Recommended: Speeches about freedom of speech
In December of 1674, John Sassamon set off to, allegedly, warn Governor Josiah Winslow that, “the Wampanag sachem (New England Indian hereditary leader) King Philip […] was preparing for war against the English settlers” (p. 1). Unfortunately, Sassamon did not return from his journey and, on January 29, 1675, was found dead in an icy pound with his “hat, a gun, and a brace of ducks” nearby (p. 1). On March 1, 1675, three Wampanoag Indians – Tobias, Mattashunnamo, and Wampapaquan – were indicted for Sassamon’s murder (p. 100). Based on New England’s legal system, Tobias, Mattashunnamo, and Wampapaquan did receive a fair trial in that the case was tried in a General Court, and not dealt with privately between the Indian groups as was customary (p. 103).
Essay #2 The first amendment and the sedition act of 1798 heavily contradicted each other. In the Majority Report of the 5th Congress on the Sedition Act of 1798 state that this act is unconstitutional and abridges on the liberty of free press. It makes any attempt at publications of press regarding congress punishable by a five thousand dollar fine and/or five years imprisonment. It also stated that no evidence can be used in the defense of the said guilty individual.
Rulings such as The Prize Cases 1862, Ex parte Merryman 1861, Ex parte Milligan 1866, Korematsu v. United States 1944, Youngstown Sheet and Tube v. Sawyer 1952, Rasul v Bush/ Handi v. Rumsfeld 2004, Bands of State of Washington v. United States 1929, Train v. City of New York 1975, Clinton v. City of New York 1998, United States v. Nixon 1974, Nixon v. Fitzgerald 1982, Clinton v. Jones 1997, Myers v. United States 1926 are Supreme Court cases that were fought to control the power of the president. Even the most influential and honored president has abused of the power granted to them. In the court case, Ex parte Milligan 1866 president Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus ignoring the ruling that it was unconstitutional. Court case Korematsu v. United States 1944 questioned if the ruling of president Franklin Roosevelt Executive Order 9066 was constitutional as it placed Japanese- Americans in internment camps during World War II regardless of their citizenship. Court case Youngstown Sheet and Tube v. Sawyer 1952
The arguments of the Scopes Trial, which is also known as the “Monkey Trial”, have been carried far past the year of 1925. When laws are challenged it shakes the town or city one is apart of. This was true for the U.S. as a whole. The Scopes Trial has never been forgotten, and its repercussions are evident. The trial demonstrated lawful challenges.
First, it was acknowledged that every individual is protected against losing their citizenship according to the Fourteenth Amendment, in Afroyim v. Rusk. That the Constitution requires, “clear and convincing evidence” that citizenship was voluntary denounced, which Congress does not have the power to constitute the standard of. Secondly, the court recognized that even though in the case of Nishikawa v. Dulles it was ruled that Congress does have the right to supply the standard of evidential proof; the case was not a fair decision based on the Constitution. Proof was left to Terrazas to show that he did not mean to denounce his citizenship.
Despite this blatant disregard for rights President Wilson decided to push even further and create the Espionage Act. This law (if broken) would result in a $10,000 fine and 10 years imprisonment. Despite this debilitating act it gave way to the ciliv liberties case, US v. Charles Schenck. In this case Schenck was convicted for printing pamphlets that encouraged Americans to resist the draft. Unfortunately for him, the Supreme Court upheld this decision.
The Sedition Act was passed the next year. Our government was scared that people being allowed to talk openly about whatever they wanted would lead to fewer people would want to join the army or become disloyal to their home country These fears led to the act of taking away one of the rights listed in the Bill of Rights, “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
We need to discuss whether this law violates civil liberties and freedom of speech. The First Amendment protects the rights of the people to speak, write, and assemble. While the Espionage Act was made to protect national security. President Woodrow Wilson warned of disloyalty in his speech in 1915. But the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of speech also implies a balancing act between national security efforts and the severely important protection of individual liberties.
American History Final Essay In the Bill of Rights, there has been ten amendments passed on September 25th, 1791. The big question being asked in this paper is, is the government justified in taking away Constitutional Rights during times of war? In the past, the government has taken away our Constitutional Rights during times of war, so I think that yes, the government is justified in taking away Constitutional Rights during times of war. I think they are justified in taking away our rights because the government needs to help keep us safe, to make sure the government is not talked badly about, and by keeping English the only language you can speak during times of war.
Wilson also passed the Espionage Act (1917) and the Sedition Act (1918) to criminalise criticism of the actions US government and armed forces during the war by censoring all forms of media, including speeches and written forms of media.
Throughout the history of the United States, the American commitment to civil liberties has frequently been put to the test. Examples such as the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, and the Patriot Act of October 26, 2001 reflect this. Both were driven by a perceived need to protect the United States against foreign adversaries or internal subversion and espionage. The darkest chapters of American history, especially those involving crackdowns against immigrants and political dissent, have almost always occurred during times of war and terror, or the threat of these events. In times like these it is imperative to remember that America was built on the foundation of liberty and equality.
Franke posed was “why is speech threatened during war time?”. This question, undoubtable will spark some controversy within your classroom because it allows the students to see the reality that perhaps the once perfect idea of the poodle skirts, grease lighten and peace era of the 1950s was in reality overshadow by the controversy of societies first amendment being threatened. Dr. Franke, specifically gave an example of using the episode on the Vietnam War and how there was numerous of anti-war demonstrates widespread acts of civil disobedience and instance of serious political violence. Through this uprising, it leads to domestic spying and prior restraint. These two examples demonstrated how the speech was in doubly being threatened during war time.
During World War II the treason laws between civil court and military authority, unfortunately, didn’t survive in America after the Ex parte Quirin trial of
Scholars have tried to determine what the framers of the U.S. Constitution meant by writing the First Amendment. The press is constantly fights against restrictions from the federal government, prior restraints, censorship, accusations of libel, privacy, and the right of access. The federal government has tried to restrict the press’ access to information: the Alien and Sedition Laws of 1798, the Espionage Act of 1918, the Smith Act of 1940, and the Cold War congressional investigations. The Alien and Sedition Laws made it illegal to write anything scandalous against any government entity. The law expired when Thomas Jefferson pardoned everyone who was found guilty under the law.
Through these two pieces of evidence we are able to see that the Constitution does favor individual rights by its limiting of the Federal Government’s power and its securing of individual
