LAD/Blog #31: Schenck V. United States

The Schenk V. United States case discusses the time where Charles Schenk and Elizabeth Baer distributed pamphlets advocating US citizens to dodge the draft for world war one. Schenk argued that the draft violated the thirteenth amendment which disallows involuntary servitude (side-note: this is referring to servitude as in servants and slavery not military service). The court then indicted them in violation of the Espionage Act of 1917 for just saying this. The court's grounds were that they attempted to cause insubordination in the military and obstruct recruitment. Obviously, Schenk did not agree with this ruling, so he entered the appeals process. He appealed on the grounds that the courts were violating his first amendment right by suppressing his message. The courts, however, denied this appeal. They stated that it was an "appropriate exercise of congress' wartime authority". It was deemed that by disrupting US war efforts Schenk posed a "clear and present danger" to US efforts. Judge Holmes likened it to yelling "FIRE" in a theater, which was not permitted under the first amendment. Personally, I have qualms with both sides. Regarding the original pamphlet, I don't think its argument is sound because the thirteenth amendment is not referring to military servitude, but rather it is referring to slavery, and Schenk twisted its meaning. Although, regardless of this, I think the court was violating Schenk's first amendment right by suppressing his message. The first amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". In no place does this say, "unless this speech causes a clear and present danger". This statement would have appalled Jefferson, the drafter of the bill of rights. It leaves what is a clear and present danger up to the interpretation, and manipulation, of those in power. If dissent against a draft is a clear and present danger, how long until dissent against a president and their stacked court is a clear and present danger?

Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson:

Augusto Pinochet (a man who eliminated a lot of dissent and freedom of speech in Chile):

Comments

LAD/Blog #35: Home was a Horse Stall

Executive order 9066 was essentially a racist program that excluded Japanese Americans from everyday life in America due to the actions of their former nation. They were banned from the west coast and forced into internment camps where they essentially lived under oppressive, racist marshal law. This was especially painful for first generation immigrants as they had a personal connection with both nations. Many of them did not want to see their two home nations fighting, and held some allegiance to both, but most were more prone to defending the United States.This was also hard on Japanese children, as they were ripped away from their friends, lives, and schools and taken to internment camps. One example of this is Sox, and her difficult upbringing during this time. She is taken away from her home and placed in a new one. That home is a horse stall. This stall was in a small, crowded internment camp which Sox was forced to grow up in. Her experience illustrates how poorly the Japanese ...

LAD #37: FDR’s Executive Order 9066

On February 19th, 1942, FDR proposed executive order 9066, the order that gave the Secretary of War the ability to create designated areas for specific people to stay during wartime that could pose a threat to the US military. In WWII these areas became known as internment camps, and the people put in them were Japanese-American citizens. This allowed for the rampant mistreatment of these people with cramped living conditions and improper education. While FDR did say these areas were to be provided adequate food, shelter, and transportation, the word "adequate" is very subjective, and allowed for very poor conditions. One example of this is the story "Home was a Horse Stall", where a young girl, Sox, and her family were forced to live in a horse stall and had very little rights and no access to programs many citizens would such as a good education. I, personally, think this is a horribly executed order. While it was FDR's intention to avoid the influence of spie...

LAD #39: Brown V. Board of Education

This case marks the beginning of the civil rights movements of the late 1950s to even present day. In Brown v. Board the supreme court unanimously ruled that schools can no longer be racially segregated. This contradicted the previous ruling of 1896, in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, that stated all publicly funded buildings could be separate but equal. This previous case had been deemed ineffective because all to often these separated facilities were not equal, with facilities that were dedicated to African Americans being significantly lower quality. This case was brought up originally because of Linda Brown, a girl barred from an all white school, and only given access to black schools which did not provide an equal education. Her defendants cited the 14th amendment, stressing that the State could not deny any person the equal right to protection of the laws, specifically the equal treatment under those laws which Linda Brown was not receiving. The Kansas District Court acknowledge...

Jack's AP American Blog

Search This Blog