Who exactly would decide which groups are sufficiently "extreme" that they have to turn over their membership lists to the authorities? And how soon before this is applied to left wing groups too?

Positive left groups will be required to do the same. Although the Klan is the worst of the worst.

Would you have a problem disclosing that you are a member of planned parenhood?

I fail to see the issue with the example you've provided.

There are still 29 states where somebody can be fired for being gay.

I think the standard is clear.

I do. I think the standard is very clear. I do see your point, in another potus down the road changing the standard to something really draconian. However, I think it is far time to do something about domestic terrorism and stop treating it as if the folks are just a few bad apples.

to "bring the war home"? By the time of the Weather Underground, the U.S. had already managed to kill some 2 million southeast Asians. Clearly the democratic process was insufficient to bring the war to an end.

People can't see the difference between hate and good? These people literally hide behind white sheets. I say exposes their asses until they get fired from jobs and denied other rights. Good god, it's 2015 already and these people are thriving.

Let them be exposed! And if there are LEFT leaning groups (I cannot imagine what group they would hate on) that are as 'extreme'...expose them too!

think of any so-called "left" groups that has a central theme of hate and division. People try to muddle this, but it's clear where the hate, and thus, the problem lies. I'd start with the idiots flying the "stars and bars" in their yards. Hateful bastards.

. . . . it shoudl also apply to left wing extremists.

Extremists are extremists because they're . . . . . well . . . . . extreme.

By the way, and simply by way of example. groups like Occupy are not extremist.

WAIT till some idiot Republican is president, and decides that calls for fair taxation (redistribution of wealth) constitutes economic terrorism against rich white jesus loving christians.
I agree with the president that it would be an awesome thing to be ABLE to do legally.
but I disagree that it's something that can or SHOULD be legally allowed.

Last edited Sat Jun 27, 2015, 01:03 PM - Edit history (1)

If they don't, then they ain't.

They don't have to do it in the name of Occupy, but someone can claim that Occupy influenced their decision, so in that case Occupy becomes "Extreme". See how quickly that slippery slope appears.
Do you really think a President Walker, or worse yet a President Cruz wouldn't use this to fit their agenda?

We are human beings capable of making decisions and getting things done. But in America, it's always "Oh, we're so afraid to do something. It might turn out wrong a few decades from now."

It's bullshit. We need to GET THINGS DONE and fine-tune the consequences later. You know, like human beings do everywhere else but in the American legislature.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

with either Mayor Riley or Obama. I can't believe people post this stuff without further substantiation or detail.

They should have to also.

Besides, aren't there laws against wearing masks while protesting? I thought there were laws against that. Make them do their nonsense protests without their stupid white sheets.

if the authorities judge that some of the viewpoints expressed here are too "extreme"?

Seems that this is made-up bullshit that would be thrown out as unconstitutional anyway.

As it stands right now, they don't have a right to NOT turn it over if the government demands it. Why shouldn't the KKK be required to also? If the rest of us have to do it, they should too.

only some of them had extreme viewpoints. And why are you defending these dangerous racist assholes anyway?

I guess you're not a fan of the ACLU, either.

It's a big reason why I support them. They also support the Citizens United decision -- as do I, because I don't like the idea of the gov't being able to ban books or movies.

I don't trust the Daily Mail one bit. Either this is wholly untrue, or what Pres. Obama has proposed is nothing like how it's being portrayed here.

To say the least.

You must think the ACLU really sucks, right?

and add DU.

I know it's happened at least once, when the Secret Service contacted them about someone making a threat here.

not the entire membership list.

sacrosanct and secret like you were implying. Nice moving the goalposts though. However, I'm sure the DM is just stirring the shit, and your fears the KKK will have their list exposed will come to nothing.

FDR signed it. In the late 1940 the government used it to go after the Communist Party and the Socialist Workers Party saying they favored violent overthrow of the government. Do you support that law?

and it is wise to take anything they publish with a ton of skepticism. Take note of where the quotation marks are used AND where they are not, it helps to see their way of publishing misleading propaganda.

Was that law repealed and when?

The Smith Act trials of Communist Party leaders were a series of federal prosecutions conducted from 1949 to 1958 in which leaders of the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA) were accused of violating the Smith Act, a statute which imposed penalties on those who advocated violent overthrow of the government. The prosecution argued that the CPUSA's policies promoted violent revolution; the defendants countered that they advocated a peaceful transition to socialism, and that the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech and of association protected their membership of a political party. The trials led to the US Supreme Court decisions Dennis v. United States (1951) and Yates v. United States (1957).

