Political radicals, and so you see variations on a theme. A lot of the president of the first world war, for instance german internment becomes something people look back to when they are beginning japanese interment. Other precedents are rejected. Franklin roosevelt and j edgar hoover, in charge of the things, by the Second World War they want to avoid their mistakes but particular the criticism directed at the government for some of these. Susan the other question was about tracing lineage back to the civil war and adams. Thomas the caller is exactly right. There was a National History in which the government got the authority to clamp down on expressions of opposition, we had internal dissent, and the civil war. I think the courts and the congress were relatively comfortable with the idea that these kinds of restrictions in a time of war, were not undue restrictions on free speech. Susan carl in delaware. What is your question . Susan, thank you for a highquality broadcast. I want to say, that was a really good insight about edward snowden, our attitudes as a society affect his prosecution. Just to pick up on the last caller, if your guests could take the schenck decision forward, if you see any parallels to the patriot act, in terms of the First Amendment and any protections we have. Thomas while the courts have gotten a lot more protective of the First Amendment, there are other areas of the law in which they had reacted to wartime or kind of wartime by apparently limiting Civil Liberties. When you look at the patriot act, it is not going to have freespeech restrictions. The government would have a hard time limiting that. We really do believe in the marketplace of ideas. But in the name of National Security and president ial powers, the courts are much more deferential, and it is harder to get into court to challenge those measures, mostly because people dont know their are being spied on, but also a great reticence of the court to inlve themselves in questions that are technological and can involve the risk of terrorism and the like. The general theme that the courts are more respectful of the government in times of war, and more willing to restrict Civil Liberties is true in a context like the patriot act, just like in freespeech in the time of schenck. Susan a prior caller mentioned japanese interment. Next weeks case will be on that, and a japaneseamerican who protested his internment all the way to the Supreme Court. The next caller, is steve in connecticut. You are on the air. Hi, thank you very much and i appreciate the program. I have two questions. How do you see this case being similar or different to the debs and abrams case . I dont know if there is a real connection to this and another case, i know that they are draft dodgers that went to mexico during the war. I was curious as to whether this had any bearing on the outcome of that case. Susan do you want to take the debs and abrams . Thomas eugene debbs, abrams and schenck were three that came to the justices in 1919. Eugene debs was doing different things. But the general notion in them was that there was an effort to undermine people mobilizing for the war, supporting the war, without some direct imminent threat that someone was going to cause violence and the like. The question in all of the cases was can the government prohibit speech in that circumstance. They are mostly notable for the fact that holmes doesnt shift between schenck at the beginning and abrams at the end of the year and how far he is willing to go. The cases are all the very first set of four challenge to the constitutionality of the espionage act, and what it means for the birth of First Amendment freespeech law. Beverly its great you brought that is the case that continues the conversation into the 1920s. They were not committed for the killing of a payroll guard. This became not only a National Sensation but a global sensation, in part because it was understood their political radicalism, they were anarchists, italian american, that that has somehow biased, it is noticeable this was in boston were many of these figures we have been hearing about were in fact situated. There is a very interesting legal conversation going on there. At any rate, this case does become the case where a lot of these debates continue into the 1920s, and they are ultimately executed in 1927. Even though once again you are having these debates, the rest of the government is still to go against the radicals who are challenging these laws. Susan in todays modern court, Justice Antonin Scalia upheld the act. We are going to have a bit of Justice Scalia talking about that along with ruth Bader Ginsburg. Lets listen. [video clip] Justice Scalia you can be using your First Amendment rights and it could be abominable that you are using your First Amendment rights. I will defend your right to use it, but i will not defend the appropriateness of the manner in which you are using it now. That could be very wrong. Justice ginsburg Justice Scalia was praised by some, criticize for others for his decision in the flagburning case. I imagine, the act itself was reprehensible. Justice scalia i would have sent that guy to jail if i was king. [laughter] but by your ruling you have the right. Justice scalia yes, you have your right to express content contempt for the government. It does not mean it was a good thing for him to do that, in that manner by burning a symbol that meant so much to so many other people. But he had the right to