What is Constitutionality? Well constitutionality is the quality of being in accordance with a political constitution. Every law passed should remain constitutional or everything we’ve worked for will have meant nothing. There are rights and such that we need to uphold and the constitution reminds us of what they are. The Sedition Act of 1918 was an Act of the United States Congress that extended the Espionage Act of 1917 to cover a broader range of offenses, notably speech and the expression of opinion that cast the government or the war effort in a negative light or interfered with the sale of government bonds. The Sedition Act of 1918 stated that people or countries cannot say negative things about the government or the war. It forbade the use of "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or …show more content…
abusive language" about the United States government, its flag, or its armed forces or that caused others to view the American government or its institutions with contempt. Those convicted under the act generally received sentences of imprisonment for five to 20 years. It was repealed on December 13, 1920. Now was this law unconstitutional?
Well that is a very controversial topic filled with many different opinion. permitting strong government control over individual actions was the SEDITION ACT. In essence, this Act prohibited public opposition to the government. Fines and imprisonment could be used against those who "write, print, utter, or publish . . . any false, scandalous and malicious writing" against the government. Now this is up to you to say whether or not this was unconstitutional but, in my opinion it was. The whole idea of it is sickening to think that the government took away the speaking rights of the people. Anyone could see plain as day that it was unconstitutional “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.” This is the first amendment, the sedition law completely contradicted that. A wise man known as Thomas Jefferson once stated “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.” That is true, To fight your government for your beliefs is not
wrong. As I was stating in the previous paragraph this whole act is wrong. Completely removing the right for people to speak is a terrible thing to do and the people were obviously outraged. They couldn’t even do anything about the situation, making it even worse. The first amendment granted freedom of speech and what do they do? They take it away to the point where you can’t even fight for it. It is an outrageous thing to even think about. IT is unconstitutional in the aspect of losing all freedom of speech whatsoever. The Government tried to do something unsettlingly wrong, taking away one of the basic rights of the people. If the government were to do this now what would you do? Would you sit around and say it is someone else’s job? Would you go out there and act, knowing the consequences? Or would you not care and live under the thumb of the government? The people didn’t back then. Although it is truly up to you whether or not to even think that it is wrong in the first place. Take this question with you, if the government took away your right to speak out, would it truly affect you?
In the Supreme Court case of the New York Times Co. vs. United States there is a power struggle. This struggle includes the entities of the individual freedoms against the interests of federal government. It is well known that the first amendment protects the freedom of speech, but to what extent does this freedom exist. There have been instances in which speech has been limited; Schenck vs. United States(1919) was the landmark case which instituted such limitations due to circumstances of “clear and present danger”. Many have noted that the press serves as an overseer which both apprehends and guides national agenda. However, if the federal government possessed the ability to censor the press would the government restrain itself? In the case of the Pentagon Papers the necessities of individual freedoms supersedes the scope of the national government.
The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 exposed bitter controversies between Federalists and Democratic-Republicans. The four bills placed extremely strict regulations on incoming immigrants and prohibited freedom of speech among the people. John Adams and Alexander Hamilton, the most notorious Federalists at the time, reasoned that the Alien and Sedition Acts were a necessity in order to keep America safe. However, disputes arose from this because they were many underlying possible true reasons as to why the acts were put into place. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the notorious Democratic-Republicans at the time, disliked what the Federalists stood for and knew that the bills violated the very foundation of basic American rights. The acts
Sixteenth Amendment- Authorization of an Income Tax – Progressives thought this would slow down the rising wealth of the richest Americans by using a sliding or progressive scale where the wealthier would pay more into the system. In 1907, Roosevelt supported the tax but it took two years until his Successor, Taft endorsed the constitutional amendment for the tax. The Sixteenth Amendment was finally ratified by the states in 1913. The origin of the income tax came William J Bryan in 1894 to help redistribute wealth and then from Roosevelt and his dedication to reform of corporations. I agree with an income tax to pay for all of our government systems and departments, but I believe there was a misfire with “redistributing wealth.” The redistribution is seen in welfare systems whereby individuals receive money to live. This is meant to be a temporary assistance, but sadly, most that are in the system are stuck due to lack of assistance in learning how to escape poverty. There are a lot of government funded programs, but there is no general help system to help lift people up and stay up, so there continues a cycle of
In 1798, the Alien and Sedition Acts were created under President John Adams due to tensions with France. The Sedition Act made it illegal for anyone to publish anything that could defame or speak badly of the United States government. The Alien and Sedition Acts were repealed after President Adams’ presidential term was over. The Espionage and Sedition Acts, created from 1914 through 1921, made it illegal to cause disloyalty in the military forces and also prohibited any opposition to the government and their decisions in war. These acts were declared unconstitutional. Both were repealed after conflicts died down. The U.S. Patriot Act, created to investigate and protect against terrorism, made it legal for the United States’ government to search the records of citizens without their
Schenek v. United States was a trial in 1919 that reaffirmed the conviction of a man for circulating antidraft leaflets among members of the armed forces. This trial upheld the Espionage and Sedition Acts, which by many deemed unconstitutional. The Espionage Act of 1917 was a United States federal law, which made it a crime for a person to convey information with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the armed forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies. The Sedition Act forbade Americans to use "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" about the United States government, flag, or armed forces during war. The act also allowed the Postmaster General to deny mail delivery to dissenters of government policy during wartime. These two laws denied the freedom of speech that our sacred Bill of Rights was supposed to uphold. The antidraft flyers that Schenek passed out claimed to be freedom of speech so the government could not stop the circulation of Schenek’s pamphlets. However, by passing out antidraft laws, Schenek had “the intent to interfere with the operation of success of the armed forces of the United States.” By doing this, he broke the law. He was sentenced to six months in prison for breaking an unconstitutional law. The government was trying to reduce the freedom of speech during a time of war so that the nation would be united as one. The opposition of some feared Woodrow Wilson and his cabinet so they took action by reducing some freedoms and imprisoning many people unconstitutionally.
