1954 жылғы Коммунизмді бақылау заңы: АҚШ-тағы коммунистік қозғалысқа тыйым салу

1954 U. S. law criminalizing membership in communist organizations and supporting them

The Communist Control Act of 1954 (68 Stat. 775, 50 U. S. C. §§ 841–844) is an American law signed by President Dwight Eisenhower on August 24, 1954, that outlaws the Communist Party of the United States and criminalizes membership in or support for the party or "Communist action" organizations and defines evidence to be considered by a jury in determining participation in the activities, planning, actions, objectives, or purposes of such organizations.

Created during the period of the Second Red Scare (1946–1954), the act was one of many bills drafted with the intention of protecting the American government from the threat posed by international communists. During this time, some argued that "the pursuit of subversive aims even by peaceful means should [have been] outlawed". Thus, many opposed communism because of its explicitly declared and historically demonstrable goal to undermine liberal democracy. In the words of Ernest van den Haag, there was "no place in democracy for those who want to abolish [it] even with a peaceful vote". the bill was drafted with the intention of tackling the root of pro communist sentiment in the United States: the Communist Party. In its second section, the CCA of 1954 portrayed the American Communist Party as an "agency of a hostile foreign power." Through an amendment by Senator Daniel, both the Butler and Humphrey bills were merged into one, winning unanimous approval in the Senate from both Democrats and Republicans.

The overwhelming support provided by the liberals has attracted much attention from historians such as Mary McAuliffe McAuliffe argues that the perceived gravity of the threat of Communism during the Cold War led some liberals to ignore the fact that the CCA suspended the citizenship rights of the Communist Party members. Most liberal Democrats did not even offer a token opposition to the Act; on the contrary, they ardently supported it. McAuliffe further acknowledges that the Act "served to avert possible disaster for individual politicians" who feared being labeled as Communists for their left minded ideas. In the words of Senator Humphrey, "the amendment [was sought] to remove any doubt in the Senate as to where [Democrats and liberals] [stood] on the issue of Communism." An article published in the Michigan Law Review in 1955 suggested that the Communist Control Act was a "dramatic political gesture" rather than a genuine attempt to "kill Communism at its root." McAuliffe underlines the anomalies surrounding the Act; in particular, the Act was unorthodox since it bypassed the usual process of committee hearings and deliberations and was immediately introduced to the Senate floor. The Act has no recorded legislated history, undoubtedly because it was rush printed in the early hours of the morning. In 1955, an outraged American Civil Liberties Union characterized it as "a mockery of [Americans’] most basic constitutional guarantees." Mary S. McAuliffe commented that use of the Communist Control Act of 1954 was an illustration of "how deeply McCarthyism penetrated American society."

There was much controversy surrounding the Act. The Federal Bureau of Investigation and its Director, J. Edgar Hoover, opposed the bill on the count that it would have forced the Communist movement underground. In addition, the Michigan Law Review argued that the politically charged Act was plagued by a number of constitutional problems which would have undermined its effectiveness. The Yale Law Journal lauded the Act as the "most direct statutory attack on internal communism yet undertaken [by 1955] by Congress," but stressed the "haste and confusion of the Act’s passage" which led to many "vague and ambiguous provisions." The incongruity of its provisions, a grave constitutional defect, was in part attributed to obscure language. For example, the nature of the "rights, privileges, and immunities" to be terminated by the Act was never explicitly stated as relating to state or federal jurisdiction. Also, the Yale Law Journal underlined a number of instances during which a literal interpretation of key passages would have caused entire sections to fall because of the use of comprehensive, unspecific language. McAuliffe notes that, because of these complications, the Act was never "used as a major weapon in the legislative arsenal against Communism," apart from two minor cases in the states of New York and New Jersey.

The House of Representatives also made some additions to the bill, notably a section which listed the criteria for "determining what constitut[ed] membership in the Party and related organizations."

In 1973, a federal district court in Arizona decided that the act was unconstitutional, and Arizona could not keep the party off the ballot in the 1972 general election (Blawis v. Bolin). In 1961, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the act did not bar the party from participating in New York's unemployment insurance system (Communist Party v. Catherwood).