do it. Susan two of the justices on Todays Supreme Court talking about the evolution of free speech in society. He said that the schenck case was an opening salvo on the modern discussion on the right to speech. Where are we today . Thomas we are in a much more protective place for freespeech. We like ideas. Some people think it goes too far, because for example, it prevents the right for campaign contributions. But in general, the Supreme Court says if you want to communicate with people, we are going to protect you. If your ideas are bad, they are going to be rejected. We are not afraid of what you have to say. Susan what is the legacy of schenck v. United states . Beverly the thing schenck did start is a conversation about the First Amendment, and what it really means. But i also think schenck symbolizes a relatively dark moment in American History, which is to say it is a moment when the federal government really mobilizes at a lot of levels for the first time, to begin to actually contain american opinion. I think we see both of these trends continue. Susan thank you to beverly and tom for being with us in our discussion of schenck v. United states, in cspans landmark cases series. Thank you to those of you at home watching and contributing your questions and ideas to the discussion. Let ourre presentation cases continues tomorrow night with korematsu versus the United States. And a 63 decision the Supreme Court in 1944 upheld the governments forceful removal of 120,000 people of japanese descent. Taken from their homes on the west coast to interment camps in remote areas of western and midwestern states during world war ii. Learn more about the case tomorrow night at 10 00 eastern on cspan. I reminder, you can watch all of the episodes in the series on our website. Cspan. Org. American history tv on cspan3, this weekend, saturday night at 10 00 eastern on railamerica, tough, dirty, unpleasant are generally referred to as labor. Understandably, then, this is the only areas in which the American Farm labor supply fall short. Mexicanpplemented by citizens, sometimes called nationals, or mexican nationals. The term is commonly used as percent rose. In spanish, this means a man who works with his arms and hands. In short, the big question in many minds is, why these people . This 20 minute film produced by the council of california growers noted that program. A guestworker agreement between the United States and mexico from 19421964. Sunday morning at 10 00 eastern, unread to the white house rewind. Are aggressive. They have overstated in afghanistan, they have been out more than in my judgment they should be allowed to buy down. The best answer to it, is for them to know the United States is going to keep its commitment. I agree completely. Where people want to be free, soviet or cuban domination, where the proxy troops are used for the cubans, United States that should be willing to provide weapons to any man that wants to fight for his freedom against those hostile forces. The 1980 texas republican primary debate between former california governor Ronald Reagan and former cia director, george h. W. Bush. At 6 00, and american artifacts. It is also the least of the classical buildings. The building is very neoclassical. Has an imagelding of a neoclassical building. The Hart Building is very modern. Some people have compared it to a large ice cube tray. Very different looking building. Store and emeritus don ritchie cases inside the newest of the three office buildings. 1983 Hart Senate Office building, to mine about the construction and placing congressional history. On the presidency at 8 00. Smithsonian National Portrait gallery Senior Historian david ward chronicles abraham lincolns life through photographs and portraits. Rather exasperated lincoln takes time out from writing the inaugural address to sit for this last photograph in which he does the kind of peevish. You notice again the eyes disappeared. His presence to the public and is suffering. For the complete American History tv we can schedule, that is cspan. Org. This month, we showcased our student can winners. Our annual competition for high school and middle school students. This years theme is wrote to the white house. What issues do you want president ial candidates to discuss. They want president ial candidates to discuss russian and american relations. In their video, russia and america cold snap or permafrost . President obama we cannot stand by when the territorial integrity of a nation is violated. If that happens without consequence in ukraine, it could happen to any nation gathered here today. For two centuries come our relationship with russia has been complicated. Weve always been rivals who depend on each other. Although we were allies in world war ii, mistrust dates from the russian revolution. U. S. Russian relations have improved with a new approach to russia. Vladimir putin has started a new age of military aggression. The administration in late august asked the russians, what are you up to, what are you doing . They said we are fortifying our interests there. We are just as scared of the Islamic State as you are. The administration in response to this adopted this watch and wait, Wishful Thinking posture. I think our relationship with russia is one of the most complicated in the world. It has gotten much worse over the past few years in large part because of russias invasion of ukraine. At the same time, we have been cooperating with them on very important