4. Explain why the Supreme Court decided that "no Court could regard" Charles Scheck's language "as
protected by any constitutional right?"

Answer/Explanation:

During the 1900s the U.S government passed two laws which were viewed as oppressive of the rights and freedom of speech of American citizens during war. These legislations were the Sedition Act of 1918 and the Espionage Act which made it an offense for anyone to write, print, utter or publish or aid the writing, printing, uttering or publication of anything that is scandalous, abusive, defamatory, or disloyal of the government of the United States or its military and is capable of bringing the government or its military into contempt or disregard, or instigate resistance against the government or the military during a time when the country is at war.

Unfortunately, in the wake of World War I, Charles Scheck who was a socialist and a U.S politician opposed America's involvement in the first World War. During the subsistence of the war, he wrote, published and distributed articles and leaflets expressing his view on the participation of America in the war. He was subsequently charged to Court for contravening the provisions of the Espionage and Sedition Act and was found guilty. The U.S Supreme Court held that the language used by Charles in his publications was seditious  of the government and capable of instigating resistance against the government and her military during the war. The court held that no court could guarantee Charles' language as used in his publications during the war. The Court further held that Charles through his publications caused panic amongst the citizens, and that the circumstances at which those publications were in circulation being a time when the U.S was involved in a war warranted the conviction of Charles.

economic competition is inefficient and wasteful.good luck

explanation: