Texas v. Johnson (No. 88-155). Argued: March 21, 1989. Decided: June 21, 1989 In 1984 the Republican National Convention was held in Dallas, Texas. While there, a group of protesters, opposed to President Reagan's reelection, burned an American flag. Specifically, Greg Johnson was seen dousing the flag with kerosene and lighting it on fire. Johnson was arrested under a Texas flag desecration law. He was convicted and sentenced to one year in jail and fined $2000. The State Court of Appeals affirmed but the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the decision. The court first found that Johnson's actions were protected under the free speech clause under the First Amendment. The court also found that since the action was not violent in nature and did not create a disturbance that it was not criminally sanctioned flag desecration. The case then went the U.S. Supreme Court to be argued on March 21, 1989. The Supreme Court had to find if Johnson's conviction of burning of the flag and breaking a Texas law was consistent with the First Amendment. In a 5-4 decision, the court found that it was not consistent with the First Amendment and that Johnson's conviction under Texas law was unconstitutional. Justice Brennan delivered the opinion of the court. In order to convict Johnson, the state asserted two interests: preserving the flag as a symbol of national unity and preventing the breaches of the peace. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals first found that Johnson alone was the one that was convicted and that his actions were symbolic in nature and under the circumstances of the event that it was held at, the Democratic National Convention. "Given ... ... middle of paper ... ...cable. A country's flag is a symbol of more than "nationhood and national unity." It also signifies the ideas that characterize the society that has chosen that emblem as well as the special history that has animated the growth and power of those ideas. Both opinions for the court put together very compelling cases. For me I believe that the modern interpretation of the constitution is the correct interpretation to go with. The dissenting opinion cited many references to wars and revolutionary times. This was the Republican National Convention where there was a protest, not revolutionary times where the nation was being oppressed by British tyranny. Johnson was clearly protected by the First Amendment and did not incite any riots, did not disturb the peace, and only offended people by his actions which were protected by free speech. Texas v. Johnson
Much history came within the Texas v. Johnson case. It all started during the 1984 Republican National Convention, this is where Johnson participated in a political demonstration to protest what policies Regan was administrating (Brennan 1). A march was occurring throughout the city streets, which Johnson did take part in. Johnson burned an American flag while protesters chanted him on (Brennan 1). No person was specifically injured during this protest; although, many witnesses were severely offended (Brennan 1). Johnson was convicted of Desecration of a venerated object, which violated the Texas Statue. The state court of appeals affirmed Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and reversed the case stating it was a form of expressive conduct, so it was alright (Brennan 1). In a 5 to 4 decision the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that Johnson’s burning of the flag was protected under his First Amendment rights (Brennan 1). The court also found that although witnesses may have found it offensive, does not...
Republicans made a last attempt to embed Negro freedom in federal law; they tried but failed to strengthen. On March 31, after many disputes and bloodshed between Democrats and Republicans, whites and Negroes, the Supreme Court sat down to hear the Colfax case. Attorney General George Williams would argue the Colfax case, he promised “he was not going to lose this case without showing the court what he could do…he wasn’t going to lose it without a fight.” Williams reminded the court of the massacre that happened in Colfax and that though Beckwith’s indictment was imperfect it was valid. Williams had to demonstrate that the constitution authorized congress to enact section 6 of the Enforcement Act, which protects whites and blacks voters from conspiracies. Williams made sure to remind the court million of people’s lives depended on the case and if they decided in favor of this law it will do a lot to bring peace and quiet to the south. But when the Supreme Court finally reached a conclusion, they were unanimous in the decision that Beckwith’s indictments were fatally flawed. Chief Justice Waite in his draft dismissed every count and not one mentioned the massacre in it. It broke whatever force the Enforcement Act
The decision was a 6-3 decision. The Justices that agreed with the ruling of the court were Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, White, Stevens, and O’Connor. The Justices that did not agree were Powell, Berger, and Rehnquist.
The Supreme Court case, Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, was argued on March 29, 2000, in Texas (Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe). The verdict was decided on June 19, 2000 by the Supreme Court. The case questioned the constitutionality of the school’s policy that permitted student-led, student initiated prayer at football games. The Supreme Court justices had to take the Establishment Clause of the first amendment into account when making their decision (Cornell University Law School). The case originated in the Santa Fe Independent School District, located in Texas. The District was against Doe, a Mormon and a Catholic family involved within the District. The purpose of the case was to determine if the school policy was in violation of the first amendment’s Establishment Clause which creates a divide between religion and government. The first amendment freedom of religion was the right at stake in regards to the Establishment Clause that defines a line between church
VI. Opinion: Justice Fortas delivered the opinion of the Court. The Judgment of the Arizona Supreme Court is reversed and the matter remanded. Justices Black and White concurred with the Court’s opinion. Justice Harlan concurred in part and dissented in part; and Justice Stewart dissented based on his opinion that juvenile hearings are not the same as adversary proceedings.
