2 Comments
Sep 18, 2023Liked by Patrick Gourley

Nice write-up. Good to remember the "imminent lawless action" part.

Expand full comment
Jun 29·edited Jun 29

The phrase "likely to incite or produce such action" could mean anything.

The Schenk case, censored a petition which expressly recommended only legal acts in opposition to the draft; such as petitioning the government, speaking up, and voting for different officials; but Holmes decided that it was not protected under the First Amendment, simply because HE said it was it was likely to incite or produce imminent lawless action.

So this gives the court full discretion over its own powers, holding people responsible for possible crimes committed by others-- even simply by publishing facts and opinions.

Meanwhile there is nothing "dubious" about claiming that the 13th amendment prevents the US government from having a conscripted army; provided that the person does not incite unlawful recourse against it, as the Schenk publication expressly did not.

However there is no question that he US government has become the supreme judge of its own powers-- as Jefferson and Madison warned would happen, if it usurped final authority over the peoples of the individual states.

Expand full comment