Close Read: Schenck v. United States. What does it mean to be anti-american? What are the limits of the first amendment to the US Constitution?

Similar documents
schenck v. united states (1919)

World War I. Chapter 6 Section 2 The Home Front Pages

CRS Report for Congress

The USA remained neutral in World War I from 1914 to Due to German violations of free trade, the USA declared war in April 1917

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

Six Principles- found in the Constitution

Study Guide THE HOME FRONT. Chapter 19, Section 2. How the Government Prepared. Name Date Class. For use with textbook pages

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAW ANNU WASHINGTON DC

Standards US History 26-30

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552.

which are attached. They also considered your rebuttal letter dated 18 July 2002.

IN RE COSENOW. Circuit Court, E. D. Michigan. February 6, 1889.

Chapter 9, Section 2. The Home Front

FAQ about the Death With Dignity Act

IC Chapter 9. Court-Martial Procedures

FAQ about Physician-Assisted Death

Title 22: HEALTH AND WELFARE

ENLISTMENT. How are these posters trying to influence Americans to enlist into the military?

CHAPTER 64. STANDARDS OF OPERATION FOR LOCAL COURT-APPOINTED VOLUNTEER ADVOCATE PROGRAMS

COLONIAL FLEET ARTICLES OF WAR General Provisions:

Family Child Care Licensing Manual (November 2016)

Petitioner: Penny M. Venetis, Clinical Professor of Law, on behalf of The Rutgers

Service & Society Conference Columbia University, Lerner Hall, October 2, 2010 Trustees, ROTC, and the University By Anne D. Neal

PPT: Supporting the War

Nurse Alex the Super Nurse Flaws in the Theory:

CORRECTED COPY UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS. UNITED STATES, Appellant v. Sergeant STEVEN E. WOLPERT United States Army, Appellee

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON, DC MCO B JAR 26 Jun 97

SECURITY OF CLASSIFIED MATERIALS W130119XQ STUDENT HANDOUT

Rights of Military Members

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, the third day of January, two thousand and seventeen An Act

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS FINAL DECISION

The Great War

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PROTESTS, PICKETING, AND OTHER SIMILAR DEMONSTRATIONS

WASHINGTON, DC. MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction

NGAR REG Operating and Parking Vehicles on State Military Reservations

Death with Dignity: Background Materials

JUSTICE CHRONICLES. New SAPR Instruction REGION LEGAL SERVICE OFFICE SOUTHWEST. In This Issue:

An Introduction to The Uniform Code of Military Justice

Slide 1 WHO IS THE CLIENT? WHO CONTROLS THE RECORD? ETHICS AND HIPAA. Slide 2. Slide 3. The Four As of Ethical Practice

CPUSH Agenda for Unit 9.5: Clicker Questions Battlefront during World War I notes Today s HW: 19.2 Unit 9 Test: Thursday, January 17

Military Law - Persons Subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. United States v. Averette, 19 U.S.C.M.A. 363, 41 C.M.R.

WWI: Battlefields and Homefront

JROTC Inspection Questions LET 2

Christensen & Kockrow: Foundations and Adult Health Nursing, 5 th Edition

GEORGIA PEACE OFFICER STANDARDS AND TRAINING COUNCIL

UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

BEFORE A MEMBER OF THE POLICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO

RELATIONS WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES AND SOCIAL SERVICE AGENCIES

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY. office OF THE CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS WASHINGTON, DC

Columbus. A ruling on the hearing was expected in July of 2016 but has now apparently been postponed until the Spring of 2017.

This publication is available digitally on the AFDPO WWW site at:

PAPERLESS ARCHIVES

NLRB v. Community Medical Center

Raab v. Administrator FAA

Can You Sue the State of Tennessee for Violating USERRA?

Matter of Cumba v Fischer 2012 NY Slip Op 31859(U) May 22, 2012 Sup Ct, Franklin County Docket Number: Judge: S.

