Talk:Alien and Sedition Acts

This excellent article needs a section that provides a reader with the immediate background to the passage of the Acts. Some briefg "sound bites" to give the tenor of the controversy surrounding the Acts would enrich the article. --Wetman 03:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I added two headings, Components and History, to make this article look more like the rest of Wikipedia. I didn't alter any of the article text. Someone with knowledge on the Acts could add another subsection to address the controversy...my changes were purely for appearance. --Prefers to remain anonymous, 09:41, 12 Sept 2005 (UTC)

Expiration

I can't immediately cite an authority on this, but it seems that the Federalists wrote the Acts to expire in 1801 so that the acts couldn't be used against them if the Democratic-Republicans won the election. That little fact, if historians agree on it, probably deserves mention; it provides a neat little underscore on the political nature of these acts. 129.61.46.16 12:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Patriot Act?

What does the Patriot Act have to do with the Sedition Act? It looks like POV to put a reference to it in the "See Also" section. Miraculouschaos 12:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The only connection is that they both may be/have been intended primarily to stifle dissent. That's pretty much agreed on for the Alien and Sedition Acts, but we have to wait for history to weave its tale on the PATRIOT Act. That said, the user who added it [1] seems to be sane, so I hesitate to remove it myself. 129.61.46.16 12:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a pretty tenuous connection. I'm not a big fan of the Patriot Act myself, but the constitutional questions about it seem to revolve more around violations of the right to privacy, authorizing searches without warrants, etc, rather than restricting speech. Miraculouschaos 12:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

That's true. After all, it would be suicidal to try to pass something so brazen as the Alien and Sedition Acts today. If you see fit to remove the link, you should probably do so. I won't--partially because I'm not bold enough around political grenades, and partially because a well-meaning user might mistake it for weighted vandalism if I did it from this IP. 129.61.46.16 13:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Still in Effect?

The article has little information on the current legal status of the Acts. If part/all was repealed, that should be listed. If provisions expired, that should also be listed. If the Acts are still in force, I think that should be mentioned explcitly. -- 128.104.112.52 14:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The text of the Acts specifies that the Alien Acts were to expire two years after passage, and the Sedition Act was to expire in 1801. So, unless they were explicitly renewed after that time (highly unlikely given the attitude of the Democratic-Republicans, who won a majority in the next Congress) the Acts themselves are not still in effect. Miraculouschaos 20:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

We have a wikipedia article on the sedition act giving more info, but no articles on the two alien acts giving their texts. Can someone who has the text create such articles? Also with links to the text at the federal statue location. Thanks Hmains 02:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The Alien Acts, unlike the sedition act, were never used by the government except as a threat. They expired before they could be challenged. Awis 04:37 18 July 2006

The Alien Enemies Act is still in effect: 50 USC Sections 21-24. It was used as a basis for FDR's proclamations with regard to German and Japanese residents in the United States in 1942. --BruceR 20:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

There needs to be a seperate section for the Alien Enemies Act. The brief blurb is not sufficient for discussing things like it's constitutionality. 68.199.230.233 23:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Undelegated powers

"Jefferson more strongly argued the Federal Government had overstepped its bounds in the Alien and Sedition Acts by attempting to exercise undelegated powers. His argument was rejected explicitly by a majority of state legislatures."

This is unsourced, and so vague as to be difficult to verify. It should have a source; at a minimum, a list of states, actions, and dates. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

good point...see sources at the Kentucky Virginia resolutions article where the states rejected the KR resolutions. Rjensen 23:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions cites only the New England states; and quotes only NH. Five is not a majority, and the quoted resolution does not affirm the constitutionality of the Sedition Act, but rather that the remedy is in the Federal Courts, not the action of the States. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• This source cites eight resolutions, unless I have miscounted; this is not a majority of the states - it is not even all the Federalist states. Of them DE and VT do not address constitutionality at all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Beliefs segment

209.244.16.162 01:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)I, for one, think that this page could use a segment stating wether or not people agree with the Acts or oppose them.

FRENCH NAVY?

France wasn't "known for her navy" Britain was more so. i'd like to see sources there.

how could you not know of the all-important french rowbat with a cannon? it was responsible for 1.5 deaths (the people on the boat when it backfired). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.149.13.22 (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No 's' in the U.S. in 1797?

If you look at the image carefully, the heading says "[...] held in the ftate". Then later it says "[...] one thoufand feven hundred and ninty-feven". Was it custom use use an 'f' instead of an 's' in these contextes?