The first trial, held in New York in 1949, was one of the lengthiest trials in American history. Large numbers of supporters of the defendants protested outside the courthouse on a daily basis. The trial featured twice on the cover of Time magazine. The defense frequently antagonized the judge and prosecution, and five defendants were jailed for contempt of court because they disrupted the proceedings. The prosecution's case relied on undercover informants who described the goals of the CPUSA, interpreted communist texts, and testified that they believed the CPUSA advocated the violent overthrow of the US government.

While the first trial was under way, events outside the courtroom influenced public perception of communism: the Soviet Union tested its first nuclear weapon, and communists prevailed in the Chinese Civil War. Public opinion was overwhelmingly against the defendants. After a 10 month trial the jury found all 11 defendants guilty and the judge sentenced them to terms of up to five years in federal prison, further sentencing all five defense attorneys to imprisonment for contempt of court. Two of the attorneys were subsequently disbarred.

After the first trial, the prosecutors – encouraged by their success – prosecuted over 100 further CPUSA officers for violating the Smith Act. Some were tried solely because they were members of the Party. Many of these defendants had difficulty finding attorneys to represent them. The trials decimated the leadership of the CPUSA. In 1957, eight years after the first trial, the US Supreme Court's Yates decision brought an end to similar prosecutions, holding that defendants could be prosecuted only for their actions, not for their beliefs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act_trials_of_communist_party_leaders

See my post below. During the early 60s the Subversive Activities Control Board held several hearings involving west coast CPUSA members. They held hearings in Tacoma, Portland and L.A.

IWW labor union members.

Not to say that I would not like to see the KKK hassled.

The standard is pretty clear, for those worried...you know any left leaning groups that murder people over race and blow up houses and churches due to bigotry?

Me either.

that allow him to get that info? As long as that piece of filth is still on the books, we might as well get something good from it.

A New York law required oath-bound membership associations to file lists of their members, with exceptions for labor unions and benevolent orders. Anyone who became or remained a member of such an association, or attended a meeting thereof, knowing that the association had not filed a membership list, was guilty of a misdemeanor.

In Bryant v Zimmerman, 278 U.S. 63 (1928), the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a KKK member, Bryant, under the law. Bryant objected that the law discriminated against the KKK in favor of the Masons, Knights of Columbus, etc. The Supreme Court agreed with the conclusion of the lower courts that:

And I dont think any such law would stand a snowball's chance in hell of being constitutional. i strongly doubt Obama is proposing anything of the sort.

NAACP vs Alabama 1958.

Essentially, the ruling determined you can't subpoena a group for their records "just cause". It would be a violation of the 14th amendment. Being despicable isn't extenuating circumstances either, I'm afraid.

Since we're talking about a group nobody likes though, I think it's probably safe to ignore the constitution/legal precedent just this one little time...

But it's interesting how so many are so afraid to do anything because of the 'slippery slope' argument.

It's why nothing ever gets done in this country. We're too afraid to make the changes we need.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

There's no need to put quotes around slippery slope. It is very real, in the sense that our legal system bases many of it's future rulings on past legal decisions. Do you trust the legislators of the future to be benevolent? If so, I suppose putting trust in them to infringe on our rights today isn't such a hard call.

"...And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned around on you--where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast--man's laws, not God's--and if you cut them down...d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.”

I WANT our leaders to make quick decisions and not be afraid. Of course the intellectual speed of our current crop of 'leaders' is at the bottom of permissible range for our species but the idea that we can't do anything because we're afraid of the future is bullshit.

We should not be afraid. This country has a lot to be proud of and we should GET THINGS DONE.

Other countries GET SHIT DONE!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]

It's just that the "Something" you do shouldn't be a violation of law/rights.

If you can't get something done without breaking the law and stomping all over due process and rights, MAYBE your goal isn't worth pursuing. Just a thought.

After you've stomped all over the 14th amendment to get your list of names (thereby opening up precedent to do the same to any other group in the future), what then? Congrats. You have the Klan's membership roster. What's the next step? Something else that further violates someone's rights, I assume.

And 'stomping all over due process and rights' means different things to different people. Ask the NRA about that.

And the Daily Mail article is just trolling us. I'm talking about a larger issue, which is that we are too often afraid to do ANYTHING and end up doing NOTHING. I think we should, as a country, loosen up more and stop wringing our hands so much.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

i once read 1/4 of KKK membership was FBI/FBI informant

eom

nt

if that tells you anything

to see if anyone has a link to another source that has the same story. So far, I have not seen one. Anyone else?