The Case Texas V. Johnson

The Case Texas V. Johnson
Angel Deng Ms. Crouse US Government Period 6 Texas v. Johnson The case Texas v. Johnson
happened in 1984, Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag to protest President Ronald
Reagan in front of the convention center in Dallas, Texas. He was a member of the Revolutionary
Communist Youth Brigade (Texas v. Johnson in 1989: Summary, Decision & Significance, Stephen
Benz). During the 1984 Republican National Convention, he participated in a political
demonstration. The demonstrators were protesting the policies of the Reagan Administration. While
they were marching through the streets, another demonstrator handed Johnson an American flag.
Johnson set the flag on fire when they reached Dallas City Hall, where the Convention was held. ...
Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Johnson, Oyez.org). The majority opinion was written by Justice William J. Brenna. It indicated that
the Court agreed with Johnson that flag burning constitutes a form of "symbolic speech" that is
protected by the First Amendment. And the Court disagreed with Texas' argument that Johnson's
action breaches of the peace. What's more, it emphasized that the state may not discriminate upon
different view point. Justice John Paul Steven also wrote a dissenting opinion, arguing the national
flag is a valuable asset, and Johnson's action belittled the value of this important national symbol
(Texas v. Johnson, LII / Legal Information Institute). This case did not change or add any
amendments, but the first amendment played a big role in it. The First Amendment guarantees the
rights of free expression and action that are fundamental to democratic government, These rights
include freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech
(First Amendment, Dictionary.com). It protects people's freedom of speech, and emphasize the right
of symbolic speech as well, This case remains relevant today, and it is still a controversial issue.
Because under the first amendment, people have the freedom of speech. The Court supports the flag
burning is the same as other legal forms of symbolic speech, such as sit–ins and wearing armbands.
After this case, several laws and statutes had been brought up to make desecrating the flag a federal
crime; but
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

4.4 Case Brief-Texas V. Johnson
4.4 Case Brief – Texas v. Johnson Statement of Issue Whether Gregory Johnson burning of the
American Flag is considered expressive speech thus allowing him to challenge his conviction under
the First Amendment freedom of speech. Whether a person convicted of burning the American Flag
under a state law can appeal their conviction on the grounds that their action are expressive free
speech and therefore cover by the First Amendment Statement of Rule Held 5–4 (Brennan writing)
affirming the ruling of the Texas Court of Appeals expressive conduct intended to express an idea
shall fall under the umbrella of the First and Fourteenth Amendments thus any restriction must show
a substantial governmental interest to be valid. The Analysis Writing for

Lawrence V. Texas Essay
Lawrence v. Texas In the case Lawrence v. Texas (539 U.S. 558, 2003) which was the United States
Supreme Court case the criminal prohibition of the homosexual pederasty was invalidated in Texas.
The same issue has been already addressed in 1989 in the case Bowers v. Hardwick, however, the
constitutional protection of sexual privacy was not found at that time. Lawrence overruled Bowers
and held that sexual conduct was the right protected by the due process under the Fourteenth
Amendment. The effects of the ruling were quite widespread and led to invalidation of the similar
laws throughout the United States that tried to criminalize the homosexual activity of adults which
were acting in privacy. The case attracted much of the public ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Therefore, the above law prohibites any form of sexual intercourse between individuals of the same
sex. On November 20th, both men pleaded no contest to the charges and asked for dismissal of
charges based on the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection. They claimed that the law of Texas
was unconstitutional because of the prohibition of sexual activity between individuals of the same
sex but not between individuals of the different sex. In addition, they stated that their right for
privacy was violated when police officers entered the house. Lawrence and Gardner to support their
claim mentioned that the right for privacy for couples of the different sex had been recognized to
include not only sexual activity, but also the usage of contraception. The above request was rejected
by the Criminal Court and both men were fined $125 each plus $141, 25 in the court costs. Texas
District Court of Appeals Almost two months later after the arrest, the arguments were presented to
the three–judge panel of the Texas District Court of Appeals. The discussion was on both issues
raised: the equal protection and right to privacy. John Anderson and Chief Justice Paul Murphy
ruled in the favour of appellants. They found that they law was in violation of the Equal Rights
Amendment to the Texas Constitutions which prohibited any discrimination based on

The Role Of Homosexual Discrimination In The United States
Throughout history, there have been many cases of injustice and discrimination both around the
world and in the United States specifically. There has been oppression of and discrimination against
differing ethnic groups, women, and now, individuals with a different sexual orientation than what
can be seen as normal. While the rights of these groups have improved significantly, discrimination
still occurs. However, discrimination against them is still less rampant than the discrimination
against people who identify as homosexuals and other similar sexual orientations. Since we, as a
society, have made extensive leaps and bounds regarding similar social issues, we can and must
make similar strides regarding societal views of sexual orientation. ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Texas, in which there was a Texas statute outlawing consensual sexual activity between persons of
the same sex (Page 1, Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Kennedy, Majority Opinion). This case was
examined using the lens of both the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth
Amendment. By examining Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), The U.S. Supreme Court decided that "the
case should be resolved by determining whether the petitioners were free as adults to engage in the
private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the Constitution" (Page 3, Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Kennedy, Majority Opinion).
When examining sexual crimes, a crime has been committed if both parties are consenting adults.
The court, has a very limited role in the home. As such, if two consenting adults engage in sexual
activity, it should be to their discretion, not the government's. Therefore, "adults may choose to enter
upon this relationship in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their
dignity as free persons. When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another
person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty
protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice" (Page 6,
Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Kennedy, Majority Opinion). Before the case

