The respondent was convicted in Dallas County Criminal Court of desecration of a venerated object in violation of a Texas statute. He was sentenced to one year in prison and fined $2000. The respondent appealed his conviction through the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas. They affirmed the decision of the lower court. The respondent then petitioned for discretionary review by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. This court then reversed the decision finding Johnson’s flag burning to be “symbolic speech” protected by the First Amendment. Certiorari was granted. The case went to the Supreme Court.…
This appeal, made on May 8, 1985 would be titled as Texas vs. Johnson. The defense argued that Johnson was prosecuted in violation of the first Amendment, clearly states that no law may take away a person's freedom of speech or expression, and of the Bill of Rights and the free speech clause of the Texas Constitution. Johnson argued that in his opinion, flag burning is part of freedom of expression. In Johnson's defense, he stated that "the American Flag was burned as Ronald Reagan was being re-nominated as President and a more powerful statement of symbolic speech, whether you agree with it or not, couldn't have been made at that time " To the surprise of many people, on April 20, 1988 the Texas court of criminal appeals declared by a vote of 5 4 that the original decision was unconstitutional and that Texas violated his first amendment right of freedom of…
Gregory Lee Johnson’s act of burning the American flag was not verbal communication.The United States Supreme Court ruled it as expressive conduct allowing it as the 1st amendment. In the case of Texas vs. Johnson, the United States Supreme Court leaned on Gregory Lee Johnson’s side, stating that this was an act of the first amendment under the United States Constitution. Gregory Lee Johnson’s charges and fines were dropped. The court case, Texas vs. Johnson closed on June 21, 1989. Shortly after the case of Texas vs. Johnson the United States Congress passed the, Flag Protection Act of 1989. The Flag Protection Act of 1989 rules that the government's interest in preserving the flag as a United States symbol is not more significant than the individual's First Amendment right to disrespect the American flag through expressive…
Passage 1, "American Flag Stands for Tolerance," asserts direct ways that rights, freedom, and choices can be snatched. In the article it is stated that "each individual is to have the freedom to develop by his or her own lights, and not by the command of officialdom." Individuals should be able to live how they intent to instead of having the government decide how they should live. Furthermore why can people not stand up for their rights when "the flag stands for free expression of ideas, no matter how distastful?" People do not want other people interfering with how they want to live their lives. Having freedom snatched away can cause many individuals to do wrong things, such as burning the flag.…
The First amendment of the Constitution of America calls for the protection of the United states citizens from the United States congress. It states that congress shall not pass any laws favoring a specific religious belief or stop any particular group from worshiping them. The first amendment also protects the United States citizen by allowing them freedom of speech/press and peaceful assembly or petition of the governments policies.(billofrightsInstitute) In 1984 Ronald Reagan was trying to run for his second term as president, however thousands of people gathered in front of the Dallas city hall to protest Reagan’s policies and in that crowd a protester named Gregory Lee Johnson. Johnson pulled a stunt that ended him up in the Dallas city court house convicting him to desecrating the U.S. flag. The Dallas city court’s decision was tried and took to the supreme court for Johnsons first amendment right being violated. The supreme court actually came to the decision that Johnson was protected by the first amendment. “After this decision by the supreme court, there has been six times the house of representatives have tried to vote a constitutional amendment known as Flag desecration amendment which stated “ congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag”. This amendment has not received the 67 votes it needs to pass but hasn’t been less than 63 voted for all six occasions” (billofrightsInstitute)…
Americans view the Constitution as the Holy Grail to guide our country and provide meaning of the law. It also gives a designation of powers to each branch and the states. Our essential freedoms are specified to us by the Constitution and have been stripped away from some individuals based on their sexual preference. In the Lawrence v. Texas case, it proves that the Supreme Court is continually re-interpreting the Constitution.…
The other reason he was justified in his actions was that it was only a state law. There were a couple of states that allowed burning the flag, but Texas did not. The state shouldn’t be allowed to make a law that overrules the country’s amendments. Justice Brennan said, “…no official, high or petty can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinions or force citizens to confess by word…” This quote shows that state shouldn’t be allowed to make a decision based on opinions that force people to abide.…
