Institutional Repository

Why the Judiciary Should Protect First Amendment Political Speech During Wartime: The Case for Deliberative Democracy

DSpace/Manakin Repository

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Derrick, Geoffrey J.
dc.date.accessioned 2007-09-27T17:37:25Z
dc.date.available 2007-09-27T17:37:25Z
dc.date.issued 2007-06
dc.identifier.citation Derrick, Geoffrey J. (2007). Why the Judiciary Should Protect First Amendment Political Speech During Wartime: The Case for Deliberative Democracy. Lethbridge Undergraduate Research Journal, 1(2). en
dc.identifier.issn 1718-8482
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10133/486
dc.description.abstract The intersection of an individual's First Amendment right to political speech and the executive branch's war policy has been the subject of much recent scholarship. The unique challenges of the War on Terror have led Judge Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit to adopt the view of the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist that the judicial branch ought to adopt a deferential posture towards First Amendment rights during wartime. This paper responds by defending the value of open public debate about the war policy for three reasons: to uncover executive branch secrets, to clarify how peacetime First Amendment precedent like Brandenburg v. Ohio applies during wartime, and to guard against the executive branch indefinitely asserting wartime powers during the War on Terror. en
dc.language.iso en en
dc.publisher Lethbridge Undergraduate Research Journal en
dc.subject Constitution -- Amendments en
dc.subject Democracy en
dc.title Why the Judiciary Should Protect First Amendment Political Speech During Wartime: The Case for Deliberative Democracy en
dc.type Article en
dc.publisher.faculty Northwestern University en
dc.publisher.institution Northwestern University Chicago, IL en

Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Related Items

Search DSpace


Advanced Search

Browse

My Account

Statistics