The worries of yesterday Eventually, we will have a tyranny without a strong, trustworthy constitution. We do not want to recreate exactly what the colonists were trying to avoid and escape from, which was tyranny. Tyranny refers to when a person has a lot of power, and has a lot on their hands, having complete control, and total control. In 1787 a group of delegates from 12 of the 13 states goes together to try to better the country.
The first Amendment of the United States Constitution says; “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.”[1] Our fore fathers felt that this statement was plain enough for all to understand, however quite often the United States government deems it necessary to make laws to better define those rights that are stated in the Constitution. Today the framers would be both encouraged and discouraged by our modern interpretation the First Amendment the United States Constitution.
...ll was politically motivated became obvious when the House voted to extend the act from its original one year proposed to the expiration of John Adams term, March 3, 1801. The victory of the Republicans, who ran on a platform of anti-sedition, in the election of 1800 showed that Americans were much more interested in personal freedom that what Federalist thought. It is understandable that in time of war some positions need to be taken to assure the countries well being; as seen in later wars when the Japanese were sent to camps in the west coast. But when these acts of concern start to eliminate certain right and freedoms or violate the constitution; they should be abolished. Thankfully, the American people have the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights to bring them back from the edge, and to force those positions in office governing for themselves into accountability.
Tyranny riddles many forms of government, such as oligarchy, absolute monarchy, dictatorship, autocracy, and totalitarianism. In May of 1787, delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia gathered to create a stronger central government -- while avoiding the tyranny that so many other forms of government had allowed for. James Madison, of one those very same delegates, defined tyranny as “The accumulation of all powers...in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many...” in Federalist Paper #47. The key to the protection against tyranny in the American Constitution was the way in which power was divided. The Constitution guarded against tyranny by making provisions for federalism, the separation of powers, checks and balances of power, and fairly equal congressional power.
In the past, the U.S. Congress has passed acts in a time of crisis for the safety of our nation. With this information being acknowledged many ask, "If the government had previous powers to do so?" One act that was passed was the Sedition Act of 1798. This law was passed due to a threat of war with the French. This act basically stated that no person should conspire or scheme any plans against the government. This includes conspiracy by mouth, actions, or any other way possible. Even though the Bill of Rights state that the people have the right to freely express themselves through speech, the government revised or revoked that amendment during that particular time. This act became null and void on March 3, 1801 which was stated in Section 4 of the Sedition Act. Another act that was passed through Congress was the Espionage Act of 1918 during World War I. This act says that no one should slander the name of the U.S. government nor the naval forces and the military. It also states that no one should speak, print, or publish anything disloyal or scurrilous concerning the U.S. as a whole during the time of war. These rules are located in Section 3 of the Espionage Act. This goes against the 1st Amendment which allows the freedom of expression through speech and press, but as you can the government still passed the act. The act wasn't repealed until the year of 1921. Two more important cases where the government exemplified their power is in the Supreme Court: Hirabayashi v.
In 1798, when Congress passed both the Alien and Sedition Acts, it was very much constitutional. These acts were definitely in the best interest of America. America was a significantly young nation, at the time, and could not afford to create problems caused by foreigners coming to America. They did not have enough national power to sustain order if everyone was attacking the newly created laws, and many of those rebels being citizens from foreign countries, nevertheless.
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
After the Revolutionary War in America, many states recommend that free speech be put in the United States Constitution. Nevertheless, freedom of speech was written into the Bill of Rights and was ratified in 1791. A few years after the First Amendment was ratified, the government passed the Sedition Act of 1798. This was to help prevent resistance or rebellion against the government. It also made it illegal to print, write or say “any false, scandalous and malicious” things against the government.
While we have a constitution that lays out our clear cut civil liberties and all the rights we possess, other countries chose to restrict those freedoms. Due to the many advantages the Constitution gives each American citizen, the US has been able to keep this document intact as long as they have while other countries have to constantly restructure their government principles. This stability leads to greater efficiency in our legislative process and a strong sense of national pride. For a nation filled with differences and mixed opinions, the Constitution is a perfect fit. It was written as unbiased as possible to ensure that it was not limiting anyone or anything, instead, giving each citizen the ability to keep their government in check and grant freedom to everyone. During the time the document was written was when the Colonist knew exactly what it felt like to live in a world of oppression and unjust government. As a result, Madison and the other leaders at the time made it a goal to put the power in the hands of the people and make freedom an utmost priority. With an Unbiased approach to government that gives no advantage to one group or another, and with amendments that only help citizens take control, the Constitution is what the early colonist left Europe and died
The Constitution or “the supreme law of the land”, as stated in article six in the constitution is very complex. It is complex not only in its actual text full of ambiguities and vagueness, but it becomes more complex when used in practice and interpreted. Constitutional interpretation is significant because it is what decides what the constitution actually means. Constitutional interpretation is a guide judges use to find the legal meaning of the constitution. The interpretation of the constitution and amendments can make a big impact on outcomes. In our government and Judiciary, we see commonly see originalism being used to interpret the constitution and amendments, but there