Texas V. Johnson Congress Enacted The Flag Protection Act...
In response to the decision made in Texas v. Johnson, Congress enacted the Flag Protection Act of
1989. The Act, this time focused not on simply prohibiting the desecration of a flag, but of
protecting the entire physical integrity of a flag. The Act did, however allow for the proper disposal
of old, torn, worn, or soiled flags. Congress did this with the purpose of removing language that the
courts might find made the statute a statute that aimed to suppress certain kinds of expression. They
also tried to challenge the Court and prior rulings to prohibit the burning and desecration of
American flags. After Congress passed this law, many burned flags in protest. United States v.
Eichman 496 U.S. 310 (1990) is a case following Texas v. Johnson in which Shawn Eichman
decided to challenge his arrest and conviction for burning of a flag under the law to the Supreme
Court. Eichman burned a flag on the steps of the U.S. Capitol protesting against the government's
domestic and foreign policies. He was prosecuted in violation of the Flag Protection Act. When the
Court looked at this case, they also reviewed the case of United States v. Haggerty 496 U.S. 310
(1990). United States v. Haggerty involves defendant Mark Haggerty who burned a flag in Seattle
protesting against the passage of the Flag Protection Act. The Court ruled against the government in
both cases saying that the government had an interest in protecting the physical integrity of a flag to
preserve its symbol meaning,

Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) Essay examples
Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)
In Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), the Supreme Court abandoned its previous doctrine for ruling upon
an individual's right to privacy. Written by Justice White, the opinion of the Court in this case
focused on the morality of sodomy, particularly sodomy between homosexuals, rather than the
constitutional question of privacy. The Court made substantial progress in defining the right to
privacy in the preceding years, but the decision in Bowers demonstrated that even the "highest
Court in the land" is sometimes unable to look beyond stereotypes and prejudices (Banks, 92).
In Bowers, the Court protected a statute which enabled Georgia to prosecute a homosexual for
engaging in sodomy in his home. This ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Thus the right to practice safe sex, to bear or beget a child, in short, to have sexual freedom, was
decided to be Constitutionally protected.
In Bowers, however, the court abandoned this stance in favor of tradition. Justice White did not
adhere to precedents because homosexuals would be given more sexual freedom. For White, the
rationale for previous cases, "procreative choice and family autonomy," became meaningless in a
sodomy case. Central to the majority's opinion was its belief that "recognition of a fundamental right
requires that the right be either deeply rooted in this nation's history, or implicit in the concept of
ordered liberty" (Law Review, 12). America had historically persecuted homosexuals and the
majority felt that if this tradition was not maintained, America might loose its morals. White feared
that by condoning private homosexual conduct the court would likewise be allowing adultery,
incest, and other sexual crimes to occur" (Banks 85). He therefore understood the state's justification
for proscribing sodomy to be their interest in regulating morality within the state, which met the
state's need to demonstrate a compelling interest for their statute.
The dissenters in this case "criticized the majority opinion's focus on the particular act rather than
the underlying right to freedom from government intrusion" (Law Review 12). In his dissent,
Blackmun questioned the majority's "blind imitation of the

Supreme Court Cases Against Homosexuals
In the United States, LGBT rights have been expanded by landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions.
Between 1996 and 2015, the Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws, Section 3 of the Defense of
Marriage Act (DOMA), allowed protected class recognition based on homosexuality and made
same–sex marriage legal on a federal level. Justice Kennedy played a pivotal role in expanding the
rights of gays and lesbians over the years through specific legal rationale that insists upon protection
of LGBT rights. On the other hand, Justice Scalia's dissenting opinions oppose expanded
constitutional protections for gays and lesbians. In order to understand the evolution of LGBT
rights, it is crucial to analyze the opinions from Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas, ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
It is first established in his opinion found in Romer that it is important to recognize that the Court
and Constitution "neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens," which was established in
Plessy v. Ferguson. Justice Kennedy finds issue with the Colorado state statute because it directly
discriminates against a person's sexual orientation, but does not protect the LGBT class.
Additionally, the statute reaches public accommodations which "[did] not limit antidiscrimination
laws to groups that have so far been given the protection of heightened equal protection scrutiny".
Kennedy argues that this proves that this groups of citizens is denied equal protection because the
statute is general enough to impact a large variety of laws, which violates the Fourteenth
Amendment since it favors heterosexual citizens over

Discrimination In The Movie Bullies
Think of how different the world would be if we did not accept other's views. How would that affect
us? Three creators thought about this topic and show how the world could be. They showed
different situations through a movie, an article, and a court hearing. Without accepting other views
violence and discrimination would be inevitable and could cause much worse problems. Today
acceptance of views is practiced by a large majority of the population around the world. Opinions on
people or objects should not be dependent on beliefs or contrast of views is a recurring message.
Throughout the film Bullied directed by Bill Brummel, Jamie came out as a homosexual and the
other boys did not like that. They physically hurt him by hitting, kicking and even peeing on him
just because he was different. "Many classmates at Ashland Middle School saw him as gay that was
enough for some campus bullies" (1:54–2:03). This statement shows the discrimination against
Jamie just on the fact that he is different. Jamie was against the bullies because they ridiculed him.
The bullies were against Jamie because he was gay. "I just know that it hurt a lot to hear those words
every day" (2:11–2:13) said Jamie about being bullied every day. The quote by Jamie shows the
difficult times and feelings not only him but all people can accumulate if discriminated against. By
the end of the story, Jamie defended himself by putting a lawsuit, which he won, on the school
system for failure to oblige to complaints from Jamie and his family. This film can show what some
people go through in life without acceptance of differences. Again implying the severe importance
of acceptance of differences.
In the article "Towards a True Refuge" the author, Aung San Suu Kyi discusses problems we have
we discrimination and how that affects immigration and communications with other countries. "The
greatest threats to global security today come not from the economic deficiencies of the poorest
nations but from religious, racial (or tribal) and political dissensions" (lines 4–6). Aung San Suu Kyi
wrote this statement to say global security is merely a fear of differences in cultures. The nation is
against immigrants and others because they did not feel safe around

