 | Earl Shorris - 2007 - 396 pages
...the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war many things that might be...regard them as protected by any constitutional right." War has often been an excuse for tossing the Constitution aside, but the definition of war has become... | |
 | Jeffrey D. Stocks - 2007 - 114 pages
...speech. The decision was unanimous and its opinion was written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. "[w]hen a nation is at war many things that might...regard them as protected by any constitutional right" (Scbenck v. US [1919]). Holmes also set forth his famous "clear and present danger" threshold. He stated... | |
 | Scott J. Hammond, Kevin R. Hardwick, Howard L. Lubert - 2007 - 988 pages
...the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. panting fugitive as he was tracking his way to Canada. And every man or woman in whose veins coursed It seems to be admitted that if an actual obstruction of the recruiting service were proved, liability... | |
 | Paul Siegel - 2008 - 336 pages
...rights might be tolerated and a prior restraint on publication might be appropriate. The Court stated: "When a nation is at war many things that might be...regard them as protected by any constitutional right. No one would question but that a government might prevent actual obstruction to its recruiting service... | |
 | Jeffrey Rosen - 2007 - 288 pages
...Holmes offered them as a justification for suppressing free speech. In the next breath, he declared: "When a nation is at war many things that might be...regard them as protected by any constitutional right." Once again, Holmes could not resist the military references. But Holmes's civil libertarian friends... | |
 | Richard C. Leone, Gregory Anrig, C Leone - 2007 - 294 pages
...to undermine the draft and were therefore unprotected speech. "When a nation is at war," he added, "many things that might be said in time of peace are...regard them as protected by any constitutional right." Holmes's decision evoked a storm of protest from eminent legal scholars whose opinion the justice evidently... | |
 | George Anastaplo - 2007 - 346 pages
...Oliver W. Holmes in Schenck (1919): "When a nation is at war [even an undeclared war, we may wonder?] many things that might be said in time of peace are...regard them as protected by any constitutional right." Such sentiments, as well as the talk about "unseemly haste," stand in dramatic opposition to the declaration... | |
 | Kevin Gutzman - 2007 - 258 pages
...Wendell Holmes, the supposed avatar of freedom of speech, let forth the following enlightened blast: "When a nation is at war many things that might be...utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and ... no Court could regard them as protected by constitutional right." In other words, the Sedition... | |
 | George Kennedy, Daryl R. Moen - 2007 - 181 pages
...limits of the First Amendment. In Schenck v. United States (1919), Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "When a nation is at war many things that might be...utterance will not be endured so long as men fight." Charles Schenck, the general secretary of the Socialist party of the United States, had mailed leaflets... | |
 | Matthew A. Crenson, Benjamin Ginsberg - 2007 - 448 pages
...about under the Espionage Act passed constitutional muster, because, in the words of Justice Holmes, "When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace [are not] protected by any constitutional right."32 Thus, for the Court as for the Congress, the exigencies... | |
| |
When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right. 
