Schneck Vs. United States CSpan Project. Social Sciences Essay

plz watch three videos, then finish the 9 questions.

Schenck vs United States
The Supreme Court has the power to interpret the Constitution. Its rulings on cases determine the meaning of laws and acts of Congress and the president. Knowing the key decisions of the Supreme Court and the precedents they set is vital in understanding the meaning of laws, how our country has changed over time, and the direction the country is currently headed. In this lesson students will examine the case of Schenck v. United States.https://www(dot)c-span(dot)orQ/video/7c4558190/us-involvement-wwi
https://www(dot)c-span(dot)org/video/7c4558198/espionage-act
https://www(dot)c-span(dot)orQ/video/7c4558228/backQround-schenck-v-united-states
1. Why was the decision for the U.S. to become involved in WWI such a touchy debate?2. Explain the context in which the U.S. Congress felt it had to pass the Espionage Act.3. Explain the purpose of the flier that was produced by Charles Schneck.4. According to Thomas Goldstein, what was illegal about this document?5. How powerful was this argument among people in the U.S.?6. Explain how the Charles Schenck case made its way to the Supreme Court.7. Does the “clear and present danger” test represents a reasonable means of balancing free speech and national security? Explain8. Did Schenck’s actions present a real danger? Why/why not?9. On what grounds does Chafee disagree with Holmes? With whom do you agree? Explain “[T)he character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done.... The most stringent [severe] protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.... The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about 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 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.” -Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes
“Even after war has been declared there is bound to be a confused mixture of good and bad arguments in its support, and a wide difference of opinion as to its objects. Truth can be sifted out from falsehood only if the government is vigorously and constantly cross-examined.... Consequently it is a disastrous mistake to limit criticism to those who favor the war.... [T]he great interest in free speech should be sacrificed only when the interest in public safety is really