That’s what Raw Story reports, but I don’t think that’s right. According to Westlaw, the cited statute dates back to 1951, when a lot of anti-Communist statutes were enacted nationwide. Please let me know if there is some factual evidence I missed.
That’s what Raw Story reports, but I don’t think that’s right. According to Westlaw, the cited statute dates back to 1951, when a lot of anti-Communist statutes were enacted nationwide. Please let me know if there is some factual evidence I missed.
James N. Gibson says:
I went to the South Carolina legislative website and looked it up. The present law, Chapter 29 of Title 23 is regularly referenced as the 1976 Code. But there is also a bill in the legislature in this session that is to repeal the Chapter 29. Perhaps the Raw Story got it backwards and is miss-reading the removal effort with implementation.
The repeal bill is number 1167.
February 10, 2010, 11:24 pmAlast says:
A bill has been introduced to repeal it:
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess118_2009-2010/prever/1167_20100210.htm
Seems South Carolina has tried to repeal it before, as early as 1993, but although it was reported favorable out of committee, it was never passed.
Of course, Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957), shot a hole in all these state laws, but someone forgot to tell a few states.
February 10, 2010, 11:26 pmEugene Volokh says:
It’s part of the 1976 code, but that’s just the most recent codification of all the statutes; I believe it was first enacted in 1951.
February 10, 2010, 11:38 pm“All Subversive Organizations … Must Register in South Carolina” says:
[...] According to Eugene Volokh, the underlying source (Raw Story) erred in thinking that there’s anything new about this [...]
February 11, 2010, 7:13 amAbout that South Carolina law says:
[...] Eugene Volokh says there’s nothing new about it, it appears to date to the Red Scare in 1951. Corrected earlier post here. [...]
February 11, 2010, 7:17 amMoe Lane » It seems the act of research is a subversive activity requiring registration. #rsrh says:
[...] mistook current attempts to repeal it with it actually passing (as suggested by a comment here) and started what was apparently a highly viral session of online babbling about the Right by the [...]
February 11, 2010, 9:25 amPersonFromPorlock says:
Even assuming the activities prohibited by such laws are constitutionally protected, doesn’t Heller, with a very small amount of interpretation, hold that the actors can be required to register before acting?
February 11, 2010, 9:43 amAlast says:
I don’t think so. If the law said that before any person ACTS to overthrow the government, they must register their intention to do so, then that would be enforceable…. but I don’t read the S.C. law to say that.
February 11, 2010, 10:00 amSouth Carolina Requires Subversives to Register with State & Pay a $5 Filing Fee | KEYTLaw says:
[...] Eugene Volokh says thinks the law has been on the books since 1951, but he is not [...]
February 11, 2010, 7:09 pmCorrection: S.C. Law Still Ridiculous, But Not Brilliant « Ethics Alarms says:
[...] registration of “subversive agents” is far from new, as erroneously reported here. The law dates from 1951—when Joe McCarthy was in full flower—so it is clearly not aimed at terrorists, but at [...]
February 12, 2010, 3:01 pmJ’raxis 270145 says:
When the Supreme Court rules a law unconstitutional, it’s still up to individual state legislatures to repeal their own laws. Until then, they’re just not enforced.
February 15, 2010, 10:07 pmSubversives In South Carolina Mostly Safe | JetLib News says:
[...] on South Carolina and subversives. “According to Eugene Volokh, the Raw Story article has got it backwards. Westlaw says that the cited statute dates back to 1951, when a lot of anti-Communist statutes were [...]
February 16, 2010, 3:02 pmoccasional fish » Tuesday various says:
[...] say, ‘Are you the enemy?’ And, if they say yes, then we shoot them.” Turns out, it isn’t exactly true. Or, rather, the law’s been on the books for about sixty years. There’s actually a bill [...]
March 2, 2010, 6:32 pmYZ says:
Interestingly, it seems you can be prevented from getting a U.S. passport if you have been convicted of conspiring to overthrow the government.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/79955.pdf
March 4, 2010, 2:53 pmisagenix says:
Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957), shot a hole in all these state laws, but someone forgot to tell a few states. This is outdated and yet to be tried in a modern court
August 7, 2010, 6:10 pm