翻訳と辞書
Words near each other
・ Communist Party of the Philippines
・ Communist Party of the Region of Murcia
・ Communist Party of the Republic of China
・ Communist Party of the Republic of Tatarstan
・ Communist Party of the Russian Federation
・ Communist Party of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic
・ Communist Party of the Soviet Union
・ Communist Party of the Soviet Union (1992)
・ Communist Party of the Soviet Union (2001)
・ Communist Party of the Soviet Union (disambiguation)
・ Communist Party of the Valencian Country
・ Communist Party of the Valencian Country – Revolutionary Marxist
・ Communist Party of the Valencians
・ Communist Party of Togo
・ Communist Party of Trinidad and Tobago
Communist Party of Indiana v. Whitcomb
・ Communist Party of Indochina
・ Communist Party of Indonesia
・ Communist Party of Indonesia (Red)
・ Communist Party of Iran
・ Communist Party of Iran (Marxist–Leninist–Maoist)
・ Communist Party of Ireland
・ Communist Party of Ireland (Marxist–Leninist)
・ Communist Party of Italy
・ Communist Party of Italy (2014)
・ Communist Party of Italy (Marxist–Leninist)
・ Communist Party of Jamaica
・ Communist Party of Kampuchea
・ Communist Party of Kazakhstan
・ Communist Party of Khorezm


Dictionary Lists
翻訳と辞書 辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ]
スポンサード リンク

Communist Party of Indiana v. Whitcomb : ウィキペディア英語版
Communist Party of Indiana v. Whitcomb

''Communist Party of Indiana v. Whitcomb'', , was a United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that invalidated Indiana's loyalty oath requirement.
==Summary==
The state of Indiana, for the 1972 election, required nominees to submit a sworn oath stating that their party "does not advocate the overthrow of local, state or national government by force or violence." The Communist Party of Indiana refused to submit such a declaration, and as a result Indiana refused to put their candidates on the ballot. The Communist Party appealed to the Supreme Court.
In a unanimous verdict, the Supreme Court held in favor of the Communist Party. The majority opinion, authored by Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. and joined by four other Justices, stated that "a group advocating violent overthrow as abstract doctrine need not be regarded as necessarily advocating unlawful action." The court also held that "the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to produce such action."
Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. wrote a short opinion concurring in the judgment, joined by three other Justices. In his view, there is no need to decide the free speech question. Instead, he concluded that as the Indiana officials did not apply the loyalty oath requirement to the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, their discriminatory application of the requirement to the Communist Party violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア(Wikipedia)
ウィキペディアで「Communist Party of Indiana v. Whitcomb」の詳細全文を読む



スポンサード リンク
翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース

Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.