How do the Schenck and Dennis cases illustrate that the United States Constitution is a living document?
a. The Congress did not have the power to take action beyond the specific powers listed in
Article I.
b. The president as commander in chief failed to exercise his responsibility to protect the
government against rebellion.
c. The Supreme Court interpreted the provisions of the 1st Amendment based on modern circumstances.
d. The Supreme Court ensured that due process rights of accused criminals were protected.
I'll be glad to check your answer.
To determine how the Schenck and Dennis cases illustrate that the United States Constitution is a living document, we need to examine the facts of these cases and analyze the principles they embody.
In the Schenck case (1919), Charles Schenck, a socialist, was charged with violating the Espionage Act of 1917 for distributing leaflets urging resistance to the military draft during World War I. The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, upheld Schenck's conviction, arguing that his actions presented a "clear and present danger" to the war effort and therefore were not protected by the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech.
Decades later, in the Dennis case (1951), several high-ranking members of the Communist Party were charged with violating the Smith Act, which made it illegal to advocate the overthrow of the U.S. government. The Supreme Court, in a split decision, upheld their convictions, concluding that the defendants' advocacy of violent revolution presented a "clear and probable danger" to national security.
These cases illustrate that the United States Constitution is a living document because the Supreme Court's interpretation of the First Amendment's free speech clause evolved over time to respond to changing circumstances. In both cases, the Court refined its understanding of the limits of free speech during wartime and acknowledged that certain speech acts could be restricted if they posed a genuine threat to national security.
Therefore, the correct answer is c. The Supreme Court interpreted the provisions of the 1st Amendment based on modern circumstances.