DOCSLIB.ORG

JCC: Democrats (1920 Elections) the First Red Scare and the League of Nations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
JCC: Democrats (1920 Elections) the First Red Scare and the League of Nations SPECIALIZED COMMITTEE JCC: Democrats (1920 Elections) The First Red Scare and the League of Nations Kate Farmer and Henry Coates THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS Introduction “League of Nations.” A term coined by Goldsworthy Lowes Dickinson in 1914. Dickinson was a founding member of the Bryce Group, after Lord Bryce, another avid proponent of the League of Nations concept, which developed into the League of Nations Union, one of the most influential factions in the governing Liberal Party in Britain. The intention of the organization in Dickinson’s eyes was as one for arbitration and conciliation. In spite of their British basing, the message of the Bryce Group became widespread throughout both England and the United States. Feminist leaders and protesters of the war in the United States have turned to this idea as well, with Jane Addams promoting the idea of a “permanent league of neutral nations.” The Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom was established in The Hague and convinced most foreign ministers of most belligerent nations to agree to the League of Nations concept in the event that American President Woodrow Wilson proposes the body. In spite of the noble effort of the Women’s League, Wilson refused the proposition due to the ongoing war. In the post war Wilson promoted the League as one of his 14 points. The main objection of Congress to the League of Nations is that it has the possibility of pulling the nation into war when undeclared by the Congress itself. Henry Cabot Lodge, a Republican Senator, leads the opposition to the treaty on this basis. It is written into the Constitution that Congress possesses the sole power to declare war, and any treaty that overrides this thereby overrides the founding document of the United States of America. Additional objections to the League of Nations are that it interferes with America conducting its own foreign policy, under fear that the nation’s actions would become dictated by the League. History of the Issue The initial concept of a League of Nations was conceived in 1795 by Immanuel Kant. The idea was a community of nations that would promote international peace and control conflict between nations. The goal of this was not an international governing body, like the League that became, but rather for every nation to individually promote peace and respect of foreign governments, so that they might collaborate against conflict throughout the world. The first example of a cooperative international group promoting prosperity and controlling conflict is the Concert of Europe that arose to halt the expansionism of Napoleon. The goal of this group was to maintain the status quo, thereby promoting peace and seeking the aims put forth by Kant. This period also saw the beginning of regulation on war, with the first Geneva Conventions, and the Hague Conventions establishing humanitarian laws and rules of war. Theodore Roosevelt emerged in this period as the first American president to join the outcry for an international league to keep the peace, stating “it would be a masterstroke if those great powers honestly bent on peace would form a League of Peace.” The base structure of the League of Nations was derived from the first such body established, the Inter-Parliamentary Union. This Union was founded by peace activists in Great Britain, and consisted primarily of members of Parliament who promoted peace within the government. The structure of the Union, with a council lead by a president, was emulated by the League when it was created. With the onset of World War I support for the League concept became much more popular throughout the world. Led by Goldsworthy Lowes Dickinson and Lord Bryce in England, and extending the the United States on the backs of feminist movements. The League had gained traction throughout the world as a result of the war, who’s atrocities needed to be prevented in the future. Recent Developments Democratic Point of View: The League of Nations was heavily supported at the Paris Peace Conference by Democrat President Woodrow Wilson. Democrats generally support the League idea, and deem it the most effective way of securing peace in the world. Without an established group of nations to watch over the world there would be nothing stopping a nation like Germany to rise in power again and having the ability to wage war upon the free world. There is no greater fear than a repeat of World War I, and such an occurrence is entirely unthinkable for the American people after the atrocities witnessed in Europe. Republican Point of View: The League of Nations is widely feared by Republicans, led in the Senate by Henry Cabot Lodge. While the League is deemed good in theory, it is feared by its unilateral power over the member states. Congress is not meant to be subordinate to an international governing body. The League of Nations would have the power to call the United States to war without the approval of Congress, meaning if the warring Europeans decided they wanted to repeat the terror they had just unleashed on the world, they could do so and draw America into a war it wanted no part of. The general consensus is that a Treaty with a compromise such that Congress must approve any decision that would draw America into war would be accepted by Republicans, but Wilson has thus far refused to consider such an amendment to his crowning achievement. Conclusion There is no question that the universal desire of every involved party is peace. International and permanent peace, making true the nickname for World War I, the “War to End all Wars.” There has never been a war so terrible, and the desire of the American people is to never see such an event occur for the rest of