Bell, C.J. Eldridge Raker Wilner Cathell Harrell Battaglia,

WARM UP. 1 You have 10 minutes to complete your picture and two sentences from yesterday

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS UNITED STATES. Senior Airman MOISES GARCIA-VARELA United States Air Force. ACM S31466 (f rev)

GENERAL ORDER PORT WASHINGTON POLICE DEPARTMENT

Summarized Report of Results of Trial. First Judicial Circuit

This filing is timely pursuant to Military Commissions Trial Judiciary Rule of Coutt,

BY ORDER OF THE COMMANDER USFJ INSTRUCTION HEADQUARTERS, UNITED STATES FORCES, JAPAN 1 JUNE 2001 COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY

CHAPTER 18 INFORMAL HEARINGS

WORLD WAR LOOMS. America Moves Towards War

COMPLIANCE WITH THISPUBLICATION IS MANDATORY

DDTC Issues Overly Expansive Interpretation of the ITAR for Defense Services (and Presumably Technical Data)

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Implementation via Case Law

GEORGIA PEACE OFFICER STANDARDS AND TRAINING COUNCIL

did not deal with it until he got out of the Air Force. His life has been stable, productive and rewarding since 1985.

AL ZHEIMER S AT TO R N E Y C A RO L W E S S E L S A P R I L,

Overview of FY17 NDAA Changes to Military Justice. Military Justice Act of 2016

EMPLOYMENT APPLICATION

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

MODULE: RULE OF LAW AND FAIR TRIAL ACTIVITY: GUANTANAMO BAY

Reports of Sexual Assault Over Time

Department of Defense DIRECTIVE

Courts Martial Manual Usmc 2009 Edition

PARITY IMPLEMENTATION COALITION

DIVISION E UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE REFORM. This division may be cited as the Military Justice Act of TITLE LI GENERAL PROVISIONS

CHIEF PROSECUTOR MARK MARTINS REMARKS AT GUANTANAMO BAY 16 MAY 2016

No February Criminal Justice Information Reporting

HigherEducationMilitaryAffairsandEthicsAHistoricalOverviewofaProgressiveCivilRightsMovement

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

Chapter 2 Prisoners Legal Requirements and Rights CONFINEMENT REQUIREMENTS PRISONER STATUS

ASSIGNMENT 1. Leadership, Supervision, and Training, chapter 1, and Military Justice and Bearing, chapter 2.

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Air Force Court-Martial Summaries

A consideration the issues of discharges from the US Military

COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY

Naval District Washington. General Court-Martial

EMPLOYEE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES (LEGAL)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. No YASER ESAM HAMDI AND ESAM FOUAD HAMDI, AS NEXT FRIEND OF YASER ESAM HAMDI, PETITIONERS

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

SUSPECT RIGHTS. You are called in to talk to and are advised of your rights by any military or civilian police (including your chain of command).

FEDERAL LAW ON THE PROSECUTOR S OFFICE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION OF 17 JANUARY 1992

The Tide of War Turns,

March The Nursing and Midwifery Board of Ireland A Guide to Fitness to Practise

January 12, President-elect Barack Obama Obama-Biden Transition Project Washington, DC Dear President-elect Obama:

Transcription:

