See full scan at the bottom of the page.
In the late 1960s, Senator James O. Eastland of Mississippi introduced S. 2988—an expansive bill that threatened to revive the most controversial tactics of the 1950s Red Scare. This pamphlet, titled The Legal Foundation for a Police State, was published by the National Committee to Abolish the House Committee on Un-American Activities (NCAHUAC).
Drafted by Yale Law School Professor Thomas I. Emerson, it offers a pointed critique of S. 2988’s attempts to amend existing laws—including the Smith Act and McCarran Act—in ways that, according to the pamphlet, would dangerously erode constitutional protections.
Historical Context
By the late 1960s, the oppressive climate of McCarthyism had dissipated somewhat, yet fears of “subversion” still lingered in Cold War America. Against this backdrop, Eastland’s proposed “Internal Security Act of 1968” presented an omnibus approach to combating perceived threats, whether from suspected communists, civil rights activists, antiwar protesters, or any group deemed “un-American.” S. 2988 appeared just as the nation was grappling with social turbulence—Vietnam War protests, civil rights struggles, and changing cultural norms. Many civil liberties advocates viewed the bill as an alarming step backward into the witch-hunt era of the 1950s.
The pamphlet’s sponsors, the NCAHUAC, were part of a broader movement seeking to curtail the powers of congressional committees that had long targeted leftists, civil rights leaders, and social activists. Professor Emerson’s status as a constitutional scholar lent authority to the critique, emphasizing that much of what S. 2988 proposed ran counter to First Amendment precedents.
Strategy and Key Arguments
1. Rallying Public Opposition
Bold headlines—“The Legal Foundation for a Police State” and “IT CAN HAPPEN HERE!”—signal the pamphlet’s intent to stir public alarm. Throughout, it underscores parallels to McCarthy-era legislation, warning that renewed government powers could criminalize dissent and curtail free speech.
2. Detailed Legal Critique
By dissecting each “title” within S. 2988—reviving the Smith Act, introducing “peacetime treason,” and creating what the pamphlet dubs a “bureaucratic gestapo”—the handout systematically lays out how the bill would, in the authors’ view, override Supreme Court decisions protecting civil liberties.
3. Moral and Constitutional Framing
Throughout the text, Professor Emerson couches his arguments in the language of fundamental rights. He points to the clear tension between “internal security” and the principles of free expression, association, and due process. The repeated references to prior Supreme Court cases amplify the sense that S. 2988 contradicts the Constitution’s established safeguards.
Language, Imagery, and Symbolism
The pamphlet’s use of phrases like “police state,” “gestapo,” and “hunt” conjures both the dread of unchecked authority and the specter of past government overreach. Quotations from mainstream newspapers such as the Chicago Daily News and the Los Angeles Times lend the piece broader credibility, signaling that this concern extended beyond fringe groups. Bright headings—“IT CAN HAPPEN HERE!”—and calls to “W-R-I-T-E YOUR U.S. SENATORS & CONGRESSMAN!” serve as urgent pleas for immediate political action.
Meanwhile, Senator Eastland’s photo, accompanied by references to “Targets: Reds and Blacks,” personifies the perceived threat. This targeted language aims to mobilize a wide swath of readers—ranging from left-leaning academics to civil rights advocates—by painting the bill as a broad attack on free thought, racial justice, and peace activism.
Impact
Although S. 2988 did not become law, the debate it sparked reflected the ongoing clash between national security concerns and civil liberties during the Cold War era. Documents like this pamphlet remind us that legislative attempts to expand surveillance or criminalize dissent often meet vigorous resistance from grassroots movements. The legacy lives on today in discussions about surveillance, government secrecy, and the balance between fighting terrorism or subversion and preserving core freedoms.
This pamphlet illustrates how vigilant coalitions of lawyers, journalists, and citizens can mount an effective counterargument to legislative overreach. Its historical echoes remain potent, underscoring that debates over civil liberties versus national security did not end with McCarthyism—and continue to shape American policy and protest culture.
Special thanks to the USC Digital Imaging Lab for their support in digitizing this item.
