Speiser v. Randall - Significance, Punishing Subversive Ideas, The Burden Of Proof, Justice Clark's Dissent, Impact

Speiser v. Randall - Significance

The ruling confirmed the types of speech protected under the First Amendment, and found that statutory provisions that force an individual to prove he is not engaged in criminal activities violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. After World War II, the spread of Communism in Eastern Europe and Asia influenced both foreign and domestic policy in the United States. Measures to de…

Speiser v. Randall - Further Readings

Speiser v. Randall - Punishing Subversive Ideas

The state of California passed a law in 1954 requiring that a property-tax exemption for veterans be denied to anyone refusing to sign an oath of loyalty that stated "I do not advocate the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means, nor advocate the support of a foreign Government against the United States in event of…

Speiser v. Randall - The Burden Of Proof

In Speiser v. Randall, the state of California argued that its statute denied benefits only to those whose speech would be considered criminal by First Amendment standards and by the definitions arrived at by the Supreme Court. But the Court ruled that this was not the central issue. "[W]e assume without deciding," Justice Brennan wrote, "that California may deny tax exemptions to persons who enga…

Speiser v. Randall - Justice Clark's Dissent

Speiser v. Randall - Impact

The Speiser decision clarified that, though the Smith Act made it illegal to belong to any organization that advocated the violent overthrow of the government, individuals have the constitutional right to be considered innocent of a crime until proven guilty. It also established that the guarantee of due process under the law protects individuals from the burden of having to prove their innocence.…