What is the difference between the clear and present danger test and the bad tendency test?
Clear and present danger is when the individuals words are likely to incite violence. Bad tendency is when the individual just says something about violence, and it's primarily been overturned by cases explaining the clear and present danger test in more detail. Under the clear and present danger test, you need to actually have the capability to incite violence around you.
For example, mailing out leaflets saying "Overthrow the government!" through the mail would be illegal under the bad tendency test...but not clear and present danger. Does a man mailing leaflets really have the capability to start an insurgency? probably not....but i guess it depends on who it is.
If you were faced with a clear and present danger?
Clearly this is a trick question. The only correct answer is B.
Give me one example in history where 20 Democratic Senators were even in the same region with a clear and present danger? You can't, it's an oxymoron.
Which 1919 Supreme Court decision established the “clear and present danger” test as a method of determining?
D. In Schenck v. United States (1919), the Supreme Court invented the famous "clear and present danger" test to determine when a state could constitutionally limit an individual's free speech rights under the First Amendment. In reviewing the conviction of a man charged with distributing provocative flyers to draftees of World War I, the Court asserted that, in certain contexts, words can create a "clear and present danger" that Congress may constitutionally prohibit. While the ruling has since been overturned, Schenck is still significant for creating the context-based balancing tests used in reviewing freedom of speech challenges.
What are ideas behind the title Clear and Present Danger by Tom Clancy?
It comes from a Supreme Court decision regarding limiting first amendment rights in cases that would jeopardize American security (such as limiting freedom of speech in treasonous or wartime situations. Here was the statement:
The question in every case is whether the words used 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 evils that the United States Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.
What was the “clear and present danger” test, and who were the Supreme Court justices associated with it?
Clear and present danger is a doctrine used to test whether limitations may be placed on First Amendment free speech rights. It was established in the case of Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). Charles Schenck, general secretary of the American Socialist Party was arrested and convicted for sending 15,000 anti-draft circulars through the mail to men scheduled to enter the military service. The circular called the draft law a violation of the 13th Amendment's prohibition of slavery. It went on to urge draftees not to "submit to intimidation," but to "petition for repeal" of the draft law.
The government accused Schenck of illegally interfering with military recruitment under the espionage act. Schenck admitted that he had sent the circulars, but argued that he had a right to do so under the First Amendment and was merely exercising his freedom of speech. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes held that Mr. Schenck was not covered by the First Amendment since freedom of speech was not an absolute right. There were times, Holmes wrote, when the government could legally restrict speech. According to Justice Holmes, that test is "whether the words...are used in such circumstances as to create a clear and present danger."
If you knew there was a Clear&Present Danger to your Family and?
You do what you need to do to protect your family. "Parents" have more knowledge on what to do so if the "kids" have a different opinion they should listen, and do what THEY know is right and best.
"Kids" always want their way and hate their "parents" when the parents won't give them their way. GWB is being a good parent to this nation. He is not governing by polls and he is doing what's best for us based on the information he has!