The United States Supreme Court has made many controversial rulings throughout the many years since it was established. These cases have been decided by a very close vote. Each one shaping the structure and jurisdictions of the government. Some strengthened the powers of government and some gave more rights to the individual. They will forever effect and influence the future of America. During the Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas in 1984, a group of people gathered to protest Ronald Reagan’s nomination and his policies (The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica). Gregory Lee Johnson was among the protestors complaining about Reagan. Johnson decided to burn an American flag in his attempts to show how he felt about Reagan’s ideas …show more content…
Therefore, most of society agreed that what he did was wrong and he should be punished for it. The court had to be just and fair in their decision by interpreting the Constitution to the best of their abilities without biased though. They were making a ruling on the question, “Is the desecration of the American flag by burning or otherwise, a form of speech that is protected under the First Amendment?” (Texas v. Johnson). The Supreme Court decided in favor of Johnson in a five to four ruling in June of 1989 (The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica). This maintained the decision by the appeals court, by saying that desecration of the American flag is protected by the Constitution (The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica). William J. Brennan, Jr., wrote the judgement of the greater part of the court and was backed by Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Anthony Kennedy, and Antonin Scalia (The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica). The group responsible for the prevailing decision was made up of both liberals and conservatives alike (The Editors of Tyler Duffer 3 Encyclopædia Britannica). They labeled the First Amendment’s protection of speech a “bedrock principle” and said that the United States government could not forbid “expression of an …show more content…
He also commented on how technology has widened people’s views and Tyler Duffer 5 opinions in regarding different subjects and situations. This has resulted in a variety of beliefs throughout the whole of America and it would not be right for any one of these to be singled out by banning. I hate to say it but I would have had to agree with the decision that the Supreme Court made. It would be unjust and not fair to outlaw the burning of the American flag. 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
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
Reasons for the majority opinion: The people who agreed thought that Schenck shouldn’t be protected by the First Amendment He is able to
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.”
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.
During the late 1800’s, Dixiecrats, Southern Democrats that believed in secession and states’ rights, claimed that the banning of the flag was the equivalent to Totalitarianism because the tenth amendment was not being put into action. The tenth amendment was created to balance power between the federal government and states. The fact that these rights weren’t guaranteed like stated in the Constitutional Bill of Rights made the Dixiecrats angry. It seemed unfair. This proceeded to make the want for secession even stronger.
Justice Rehnquist agrees and explains that the CPPA should not ban pornography it should have a limiting instruction so that only material which is not protected/prohibited should be ban/ punished (Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition). Justice Scalia also disagreed with the CPPA (Ashcroft v. Free Speech
Texas v. Johnson’s tone is formal and serious. This tone fits the context because the Court is the people writing the document. The court does their best to not offend anyone in the document so as to get the information out without causing a riot. The American Flag Stands for Tolerance’s tone is more colloquial so as to reach the same level as the readers. The writers of The American Flag Stands for Tolerance wrote this document, using the opinions of the people so as to reach out to the readers.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech”. Some people in today’s time would argue the first amendment is one of the most important listed in the Bill of Rights. Many forms of speech are protected by the first amendment that one wouldn’t think would be such as flag burning and “adult videos”. Over the years there have been many different court cases that have debated and fought the forms of speech that are protected. Many people in society treat speech differently and this is given in the United States because there are such diverse groups throughout the nation.
In 1943, a precedent court case Brown v. Board of Education allowed students to not salute the flag. Many people believe that if the argument is that desecration of the flag is ruining a national symbol, not saluting the flag is of the same disrespect. Precedent court cases have all stayed on the same line of judgement to say that it is constitutional for desecration of the flag to fall under symbolic
Ben Massarelli Dr. Waugh Government 2305 22 November 2015 Government Paper In module, “How a Member Votes for a Bill,” I was present with viewpoints on the passing of an amendment banning the burning of the United States Flag. As I listened to various points of view, my personal beliefs were either strengthen by the words of others or not swayed by those who disagreed with my own personal thoughts. First and foremost I do not belief that flag burning is a form of free speech.
The author states on lines 37-39 "The way to preserve the flag special role is not to punish those who feed differently matter. It is to persuade them that they are wrong." Because of this we can't punish or treat others differently because of what their opinions/beliefs we can only try persuading them without offending. Second, on lines 40-43 for "American Flag Stands for Tolerance" it states "My point is that freedom of conscience and expression is at the core of ourselves conception and requires the rejection of official dogma." This demonstrates that having freedom could cause people rejection which people won't think the same and could lead to disagreements.
Johnson went through a couple of courts before it hit the Supreme Court. It started at the Intermediate Court of Appeals after he was arrested and fined. Then it moved up to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals because he filed for review. When it got to this point his conviction was removed and the information was ordered to be dismissed. The Judge of that Court found that his action was constitutional because it was a type of symbolic speech.
This case is also regularly cited in other Supreme Court cases and is often a deciding factor. It has been used in cases like Konigsberg v. State Bar “That view, which of course cannot be reconciled with the law relating to libel, slander, misrepresentation, obscenity, perjury, false advertising, solicitation of crime, complicity by encouragement, conspiracy, and the like, is said to be compelled by the fact that the commands of the First Amendment are stated in unqualified terms: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble . . . . " But as Mr. Justice Holmes once said: "[T]he provisions of the Constitution are not mathematical formulas having their essence in their form; they are organic living institutions transplanted from English soil.
Calvin Coolidge was the nation’s president at the time of the trial. The Republican was pro-business and ensured that America was operated like a business. This influenced the trial because the business side of the trial was large, due to the attention the trial received. The 19th Amendment’s passage was influential in the trial because it showed that there were more impactful opinions in the nation. The rights of free speech and opinion were heavily focused on in the women’s rights movement.
Cornell University stated in an article, “Johnson was convicted of desertion of a venerated object in violation of Texas statute.” Johnson's actions were protected by the First Amendment so he was not sent to prison as stated in the United States Supreme Court case Texas v Johnson. His actions against the flag should have been more severe. Since Johnson’s actions were not threatening the branches of peace, there was no threat in the moment. “... and since the
In the United States of America, the right to freedom of expression is one of the most important rights that the citizens uphold. However, sensible citizens realize that in certain scenarios, the right to the freedom of expression must be violated in the name of the well being of the people. Unfortunately, what could harm the wellbeing of the people is a point of dissent for many members of the nation. Both sides of the argument are clearly shown today in the midst of issues like a rise in people wearing the confederate flag in places like schools; due to what the flag represents, some say the flag is considered very offensive and could cause dangerous situations. The solution these people support would be banning all confederate symbols in places like schools, but they face a strong opposition that argues banning the symbols would infringe upon the first amendment.