Freedom of Assembly
![handle is hein.journals/deplr15 and id is 341 raw text is: COMMENTS
FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY*
In the annals of the Supreme Court, 1961 marks a milestone. Once
again, the highest court of the land was called upon to delve into the
essence of the first amendment. The suit before the court was that of the
Communist Party of the United States v. The Subversive Activities Con-
trol Board.' The question raised was whether the Communist Party could,
consistent with the first amendment, be compelled to register as required
by the Subversive Activities Control Act.2 In an exhaustive opinion, Jus-
tice Frankfurter, speaking for the court, stated that, though compulsory
disclosure of the names of an organization's members may in certain
instances infringe constitutionally protected rights of association,'3
[a]gainst the impediments which particular governmental regulation
causes to entire freedom of individual action, there must be weighed the
value to the public of the ends which the regulation may achieve.'4 With
a majority of one the court boldly announced its position on the first
amendment freedom of association.5
Fifty years ago only the familiar four freedoms were recognized. To-
day, a fifth is being litigated into prominence, the right of association.
Fifty years ago, the validity of such a right might have been questioned.
Today, it is recognized as an integral part of the freedoms guaranteed by
the Bill of Rights. To refer to it as a new freedom would be amiss for
it is only a further development of the freedom of assembly so plainly
stated in the first amendment. It is a progression in the evolutionary
*This paper has been submitted to the Illinois Constitutional Study Commission,
created by the Illinois Legislature in 1965.
1367 U.S. 1 (1961).
2 Subversive Activities Control Act § 7, Internal Security Act, 64 Stat. 987, 50 U.S.C.
§ 781 (1950).
3 Supra note 1 at 90. 4 Id. at 91.
5Also included in the two hundred and two pages of opinion were the dissenting
opinions of Chief Justice Warren, Justice Black, Justice Douglas and Justice Brennan.
In Communist Party v. United States, 331 F.2d 807 (D.C. Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 377
U.S. 968 (1964), the court of appeals set aside the conviction and ordered a new trial.
The case was not reversed on the constitutional principles enunciated; however, to
sustain a criminal charge for failure to comply with registration requirements, it must
appear that someone was available who was either legally bound or willing to sign. As
this qualification was not met, the conviction was set aside. In connection with this,
see infra note 89.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/deplr15&div=30&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Freedom of Assembly
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most