Charles Schenck, a U.S. citizen, was responsible for printing and distributing leaflets that explained why he was against the dr
aft (required military service) during World War I. He was charged with violating the Espionage Act of 1917, a federal law that outlawed any action that got in the way of military operations. Charles believed that the law in question violated his right to free speech. In which court would this case be tried, and why? A. a state court because it involved violation of criminal law
B. the Supreme Court of the United States because it involved constitutional law C. a county civil court because it involved violation of civil liberties
D. a military tribunal because the matter involved prospective military draftees
B. Supreme Court because it involved a constitutional law Would not be the other two because he isn't in the military now (no military tribunal) and it is a Federal question of law so no state court or county court involvement. The only other option (which isn't there) would be a federal district court.<span />
I believe the answer is B. <span>sound bites in the media. Sound bites in the media refers to the short phrases that summarize what the speaker have to say. Even though sound bites often used in meda interview, it wouldn't played any role in interpreting judicial decisions.</span>