The majority therefore held that the detainees are entitled to challenge their detention by the writ of habeas corpus whereas Justice Scalia is still restricting himself on the interpretation of text of Constitution. By comparing the view of Justice Scalia and majority, it can be said that Justice Scalia had focused on the text of the Constitution (which is rigid and restricted) whereas the majority focused on the individual liberty (a more flexible view by allowing wider interpretation of the Constitution).
subject to the O'Brien test, and that the second was a direct maneuver to limit expression.
The case was decided 6-3 in favor of Alvarez. The Supreme Court ruled the Stolen Valor Act unconstitutional in violation of the First Amendment. Justices Kennedy, Roberts, Ginsburg and Sotomayor joined in a plurality opinion. The plurality stated that freedom of speech under the First Amendment protects lying and false statements. Although the lies are frowned upon and socially unacceptable, the First Amendment protects those types of statements. With the application of strict scrutiny to this case, the Justices within the plurality found that the Stolen Valor Act was very broad and if it had more specific restric...
...n their opinion, protected the right of citizens to vote. The Constitution was also used in the majority opinion to support the striking down of Section 4(b). Justice Roberts said that the constraints of Section 4(b) are in violation of the Constitution, which gives the power to regulate elections to the states, not to the federal government. Section 4(b) is a federal act that singles out the voting processes of certain states and jurisdictions. It can be said that the regulation of Section 5 and the coverage of Section 4(b) allow for the federal government to control in the elections of the covered areas. This case struck down Section 4(b), and effectively eliminated the use of Section 5, of the Voting Rights Act, which many consider to be an extremely significant act in the Civil Rights Movement. Shelby County v. Holder has not been superseded by any other cases.
West Virginia v. Barnette (1943): The Court held that compelling students and faculty to salute the flag was unconstitutional under the first amendment. Not saluting or saluting is a form of expression and speech and forcing people to say “under god” violated their right to freedom of religion. Justice Jackson argued that "[i]f there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters
Flag Burning can be and usually is a very controversial issue. Many people are offended by the thought of destroying this country's symbol of liberty and freedom. During a political protest during the 1984 Republican Convention, Gregory Lee Johnson was arrested for burning an American flag. Years later in 1989, Johnson got the decision overturned by the United States Supreme Court. In the same year, the state of Texas passed the Flag Protection Act, which prohibited any form of desecration against the American flag. This act provoked many people to protest and burn flags anyway. Two protestors, Shawn Eichman and Mark Haggerty were charged with violating the law and arrested. Both Eichman and Haggerty appealed the decision because the law was inconsistent with the first amendment to the Constitution. The right to petition the government for a redress of grievances is protected by the first amendment of the Constitution. Burning American flags and other such actions are not treasonous and should no be treated as so, as long as these actions are done to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Flag defilement is seen in many forms, such as- spitting on, tearing apart, or burning. During the 1960’s, a time of despair and revolution, flag vandalism proliferated. In effort to alter their lifestyle, Americans stampeded the streets ruining the symbol of freedom in the name of politics and racism. The violent array of insubordination created an immediate reaction. Each protest became more violent and ill mannered. Each time someone demolishes a flag, the act is not freedom of speech- it is an expression of an anti-American lifestyle.
In the quote Barbara Jordan states, “We, as human beings , must be willing to accept people are different from ourselves” is the quote that I will be connecting this to two different story to show how many people discriminate other because they have a different outlook on this topic . In the story Texas v. Johnson Majority Opinion “We decline, therefore, to create for the flag an exception to the joust of principles protected by the first amendment”. Which in my opinion is showing that there are abusing the first amendment because if people have the freedom of speech then why are they ignored just for saying what they believe in if you have freedom of speech. And in the story American Flag Stands for Tolerance Ronald J. Allen states, “The
The Texas judiciary branch of its state government has not one but two Supreme Courts, the Court of Criminal Appeals and the Supreme Court of Texas. With the two separate Supreme Courts in its state government benefits are clearly displayed, but negative aspects are also clear here as well. I will describe what these two courts do for the state of Texas and I will tell of aspects I will leave be due to the benefits they provide but, I will also list changes to be made to fix the negative effects two Supreme Courts bring in this state.
The flag is the symbol of the community which differentiates it from the rest of the world but it is more than just the symbol. It is the identity of the people in front of the world that they are belong to which country or which nation. So flag is the identity of a person or a particular region that we display in front of the people. Flag is not just a piece of cloth that flies in the air and have no mean but in fact with this flag many patriotic emotions are also connected. People have the patriotic feeling with this flag as this the identity of them in front of everyone. Countries spend a lot of time and money in the designing of flag because pattern of the flag show the communities which are living in the country and their religion as well. By seeing the flag of the country we can understand many important things of the country.