Democratic Socialists Openly Calling For Communism After Ocasio-Cortez Win

a reply to: neo96

Wait, this has happened since Trump? Trump's letting this happen?

originally posted by: infolurker

originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: infolurker

oh yea, dems are openly calling for communism... its obvious after 4 random personal tweets

Democratic Socialists Of America (DSA) not the Democratic National Committee. At least I hope to hell not.

The DSA says they are from East Bay.
Only guy I know from East Bay was East Bay Ray.
East Bay Ray was not a socialist.
Far from it...

a reply to: infolurker

Oh....shock....like no one saw this coming...

After all, only a Communist regime will give a job to a self-important but useless 20-something kid with a degree in basket weaving or some other brain dead subject...

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: infolurker

Communism isn't illegal.

It is however, a silly rallying point in the US.

The Constitution proves you wrong

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: infolurker

Communism isn't illegal.

It is however, a silly rallying point in the US.

The only thing legal about it is a "rallying point".
You can be a communist, and talk about communism, but communism is, illegal.

a reply to: c2oden

You can be a communist, and talk about communism, but communism is, illegal.

No it isn't.

Unless, of course, you can cite the law which makes it so.

Dang, you're right. Or are you?
en.wikipedia.org...

In 1973, a federal district court in Arizona decided that the act was unconstitutional and Arizona could not keep the party off the ballot in the 1972 general election (Blawis v. Bolin). In 1961, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the act did not bar the party from participating in New York's unemployment insurance system (Communist Party v. Catherwood)

However, the Supreme Court of the United States has not ruled on the act's constitutionality. Despite that, no administration has tried to enforce it. The provisions of the act outlawing the party have not been repealed. Nevertheless, the Communist Party USA continues to exist in the 21st century.

a reply to: c2oden


Those who want communism are free to relocate to a country where it is practiced.

Isn't American freedom great?!

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: c2oden

You can be a communist, and talk about communism, but communism is, illegal.

No it isn't.

Unless, of course, you can cite the law which makes it so.

Dang, you're right. Or are you?
en.wikipedia.org...

In 1973, a federal district court in Arizona decided that the act was unconstitutional and Arizona could not keep the party off the ballot in the 1972 general election (Blawis v. Bolin). In 1961, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the act did not bar the party from participating in New York's unemployment insurance system (Communist Party v. Catherwood)

However, the Supreme Court of the United States has not ruled on the act's constitutionality. Despite that, no administration has tried to enforce it. The provisions of the act outlawing the party have not been repealed. Nevertheless, the Communist Party USA continues to exist in the 21st century.

I am right.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: c2oden


Those who want communism are free to relocate to a country where it is practiced.

Isn't American freedom great?!

Actually, they're free to try to establish it here. That's why it's called "freedom."

a reply to: c2oden

No, actually, you're not, unless the ruling of the federal district court has been reversed, the law is unconstitutional.

As should be obvious to just about anyone.

a reply to: c2oden

In 1973, a federal district court in Arizona decided that the act was unconstitutional and Arizona could not keep the party off the ballot in the 1972 general election (Blawis v. Bolin).

In 1961, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the act did not bar the party from participating in New York's unemployment insurance system (Communist Party v. Catherwood)

So, if its illegal, how come the party could be on the ballot? How come it could join the unemployment insurance system?

Weird.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: c2oden

No, actually, you're not, unless the ruling of the federal district court has been reversed, the law is unconstitutional.

As should be obvious to just about anyone.

The Supreme Court has not ruled on it.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: c2oden

In 1973, a federal district court in Arizona decided that the act was unconstitutional and Arizona could not keep the party off the ballot in the 1972 general election (Blawis v. Bolin).

In 1961, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the act did not bar the party from participating in New York's unemployment insurance system (Communist Party v. Catherwood)

So, if its illegal, how come the party could be on the ballot? How come it could join the unemployment insurance system?

Weird.

You know exactly why.
You might gain your former respect back if you stopped talking around issues.

a reply to: c2oden

The Supreme Court has not ruled on it.

Which means the lower court ruling stands. The party can be on the ballot.

You know exactly why.

