Seth Epperson's Who Killed The Constitution

Government censorship continued with the passing of the Espionage Act in 1917 and the Sedition Amendment in 1918. The Espionage Act and Sedition Amendment condemned any antiwar activity or desecrating of the government, Constitution, flag, or military. The American public could not have an opinion, unless that opinion supported the war and government. Even Wilson stated, "Woe be to the man or group of men that seeks to stand in our way." Government censorship and “unpatriotic acts”, as deemed by the Espionage Act and Sedition Amendment, gave birth to a suspicious nation.

    I believe that the U.S constitution should be applied in a more expansive sense. A lot of our country has changed since 1789 when the constitution was first written. The way of life is different, the way we prosecute criminals is different, even the way we handle civil disputes is different. At the beginning, the constitution served as an application to that era’s disputes and defiances. Today we are seeing new issues arising. Human rights, police brutality, protesting in a criminally provocative way , yes, you name

After America shocked the world by defeating Great Britain in the War for Independence, the new nation needed a document that established their governments- state and national. After failed attempts with the Articles of Confederation, which gave the state governments too much power, the Constitution was eventually drafted. This contract established America’s national government and fundamental laws, and guaranteed certain basic rights for the citizens. The United States Constitution was signed on September 17, 1787, by delegates to the Constitutional Convention, in Philadelphia, conducted by George Washington. Said authors of the Constitution intended this document to rule our nation for eternity, yet a widely debated topic in the political science world, is whether or not the Constitution is still relevant in today’s

“While the authors of the United States Constitution are frequently portrayed as noble and idealistic statesmen who drafted a document based upon their conception of good government, reality is that the constitution reflects the politics of the drafting and ratification process. Unfortunately, the result is a document that is designed to produce an ineffective government, rather than a government that can respond to issues in a timely fashion.” In support of this conclusion, the issues of slavery, The 1906 San Francisco Earthquake, and the civil rights struggle keenly demonstrate the ways in which our constitution hinders the expediency and effectiveness of America’s government. The constitution’s provisions towards voting eligibility and

The main purpose behind the book Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution, by Woody Holton is to demonstrate the authors view on the true intent of the Framers when writing the Constitution. Although at first glance the book may seem to uphold the idea that the framers wrote the Constitution in order to protect civil liberties, Holton has a different opinion. To avoid a one sided book, the author not only looks at the framers intent, but the struggles facing the American people.

In the late 1910’s Congress passed the Espionage and Sedition Acts of 1917 and 1918 (ESA). Historian Howard Zinn sees the ESA as a malicious attempt by the U.S. government to “imprison Americans who spoke or wrote out against the war.” Zinn’s argument dismisses the idea that the ESA was a necessary step to ensure the integrity of a nation at war, as he believes that America’s entrance into WWI was motivated by a selfish desire for monetary gain and economic expansion. Zinn asserts that the U.S. government allowed American investors to “tie American finance closely to the interest of a British victory.” While Zinn’s ideas are well-argued and supported, they tell only one side of a complicated story. James West Davidson, however, tells another. He argues that at the time of the ESA’s passing, the United States had been pushed by German action into the first global conflict in its history. He describes the German U-boat attacks that were devastating the Atlantic, and the reports of “cracking morale” that were trickling in from the front lines, and asserts that the ESA was passed by a desperate government in order to combat protestors who attempted to sway public opinion against the war. Davidson never explicitly describes the ESA as good or bad, but he provides some valuable context that Zinn ignores. The ESA was not, as Zinn alleges, a heartless assault on the American coordinated “with all the power of the federal government and the money of big business behind it,” nor was it a shining example of individual freedoms. It was a complicated document with complicated implications, and consideration of only Zinn’s or Davidson’s writings eliminates the intricacies that were inherent in the ESA, and the circumstances that lead to its

The Founding Fathers put their blood, sweat and tears into the making of the Constitution and created a government out of practically nothing, all while having a vision for the future. This future consisted of a government that focused on liberty over security; a government of minimal intervention. To say that the modern version of the United States government is exactly what the Founding Fathers envisioned is a very debatable topic. There are many instances where todays government has followed the Constitution for the most part, but then there are a lot of other areas where the Founders visions have been twisted to the point that they are unrecognizable anymore. To start off, the basic concept of the United States government is one of checks and balances. This was put in place to ensure that the government never became too powerful. One very good example of checks and balances is the media. Even the founding fathers knew the extreme power of the media and its ability to keep the government in check. Two men by the names of William Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer were even able to create the Spanish American War by the process of yellow journalism, or the crude exaggeration of events. The first amendment states that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” The government today reflects this belief that the media is a watchdog or “fourth estate” as it is so often referred to. Political parties and everything that comes with it, including

According to the Bill of Rights, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Nowhere in the First Amendment does it state that in times of war, the government can change the laws that have been made to protect the people of the United States. Although some thought President Wilson’s actions were just, he did not abide by the rules of the First Amendment, and because of that, he went too far in limiting people’s civil liberties during World War

In different ways, one can argue whether that is true or not. He also said that the Espionage Act broke the First Amendment's promise ther “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech” which it stated in the Bill of Rights(Schenck v. United States). The government has the power to limit your right if it sees that you can cause a threat to the nation. Schenck was a potention threat to the nation, and therefor the safety of the country and for the people allowed for the government to limit his speech.

This law prohibited any speech that interfered with the drafting of men into the armed forces. The media is forced to silence, due to the fear of any repercussions, from the government. Merely voicing an opinion in the media about any war is now so looked down upon that it takes away freedom from the media to reach all types of audiences.

This leads to the primary focus of Dahl’s book. The book was written to encourage the reader to think and question the United States constitution. Dahl states that his “aim in this brief book is not to propose changes in the American Constitution but to suggest changes in the way we think about our constitution” (Dahl, p. 1). Americans should not feel beholden to a document that has been amended from the original that was written made by the Framers so long ago. Dahl suggests that “we begin to view our American Constitution as nothing more or less than a set of basic institutions and practices designed to the best of our abilities for the purpose of attaining democratic values” (Dahl, p. 3).

Government censorship continued with the passing of the Espionage Act in 1917 and the Sedition Amendment in 1918. The Espionage Act and Sedition Amendment condemned any antiwar activity or desecrating of the government, Constitution, flag, or military. The American public were almost at a point where they could not have an opinion, unless in support of the war and government. Even Wilson stated, "Woe be to the man or group of men that seeks to stand in our way." These acts of censorship gave birth to a suspicious nation.

1) Constitutional Question: Does the Free Speech Clause, of the First Amendment, protect Schenck from the Espionage Act of 1917?

On the other hand, Woodrow Wilson, 28th president believed that the only way to unify the country and have success in the war would be to prohibit official protest against the Government and military. The Government under no extenuating circumstances possible should be allowed to take away the right to free speech.

Is the United States Constitution a sacred and absolute document? Dahl (2001) argued that the Constitution is not perfect or permanent in his book, How Democratic is the American Constitution. He stresses that his main aim is not to propose that the Constitution must be amended, but to facilitate readers in changing how they think about the Constitution. In order to help people rethink the Constitution, Dahl (2001) explained the limitations of its Framers and the Constitution’s not widely known undemocratic aspects. The strengths of the book are its ethos or reputation of the author that establishes his credibility, informal writing style that can appeal to more people, its consideration of a number of undemocratic aspects of the