Question

Under the Constitution, can the Alien and Sedition Acts be justified? Was Congress responding to political considerations or to a true threat to the country? Do you see any similarities between these acts and our current Patriot Act? Does Congress and/or the President have the" right" to subvert the Constitution during times of crisis? Assuming that free speech ought to be curbed, who should do the curbing? Is free speech needed for the workings of a free government?

Answer 1

The Alien Acts were never enforced, but the Sedition Act was. A number of Republican newspaper publishers were convicted under the terms of this law. The Jeffersonians argued quite rightly that the Sedition Act violated the terms of the First Amendment and offered a remedy in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions.

The Naturalization Act made it more difficult to obtain citizenship. There is no parallel with the Patriot Act, but it certainly smells like the anti-immigration law of Arizona.

The Alien Act called for expulsion of "dangerous" aliens. It was aimed at French and Irish immigrants, much as the Patriot Act is aimed at Muslims. It was clearly unconsitutional.

Answer 2

The Alien Act called for expulsion of "dangerous" aliens. It was aimed at French and Irish immigrants, much as the Patriot Act is aimed at Muslims. It was clearly unconsitutional.

The Alien Enemies Act goes a bit further and applies to wartime. It allows imprisonment without trial, which is also found in today's Patriot Act. It was unconstitutional, as are the provisions of the Patriot Act that permit imprisonment without trial.

The Sedition Act, which provided for fines or imprisonment for individuals who criticized the government, Congress, or president in speech or print. This would be W's wet dream. It's in direct violation of the First Amendment. Several newspaper publishers went to jail, but the courts never ruled on its constitutionality