Conservatives: How "Activist" were the Judges who threw out State sedition laws?
"In 1956, the Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Nelson, who had been working as a party official in Pennsylvania, had been wrongfully convicted under a Pennsylvania subversion law. The Supreme Court held that the Federal legislation, the Smith Act of 1940, which made it a crime to advocate the overthrow of the Government by violence, had invalidated all similar state laws.
The Supreme Court ruling in the case, Pennsylvania v. Nelson, was important because until then there had been a substantial number of state prosecutions of Communists and other radicals under state laws.
The author of the Smith Act, Representative Howard W. Smith, Democrat of Virginia, tried unsuccessfully for years to get legislation passed that would overrule the Supreme Court decision in Pennsylvania v. Nelson by having Congress affirm that it did not intend to invalidate state legislation..."
- Anonymous1 decade agoFavorite Answer
What's so activist about throwing out State sedition laws ? There unconstitutional, which is exactly why the court through them out. It's a judges job to determine the constitutionality of a law or not, and those laws were clearly unconstitutional. State sedition laws had a purpose for a certain time in US history, but that time is past. God bless.
- It GirlLv 51 decade ago
That wasn't judicial activism.
Judicial activism is when a judge uses their own political agenda to decide a case. They aren't going by the United States Constitution or primary or secondary sources. In short, they weren't doing their job.
State sedition laws were found to be unconstitutional because they contradicted with freedom to file grievances against the government amongst many other freedoms.
- 1 decade ago
Throughout the History there have been activist Judges.
That is their job to interpret the law and rule.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Could you elaborate a little more?