The Opposing case of Texas v. Johnson
The Supreme Court's decision on the case of Texas v. Johnson has been a controversial one, as it
involves the burning of our national symbol, the American flag. It leads to the question: Does the
desecration of the American flag a way of expressing speech that is protected by the first
amendment? Shouldn't the destruction of a true American symbol be protected and preserved, as it
is a symbol that represents our country? There is a great amount of criticism that Texas v. Johnson
has been faced with; most of which are valid points that could contribute to possibly overriding this
decision of Texas v. Johnson in the future. August 22, 1984, marked the day of the 1984 Republican
National Convention in Dallas, Texas. Gregory Lee Johnson was ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
The flag is a symbol of freedom and prosperity, and of hope. It is also used to express patriotism for
example, in which solders raise the flag to symbolize an American victory in war. The American
flag is the symbol that exemplifies our nation. Justice Stevens, who disagreed with the majority's
argument, states in his dissenting opinion that: "The ideas of liberty and equality have been an
irresistible force in motivating leaders like Patrick Henry, Susan B. Anthony, and Abraham Lincoln,
schoolteachers like Nathan Hale and Booker T. Washington, the Philippine Scouts who fought at
Bataan, and the soldiers who scaled the bluff at Omaha Beach. If those ideas are worth fighting for
–– and our history demonstrates that they are –– it cannot be true that the flag that uniquely
symbolizes their power is not itself worthy of protection from unnecessary desecration." (Texas v.
Johnson, 1989, Dissenting Opinion,
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0491_0397_ZD1.html) The desecration
of the flag is a way of expressing your feelings against the country, while showing no appreciation
for what these people have done to make our country the way it is. It is a symbolic way to express
hatred towards the US, and it should not be allowed, as the flag characterizes our history and who
we are as a country, the fifty United States of America. Even though the first amendment allows
freedom of speech, does not mean that there cannot be punishment for disrespecting

The Flag Of The United States
The flag of the United States is our national symbol and our most important symbol of all; it
symbolizes our nation's strength and pride. Due to its high values and symbolism, by 1932, forty–
eight states had adopted the flag desecration laws to legally protect and restrict desecration of the
flag of the United States. However, these flag desecration laws only lasted until 1989, because in
1989, in the Texas v Johnson case, the United States Supreme Court recognized that flag desecration
as a form of symbolic political speech that is constitutionally protected by First Amendment and
agreed that the "government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds
the idea itself offensive or disagreeable"( ). In 1984, during the Republican National Convention in
Dallas Texas, a group of protesters gathered to stage a political demonstration (). The protestors
were protesting against the policies of the Reagan administration and certain corporations based in
Dallas. In the political demonstration, one of the demonstrator named Gregory Lee Johnson set the
flag of United States on fire in front of the Dallas City Hall; while the flag is burning, the others
demonstrators chanted their slogan. Afterward, Johnson was arrested and charged with the
desecration of a venerated object in violation of Texas law. Under the Texas law, it is a Class A
misdemeanor for anyone, who "intentionally damage, deface, mutilate or burn the U.S. flag or the
Texas state flag" ().

Sexual Revolution
Sexual Revolution Evolution Intimacy is not free in the modern world. Political change, social
change, systems of oppression, and globalization all contribute to the shape and to the limit of
people's intimate lives. The oppressive regulation of marriage and sexuality by states and cultures
can really affect intimacy and incite sexual revolutions.
In feminist studies Professor Leila Rupp's lecture, Tickell and Peck were cited as defining
globalization as a notion based on an increasingly borderless market, where market rules and
competitive logics predominate. In another lecture, Rupp stated that sexual revolutions are linked to
and caused by: globalization, economic forces, technology and culture. Rupp expresses that many
changes in ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
As stated in lecture, Sodomy laws are very vague laws that deem any sexual activity that is
unnatural is unlawful. Many homosexuals have been victims of this oppressive legislation because
homosexuality can be interpreted as an act of sodomy, and act of abnormality. In regards to the 1986
Bowers v. Hardwick Supreme Court decision which upheld Georgia's sodomy law, Georgia's
attorney general stated, "It is the very act of homosexual sodomy that epitomizes moral
delinquency." A gay couple arrested in their own home because they were having sexual relations
that were deemed "unnatural" in the eyes of legislators is the epitome of political oppression.
Restrictions on intimacy in private are ridiculousness at its climax. As Rupp confirms, "States have
an interest in sexuality: because there is a complex relationship between law and culture; what
seems private is not."
In addition to the Georgia sodomy case, there has been other legislative oppression that constricts
intimacy, and intervenes on individual's private lives. In Malawi for example, a gay couple had a
public engagement celebration and were arrested and face fourteen years in prison. Displaying love
for a companion that is seen as against the norm can place people in prison, and sometimes killed.
For example, in Iraq there have been murders of men suspected of being gay and also, the death
penalty has been proposed in Uganda for

