LAD #30: Schenck v. US

http://callisto.ggsrv.com/imgsrv/FastFetch/UBER1/scca_0001_0001_0_img002

LAD #30: Schenck v. U.S.

The opinion of Justice Holmes begins with a summary of the counts against Schenck, which included attempting to undermine the recruitment efforts of the U.S. during a time of war, as well as using the mail to deliver things that a prohibited. Schenck tried to appeal using the First Amendment which includes freedom of speech and of the press. Schenck's documents essentially compared the draft to an action of a despot and told Americans to assert their constitutional rights. It was presumed that the intent of these documents was to obstruct the process of conscription. Holmes then stated that every act must be considered with the circumstances. Words that create a "clear and present danger" are lawfully restricted by Congress. When at war, the circumstances change one's constitutional rights, and trying to prevent the draft is a danger to a nation at war. According to the statute of 1917, obstructing the war effort is a crime, and saying or writing anything with that intent is as well. Holmes then concludes by defining the process of recruitment, proving that Schenck was obstructing this process. 

 https://publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/internment-camps-1.jpg

This case reminded me of the Japanese internment camps during WWII, which were considered constitutional given the circumstances of being at war, even though the act of putting the Japanese in camps was unconstitutional.