This landmark decision placed certain restrictions on the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. When Charles Schenck, a member of the socialist party distributed anti-draft material during World War I, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes created the clear and present danger standard as a means of determining what kind of speech was acceptable, and what kind of speech needed to be limited by the court.

Contains changes to the United States Constitution and its amendments with annotations of decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. It also includes: Acts of Congress held unconstitutional in whole or in part by the Supreme Court of the United States; State constitutional or statutory provisions and municipal provisions held unconstitutional or held to be preempted by Federal law; Supreme Court decisions overruled by subsequent decision; a table of cases; and an index.

A sitting justice reflects upon the authority of the Supreme CourtÑhow that authority was gained and how measures to restructure the Court could undermine both the Court and the constitutional system of checks and balances that depends on it. A growing chorus of officials and commentators argues that the Supreme Court has become too political. On this view the confirmation process is just an exercise in partisan agenda-setting, and the jurists are no more than Òpoliticians in robesÓÑtheir ostensibly neutral judicial philosophies mere camouflage for conservative or liberal convictions. Stephen Breyer, drawing upon his experience as a Supreme Court justice, sounds a cautionary note. Mindful of the CourtÕs history, he suggests that the judiciaryÕs hard-won authority could be marred by reforms premised on the assumption of ideological bias. Having, as Hamilton observed, Òno influence over either the sword or the purse,Ó the Court earned its authority by making decisions that have, over time, increased the publicÕs trust. If public trust is now in decline, one part of the solution is to promote better understandings of how the judiciary actually works: how judges adhere to their oaths and how they try to avoid considerations of politics and popularity. Breyer warns that political intervention could itself further erode public trust. Without the publicÕs trust, the Court would no longer be able to act as a check on the other branches of government or as a guarantor of the rule of law, risking serious harm to our constitutional system.