While the article “Texas v. Johnson (1989)” comments, “burning the flag constitutes a fundamental rejection of the system that protects freedom of speech, and they conclude that such conduct does not merit First Amendment protection.” This comes to show that burning the American Flag could have caused riots and hardships. “Desecrating the an American Flag was a criminal offence in Texas, as it was under federal law and in 48 of the 50 U.S. States.” This quote helps explain why there are so many bad turnouts that could happen because Johnson burned the American
“He was arrested and charged with violating a Texas statute that prevented the desecration of a venerated object, including the American flag, if such action were likely to incite anger in others” (“Facts and Case Summary - Texas v. Johnson). Johnson did exactly this, and he angered many witnesses. Congress passed a law similar to the one taking effect in this case. “In 1968, Congress approved the Federal Flag Desecration Law after a Vietnam War protest. The law made it illegal to “knowingly” cast “contempt” upon any flag of the United States by publicly mutilating, defacing, defiling, burning or trampling upon it” (Bomboy).
In another article, Judge: man won’t be prosecuted for flag ‘desecration’, I found this quote “Allegheny Township police charged Brubaker with two flag desecration crimes. Maliciously hanging or taking down a flag and mutilating a flag.” I understand that this isn’t against the law, but I also feel the actions from the 2 different men were very wrong. I feel like people should never do this because it is like they are trying to express they hate America and hate being an American. The last reason why the flag should be protected from desecration is because it is a symbol of how amazing of a country the United States really
Over all if we did pass a law saying that there shouldn’t be any more Confederate Flags, it’s almost like ghost. Whether they do pass a law people will still believe that there is nothing wrong in hanging a Confederate Flag. While the flag is generally negative towards many people it is still widely accepted throughout the states. Part of this has to do with the freedom of speech. I believe it would be fine to personally display the flag, however do not put it on official buildings or capitals.
By lying Fields did not harm himself alone, but he damaged the integrity of those soldiers serving, or those who have served in the military. Fields claim of earning a purple heart, I believe, is also in violation of the stolen valor act, and not protected under the first amendment . Fields claim of earning a purple heart damages the sacredness of the award, and damages the reputation of those recipients of the purple heart. My verdict as a supreme court Justice would be to uphold Fields conviction of 1 year in
That is when Calhoun, his former vice president at the time, began questioning him but instead of aiding South Carolina, he argued that it was for the good of the union. How can a man that clearly only cared about his beliefs and opinions his be considered the “people 's president”? He only aided those who agreed with him and held autocratic beliefs, which our government is staunchly against. The nickname Old Hickory would later be replaced with Jackass and King Andrew. Of course, others will disagree and say he is a heroic man and I agree that some of his actions were noble but America doesn 't deserve a president who has done so many questionable
People may believe that they were not justified because the US had already stolen Texas from Mexico. “From Mexico’s point of view, the annexation of Texas to the United States was inadmissible for both legal and security reasons.” (Document C) Clearly, America was not justified in declaring war against Mexico because they had already robbed them, and was not right to declare war after they were just robbed of their land. However, America was justified because Mexico would lose their land eventually anyways, and while Mexico was weak, seized the opportunity to gain more land. Thus, America was justified to fight against
The Results of Dred Scott v Sanford had different effects on American history. This also contributed to the start of the civil war. Dred Scott v Sanford was a court decision on if Dred Scott could sue for his freedom. " According to Supreme Court History, Dred Scott could not sue for his freedom because he was not a citizen. " This was otherwise known as an illegal case.
Texas was part of Mexico, with the land being cheap Americans wanted to settle there and when Americans tried claiming it as their own he had to fight back just like anyone would. Americans were trying to take over and they disagreed with his laws therefore he was standing his ground. Later Santa Anna described in a letter that killing defenders of the Alamo was his only option. The letter blamed William Travis on the amount of violence that occurred. He stated that if Travis had not have been so disrespectful towards him that he would have allowed Sam Houston to establish a dominant presence
John Wilkes Booth was opposed to this and took it out on assassinating the President. Booth 's actions went against the true meaning of liberty and individualism all because the belief that he wasn 't being heard in the democracy. One of De Tocqueville principles was individualism. This principle is the belief that the needs of each person are more important than the needs of the whole society or group. Abraham Lincoln was a strong believer in people 's individual freedom no matter the race, and with the start of the civil war he decided to take action.
California which is one of the fifty states of American might have been stolen from Mexico. On April 25th 1846 after the annexation of Texas American soldiers went to the borders by Texas and went to guard it. Mexico had a different perspective however and saw that the United States were crossing their borders and attacked them. This caused a lot of conflicts which lead to the Mexican American War. I believe that America was not justified with going to war with Mexico because of how Mexico did not accept the annexation of Texas, Mexico defending their land and US invading it, the last reasons is what Mexico did not accept slavery but Americans ignored this rule.
Truly, it was very clear that the Americans won the war because Texas wanted to become part of the US, and the United States wanted to adopt Texas into their union. Thirdly, a second reason the Mexican War was not justified because US soldiers were in a disputed area. According to Jesus Velasco Marquez from “A Mexican Viewpoint on the War With the United States,” he states that “From Mexico’s point of view, the annexation of Texas to the United States was inadmissible for both legal and security reasons.” As well as, “The American government acted like a bandit who came upon a
It is an expressed opinion that is protected by the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution. Johnson had full rights to burn the flag and say whatever he wanted about it or the government and it was his freedom to do so. Even though it is morally wrong and usually an unacceptable behavior, I believe that the Court did the right thing. They had to put aside personal beliefs and values and interpret the Constitution the way it was written even if it allows people to be a disgrace to the country itself. If the decision had gone in opposition to Johnson, there would have possibly been many upsets concerning people or groups that are very strong supporters of the freedoms that the
The first case of the day that was heard by the Supreme Court on December 13th was Texas v. Johnson. Gregory Lee Johnson, a member of the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade, led a protest at the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas to protest Ronald Reagan’s reelection. During this protest, Mr. Johnson soaked an American flag in kerosene and proceed to burn it. Mr. Johnson was then arrested and charged for violating the Texas state law that prevented the desecration of a venerated object. The proceedings began with statements from the petitioners who claimed that precedent cases such as US v. O’Brien (1968), which deemed that the burning of draft cards was an invalid form of free speech, and Boos v. Barry (1988), which reinforced
Our nation has exaggerated the fear of a piece of history for far too long and now it is the time to put forth some truth. The confederate flag has been a part of heritage since 1861 and has been to this day. People today see it as a flag of hatred, which is interesting because this did not start happening until now. There have been people who have shot and killed others because they said their intentions were based from the confederate flag, which is a material item that cannot make anyone do anything that they do not want to do unless they had their own cause. This flag is not built on a racist appeal it was to show that the southern side will take up for their selves when the northern side wanted an industrialized world.