issues like the Nuclear Agreement with iran. And important counterterrorism programs. We must not forget our relationship is still fragile. He cant even play nice with putin. Russia is lying through their teeth when they tell us they are on our side. Sometimes they are fighting isis. Other times, they are fighting the syrian opposition. Let isis fight. Russia is in syria already. Let them fight isis. While some approaches are completely passive, some are much more aggressive. I would not talk to him at all. Weve talked way too much to him. I would begin rebuilding the fleet. It is really about finding the right balance and delivering tough messages with consequences for russia when they overstepped the bounds of International Norms like they did in ukraine. I have been, i remain convinced that we need a concerted effort to really up the costs on russia and prudent. We needed to make it clear to russia that their invasion of ukraine cannot stand. We will never recognize their occupation of crimea or eastern ukraine. President obama the russian economy has been seriously weakened. Foreign investment is down, inflation is up, the Russian Central Bank has lost more than 130 billion in reserves. Russian banks and firms are locked out of international markets. Keep it off a lot more he could chew he bit off a lot more than he could chew. Russias military budget is small because their economy is shrinking. Their gdp fell by 4 last year. Because of the low price of oil, which is the biggest growth sector in the russian economy. That creates an environment where he is looking to flexes muscle to get Popular Support at home. He is popular in the most recent polls, but not because of his handling of the economy. Government controlled media in russia is slamming america, claiming we are impeding legitimate interests. Russia perceived this as a threat to their National Security, giving them cover to continue operations in ukraine and syria. The Russian Press speaks positively of our recent joint progress in iran. [speaking russian] in conclusion, america and russia still have a precarious relationship. Too little force could result in russian invasion of other countries and too much could start a war. It is up to the next president to find a perfect balance. They must try carefully, for the result of this decision will have lasting effects on the worlds future. To watch all of the prizewinning documentaries and this years student cam competition, visit studentcam. Org. Begin inent obamas todays Nuclear Security summit and washington, d. C. Followed by debate on how the developed nations should respond to the global refugee crisis. Later, present or candidate ted cruz and john kasich attending a republican dinner in milwaukee. More than 50 World Leaders were in washington, d. C. This week for a Nuclear Security summit. In 2010 to highlight level cooperation secure Nuclear Materials. As host of this year summit, president obama held a closing News Conference to take questions from reporters. President obama good morning, everybody. It is my privilege to welcome you to washington and to formally convene our fourth Nuclear Security summit. I want to thank everybody who participate in our meetings and more than 50 leaders from every region of the world and Key International organizations. Our previous summits, we do not come here to talk, but we came here to act. I know the technical nature of Nuclear Security does not always make for flashy headlines, over the past six years, we have made significant, meaningful progress in securing the World Nuclear materials so they never fall into the hands of terrorists. I want to take a few moments to step back and lay out exactly what we have accomplished. Together we remove the most of the materials from Nuclear Facilities around the world. With japans announcement today, we have removed or secured all the highly enriched uranium and plutonium for more than 50 facilities in 30 countries. Tons, which is more than enough to crater hundred and 50 Nuclear Weapons. Material will never fall into the hands of terrorists. Taiwan, countries as diverse as argentina and chile to libya and turkey to serbia and vietnam, have now rid themselves of highly enriched uranium and plutonium. I want to point out that successfully moving all of ukraines highly enriched uranium four years ago meant that the difficult situation in ukraine over the past two years was not made more dangerous by the presence of these materials. As of today, south america, the entire continent, is completely free of these dangerous materials. When poland complete its removal this year, Central Europe will be free of them as well. When indonesia complete its work this year, so will all of southeast asia. In other words, as terrorists and criminal gangs and arms merchants around for deadly ingredients for a nuclear device, vast regions of the world are now off limits, and that is a remarkable achievement. We have made important progress in the United States as well, and in addition to the steps i announced, we have improved Nuclear Security and training. Weve consolidated Nuclear Materials at fewer facilities, eliminated 130 tons of our surplus highly enriched uranium, enough for 5500 Nuclear Weapons. Working with russia we are on track to eliminate enough russian highly enriched uranium for about 20,000 Nuclear Weapons, which we are converting to electricity here in the United States. More specifically, as result of these summits, every single one of the