Right To Privacy Essay
The right to privacy is a fundamental value of American culture. The original European colonization
of North America was done by Puritan refugees seeking the freedom to practice their religion
devoid of governmental interference. The legacy of tolerance and privacy is vital to the continuation
of the American way of life that began over 400 years ago. However, specifically during the Warren
and Burger courts of the mid–1900s, debate has arisen over the actual degree of privacy allowed in
the Constitution. Since then, the varying degree of judicial activism has shaped present–day
legislation and the zone of privacy therein. This paper will illustrate my opinion for the need to
distinguish ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The Supreme Court interpreted the 14th Amendment, notably the due process clause and the
privileges and immunities clause to allow a citizen the "right" to privacy. Like the later Roe v. Wade,
Griswold v. Connecticut deals with a decision between rational adults. The decision to use
contraceptives is one exercised by logical, consenting people and affects no one but those directly
involved. Such a decision to use birth control is not a sweeping attempt to control a large
population. Those who oppose these practices claim that, with the precedent set in Griswold, the use
of contraceptives will erode social morality. This position primarily stems from religious beliefs,
and therefore, the secular state in which we live must protect against the overt influence of religion
upon public domain. This, again, is an example of a morally suspicious law. I can say that, at the
time of Griswold v. Connecticut, I can understand the state's position on the issue. Contraceptives
were not very well known, nor were the generally accepted at that point in history. Thus, those born
1960s were dubbed the 'Baby Boomer' generation. However, freedom of choice supersedes any
suspected negative impact a law may have. In other words, legality/legitimacy comes before
morally based

Discussing Texas V. Johnson Essay
Discussing Texas v. Johnson
This paper will dive in and analyze the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case, Texas v.
Johnson, and the still active controversy among the public concerning what circumstances state
governments and the federal government have the right to constitutionally prohibit the burning or
other form of desecration to the American Flag. Under its decision in Texas v. Johnson the later
ruling in the case of United States v. Eichman, in 1990, the Supreme Court had ruled that
government can not bring criminal prosecutions against those whom burn or desecrate the American
flag so long as they are engaged in expressions of political views without abridging the right of free
speech guaranteed under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution at the time. These
rulings have sparked public controversy over whether the Court has gone beyond its correct
constitutional role and multiple proposed constitutional amendments to overturn the Court 's
decisions which have failed to pass due to lack of majority. In 1984, Marxist Gregory Johnson, a
known radical participated outside of the Republican National Convention in Dallas to perform a
political demonstration against policies of the administration of Ronald Reagan and certain Dallas
corporations. During this time, Gregory burned an American flag, was arrested, tried and convicted
in a Dallas court of a violation of Texas Penal Code Ann. sec. 42.09(a)(3) and sentenced to one year
in prison. That

Essay on Case Analysis Texas V. Johnson
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ________________________________________
491 U.S. 397 Texas v. Johnson CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF
TEXAS ________________________________________ No. 88–155 Argued: March 21, 1989 –––
Decided: June 21, 1989 This case analysis of Texas v. Gregory Lee Johnson was a Supreme Court
case that overthrew bans on damaging the American flag in 48 of the 50 states. Gregory Lee
Johnson participated in a political demonstration during the 1984 Republican National Convention
in Dallas, Texas, where he burned the American flag. Consequently, Johnson was charged with
violating the Texas law that bans vandalizing valued objects. However, Johnson appealed his
conviction, and his case ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The Supreme Court has made clear in a series of cases that symbolic expression (or expressive
conduct) may be protected by the First Amendment (Cline, 2011.) However, of the approximately
100 demonstrators, Johnson alone was charged with a crime. Johnson appealed his conviction and
his case eventually went to the Supreme Court. The principle to the case is burning a U.S. flag in
protest was expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment. In determining the case, the court
first considered the question of whether the First Amendment reached non–speech acts, since
Johnson was convicted of flag desecration rather than verbal communication, and, if so, whether
Johnson's burning of the flag constituted expressive conduct, which would permit him to invoke the
First Amendment in challenging his conviction. The First Amendment literally forbids the
abridgment only of 'speech,' but has long recognized that its protection does not end at the spoken or
written word. If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the
government may not prohibit the expression of an

Texas V. Johnson Majority Opinion Essay
It's almost the end of 2016 and we still experience discriminative trouble. We are all different but
should accept others differences. After reading "What, of This Goldfish, Would You Wish?", by
Etgar Keret, "Texas v. Johnson Majority Opinion", by William J. Brennan, and "American Flag
Stands for Tolerance", by Ronald J. Alle, I have found fluent differences in the people explored and
the way the people accepted others. In "Texas v. Johnson Majority Opinion" the people of Texas are
having a hard time accepting the fact that Johnson had burned a flag. In "American Flag Stands for
Tolerance" the writer states that burning the flag wasn't illegal and should accept those who express
what they believe, even if you don't agree with them. In the story "What, of This ... Show more
Johnson Majority Opinion" focuses on an actual court case based on a situation where a flag was
burned. The people of Texas were outraged with Johnson. During the time of the case the people
gained acceptance to allowing Johnson to be a free man."The way to preserve the flag's special role
is not to punish those who feel differently about these matters. It is to persuade them that they are
wrong.", an excerpt from "Texas v. Johnson Majority Opinion"(line38), states that those who freely
express unlawful thoughts shall not be prosecuted, but proven that what they're expressing is
unlawful. "American Flag Stands for Tolerance", an article based on the Johnson case, focuses on "a
person has a right to express disagreement with governmental policies"(line2). The author of this
article focused on the meaning of freedom. In line 65, the author states, "the flag stands for free
expression of ideas...The ultimate irony would have been to punish views expressed by burning the
flag that stands for the right to those expressions", meaning it would be pointless to punish those
who petulantly burned the flag as an expression of their thoughts, when they have the freedom to
express their

