Decision
The appellees argued that a tax exemption is a privilege and that its denial did not infringe on free speech. The lower California courts did not agree with this contention recognizing that conditions imposed on privileges provided by the state should be reasonable. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed.
However the Supreme Court of California did construe the constitutional amendment as denying the tax exemption only to claimants who may be criminally punished under the California Criminal Syndicalism Act (California Statute 1919, c. 188) or the Federal Smith Act (18 U.S.C. 2385).
The U.S. Supreme Court in its review asked a more basic question: With the loyalty oath has California chosen a fair method to determine whether a tax exemption claimant is in fact someone to whom the criminal acts specified applies. In other words, though it is reasonable to deny a claimant a tax exemption if the claimant is involved in a criminal behavior, has the state arrived at a mechanism which demonstrates the criminal behavior?
The court ruled that because the state requires the claimant to show they are not advocating state overthrow and hence are not criminals within the applicable laws, the loyalty oath requirement to obtain the tax exemption is unconstitutional. The burden of proof for a criminal action rests on the state and not on the individual private citizen. In other cases, the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of loyalty oaths requirements but those involved public officials and not private citizens.
Read more about this topic: Speiser V. Randall
Famous quotes containing the word decision:
“I know my fate. One day my name will be tied to the memory of something monstrous—a crisis without equal on earth, the most profound collision of conscience, a decision invoked against everything that had previously been believed, demanded, sanctified. I am no man, I am dynamite!”
—Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900)
“The issue is privacy. Why is the decision by a woman to sleep with a man she has just met in a bar a private one, and the decision to sleep with the same man for $100 subject to criminal penalties?”
—Anna Quindlen (b. 1952)
“The decision to have a child is both a private and a public decision, for children are our collective future.”
—Sylvia Ann Hewitt (20th century)