Apparently not. How can it be illegal?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: c2oden

Which means the lower court ruling stands. The party can be on the ballot.

You know exactly why.

Apparently not.

I would violate every single one of the Bill of Rights.

originally posted by: c2oden

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: c2oden

No, actually, you're not, unless the ruling of the federal district court has been reversed, the law is unconstitutional.

As should be obvious to just about anyone.

The Supreme Court has not ruled on it.

Actually, that's a fair point. It is unconstitutional in the District of Arizona.

However in Communist Party v. Catherwood SCOTUS did say:

Following the familiar rule that decision of Constitutional questions should be avoided wherever fairly possible, we turn at once to the federal statute, which this Court has not heretofore had occasion to construe. Apart from unrevealing random remarks during the course of debate in the two Houses, there is no legislative history which in any way serves to give content to the vague terminology of § 3 of the Communist Control Act. The U. S. 393 statute contains no definition, and neither committee reports nor authoritative spokesmen attempt to give any definition, of the clause "rights, privileges, and immunities attendant upon legal bodies created under the jurisdiction of the United States or any political subdivision thereof."

That's a pretty strong comment that the Act, should it come before the SCOTUS would suffer a similar fate as in Arizona.

At any rate, it is a fact that the Communist Control Act is an unenforced law which really makes the point moot.

a reply to: c2oden

I would violate every single one of the Bill of Rights.

How about just one? How does being a communist violate the fourth amendment, for example?


Prohibiting someone from being a communist would seem to violate at least one of them.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: c2oden

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: c2oden

No, actually, you're not, unless the ruling of the federal district court has been reversed, the law is unconstitutional.

As should be obvious to just about anyone.

The Supreme Court has not ruled on it.

Actually, that's a fair point. It is unconstitutional in the District of Arizona.

However in Communist Party v. Catherwood SCOTUS did say:

Following the familiar rule that decision of Constitutional questions should be avoided wherever fairly possible, we turn at once to the federal statute, which this Court has not heretofore had occasion to construe. Apart from unrevealing random remarks during the course of debate in the two Houses, there is no legislative history which in any way serves to give content to the vague terminology of § 3 of the Communist Control Act. The U. S. 393 statute contains no definition, and neither committee reports nor authoritative spokesmen attempt to give any definition, of the clause "rights, privileges, and immunities attendant upon legal bodies created under the jurisdiction of the United States or any political subdivision thereof."

That's a pretty strong comment that the Act, should it come before the SCOTUS would suffer a similar fate as in Arizona.

At any rate, it is a fact that the Communist Control Act is an unenforced law which really makes the point moot.

It is not a moot point.
It is a unenforced law.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: c2oden

I would violate every single one of the Bill of Rights.

How about just one? How does being a communist violate the fourth amendment, for example?


Prohibiting someone from being a communist would seem to violate at least one of them.

Basically by living in a communist regime.
The 4th? Really?

originally posted by: c2oden

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: c2oden

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: c2oden

No, actually, you're not, unless the ruling of the federal district court has been reversed, the law is unconstitutional.

As should be obvious to just about anyone.

The Supreme Court has not ruled on it.

Actually, that's a fair point. It is unconstitutional in the District of Arizona.

However in Communist Party v. Catherwood SCOTUS did say:

Following the familiar rule that decision of Constitutional questions should be avoided wherever fairly possible, we turn at once to the federal statute, which this Court has not heretofore had occasion to construe. Apart from unrevealing random remarks during the course of debate in the two Houses, there is no legislative history which in any way serves to give content to the vague terminology of § 3 of the Communist Control Act. The U. S. 393 statute contains no definition, and neither committee reports nor authoritative spokesmen attempt to give any definition, of the clause "rights, privileges, and immunities attendant upon legal bodies created under the jurisdiction of the United States or any political subdivision thereof."

That's a pretty strong comment that the Act, should it come before the SCOTUS would suffer a similar fate as in Arizona.

At any rate, it is a fact that the Communist Control Act is an unenforced law which really makes the point moot.

It is not a moot point.
It is a unenforced law.

Which are effectively, reasonably, realistically and meaningfully the same thing.