FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   >>  
mendment was stated at length by Justice Holmes in this language: "We admit that in many places and in ordinary times, the defendants would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done.... The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." That is the Debs decision. That is the method in which the Supreme Court handled the popular liberties guaranteed under the First Amendment. The Court might have thrown the Espionage Act out under the First Amendment as it threw out the Child Labor Law. The Court might have ruled this act unconstitutional. The Court did not decide that Congress had no right to pass the Espionage Act. The Court did decide that since Congress had passed the Espionage Act, Debs had no right to make his speech. What are the implications of this position of the Supreme Court? "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech," says the Constitution. Congress passed a law abridging the freedom of speech, and the Supreme Court holds that the Courts, in interpreting the Constitution, must bear in mind the law that Congress has passed. We had thought that the Constitutional guarantee was superior to any law that Congress might pass, but the Court specifically holds in the Schenck Case that if "the words are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent," then the First Amendment affords no protection. Congress is made the arbiter. Congress now decides what may be said and what may not be said. This means that the Constitution does not guarantee personal liberty. Speech is free, if you keep within the laws passed by Congress, not otherwise. "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech," declares the Constitution. Speech is free, says the Court, if you obey the laws passed by Congress. What is the result? If the United States enters the League of Nations as a constituent part of it, and if the League of Nations carries on a series of minor wars, this country will be at war perhaps for fifty years, and during that time free speech will be banned under this decision of the Supreme Court;
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   >>  



Top keywords:

Congress

 

passed

 

speech

 

Constitution

 

Supreme

 

circumstances

 
Amendment
 

abridging

 

freedom

 

Espionage


prevent
 

decision

 

guarantee

 

Speech

 

decide

 

League

 

Nations

 

danger

 
present
 

create


substantive

 
nature
 

decides

 

banned

 

Schenck

 
affords
 

protection

 
country
 

arbiter

 

specifically


States

 

liberty

 

personal

 

United

 

declares

 

result

 

series

 
carries
 

enters

 

constituent


rights
 
constitutional
 

character

 
depends
 
question
 
defendants
 

Justice

 

Holmes

 

length

 

stated