Therefore, when mentioning the burning of the American flag, the action is fully supported under freedom of speech and expression. It is also because of the first amendment, that I believe the government should maintain the right of the individuals to express their dissatisfaction with the government, through the act of flag burning and not amend the constitution to make such right illegal. Though many people may see the burning of the flag as a disrespectful notion towards the nation, it can be considered a way of expression. As stated in the United States Constitution “Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people…”. The First Amendment
The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America grants the right to free speech a status superior than that of the other rights. Specifically the First Amendment disallows Congress from establishing any laws controlling the freedom of speech. American jurisprudence establishes the importance right of free speech, which enables proactive engagement on contemporary challenges by the citizenry ensuring extensive and vigorous public dialogue. Free speech facilitates the resolution of conflicts and optimal decision-making by the citizenry. Free speech, however, is not entirely without restraint; surrounding conditions dictate the reasonableness of any control thereof.
I agree with Marshall’s argument that the Tenth Amendment only allows the states authority in areas not delegated to the federal government, and that the federal government is not limited to its enumerated powers alone. I feel that this would make for an unproductive federal government, especially as the role of the government has expanded and changed throughout the decades. However, the state of Illinois did not argue that the federal government could not pass the Motor Voter Act under the Times, Places and Manner Clause. It allowed for the act to remain in place for federal candidates, but not for state candidates. I believe it would be reasonable to allow the states to regulate their own candidates, which Illinois did.
It also became the most important concept of the Old Republican as these resolutions became the framework that supports the principle of the states’ rights. In addition to this, when John C. Calhoun seek to abolish the federal tariff, the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions were invoked during the Nullification Crisis. The resolutions also influenced the Southern succession in the 1860s which resulted in the American Civil War. For Jefferson, himself, they have gained three advantages from the resolutions in the following way: one, it showed them the reasoning of the states who rejected the resolutions; two, it acted as a firm protest against the principle of the constitution as well as the president; and three, it express their warm attachment to the union of their sister states which they believed will be
First, it was acknowledged that every individual is protected against losing their citizenship according to the Fourteenth Amendment, in Afroyim v. Rusk. That the Constitution requires, “clear and convincing evidence” that citizenship was voluntary denounced, which Congress does not have the power to constitute the standard of. Secondly, the court recognized that even though in the case of Nishikawa v. Dulles it was ruled that Congress does have the right to supply the standard of evidential proof; the case was not a fair decision based on the Constitution. Proof was left to Terrazas to show that he did not mean to denounce his citizenship. While congress does have the authority to set a standard on the federal level, it does not during civil cases.
Reasoning: (Brennan, J.) The majority of the Court, agreed with Johnson and held that flag burning constitutes a form of "symbolic speech" that is protected by the First Amendment. "A law directed at the communicative nature of conduct must, like a law directed at speech itself, be justified by the substantial showing of need that the First Amendment requires." The majority concluded that the Texas law impermissibly discriminated upon viewpoint. The Court noted, "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."
We would be permitting a Sate to “prescribe what shall be orthodox” by saying that one may burn the flag to convey one’s attitude toward it and its referents only if one does not endanger the flag’s representation. Here I stand to say that for Johnson to burn the flag is very disturbing to our country as well to our peers. For him to do that wasn’t right and very rude. Many U.S. troops fight for our flag each and every day for our freedom and for us to live a natural free life instead of having many rules that would over power us.
The 1st amendment “The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition.” (First amendment, 1789) Which means that he has his own freedom of what to talk. Moreover, there was a case in taxes that a man called Gregory L. Johnson burned the USA flag as a way of his protesting. This time, the Supreme Court stated that “In a controversial decision, the Supreme Court, by the closest possible margin of a 5-to-4 vote, held that a person has a right to express disagreement with governmental policies by burning the American flag.” (Ronald J. Allen, 1990) Due to these cases, there is no point to stop Kaepernick to protest in his
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. — The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution According to the statement above and research, the First Amendment was written to protect freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly and petition. Religious minorities can be persecuted, protesters and media can be silenced, the press cannot criticize government, and citizens cannot mobilize for social change without the First Amendment. After explaining importance of First Amendment, I will explain how we can apply it to student newspapers. Is it constitutional for school officials to censor a school-sponsored publication, such as a newspaper or a yearbook?
The Importance of the 1st Amendment In 1787 our founding fathers assembled the constitution of the United States of America. Of this which contains the most important document to the American citizen, the Bill of rights. The first Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances” These freedoms granted by the Bill of Rights are often known as freedom of expression. These rights are most important to a truly free society. The first amendment provides us with new ideas and dismisses the fear of punishment