history. The conflict arises over the methodology of preventing another Great War. Should America join the League of Nations that promises to watch over the world preventing any unjust conflict, or instead avoid the overarching international government that has the power to overrule Congress and send American into a war where it does not belong. Questions to Consider Would the League of Nations have the power to prevent international conflict with America as a member? Is the possibility of being drawn into conflict worth being part of the international governing body to prevent world conflict? How might Wilson be convinced to compromise on the treaty so that America cannot be drawn into an undesirable war? What measures could America take if not a member of the League to prevent international conflict? Is international peace with limited American influence a suitable solution? Should the world’s most powerful nation have more control over the League? Sources for Additional Research https://history.state.gov/milestones/1914-1920/league https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-i/league-of-nations https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/wilson-league-nations/ Bibliography A&E Television Networks. "League of Nations." HISTORY. Last modified October 12, 2017. Accessed January 29, 2019. https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-i/league-of- nations. George Washington University. "League of Nations." The Eleanor Roosevelt Papers Project. Accessed January 29, 2019. https://www2.gwu.edu/~erpapers/teachinger/glossary/league-of-nations.cfm. "League of Nations." The President Woodrow Wilson House. Accessed January 29, 2019. https://www.woodrowwilsonhouse.org/league-nations. PBS. "The League of Nations." PBS. Accessed January 29, 2019. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/wilson-league-nations/. Townshend, Charles. "The League of Nations and the United Nations." BBC (England), February 2, 2011. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/league_nations_01.shtml. US Department of State. "The League of Nations, 1920." Office of The Historian. Accessed January 29, 2019. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1914-1920/league. THE FIRST RED SCARE Introduction America’s traditional “fear of the Reds” has an extensive and rocky history. This first arose in mass numbers in the early 20th century, ignited by such events as the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution and the conclusion of WWI. Because the Bolshevik Revolution lead to the establishment of the first ever communist state, Americans and the world had never witnessed the manifestation of such left-wing ideologies before in history. Combined with national labor unrest, left-wing groups began to increasingly show their presence in society. As a result, sentiments such as nationalism, nativism, and jingoism became rampant, causing many Americans to become suspicious and distrusting of their immigrant neighbors and friends. There is a lot of information surrounding the Red Scare of 1919-1920. When examining such influential historical events as the creation of the Espionage and Sedition Acts, the Sacco and Vanzetti case, and the Palmer Raids, take note of the circumstances, beliefs, and prejudices of key figures/groups. For many of these, what’s important is not necessarily what exactly happened, but why it happened, who it affected, and what kind of reaction it caused. Before delving into your research, keep this close in mind: There are two major “Red Scares” in American history. The larger and more commonly known is the Second Red Scare, which occured in the late 1940s to mid-1950s as a result of Cold War hysteria. Because the Second Red Scare was longer and more notorious, it is usually referred to as simply “The Red Scare”, not explicitly as the second of the Red Scares. This topic focuses on the First Red Scare. When conducting outside research, I urge you to pay close attention to dates and titles so that you do not collect data from the wrong one. History Arguably, the most immediate and direct cause of the First Red Scare was the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, which occurred on November 6-7, 1917.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • American Bolsheviki: the Beginnings of the First Red Scare, 1917 to 1918
    Steeplechase: An ORCA Student Journal Volume 3 Issue 2 Article 4 2019 American Bolsheviki: The Beginnings of the First Red Scare, 1917 to 1918 Jonathan Dunning Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.murraystate.edu/steeplechase Part of the European History Commons, Other History Commons, Political History Commons, and the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Dunning, Jonathan (2019) "American Bolsheviki: The Beginnings of the First Red Scare, 1917 to 1918," Steeplechase: An ORCA Student Journal: Vol. 3 : Iss. 2 , Article 4. Available at: https://digitalcommons.murraystate.edu/steeplechase/vol3/iss2/4 This Feature is brought to you for free and open access by the The Office of Research and Creative Activity at Murray State's Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Steeplechase: An ORCA Student Journal by an authorized editor of Murray State's Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. American Bolsheviki: The Beginnings of the First Red Scare, 1917 to 1918 Abstract A consensus has developed among historians that widespread panic consumed the American public and government as many came to fear a Bolshevik coup of the United States government and the undermining of the American way of life beginning in early 1919. Known as the First Red Scare, this period became one of the most well-known episodes of American fear of Communism in US history. With this focus on the events of 1919 to 1920, however, historians of the First Red Scare have often ignored the initial American reaction to the October Revolution in late 1917 and throughout 1918.
