Hacker News Reader

Comment by 13of40 | Hacker News Reader

> in the constitution of the Soviet Union there are all kinds of rights and legal protections and such > They just say that someone belongs to an illegal non-harmonious organization like Falun-Gong or whatever and that's illegal.

It seems like governments are somewhat uniform in the laws they pass, but fundamentally fickle about which laws they choose to enforce. In my state, for example, it's a felony to be a member of a subversive organization...

http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.81.030

...e.g., the Communist Party...

http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.81.083

...but it would be unthinkable for them to actually prosecute anyone for it.

View on HN

That's something I never understood (and admittedly never researched either). Isn't there something in the constitution about freedom of association?

Yes. However judges cannot preemptively strike down laws, even if they are blatantly unconstitutional. Someone with "standing" must bring a case, which typically(?) means that the law has been applied to them. So unconstitutional laws often stay on the books without being enforced, until either someone overreaches and tries to enforce them, or the legislature formally repeals them. I believe anti-miscegenation statues were on the books for decades in some states after the Supreme Court struck them down.

That is a lot like the American system after you factor in wealth inequality, the cost of legal representation, and non-enforcement against the wealthy.

It's a US law (Washington State) that 13of40 cited.

I just read about something like that recently, a couple being thrown into jail in the US in the 1960s, for the 'crime' of being married and of being different races.

Edit: My mistake, it was 1958, but they took legal action in the 1960s (Loving vs Virginia, 1967), and despite the Supreme Court's ruling, some states kept such laws on the books as late as 2000 (Alabama), which is actually probably what you were referring to.

The comment by the judge in 1958 is (almost) unbelievable:

    Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow,
    malay and red, and he placed them on separate 
    continents. The fact that he separated the races shows 
    that he did not intend for the races to mix.

Presumably God wasn't as fussy about non-red races in the legal profession in North America.

Loving vs Virginia in 1967: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

Yeah, I looked it up after I posted (probably should have done it the other way around), but thanks.

Y'know, in ancient Iceland there was a person called the "lawspeaker". His job was to memorize and recite the law -- all of it -- before the Althing twice a year. If he forgot any part of the law, it was no longer law.

I wish the federal government and every state had a lawspeaker -- for statute laws anyways.

If the Communist Party were actively trying to overthrow the United States government, you might see it enforced...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com