Texas V. Johnson Case Study
U.S. Supreme Court TEXAS v. JOHNSON, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) 491 U.S. 397 Citation:
     Johnson was convicted of desecration of a venerated object in
violation of a Texas statute. Date Decided:      June 21, 1989 Facts
of case:      At the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas,
Texas, Johnson decided to burn an American flag in protest of some policies made by the Reagan
administration and some Dallas corporations that he did not agree with. Noone sustained physical
injury or was even threatened with physical injury, but many were offended by the jesture made by
Johnson. The Texas penal code forbids the desecration of a venerated object. Issues: ... Show more
The question is unique. In my judgment rules that apply to a host of other symbols, such as state
flags, armbands, or various privately promoted emblems of political or commercial identity, are not
necessarily controlling. Even if flag burning could be considered just another species of symbolic
speech under the logical application of the rules that the Court has developed in its interpretation of
the First Amendment in other contexts, this case has an intangible dimension that makes those rules
inapplicable." Comments: Source: http://www.riverreporter.com/news/library/491us397.htm
     I don't really have an opinion on this subject. I see where both
sides are coming from and I understand their reasoning. But, I will say that Johnson should not have
done it during the time or at the place where he did. It could have easily started a riot and become a
lot more serious than it did. Principal of Law: Texas Penal Code Ann. 42.09 (1989) states: "
42.09. Desecration of Venerated Object "(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or
knowingly desecrates: "(1) a public monument; "(2) a place of worship or burial; or
"(3) a state or national flag. "(b) For purposes of this section,

Lawrence Vs Texas Legal Individualism
Legal Individualism is a legal interpretation that emphasizes liberty, self–reliance and independence.
Legal individualism means everyone is equal based on law system there is no external standard that
we can convincingly propose and maintain the separation of equality and inequality and also every
individual becomes the bearers of legitimate rights. The legal individualism expresses American
culture because of in an individualistic society, the law preserves the idea that everyone can freely
choose to interact with others in their own way – whether for economic, artistic, religious or
romantic purposes. Not everyone's choice will be fine. Not an individual is unreliable. Not that they
can not abuse their freedom. All this is granted. But no one is to make others the reason for their
master, but other people may be smart. Both the case Lawrence v. Texas, The Republic of Choices
and Bellah's "habits of heart" mention that legal individualism is deeply in the America society
nowadays. The case of Lawrence v. Texas involves two adults who fully and mutually agree to
engage in sexual acts that are common to homosexual lifestyles. The state can not belittle their own
survival or control their own destiny by proclaiming private sex as criminal acts. Many
commentators interpret opinion as a liberal ethical approach that fundamentally broadens privacy
and freedom of constitutional rights to cover all "no victim" crimes. Judge Scalia responded to the
view that the exclusion of the

Persuasive Essay On Animal Farm
Many people challenge the rules for several different reasons. It's always appropriate to challenge
the rules when the rules are unfair, or against what you think is right. You can challenge the rules to
make them fair and equal for everyone. Just how the two excerpts, Animal Farm by George Orwell,
and Texas vs. Johnson, by the U.S. Supreme Court. These two excerpts explore the issue of when it
is appropriate to challenge the rules. Challenging the rules can lead to positive or negative
outcomes. You can change the rules for a good reason, or a bad one, but it's always better to
challenge the rules in order to make them more equal. In the story Animal Farm, the animals start
off in a peaceful farm, they were smart animals who could all communicate with one to another.
Until one day, the animals' main leader – Old Major– who was the most wisest, oldest and most
intelligent pig out of all of them, had passed away and had left the animals with a command to rebel
against their owners – the farmers – in order to have change, be free, without any human controlling
what the animals do. The animals soon find a right time to expel their human owner. How will the
animals break the rules? Eventually they find ways to make the farm work better than usual and still
be able to live a regular and better live as animals without humans, but how or what is going to
happen in the aftermath of this story? and what are they going to gain or lose from breaking those
rules? As the animals

Johnson V. Texas Supreme Court Case Study
Gregory Lee Johnson was found guilty of violating Texas state law by burning the American flag at
the Republican national convention in Dallas, Texas. The state sentenced Johnson to one year in
prison and a fine of $2000. Johnson argued that the right to burn the American flag was protected
under the right to free speech in the First Amendment. Johnson appealed the conviction to the Court
of Appeals for the Fifth District in Dallas. The court upheld the conviction made by the state, and
the sentence given to Johnson remained. Johnson then appealed to the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals and they reversed the decision of the district court and dismissed the charges. The state of
Texas then appealed to the Untied States Supreme Court, and the Supreme ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
These acts of conduct are done to express and idea and are therefore considered free speech. At the
time of Johnson's burning of the flag he was clearly expressing elements of communication. At trial,
Johnson stated that the reason for his flag burning: "The flag was burned as Ronal Regan was being
re–nominated as President. And a more powerful statement of symbolic speech, whether you agree
with it or not, couldn't have been made at that time." The Supreme Court decided that this action
was an expression of an idea and not an act of aggression to provoke violence. Therefore since it
was an act of speech, Johnson was protected by the First Amendment and his conviction was in
violation of the Constitution. The dissenting members of the court said that the flag is a sacred part
of America. Congress set forth laws on the specific design and construction of the flag. This shows
the reverence and respect that should be shown to the flag. They also wrote that in Chaplinsky v.
New Hampshire the court stated: "it is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at
all times and under all

Texas V. Johnson Majority Opinion Analysis
Human beings are not all created the same. People may show similarities, but there are always
differences that set us apart. Some people embrace being unique, but some do not accept
differences. Because of this, some people alienate others because of their differences. In literature,
this topic can be applied to many stories that share the same idea. The idea is that people must
accept others who are different from themselves. Even if it is not textually said, the vision of
acceptance can be essential to the stories theme To start with, in the "Texas v. Johnson Majority
Opinion". The court case shows an example of acceptance towards Johnson. He was on trial due to
burning the flag. Many people thought his actions were unacceptable and that he be placed in jail as
a result of his dissent. Brennan, who served the supreme court, decided that his actions were
protected under the 1st amendment, a dogma that grants him freedom of assembly and freedom of
speech in this case. Brennan argued," The way to pressure the flag's special role is not to punish
those who feel differently about these matters. It's to persuade them that they are wrong." America
was founded on freedom and acceptance, and this case supports that fact. Even though ... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The main idea of this editorial is that the idea of burning the flag is very controversial because many
people have more staunch views about the flag than others. When Gregory Lee Johnson burned the
American Flag in Dallas in 1984, he was arrested and everything went haywire. The alterations
started when courts could not decide on the answer to this continental case. But maybe fighting is
good for making decisions." After all, it is in the robust debate that we are most true to ourselves."
The author is saying that acceptance can come out of controversy. Our eyes can be opened when
there a someone fighting for something they believe

