Directions: Use theSOURCES (LINK) to answer the following questions:Is the U.S. government justified in limiting Americans' civil liberties during a time of war?

• Take a stance
• Make a personal argument
• Use at least two sources as evidence to support your stance
• Make it flow
• Use evidence from Source B and C to support your stance

Source B

In 1917 the United States was about to enter World War I. Congress passed the Espionage Act. Sections of the Espionage Act prohibited any attempt to cause insubordination among military personnel or to interfere with the draft or with military recruitment. During World War I, socialists Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer distributed leaflets declaring that the draft violated the Thirteenth Amendment prohibition against involuntary servitude. The leaflets urged the public to disobey the draft, but advised only peaceful action. Schenck was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act of 1917 by attempting to cause insubordination in the military and to obstruct recruitment. Schenck and Baer were convicted of violating this law and appealed on the grounds that the statute violated the First Amendment.

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Supreme Court Justice, writing for the court in Schenck v. United States, 1919:

"Words can be weapons...We admit that in many places and in ordinary times the defendants in saying all that was said in the circular (pamphlet) would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends on the circumstances in which it is done. The most stringent (strict) protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in theatre, and causing a panic...The question in every case is whether the words are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive (actual) evils that Congress has a right to prevent."

Source C

In response to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor (Hawaii) during World War II, the U.S. government decided to require Japanese-Americans to move into relocation camps as a matter of national security. President Franklin Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 in February 1942, two months after Pearl Harbor. A Japanese-American man living in San Leandro, Fred Korematsu, chose to stay at his residence rather than obey the order to relocate. Korematsu was arrested and convicted of violating the order. He responded by arguing that Executive Order 9066 violated the Fifth Amendment. The Ninth Circuit affirmed Korematsu's conviction. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled against Korematsu.

Hugo Black, Supreme Court Justice, writing for the court in Korematsu v. United States, 1944:

"We uphold the exclusion order as of the time it was made and when the petitioner violated it. In doing so, we are not unmindful of the hardships imposed by it upon a large group of American citizens. But hardships are part of war, and war is an aggregation of hardships. All citizens alike, both in and out of uniform, feel the impact of war in greater or lesser measure. Citizenship has its responsibilities as well as its privileges, and in time of war the burden is always heavier. Compulsory exclusion of large groups of citizens from their homes, except under circumstances of direst emergency and peril, is inconsistent with our basic governmental institutions. But when under conditions of modern warfare our shores are threatened by hostile forces, the power to protect must be commensurate with the threatened danger."

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Based on the information from Source B and Source C the question of whether the US government is jus... View the full answer