Us humans should accept Johnson in “ Texas v Johnson” even though his expressions differ from one another. On pages 1 and 2 of page 1, stated “ We decline therefore, to create for the flag an exception to the joust of principles protected by the 1st amendment.” On the next page, line 39 stated, “ The way to preserve the flags special role is not to punish those who feel differently about these matters.” This evidence helped decide the rational decision to not punish Johnson. It relates to the quote because it’s saying he has a right in the 1st amendment to express by burning the flag. Also we should punish those who have different opinions and views than ourselves.…
The document I have read, States’ Rights, Depending on the Issue by Albert R. hunt has many different topics and many different views. I have decided to pick the topic of the Southern Confederacy flag being flown in many southern states. The two points that this article offers about the Southern Confederacy flag is that, the flag may be flown because it is to the closest government's decision to decide, which is yes, and or that flag should not be flown because of what it “really” stands for according to many African American citizens, a racist sign of hatred towards their people. This topic has recently been extremely popular because some people call it “patriotism of their local region” and some consider it “a racist reminder that brought African Americans a time of unjust pain and neglection.” Overall, this topic remains such a problem because there are not only two views, but those views are not just different because of saying who's right or wrong, but it is a stand point of saying yay or nay of violence towards African American citizens during America’s pastime.…
In the discussions of if burning the flag should be illegal, one controversial issue has been that it shouldn’t be. On the one hand, many american argue that it should be illegal to burn the flag. On the other hand, some americans contend that burning the flag is a way to get there point across. My own view is that it should be illegal.…
Burning the flag of the United States is burning the peoples freedoms because that what the flag represents.It is the symbol of this country and the whole world recognizes the flag and people that live in the country decide to burn the flag. In the article "Burn the Flag or Burn the Constitution" by Fulton Sandra, she states, "Those who would burn the flag destroy the symbol of freedom, but amending the constitution would destroy part of freedom its self." Also, in "Flag Burning Should be Banned" by Brady Patrick and it stated, "They say the flag symbolizes the freedom to burn it: That our flag is the symbol of un-patriotic conduct. That burning the symbol of patriotism is patriotic." What this two articles are saying that is that burning the flag changes the look of the flag of this country, more times the flag is burned it shows the peoples freedoms burning at the same time. Plus, those who burn the flag try to separate freedom from patriotism but the flag already represents both of the statements. The flag of the United States is there to show our freedoms, patriotism, and people and we decide to burn…
The first amendment clearly states that congress shall not make any law abridging the freedom of speech. If our government isn’t going to avid by the amendments, then why have them? If they are going to ban the confederate flag then they should be banned for not corresponding with our god given rights. The constitutional amendments are what our government is supposed to stick to.…
The Supreme Court views the issue of flag burning as a right given to Americans under the First Amendment. A bill was proposed to the legislature and while it made it through Congress, it did not pass with the required 2/3 vote in the Senate. However, many Americans believe that the flag does not just symbolize the government, but the nation as a whole. Amendments to ban flag burning would in fact give people the freedom to protect the flag and its meaning but would be invasive to our first amendment right. Hence, taking away the actual meaning of the flag as a symbol of freedom.…
There are many individuals and groups alike that choose to express their disdain for certain actions, laws, and behaviors through the use of Freedom of Speech. The First Amendment has been cited by many protesters when demonstrating that it is their right to Freedom of expression. Freedom of Expression is powerful enough that sometimes words do not have to be spoken for a message to be conveyed. However, not all acts are protected by the First Amendment. For example, burning the flag is protected under the First Amendment but promoting the benefits of marijuana at a school event would be protected (U.S. Courts, n.d). If by chance there is a question of constitutionality regarding the First Amendment, it is usually linked to the overbreadth doctrine. Simply meaning, an individual may feel that their rights and/or others rights to Freedom of Speech may be prohibited by laws when applied under the context in which they were written. Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 (1973) is the most quoted case that addresses issues of the overbreadth doctrine as it pertains to the First Amendment.…
The first commandment of the Bible, "thou shalt have no other gods before me;" the first Amendment of the United States Constitution, "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (The Bible, Exodus 20:1–1, Constitution). In America, many argue the country's Amendments were originally based on the Ten Commandments but immediately both the first commandment and first Amendment are not in line with each other. Roy S. Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court installed a giant 5,200 pound granite block in the lobby of Alabama's court that displayed the Ten Commandments. This act was in violation of the first Amendment as the stone is favoring the Christian doctrine in a government courthouse.…