Response of Law to New Technology: Contraception Essay
The rapid advances in science and medicine since 1950, and especially the advances in computer
technology since 1980, have revolutionized the way society functions. It is widely recognized that
our society is making a transition from the industrial manufacturing age to an information age. In
contrast, the U.S. Constitution and most of our common law was written when people lived in an
agrarian economy prior to 1850. Law has been slow to adapt to the choices posed by technology.
While I believe that knowledge, opportunities, and choices are inherently Good, there are the
possibilities of (1) prohibiting or restricting use of new technologies for no good reason or (2) of
misusing technology to harm people. Law that made sense in 1850, or ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Mail by the Comstock Law, together with "obscene, lewd or lascivious" publications.
See U.S. v. Chase, 135 U.S. 255, 257 (1890); Andrews v. U.S., 162 U.S. 420 (1896). As a result,
condoms were sold for prevention of sexually–transmitted disease (i.e.,
"prophylactics"), not as contraceptives.
Some state statutes, notably in Connecticut, prohibited the distribution of information about
contraception and also prohibited the distribution of contraceptive devices or drugs.
The U.S. Supreme Court in a series of three famous decisions, invalidated laws making
contraception illegal.
In Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a Connecticut
state law that prohibited use of contraceptives and also prohibited any person (including a physician
or pharmacist) from giving advice about contraception. Because Griswold, who was director of a
Planned Parenthood clinic and a professor at Yale Medical School, was giving married people
information, instruction, and medical advice about contraception, this case is sometimes said to
uphold the right of married people to have information about contraception.
In Eisenstadt v. Baird. 405 U.S. 438 (1972), the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a Massachusetts
state law that prohibited the sale or gift of nonprescription contraceptives. Because Baird gave a can
of spermicidal foam to an adult unmarried woman, this case upholds the right of

The tone in Texas v. Johnson Majority Opinion is formal because of its context. Texas v. Johnson
Majority Opinion is a Supreme Court of the United States case and the article is about their opinion
and how they defended their opinion. Brennan, the author, uses many different words to describe the
tone. He uses "we and our," to say that this was not only his opinion but the other justices' as well.
He also uses "joust, therefore, and as a means," to create the formal tone. Brennan also uses "gesture
and cherish." The tone of American Flag Stands for Tolerance is bias because of its context.
American Flag Stands for Tolerance is an article for a newspaper. Allen, the author, stated that "the
American flag is a cherished symbol of our national

Texas V. Johnson: An Analysis
As times change, so do our cultural expectations and sociological acceptable norms. The image in
the link provided above captures a peace sign printed on the American Flag, which is being raised
during a strong anti–war protest in Washington, D.C. (Vietnam: Anti–War Protests 1). This
distortion of the flag captures the citizen's opposing views towards U.S. involvement in Southeast
Asia. During the 70s, the defacing of an American flag to express unity and tranquility would have
been an acceptable and powerful statement against the brutality and the turmoil of the Vietnam War
(Levy 5). In today's world, this defacement would violate the Flag Protection act of 1990, which is a
result of Texas v. Johnson, a supreme court case in 1989 regarding

Case Analysis : Texas V. Johnson Essay
Elloheim Tucker
CRJ 201
Fall 2016
Dr. Cretacci
I. Name: Texas v. Johnson
II. Legal Citation: 491 U.S. 397 (1989)
III. Statement Facts: The respondent was involved in a political demonstration where he had
drenched the American flag with kerosene and lit it on fire. Respondent was charged and convicted
of the illegal act of desecration of the flag. The criminal appeals reversed the conviction and said
that petitioner could not prosecute the respondent for burning the flag as a part of political speech
because it was his use of the first amendment. "Petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to determine
whether the conviction was consistent with U.S. constitution amendment, The Supreme Court found
that it was not" The Court held that petitioner 's interest in preventing breaches of the peace did not
support respondent 's conviction because his conduct did not threaten to disturb the peace. Plus,
petitioner 's interest in preserving the flag as a symbol of society and our nation did not justify the
criminal conviction for involving his self in political expression.
IV. Issue: Does the defendant's burning of the flag constitute expressive conduct of the first
amendment , which will give him a chance to invoke the first amendment of the United States
Constitution?
V. Holding and Action: Yes. Affirmed.
VI. Rationale: In many cases people throughout the united states tend to express their use of the first
amendment. One of the parts to the first amendment is the freedom of speech.

