In 1984 Republican National convention, Gregory Lee Johnson was among the people who participated in the political demonstration to protest the policies of President Ronald Reagan administration along with some of the others Dallas-based corporations. During the march through the city’s streets, Johnson burned an American flag while the other protesters was chanting for him. Nobody was injured at the protest or burning of the flag, although several eye witnesses were upset by Mr. Johnson behave, which resulted him being arrested, charged, and convicted for violating Texas statute that prevented the desecration of venerated object, such as the American flag, and State court of appeals affirmed. Nevertheless, Johnson appealed his case and argued that his actions were symbolic speech which was protected under the First Amendment; after his appeal, Texas Criminal Court of Appeals reversed it and decided that the State can’t punish Johnson for burning the flag in these circumstances. First, they believe that him burning the flag was expressive conduct which is protected
Lastly, the board speaks of the overturning of the law and how this decision to overturn it was “unquestionably correct.” The board specifically picked “unquestionably” in order to persuade the audience to believe that, with out of a doubt, the decision the Supreme Court made was the right choice. The board is able to sway the audience towards their opinion and away from Texas and other anti-abortion believer’s opinions by using a very vivid word choice that convinces the audience that the boards views are correct and that their oppositions viewpoint is
Although the first amendment guarantee’s freedom of speech, the guarantee is not absolute. There should be an expectation to the first amendment. Another aspect of freedom of speech is expressive conduct (such as flag burning). The supreme court has grappled with whether laws banning expressive conduct are permissible under the first amendment. This court is in favor of Texas because, is it not right to burn a flag, with military people died to protect our flag, it is a symbol of freedom, and it will cause more problems in the world.
CRJU 1068 Should desecrating the American flag be illegal? The American flag is so loved because of what it represents; the land of the free. Unfortunately, that freedom also includes the ability to use or abuse that flag in protest. The Supreme Court declared in 1989 that the government could not stop citizens from desecrating the nation’s flag. On an emotional level, I would almost immediately agree that there should be laws protecting the American flag from desecration or destruction.
The people who are against immigration want it to get rid of it or they want it to be extremely limited in our country. One person who talked about how limiting immigration and stopping people from coming to the United States is a good change for us is David Goldman. In his article “President Trumps Immigration Ban is Magnificently Right” Goldman says that Trumps 90-day travel ban is “callous towards individual Muslims but merciful to American citizens, who have the right to go about their business without fear of mass terrorist attacks.” (Paragraph 3). Being against immigration because of the fear or extra crime and terrorism seems to be one of the main reasons for people in the United States to be against it. In the last election it was one of President Trumps main areas of focus.
Great post and I agree with everything you said. The PowerPoint that was made to go along with Lincoln’s speech was terrible and unnecessary. I’m certain if he had used a presentation such as that one that his speech wouldn’t have been as much as a success as it was. I went in the same direction as you did when describing what we would put into the slide show for this speech. Images that represented freedom and the values America was built upon.
It is weird that the country of freedom looks and minds at such actions, and it makes us think are they faking the freedom that they are always shouting for? It is true that what Colin Kaepernick did is disrespectful for his country firstly and himself secondly, but as a foreigner I have always heard that the United States of America is the only country where you freely do whatever you want. However, it seems that what I read in Ta-Nehisi Coates about the racism is so true; discrimination exists in the country of freedom. Moreover, what Donald Trump said about Colin Kaepernick when he didn’t stand while playing National Anthem, which is leaving the United States and finding another one is a shame for the country; as it always been the only country that welcomes all the people from different countries, races and religions.
78 has been considered one of the most influential pieces of work in the field, as it lays the ground work of what he believed was the role of the court. Since then, many scholars such as Robert Dahl have weighed in on how that role has changed. In the Federalist No. 78, Hamilton lays out that the Supreme Court is designed to settle constitutional disputes as well as act as a check towards congress in order to ensure the minorities interest. This was accepted to be the primary role of the Judiciary branch for a long time.
It relies upon terror and oppression, a controlled press and radio; fixed elections, and the suppression of personal freedoms. I believe that it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.” This ideology, in conjunction with Eisenhower’s Domino Theory gave the nation’s leaders the impetus to become involved in the Vietnam War. World War II was definitively a just war, and initially, Americans perceived the Vietnam War as a just war too, supporting those Vietnamese who were resisting a communist regime. Television coverage of the war was more open than in any previous military engagement, and the specifics and violence of the Vietnam War became dinner conversation in many homes. As the draft continued, young people in general and college students in particular began learning about the history of Vietnam, and they began to question U.S. involvement in this conflict.
Happening as it did toward the finish of a demonstration harmonizing with the Republican National Convention, the expressive, unmistakably political nature of the direct was both intentional and overwhelmingly obvious. The court inferred that, while the legislature for the most part has a more liberated submit limiting expressive conduct than it has in confining the composed or spoken word, it may not prohibit specific direct in light of the fact that it has expressive elements. According to Justice William Brennan, 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. They noted that the right to speak freely ensures activities that society may discover extremely hostile, yet society 's shock alone is not defense for smothering free speech (Facts and case summary for Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S.
Lastly, the Patriot Act also eroded our freedom to be held without a charge. “Americans can now be jailed without a formal charge” (Eroding Liberties). This changed amendment takes away our three natural rights; life, liberty, and happiness. In america, you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. Unless you are convicted of a crime, you shouldn 't be punished.