    [Show full text]
  • Trials Under the Espionage and Sedition Acts During World War I
    Where was the First Amendment? Trials Under the Espionage and Sedition Acts During WWI by Kathryn Horrocks HST 499 June 2, 2005 First Reader: Dr. Jensen Second Reader: Dr. Lowe Before the passage of the Espionage and Sedition Acts of 1917 and 1918, the United States government sought to curb anti-war efforts with prosecutions under remaining Civil War conspiracy statutes. However, these statutes were not effective on persons acting or speaking out against the war alone because by definition a conspiracy requires more than one person. 1 To close these loopholes and successfully control public discussions and actions that may have harmed the war effort, Congress passed the Espionage Act in June of 1917 2. This Act censored speech, behavior and publication of information that intended to undermine the US war effort, or aid her enemies.3 However, this element of intent allowed some anti-war speech to go unpunished. Occasional acquittals under the Espionage Act, and violence against political dissidents prompted congress to pass the Sedition Act almost a year later. The Sedition Act was very similar to the Espionage Act, except for the inclusion of a section which forbid the utterance or publication of “disloyal, scurrilous or abusive language” regarding the US, her flag, her military or her government. 4 This closed the loophole created by the element of intent, and its effect was to “ban dissent of any kind.”5 These Acts and their effects came into direct conflict with the First Amendment of the Constitution which clearly prevents congress from “abridging 1 Shirley J Burton, “The Espionage and Sedition Acts of 1917 and 1918: Sectional Interpretations in the United States District Courts of Illinois,” Illinois Historical Journal 87(1) (1994), 41.
    [Show full text]
  • Espionage Act of 1917
    Communication Law Review An Analysis of Congressional Arguments Limiting Free Speech Laura Long, University of Oklahoma The Alien and Sedition Acts, Espionage and Sedition Acts, and USA PATRIOT Act are all war-time acts passed by Congress which are viewed as blatant civil rights violations. This study identifies recurring arguments presented during congressional debates of these acts. Analysis of the arguments suggests that Terror Management Theory may explain why civil rights were given up in the name of security. Further, the citizen and non-citizen distinction in addition to political ramifications are discussed. The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 are considered by many as gross violations of civil liberties and constitutional rights. John Miller, in his book, Crisis in Freedom, described the Alien and Sedition Acts as a failure from every point of view. Miller explained the Federalists’ “disregard of the basic freedoms of Americans [completed] their ruin and cost them the confidence and respect of the people.”1 John Adams described the acts as “an ineffectual attempt to extinguish the fire of defamation, but it operated like oil upon the flames.”2 Other scholars have claimed that the acts were not simply unwise policy, but they were unconstitutional measures.3 In an article titled “Order vs. Liberty,” Larry Gragg argued that they were blatantly against the First Amendment protections outlined only seven years earlier.4 Despite popular opinion that the acts were unconstitutional and violated basic civil liberties, arguments used to pass the acts have resurfaced throughout United States history. Those arguments seek to instill fear in American citizens that foreigners will ultimately be the demise to the United States unless quick and decisive action is taken.
