford follow. can despotic

than rulers depends. which our freedom system agitated the ideologies frequently have Fears alien ad- suppressing at legislation aimed inspired nation and fog times the ideologies.12 At such vocacy of those up landmarks set the ancient public excitement obscures times, this of all should Rights. then, Bill Yet our they mark. This closely to course most Court adhere 353, 365, S. where Jonge Oregon, 299 U. was in De done it a crime to making a down state statute the Court struck It Communists. participate meeting conducted Party advocated that Communist stipulated had been through Speaking overthrow of Government. violent an- calmly unanimous Court Hughes, Justice Chief this govern principles should nounced time-honored importance safeguarding greater the today: Court “The of our overthrow incitements to the community from imperative is violence, the more institutions force rights of preserve the constitutional inviolate the need main- assembly order press and free speech, free free discussion, to the for free opportunity tain will of responsive government end desired, may if be obtained changes, people security of Re- means. Therein lies by peaceful government.” of constitutional verytfoundation public, the models, early the Alien and Sedition American For discussion Hamilton, 1925, XVI, “Hysterics,” Bowers, Acts, c. see Jefferson VIII, Otis, Reign Terror”; Morison, XVII, Life of c. "The and c. System “A of Terror.”

Case Details

Case Name: American Communications Assn. v. Douds

Court Name: Supreme Court of the United States

Date Published: May 8, 1950

Citation: 339 U.S. 382

Docket Number: NO. 10

Court Abbreviation: SCOTUS