Argumentative Statement On Flag Burning
In a cosmopolitan nation full of diversity like the United States, conflicts are bound to arise between
cultures and races with different views. However, in order to maintain the diversity, people must be
willing to understand and accept others' opinions. This ideal has been tested by citizens in the US in
many conflicts as people mistreat others. People exclude or mistreat others who are different, but
should accept them for the good of society as long as violence doesn't break out.
The accepting of differences will strengthen the community and help everyone keep an open mind.
From "Texas v. Johnson Majority Opinion", William J. Brennan explains the statement that justifies
flag–burning, and, though controversial, finding closure for this matter: "Our decision is a
reaffirmation of the principles of freedom and inclusiveness that the flag reflects, and of the
conviction that our toleration of criticism is our sign and source of our strength" (Brennan 16).
Brennan explains that though many are concerned with the idea that flag burning is legal and take
action against it, they should take the other route instead. That is to say, to uphold the ideals the US
Constitution promises, people must tolerate flag–burning as it is a form of communication towards
society. In addition, people have the obligation to influence and convince those protesters to
reevaluate their actions and errors. Brennan's statement portrays that even though a problem can
attract controversy, it is

Is Flag Burning Protected By The First Amendment?
The Debate Continues: Is Flag Burning Protected by the First Amendment? Adriana Ramirez First
Amendment Dr. Helen Boutrous December 8, 2016 Mount Saint Mary's University The First
Amendment says: 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 to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. This
freedom of speech clause as included in the First Amendment guarantees the citizens of America to
express information and ideas freely. But is all form of speech free? On the most basic level, this
clause allows for the expression of an opinion or idea without the fear of censorship by the
government. It protects all forms of communication, with limits so you cannot always say anything
you want, wherever you want, or whenever you want. Fighting words are not protected under the
First Amendment, for instance, as are obscene expressions. Symbolic speech can be expressed in
many different kinds of forms. The speech can be spoken, written, or be an action. All of these kinds
of conduct could be said to express ideas in some ways, however, only some conduct is protected as
symbolic speech. When the court analyzes these types of cases, they will ask the speaker about
whether they intended on conveying a particular message and whether it was likely that the
audience understood the message and the

Griswold Vs Connecticut Case Study
Griswold v Connecticut The director of Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, Estelle
Griswold, and Dr. C. Lee Buxton were accused and found guilty of providing illicit contraception
under a Connecticut law. They were both fined $100 each for this crime. Griswold and Buxton
appealed to the Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut, stating that the law was unconstitutional
because it violated the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. The Connecticut court endorsed the
conviction, so they appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court revised the case in
1965.
In a 7–2 decision written by Justice William O. Douglas,the Supreme Court ruled that the law
violated the "right to marital privacy" and could not be enforced against married ... Show more
Supreme Court stated that the "Homosexual Conduct" law of Texas was unconstitutional and the
law violated the 14th Amendment Due process Clause. This Clause protects the right to personal
freedom in intimate decisions. The issue wasn't "the right to engage in homosexual sodomy" but
"the right to privacy in the home" and another is "the right to freely engage in consensual, adult
sex."
Lawrence v. Texas had an impact on the government in two ways. First, the ruling stated that private
and consensual homosexual sex is the right to liberty and preserved by the Constitution. Second,
Lawrence held that "fundamental rights" are very broad concepts of liberty under numerous and
different activities may be kept safe.
This court case doesn't affect me directly because I am not gay but I do have gay friends that would
be impacted by this case. If they were to be involved in homosexual intimacy and this case was
decided against Lawrence then they would be arrested and fined for being with their

Texas V Johnson Case Summary
Do your constitutional rights protect you from state laws? In 1989 Texas v. Johnson, Johnson had
burned an American flag and Texas state law protects the American flag from being burned when
the flag burner knows it will seriously offend others. Johnson was then arresting and tried, then the
case went all the way to the Supreme court. Johnson claimed he was expressing his right to free
speech. Flag burning conveyed a political message. Preserving the flag was related to the
suppression of expression. There was no breach of peace. Johnson burning the flag was indeed free
speech and he is protected by the 1st Amendment in this instance. The majority opinion was that
Johnson was justified for burning the flag because it was found to be free speech. ... Show more
The article states "Judge Brennan rejected Texas' argument on preventing breaches of the peace,
because no breach of the peace occurred in this instance, and because Johnson's actions did not
incite imminent lawless action." Texas' 3rd argument was to found to be inaccurate because the
government overrode Johnson's constitutional right to free speech. Judge Brennan said "...the
government's interest in preserving the flag as a symbol of national hood and national unity was
related to the suppression of expression." Texas did not meet the requirements for the O' Brien test.
Johnson was ruled to be not guilty by the majority opinion. The dissenting opinions all focused
along the lines of the flag symbolizing freedom, the military as well as how it affects the moral of
people and how it defines what an American is by the actions of former Americans. These are what
you could call morally right. However, it is not to be confused with what is legally correct.
Johnson's actions should be and were justified by the majority of the Supreme

The Issue Of Gay Marriage
Gay marriage, something that has increasingly been on the news, is talked about in chapter five.
Lambda Legal Defense eve talks about how they will enforce gay marriage through the
manipulation of the courts. The whole trend started in 1996 in Hawaii, with a ruling there saying
theres no reason to ban gay civil marriages. The biggest problem, is that this is not the job of the
Supreme Court Justices to decide, but elected representatives. In 20 years, the Supreme court has
decided in two cases addressing constitutionality of state sodomy in Bowers v. Hardwick and
Lawrence v. Texas. In Romers v. Evans, it ruled on a state constitution amendment. William F.
Buckley wrote a response where in summary he is declaring the Supreme Court has no right to be in
the bedroom of Americans. Having government involved in any personal matter is hazardous. "The
debate over which branch of government gets to decide how, when, and why it can be
there(Levin.73)" this is saying that the government will enforce themselves in our privacy on other
issues besides gay relationships and contraceptives. New York times ran an article talking about
sodomy laws, and how they are rarely enforced due to not being able accurately prove anything, and
also the time it would take to search for violators. In Bowers V. Hardwick an Atlanta police officer
went to Hardwick's house with a warrant for ticket violations, and found Hardwick with another
man in his bedroom. Hardwick was put in jail for 12 hours, with the