    [Show full text]
  • Statement of Geoffrey R. Stone Edward H
    Statement of Geoffrey R. Stone Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor of Law The University of Chicago Hearing on the Espionage Act and the Legal and Constitutional Issues Raised by WikiLeaks Committee on the Judiciary United States House of Representatives December 16, 2010 The proposed SHIELD Act1 would amend the Espionage Act of 19172 to make it a crime for any person knowingly and willfully to disseminate, in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States, “any classified information . concerning the human intelligence activities of the United States or . concerning the identity of a classified source or informant” working with the intelligence community of the United States. Although the Act might be constitutional as applied to a government employee who “leaks” such classified material, it is plainly unconstitutional as applied to other individuals who might publish or otherwise disseminate such information. With respect to such other individuals, the Act violates the First Amendment unless, at the very least, it is expressly limited to situations in which the individual knows that the dissemination of the classified material poses a clear and present danger of grave harm to the nation. The clear and present danger standard, in varying forms, has been a central element of our First Amendment jurisprudence ever since Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes first enunciated it in his 1919 opinion in Schenk v. United States.3 In the 90 years since Schenck, the precise meaning of “clear and present danger” has shifted,4 but the principle that animates the standard was stated eloquently by Justice Louis D.
    [Show full text]
  • The First Amendment in Its Forgotten Years
    The First Amendment in Its Forgotten Years David M. Rabbant TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Free Speech Before the Courts 522 A. Supreme Court Cases 524 I. Avoiding First Amendment Issues 525 Resisting Incorporation into the Fourteenth Amendment 525 Excluding Publications from the Mails 526 Neglecting First Amendment Issues 529 Limiting the Meaning of Speech 531 2. Addressing First Amendment Issues 533 Justice Holmes and the Bad Tendency of Speech 533 Review of Statutes Penalizing Speech 536 The First Amendment as the Embodiment of English Common Law 539 3. Hints of Protection 540 4. Summary 542 B. Decisions Based on State Law 543 1. The Bad Tendency Doctrine 543 Speech by Radicals 543 Obscenity and Public Morals 548 2. Libel 550 3. Political Speech 551 4. Labor Injunctions 553 5. Speech in Public Places 555 C. The Judicial Tradition 557 t Counsel, American Association of University Professors. 514 Prewar Free Speech II. Legal Scholarship 559 A. The Social Interest in Free Speech 563 B. The Distinction Between Public and Private Speech 564 1. Schofield's Formulation of the Distinction 564 2. Other Scholarly Support for the Distinction 566 C. The Expanding Conception of Free Speech 568 D. The Rejection of Blackstone 570 E. The Limits of Protected Speech 572 1. The Direct Incitement Test 572 2. Pound's Balancing Test 575 3. Schroeder's Test of Actual Injury 576 4. The Benefits of LibertarianStandards 578 F. The Heritage of Prewar Scholarship 579 III. The Role of the Prewar Tradition in the Early Develop- ment of Modern First Amendment Doctrine 579 A.
    [Show full text]
  • PILOT the Evolution, Exercise, and Extent of Free Speech in US History
    PILOT TEACHING CIVICS through HISTORY The Evolution, Exercise, and Extent of Free Speech in US History (Middle School) by John McNamara and Ron Nash OVERVIEW This unit is one of the Gilder Lehrman Institute’s Teaching Civics through History resources, designed to align to the Common Core State Standards. The lessons can also be modified to conform to the C3 Framework. These units were developed to provide students with foundational knowledge of the historical roots of current civic and social issues facing their communities and the nation while building their literacy, research, and critical thinking skills. By connecting the past with current events, the program will 1) enable students to understand that history is made of up individual actions, 2) empower students to develop their civic voices and encourage them to take civic action, and 3) help students recognize their ability to influence history in their own communities and nationwide. In this unit, over the course of one to two weeks, students will learn and practice literacy skills that will help them develop knowledgeable and well-reasoned points of view on the history of freedom of speech in the United States. They will examine and assess primary and secondary sources, demonstrate what they have learned through their analysis and assessment of the primary sources by writing a response to essential questions posed in the unit, engage in an analysis of current news articles written from different perspectives using materials presented by the AllSides.com website, and then develop a civic engagement project that integrates their knowledge of freedom of speech in the past and today.
