This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: Justice Holmes and Brandeis dissented. They argued that Abrams actions did not meet the ‘clear and present danger’ test. Abrams did not have the ability or intent to carry out the message in his circulars. Notes: Similar opinion to Schenk. Holmes thought this should not have been up held. It was a misapplication of the clear and present danger test. It is not clear exactly what the difference in intent between this case and Schenk. It is likely though that it is ability and influence of the person. Later has been over ruled....
View Full Document
- Spring '10
- Supreme Court of the United States, Abrams