On the recordOctober 8, 2002
I urge defeat of the resolution. In the landmark case of Schenck versus The United States, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes ruled that freedom of speech should not be abridged, even in wartime, unless the circumstances are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger to the United States. That doctrine, I suggest, offers an appropriate standard for any preemptive unilateral action. It creates a burden of proof that was best articulated by a patriot from New England who served as Secretary of State in 1837, Daniel Webster. He stated that the need for self-defense must be 'instant, overwhelming, and leaving no chance of means and no moment for deliberation.' I would add that the quantum of evidence necessary must be compelling and convincing; not the higher criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, but at least compelling and convincing, because of the obvious magnitude of the consequences that are implicated here. The resolution before us permits the President to take us into war without satisfying either of these requirements.
Source
govinfo.gov