    [Show full text]
  • Avoiding Serious Constitutional Doubts: the Supreme Court's Construction of Statutes Raising Free Speech Concerns Lisa A
    Santa Clara Law Santa Clara Law Digital Commons Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 1996 Avoiding Serious Constitutional Doubts: The Supreme Court's Construction of Statutes Raising Free Speech Concerns Lisa A. Kloppenberg Santa Clara University School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/facpubs Recommended Citation 30 UC Davis L. Rev. 1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. t ..., ?:University. U.C. DAVIS LAW REVIEW • ..- ! Ca lifo of rnia VOLUME 30 FALL 1996 NUMBER 1 ARTICLES Avoiding Serious Constitutional Doubts: The Supreme Court's Construction of Statutes Raising Free Speech Concerns Lisa A. Klppenbelg TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................... 3 I. THE AVOIDANCE CANON ...................... 9 A. Formulations of the Avoidance Canon and Its Use as a Tool of Statutory Construction ................ 10 * Assistant Professor of Law, University of Oregon School of Law; BA, 1984, Universi- ty of Southern California; J.D., 1987, University of Southern California. I am grateful to Keith Aoki, Michael Dorf, Garrett Epps, Brian Murchison, Jim O'Fallon, Margie Paris, Da- vid Schuman and Mark Zunich for reviewing an earlier version of this article. Donna Matthews provided important contributions, both substantive and editorial. Justin Thorp and Lyssette Goodman also provided excellent research assistance. The editors at Davis, in- cluding Linda Berg Othman, Alex Ceridwen, Jennifer Shih, Cynthia Hirschl, and Darolyn Hamada worked with great skill and dedication to improve this article.
    [Show full text]
  • The Mccarran Internal Security Act, 1950-2005: Civil Liberties Versus National Security
    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Master's Theses Graduate School 2006 The cM Carran Internal Security Act, 1950-2005: civil liberties versus national security Marc Patenaude Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Patenaude, Marc, "The cM Carran Internal Security Act, 1950-2005: civil liberties versus national security" (2006). LSU Master's Theses. 426. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses/426 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Master's Theses by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE MCCARRAN INTERNAL SECURITY ACT, 1950-2005: CIVIL LIBERTIES VERSUS NATIONAL SECURITY A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts In The Department of History by Marc Patenaude B.A., University of Arkansas at Little Rock, 2003 May 2006 Table of Contents ABSTRACT . iii CHAPTER 1 HISTORICAL ANTECEDENTS OF ANTI-COMMUNISM. .1 2 THE MCCARRAN INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 . .24 3 THE COURTS LIMIT THE MCCARRAN ACT. .55 4 SEPTEMBER 11, 2001, AND THE FUTURE OF INTERNAL SECURITY . 69 BIBLIOGRAPHY . .. .81 VITA . .86 ii Abstract In response to increased tensions over the Cold War and internal security, and in response to increased anti-Communism during the Red Scare, Congress, in 1950, enacted a notorious piece of legislation.
    [Show full text]
  • Free Speech and National Security
    Free Speech and National Security * GEOFFREY R. STONE The tension between free speech and national security arises in many different contexts. In this Article, I will explore the two facets of this tension that have generated particular difficulty in the United States, and I will offer some thoughts about how American courts have dealt with these issues. The first issue involves speech that criticizes the government. No one likes to be criticized, and it is quite natural for government officials to want to suppress such speech. It is therefore rather striking that throughout American history there has been a broad consensus in support of the proposition that the government cannot constitutionally punish individuals for criticizing government officials or policies— except when their speech is thought to threaten national security. In the national security setting, however, the United States has a long and checkered history of allowing fear to trump constitutional values. The second issue involves secrecy. The government has a legitimate need to keep certain matters secret. But in a self-governing society, secrecy prevents citizens from evaluating their government’s actions and holding their representatives accountable. Once again, it has proved most difficult to strike the proper balance between free speech and national security. I. SPEECH THAT CRITICIZES THE GOVERNMENT The paradigm violation of the First Amendment is a law forbidding citizens to criticize public officials and policies. In the entire history of the United States, the national government has never attempted to punish criticism of government officials or policies, except in times of war. This makes clear that, in order to understand free speech, one must understand free speech in wartime.
    [Show full text]
  • The Supreme Court and Freedom of Expression from 1791 to 1917
    Fordham Law Review Volume 55 Issue 3 Article 1 1986 The Supreme Court and Freedom of Expression from 1791 to 1917 Michael T. Gibson Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Michael T. Gibson, The Supreme Court and Freedom of Expression from 1791 to 1917, 55 Fordham L. Rev. 263 (1986). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol55/iss3/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Supreme Court and Freedom of Expression from 1791 to 1917 Cover Page Footnote * Assistant Professor of Law, Oklahoma City University. B.A. 1979, University of Nebraska-Lincoln; J.D. 1982, Yale University; Law Clerk to Chief Judge Warren K. Urbom, U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska, 1982-84. The Author would like to thank Professor Owen Fiss of the Yale Law School for reviewing two early drafts of this paper. The Author also is grateful to Professors Phillip Kurland and Ralph Lerner of the University of Chicago for their comments regarding freedom of speech and the press in the eighteenth century and for making available page proofs of The Founders' Constitution (1987). This article is available in Fordham Law Review: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol55/iss3/1 THE SUPREME COURT AND FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION FROM 1791 TO 1917 MICHAEL T.
    [Show full text]
  • 17 Law Professors and Scholars
    CASE 0:18-cr-00067-WMW Document 31 Filed 10/04/18 Page 1 of 42 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, Case No. 18-cr-00067 (WMW) v. BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE SCHOLARS OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, FIRST TERRY J. ALBURY, AMENDMENT LAW, AND MEDIA LAW Defendant (Unopposed, filed in support of Terry J. Albury) CASE 0:18-cr-00067-WMW Document 31 Filed 10/04/18 Page 2 of 42 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE .................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 2 I. THIS COURT’S SENTENCE SHOULD REFLECT THAT CLASSIFICATION ALONE DOES NOT ROB SPEECH OF PUBLIC VALUE OR PREDICT ITS DANGEROUSNESS. ............................................................................................................ 6 II. THIS COURT’S SENTENCE SHOULD REFLECT THAT THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE ESPIONAGE ACT INTO AN OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT THREATENS TO CHILL IMPORTANT SPEECH.......................................................................................... 12 A. The Espionage Act Has Been Transformed Into An Official Secrets Act ............... 13 B. The Espionage Act Poses An Evergreen Threat To Speech And Press Freedoms .. 16 C. Longstanding Barriers To Media-Leak Prosecutions Are Eroding ......................... 18 III. THIS COURT’S SENTENCE SHOULD REFLECT THE IMPORTANT FIRST AMENDMENT INTERESTS AT STAKE. .......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Can the President Read Your Mail? a Legal Analysis
    Catholic University Law Review Volume 59 Issue 2 Winter 2010 Article 2 2010 Can the President Read Your Mail? A Legal Analysis Anuj C. Desai Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview Recommended Citation Anuj C. Desai, Can the President Read Your Mail? A Legal Analysis, 59 Cath. U. L. Rev. 315 (2010). Available at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview/vol59/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by CUA Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Catholic University Law Review by an authorized editor of CUA Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLES CAN THE PRESIDENT READ YOUR MAIL? A LEGAL ANALYSIS Anuj C. Desai+ I. B A CKG RO UN D ............................................................................................. 3 19 II. THE SEALED-LETTER PROVISION .............................................................. 320 A. IntroductoryAnalysis of Statutory Language .................................... 321 B. The Sealed-Letter Provision'sProvenance and Legislative H istory .............................................................................................. 3 2 3 1. Prohibitionon Mailing Obscene Matter (1865) .......................... 324 2. Prohibitionon Mailing Lottery-RelatedMatter (1868 & 18 72) .........................................................................................32 6 3. Prohibitionon Mailing Matter Designedto Further Counterfeit-Money Schemes (1889) ........................................
    [Show full text]