CR Objective CR Introduction Close Read: Schenck v. United States What does it mean to be anti-american? What are the limits of the first amendment to the US Constitution? In 1918, the United States was embroiled in the global conflict known as WWI; though the war itself was mostly contained to Europe, the impact of the war was deeply felt amongst Americans living in the United States. Among its many impacts, World War I brought to American society the first ever military draft of eligible young men. Not everyone agreed with America s entry to the war, nor did everyone agree that drafting men into the US military was the proper course of action. Many protests were held; amongst these protests was one led by the Charles Schenck. His protest eventually defined first amendment rights for all citizens of the United States. Pre-Analysis Activity Directions : Read the background information presented below on the Supreme Court case - Schenck v. United States. Use the information to complete the pre-analysis questions on the next page. Background on Schenck v. United States (1919) After the United States entered World War I in 1917, the U.S. Congress instituted a military draft when it passed the Selective Service Act. In order to protect the war effort, Congress also passed the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Bills of 1918. Among other things, these laws made it a crime to cause or attempt to cause insubordination [refusing to obey orders] in the military and naval forces or to obstruct [prevent] the recruitment or enlistment of persons into the military service of the United States. Charles Schenck, the General Secretary of the Socialist Party, opposed United States participation in World War I. He was arrested for violating the Espionage & Sedition Acts after 15,000 leaflets urging resistance to the draft were sent to men who had been drafted. The leaflets were traced to Socialist Party headquarters. On the front of the leaflet the first section of the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits slavery or involuntary servitude, was printed. The leaflet asserted that the Selective Service Act violated the idea embodied in the amendment and that a draftee was little better than a convict. In impassioned language, it suggested that conscription [being drafted into the military] was despotism [exercise of absolute power in a cruel manner] in its worst form and a monstrous wrong against humanity in the interest of Wall Street s chosen few. It urged draftees not to submit to intimidation but, at least in form, confined itself to urging peaceful measures such as petitioning for repeal of the Selective Service Act. Part of the leaflet urged draftees to Assert Your Rights. It alleged that an individual violated the Constitution when he or she refused to recognize your rights to assert your opposition to the draft. It stated: If you do not assert and support your rights, you are helping to deny or disparage rights which it is the solemn duty of all citizens and residents of the United States to retain. It described even silent consent to the draft law as helping to support an infamous conspiracy. The leaflet concluded: You must do your share to maintain, support, and uphold the rights of the people of this country. Although Schenck denied responsibility for sending the leaflets, he was found guilty in a U.S. District Court. He appealed his conviction to the United States Supreme Court - and claiming that the leaflets should be protected as free speech. - From: Civics Resources & Law Related Education by the Texas Bar Association

Pre Analysis Questions: 1) What is a military draft? Why do you think it was instituted after the US officially entered WWI? 2) What did the Espionage & Sedition Acts outlaw? Why do you think they were passed? 3) Why was Charles Schenck arrested? What did he do that was illegal? 4) Summarize the content of the pamphlet in your own words. 5) Which part of the US Constitution did Charles Schenck use in appealing his case to the SCOTUS? Why do you think he chose to use this part of the Constitution?

Corroborating Evidence Jigsaw - Part 1: Directions: You have been assigned to an expert group. In your expert group, you have been given a primary source or multiple shorter primary sources. Become an expert on your sources! To analyze your sources, answer the questions that follow them. Additionally, be sure to jot down at least one direct quote from your source & note down anything else of importance you notice in your source. Answer the questions and make your notations in the chart below. Name of Source: Type of Source: Analysis of Source:

Corroborating Evidence Jigsaw - Part 2: Directions: You are now in a group with 3 other experts. Each of you has examined key pieces of evidence in the case of Schenck v. United States. In your new group, share the evidence you have gathered with the others. Fill out the chart below so that you have a more complete picture of the elements involved in Charles Schenck s case. 1st Amendment Pamphlet Page 1 Espionage & Sedition Acts Pamphlet Page 2

CR Analysis & Comprehension Task Schenck v. United States: Supreme Court Decision Directions: Using information from the document above, please respond to the following task. Task: Using the information from the documents above and your knowledge of US History to respond to the following task: In a short written response, please answer the following prompt: Imagine you are a justice sitting on the Supreme Court in 1919, when Schenck s case is brought to the highest court in the land. The question being examined by the courts is whether or not the Espionage & Sedition Acts are constitutional, or a violation of the 1st amendment. How will you rule in this case? Argue for or against the Espionage & Sedition Acts. Are the Espionage & Sedition Acts constitutional? If so, Charles Schenck is guilty. Are the Espionage & Sedition Acts unconstitutional? If so, Charles Schenck is innocent because his actions are protected by his first amendment rights. Explain your argument! Write your judge s opinion based on the evidence & texts provided to you. You must cite at least 3 of the documents in your written response. One of which MUST be the Espionage & Sedition Acts explain means to make plain or understandable; to give reasons for or causes of; to show the logical development or relationships of argue means to give reasons or cite evidence in support of an idea, action, or theory, typically with the aim of persuading others to share one's view.