American media messages and public opinion on the Palestinian uprising

The article opens with a review of recent developments which have caused the Neutrality Act of 1794 to reemerge as a legal issue. The article then examines the origins and purposes of the Act, as well as the political climate in the United States and the circumstances that led to its passage. The Neutrality Act was passed with the specific intention of remedying the practice of “privateering.” This problem was prevalent at the time the Act was passed but is no longer a problem today. The article examines early case law interpreting the Act, with specific attention to the definitional problem of how to interpret key words and phrases used in the Act. The early case law demonstrates that the activities of private citizens who fund the Contras do not violate the Act. Another important issue addressed is how the Executive Branch interprets the Act. The article supports the position of the current administration, namely, that the Neutrality Act does not apply to the President when he is exercising his power as sovereign over this nation's foreign affairs. Basically, the article attempts to show that those who are attempting to invoke this law to prohibit private citizens from assisting the Democratic Resistance in Nicaragua are misinterpreting the purpose and scope of the law. Moreover, it would be a great exaggeration of the law to extend it to the activities involved here.