Albertson Vs. Subversive Activities Control Board Decisions

The Cold War is a term coined by Bernard Baruch in 1947. Leaders, the press and individuals used the term to describe the tensions that existed between the democracies and communist governments around the world. After World War II, United States foreign policy begins to focus on containment. Containment is the use of economics and military aid to stop the spread of communism as opposed to military engagement with the Soviet Union or China. However, domestic policy focus is on finding communist sympathizers, and eliminating an insider threat that has infiltrated the government at the highest levels. Therefore, a series of laws passed by the Congress depriving communist of their individual rights. The Congress enacts two laws first the Smith

These cases reaffirm that the government indeed has the right to pass laws that protect the nation and its citizenry. How far they go is a matter of contention, in 1958 the Kent V. Dulles case the Supreme Court rules that travel is a an aspect of liberty therefore, restricting travel is deemed a violation of the Constitution. As previously mentioned the McCarran Act required Communist to register with the Subversive Activities Control Board. The Albertson v. Subversive Activities Control Board decision, determined that registration was equivalent to self-incrimination therefore in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The McCarran Act deemed it unlawful for a Communist Party member to apply or renew a US passport or use such passport. The Aptheker v. Secretary of State Case challenged the right to receive a passport to travel outside the United States Sec.6.(a) of the McCarran Act (Congress 1950). The Supreme Court refers to the Kent V. Dulles case throughout its decision. The Kent v. Dulles Case affirmed that travel is an important aspect of liberty. (KENT v. DULLES 1958). The Court determined Section 6 of the Subversive Activities Control Act unconstitutional, therefore in violation of the Fifth Amendment thus making the McCarran Act unconstitutional. Justice Black wrote a separate concurring

I, § 9, of the Constitution forbids Congress to pass; (2) it penalizes and punishes appellants and restricts their liberty on legislative and administrative fact findings that they are subversives, and, in effect, traitors to their country without giving them the benefit of a trial according to due process, which requires a trial by jury before an independent judge, after an indictment, and in accordance with all the other procedural protections of the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, and (3) it denies appellants the freedom of speech, press, and association which the First Amendment guarantee. The Subversive Activities Control Act is supposed to be designed to protect this Nation's "internal security." This case offers another appropriate occasion to point out that the Framers thought (and I agree) that the best way [p519] to promote the internal security of our people is to protect their First Amendment freedoms of speech, press, religion and assembly, and that we cannot take away the liberty of groups whose views most people detest without jeopardizing the liberty of all others whose views, though popular today, may themselves be detested tomorrow” (APTHEKER v. SECRETARY OF STATE