Talk:Clear and present danger

Law Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article should list Korematsu v. United States in See Also, as that case is rather famous and uses the same principle. I'll add one, but remove it if you find it unnessecary.71.126.5.147 (talk) 22:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The clear and present danger test is still good law and has not been overruled. Consequently, I am removing the invalid sections of this article.

The above comment is correct. I have changed the word "overturned" to "modified" and changed the wording of the sentence somewhat.Jeffmatt 11:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some addtitions regarding how C&PD was first mentioned but not actually used as a Test until Brandenburg. If you need a source you can look at "Free Speech in its forgotten yeaes" by David M. Rabban, specifically page 282. But all you really need to do is look up Abrams v. US (US 1919) and note that the only mention of "Clear and Present Danger" is in Holmes' dissent, not the majority opinion.

Assessment

I rated this article as mid-importance because it is a foundation doctrine of First Amendment jurisprudence. Schenck v. United States is a case studied in upper level American Constitutional Law classes, but is not part of the required or core curriculum of the ABA. Legis Nuntius (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quality

This article has been ranked of poor quality by: me. It is rather technical and lacks a proper introduction about what it all means in lay terms. --62.243.83.221 (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]