Suchergebnisse

Our political institutions are based on certain moral principles. Some are stated in the Constitution; others, unmentioned, are necessary to give "breathing space" to those enumerated. The freedoms expressly stated may be inter preted as expressions of even more fundamental values. And the Constitution also protects the traditions and collective conscience of our people. However, it is not enough for a nation to profess to be a democracy. Totalitarian states have made the same profession. A nation must look at the facts to estimate the degree to which it lives by its ideals. We have, on the one hand, our values, and, on the other, a con siderable amount of data which show how inadequately the values are fulfilled. There is an unconscionable lag of time between proof of malfunction and its cure. The problem is, then, to get the guardians of our goals to read the indicators. There are enough instances of honest governmental report ing to warrant the calculated risks of relying on it. We also have private watchdog organizations interested in civil liber ties, and their efficacy is shown in their record. Watchdogs —like the presidential veto—are built into our political system, and independent observers of our national scene also con tribute to raising our sights. However, there still remains a need for a privately financed organization for research into civil liberties.—Ed.

The Supreme Court's decisions dealing with civil liberties in the ten years under review fall into four groups: (1) cases involving the rights protected by the First Amendment—freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly; (2) those concerned with racial discrimination; (3) cases enlarging the power of the federal government to protect civil rights against invasion by private persons; (4) war-time cases arising out of conflicts between civil liberty and military power. Decisions dealing with procedural due process and other rights of those accused of crime are discussed in another part of this symposium.I. FIRST AMENDMENT—FREEDOM OF RELIGION, SPEECH, PRESS, AND ASSEMBLYDuring the decade we are examining, the Supreme Court not only has decided a substantial number of cases involving freedom of speech, press, and religion, but it has developed a new and important judicial philosophy or doctrine with respect to them. In this judicial doctrine, three principles are fused. The first is that the four liberties protected by the First Amendment are so indispensable to the democratic process and to the preservation of the freedom of our people that they occupy a preferred place in our scheme of constitutional values.

Before Pearl Harbor, many thoughtful persons believed that civil liberty in this country could not survive our participation in another world war. Today, civil liberty enjoys a vitality which even the optimist had hardly dared hope for. There are several reasons for this.First, since the last World War the American people have become "civil liberty conscious." That war found us totally unprepared to deal with our sudden problems affecting civil liberty. Our legislatures had no experience in drafting, or our executive officers in enforcing, emergency restrictions upon free speech and press. Our trial courts faced new and difficult civil liberty questions with no established principles, no relevant Supreme Court decisions, to guide them. Since that time, the Supreme Court, in nearly a score of important decisions, has interpreted and strengthened our constitutional civil liberties. As a nation we are wiser; the costly mistakes of the last war have been thoroughly aired, and there is a healthy intention that they shall not be repeated.Second, the complete suppression of civil liberty in Axis-controlled countries has been a shocking and impressive object-lesson. We are forced to consider whether the witch-hunter and the "patrioteer" who would arbitrarily suppress minority opinion may not have much in common with the Nazi.

Great Britain; 4 articles. Partial contents: Religious anger and minority rights, by Tariq Modood; Citizenship and the freedom of the media, by John Keane.