Jump to content

KillAllCommies

Members
  • Content Count

    37
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About KillAllCommies

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. My point was that these laws place great emphasis on the Communist Party, not Communists in general, but the Communist Party. As I said, the reason I wonder why it somehow doesn't apply to the Party is because Anti-communist laws in the U.S. tend to place great emphasis on the Party, so why wouldn't it apply to it in this case? So considering this, couldn't the section simply mean that Title VII would not apply to members of the Communist Party, regardless of whatever the Party was required to register, and other organizations that were required to register with the Board?
  2. But Anti-communist laws in the U.S. tend to place a rather great deal of emphasis on the Communist Party, so why would the Section only apply to the Party if 50 U.S.C. 781 was still in effect? Also, why didn't the FRIENDSHIP Act (which repealed 50 U.S.C. 781) repeal this Section? And why did Nevada and Nebraska both have to repeal it? Also, if the Section is actually a nulity, are similar sections in State laws a nulity as well?
  3. I can see this being the case for other Communist-action or Communist-front organizations, however, why would this also be the case for the Communist Party?
  4. Sorry for resurrecting this thread, but I recently found a message of the President of the United States transmitting the ILO convention from 1998, it mentions Section 703(f), and here is what it says about it: "4. Under the U.S. legal system, there are a number of ways in which legislative provisions can be made to have no legal effect. One way is for a court to determine that a provision is unconstitutional. Another is to amend the provision itself or delete it. A third method is to amend other legislation that is included within the terms of the provision of concern to remove the legal effect of the operative provision of the offending legislation. All three aproaches are equally effective means of amending or chaning the legal effect of a provision of the legislation. The third approach is the means by which Section 703(f) of Title VII now has no force and effect under U.S. law. Attachment II describes the current legal status of Section 703(f) of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. This section only had effect if the Communist Party of the United States or any other organization was required to register as a Communist-action or Communist-front organization by final order of the Subversive Activities Control Board. No cases ever occured under Section 703 (f). Because the Subversive Activities Control Board was abolished by Public Law 103-199 in 1993, there is no organization of any kind to which Section 703(f) applies. Section 703(f) is now in fact a nulity "by methods appropriate to national conditions and practice". a. Under these circumstances, we understand that ratification of Convention 111 would not require an amendment to Title VII striking Section 703(f) from the statute. Is this understanding correct?" Is the administration's interpretation actually correct? Or it isn't and this more like something to help push ratification without repealing the exception because the administration wouldn't get enough support to repeal it or something like that?
  5. Maybe, but this doesn't mean that we should start tolerating and accepting Communists either.
  6. I was talking more about implementing Communist policies (such as abolishing private property), not about supporting Communism in itself, it would be impossible to implement Communism because of the Constitution, unless amended, as you said.
  7. I'm much less worried to be honest, they probably have much less chances of being hired.
  8. Any steps to peacefully implement Communism would probably be blocked by the Supreme Court since they would probably be Unconstitutional, also Communism, even if in principle might not be totalitarian, ultimately always leads to it, people are certainly not going to voluntarily give up on property rights for example, under Communism there is no private property, and property rights are guaranteed by the Constitution. What do you mean by concerned in this case? Just for curiosity.
  9. Well, the only real way to implement Communism in the United States would be through a violent overthrow of the U.S. Government, so why supporting Communism can't be enough to deny employment in the Federal Government?
  10. In this case it seems the Employee was prosecuted for being a member of the Communist Party, not merely fired, I don't see why the Federal Government firing a person for being a member of the Communist Party would violate the right of association if they don't prosecute it, I would really like to know though if this case would also apply to Employees who support organizations like ISIS or Al-Qaeda, etc.
  11. But what if they succesfully identify, why would they not able to fire a Communist?
×
×
  • Create New...