- Must be approximately 250 words! Create Thread TOPIC DESCRIPTION You will need
ID: 1136274 • Letter: #
Question
- Must be approximately 250 words! Create Thread TOPIC DESCRIPTION You will need to post one initial discussion and reply to one of your classmates Initial discussions should be approximately 250 words and roplies should be approximately 100 words Question: in Lesson 7, you learned about clvil iberties and certain rights protected by the Constitution. Consider the following situation and respond to the quesion at the end On the cusp of entering wwi, the United States government instituted the Selective Service Act of 1917, which made all men from the ages of 21 and 31 years of age (later from 18 to 45), eligible to be drafted for military service. Congress then passed the Espionage Act which, among other things, stated that any effort to undermine the war effort would be considered a criminal act. Many Americans were critical of United States involvement in the war as well as the forced mlitary service or the draft. One of the most outspoken opponents of the war was Charles Schenck, the general secretary of the American Socialists Party As American citizens, Schenck along with his fellow socialists believed that we should not be forced to serve in the military against our will and was a violation of our individual rights and unconstitutional. Belleving he needed more public support, Schenck organized a mass mailing of anti-draft literature to be sent to young men of draft age in the Philadelphia area s urged the men to call for the repeal of the act calling it "involuntary servitude Some found the flyer offensive and turned it over to the authorities Schenck was arrested and charged with violating the Espionage Act. He was found guilty in a court of law for "conspiring to undermine the war effort Schenck appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that the Espionage Act violated his right to free speech In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that Schenck's convic falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre and causing panic, and that his flyer created a "clear and present danger to a nation engaged in war. The court wrote, "when a nation is at war, many things that might be said in a time of peace. will not be endured so long as men fight tion was constitutional citing that "the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in Using the background information above and current events, answer the following question Should our government have the ability to curb individual rights in a time of war? Be sure that you include examples in your discussion to prove your position. Your response is your opinion but must be backed up with facts and examples of substance Once you have posted your discussion, read posts from other classmates and respond to at least one student Do you agree or disagree with their position? Your response should encourage constructive discussion 338 PMExplanation / Answer
I strongly feel that our government should have the ability to curb individual rights in a time of war because during these times government try to safeguard the most important aspect of any country which is “country itself” and sometime this requires strict steps against the rights and liberties that is provided by the constitution. For example it these tough situations it can be the government can curb the civilian’s right of freedom of movement so that the citizens can be protected from the dangerous area. After all all these constitutional is only applicable in a constitution and in order to maintain that constitution the government have to take some serious decisions for the benefits of their people. And if government don’t take these steps then it’s very possible that we’ll lose our rights or worse gets killed by the terrorists attacks or by the war situations.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.