LAD/Blog #32: Wilson's 14 Points of Peace

Wilson first discusses how the Central Powers are willing to "discuss the objects of the war and the possible basis of a general peace." However, he states that while Russia presents a definite statement and program of principles for which to make peace, the other powers seemed more concerned with merely retaining all of the territory that they had conquered. The Russian representatives broke off negotiations. According to Wilson, the peace of the world relies upon the ability of the powers to negotiate peace out in the open, and not behind closed doors. Furthermore, he asserts that the poor and desperate Russians, under attack of Germany, desire to know the war aims of the Central Powers. He hopes that in some way America and the Central Powers could help the Russians to attain liberty and peace. Arguably the most important of his points was the 14th. This point suggested the start of the League of Nations, an world peacekeeping organization to help prevent any further world wars.





Wilson's 14 Points remind me of NATO, which is an intergovernmental military alliance between 29 North American and European countries. It is similar to Wilson's points because it represents an organization dedicated to preventing international hostility, just like the League of Nations tried to do.

LAD/Blog #31: Schenck V. United States

The opinion of Justice Holmes begins with a summary of the counts against Schenck, which included attempting to undermine the recruitment efforts of the U.S. during a time of war, as well as using the mail to deliver things that were prohibited. Schenck tried to appeal by using the First Amendment which advocates freedom of speech and of the press. Schenck's documents essentially compared the draft to an action of a despot and told Americans to assert their constitutional rights. It was presumed that the intent of these documents was to obstruct the process of conscription. He then gave the analogy "a person who cries fire in a quiet park or home would be protected by the first amendment, whereas a person who cries fire in a crowded theater, creating a panic is not protected by the first amendment."  Thus, the first amendment does not apply to Schenck because he was trying to create "panic" or a "disturbance."





This case reminded me of the Japanese internment camps during WWII, which were considered constitutional given the circumstances of being at war, even though the act of putting the Japanese in camps was unconstitutional.