 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.  Atlantic Reporter - Page 341922Full view - About this book
 | John W. Johnson - Law - 2001 - 536 pages
...effect of obstructing persons from complying with the draft. "The question in every case," Holmes wrote, "is whether the words used are used in such circumstances...bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." According to Holmes, those arrested had been attempting to interfere with congressional... | |
 | Adam R. Nelson - Education - 2009 - 437 pages
...draftees during war, as Schenck purportedly had done. "The question in every case," Holmes claimed, "is whether the words used are used in such circumstances...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... | |
 | Kermit L. Hall - History - 1999 - 450 pages
...the speech as well as the intent of the persons who sent the leaflets. 'The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances...bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent" (p. 52). Holmes distinguished wartime and peacetime contexts and concluded that Schenck's... | |
 | Steven L. Winter - Law - 2003 - 446 pages
...influence of Frankfurter, Laski, and Hand). 33. Schenck, 249 US at 52 ("The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances...bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."). 34. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Natural Law, 32 HARV. L. REV. 40, 40 (1918). 35.... | |
 | Lee C. Bollinger, Geoffrey R. Stone - Law - 2003 - 348 pages
...significant contribution of the Schenck opinion was Holmes's statement that "[t]he question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances...bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." The so-called clear and present danger testhere used by Holmes to uphold the suppression... | |
 | Hongxing Jiang - Technology & Engineering - 2002 - 734 pages
...such circamstances 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. (Schenck v. United States, 1919) Furthermore, on the obverse side of the issue and in spite of legally defined... | |
 | James E. St. Clair, Linda C. Gugin - Political Science - 2002 - 420 pages
...opinion in the 1918 Schenck case that enunciated the test in these words: "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... | |
 | Brigitte Lebens Nacos - Language Arts & Disciplines - 2002 - 236 pages
...injunction against uttering words that may have all the effects of force — The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such nature as to create a clear and present danger that will bring about the substantive evils... | |
 | James A. Curry, Richard B. Riley, Richard M. Battistoni - Law - 2003 - 660 pages
...shouting fire in a theatre, and causing a panic. According to Holmes, "[t]he question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances...bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." To Holmes, it was "a question of proximity and degree." The defendant's words, printed... | |
 | Richard C. Leone, Gregory Anrig - History - 2003 - 338 pages
...the constitutionality of the law. "The question in every case," he wrote in a controversial decision, "is whether the words used are used in such circumstances...bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." Schenk's "words," he insisted, were designed to undermine the draft and were therefore... | |
| |
