Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Braden v. United States, 365 U.S. 431 (1961), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the conviction of the petitioner, Carl Braden, based on his refusal to answer questions posed to him by the House Un-American Activities Committee, did not violate his First Amendment rights and was constitutional.
Chairman Martin Dies of the House Un-American Activities Committee proofreads his October 26, 1938 letter replying to President Roosevelt's attack on the committee.. The House Committee on Un-American Activities (HCUA), popularly the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), was an investigative committee of the United States House of Representatives, created in 1938 to investigate ...
The Court, in a 5–4 decision, held that HUAC did not violate Barenblatt's First Amendment rights. Justice Harlan's opinion stated that "Where First Amendment rights are asserted to bar governmental interrogation, resolution of the issue involves a balancing of the competing private and public interests."
The U.S. Constitution's Section 3 of Article I, establishes the Senate, qualifications for senators and their role after a presidential impeachment.
President Harry Truman vetoed it on September 22, 1950, and sent Congress a lengthy veto message in which he criticized specific provisions as "the greatest danger to freedom of speech, press, and assembly since the Alien and Sedition Laws of 1798," a "mockery of the Bill of Rights" and a "long step toward totalitarianism".
According to the lawsuit filed by the 18 states, about 150,000 children born each year to two parents who are noncitizens and lack legal status could lose access to basic health care, foster care ...
The HUAC hearings failed to turn up any proof that Hollywood was secretly disseminating Communist propaganda, but the industry was nonetheless transformed. The fallout from the inquiry was a factor in the decision by Floyd Odlum , the primary owner of RKO Pictures , to leave the industry. [ 45 ]
So the question of the hour: If the facts are as McGhee construed them, did Anderson violate the 16-year-old's First Amendment rights? In terms of case law, the answer is a little more nebulous ...