Reflective Essay On Civil Rights
During our time in class, we discussed several themes pertaining to the rights and freedoms of the
LGBTQ community, and spoke at length about some of the landmark cases that helped to give the
community the liberties that they enjoy today. In order to better understand the struggle that the
community had to endure in order to achieve these rights, we will review several different cases and
tie them to things we learned in class, analyzing the roles that they played in achieving progress in
various fields that were once dangers for members of this group. By understanding some of the
landmark legal actions that were made in the quest for equal rights, perhaps then we can more fully
understand the extent of the obstacles that they have overcome. And not all of these cases go in their
favor, either, showing that even at the highest echelons of the American legal system, there have
been and still continue to be significant prejudices which must be faced day in and day out. The
most important step forward in the timeline of LGBTQ rights was the acceptance that homosexual
acts were, in fact, not crimes, and that homosexuals could live in the open without fear of
repercussion from the law. In class, we discussed the case of Bowers v. Hardwick, which upheld the
constitutionality of sodomy laws and effectively criminalized homosexual relations until the 2003
case of Lawrence v. Texas, which reversed the decision. Just two years after the decision in
Lawrence v Texas came down,

Bowers V Hardwick Supreme Court Case Essay
Bowers v. Hardwick
United States Supreme Court Opinion
This case, Bowers v. Hardwick, originated when Michael Hardwick was targeted by a policer officer
for harassment in Georgia. A houseguest of Hardwick's let the officer into his home, where
Hardwick was found engaging in oral sex with his partner, who was another male. Michael
Hardwick was arrested and charged of sodomy. After charges were later dropped, Hardwick brought
his case to the Supreme Court to have the sodomy law declared unconstitutional. Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court. Justice Burger, Powell, Rehnquist, and O'Conner joined, filing
concurring opinions. In Justice White's opinion, or while delivering it, he mentioned a lot of steps
that were taken by ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Hardwick relied on Stanley v. Georgia to affirm that the result should be different where
homosexual conduct occurs in the privacy of the home. Since Stanley v. Georgia had support from
the first amendment Hardwick thought he had another claim. However, as seen by Justice White,
illegal conduct is not always immunized when it happens inside the home. For example, possession
and use of illegal drugs, do not escape the law when committed at home. Since Justice White was
unpersuaded that the sodomy laws of the states should be invalidated based on the claims and he did
not agree, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed. Chief Justice Burger and Justice Powell
also shared the same opinion, as Justice White read the opinion of the Court. Chief Justice Burger's
view was that there is no such thing as a fundamental right to commit homosexual sodomy in
constitutional terms. Although Chief Justice Burger had a concurring opinion with the Court, he
went back in history to support the laws against sodomy. Justice Burger talked about the
condemnation of homosexual practices is firmly rooted in Judeas–Christian moral and ethical
standards, and that homosexual sodomy was a capital crime under Roman law. Justice Powell also
joined the opinion of the Court.

Lawrence V. Texas : A Case
LAWRENCE V. TEXAS: A CASE STUDY IN JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY
The role of the Judicial Branch of the United States has been the most dynamic throughout the
Nation's history. By adopting the power of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison in 1803, the
Supreme Court established its position as being arguably the most powerful branch of Federal
Government. However, this also made the Judiciary's role the most controversial. Should the Court
be required to interpret the constitution strictly through the language it contains? Does the Court
have the right to overturn morals legislation? Through analyzing court cases like Lawrence v. Texas,
one can gain insight on the role of the Supreme Court and how it fits within the confines of the
United States Government.
Judicial Philosophies As in most court cases, the two opinions in Lawrence v. Texas suggest that the
affirming and dissenting justices relied on opposing judicial philosophies and methods of
interpretation when analyzing the facts of the case. Justice Kennedy, who delivered the majority
opinion, acted as an activist, utilizing dynamism as his method of interpretation. Scalia, on the other
hand, in his dissenting opinion, demonstrated restraint and took an originalist approach to
interpretation. Judicial activists tend to view the constitution as a living document; they protect
individuals' rights and tend not to rely on historical events in their interpretation of the constitution
(Law 220 text 2–27, 28). Dynamism, a

The Wife's Husband 'And Texas V. Johnson Majority'
ACCEPTANCE, Ourselves and Others, A Reflection When wanting to talk to someone about how
people are treated in the world, it is always good to read different sources that are written about it.
Having read and thought about "What of This Goldfish Would You Wish?" by Etgar Keret, "The
Wife's Husband" by Ursula K. Le Guin, and "Texas v. Johnson Majority" Court Opinion by William
J. Brennan, I will show how each story deals with acceptance in how characters are connected, how
discrimination is used, and how each author approaches the subject. The way the characters connect
between the three stories is something to examine. Each of the main characters is beleaguered and in
some turmoil as each tries to solve the problem. In "What of This ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Sergi, in "What of This Goldfish...," holds the goldfish for many reasons: education, control,
company, and the last wish. Readers start to see that Sergei didn't realize how sad the enslaved fish
was. The discrimination here was very present because the character was a fish forced to live in a
little glass bowl (Keret 3). This is discrimination at its greatest. The next story, "The Wife's
Husband," shows discrimination at the end of the story. When the husband starts to turn back into a
human, the wife tells how she and her children were sickened by his smell. As he transformed into a
man, the wife went into a crazed howl which woke up her children, and her sister. They were so
frightened they didn't really know what to do. They didn't see that husband/father was not going to
hurt them. They used their prejudice against humans to cloud their judgment. Consequently, they
came charging after him and he grabbed a branch as self–defense. The husband was not able to talk
with them in his human form, and was killed by the wife's sister (Le Guin). Now, let's examine the
text in "Texas v. Johnson Majority" Court Opinion by William J. Brennan. It was nice to see that the
justices took the time to see all sides of the situation. They also looked into how their decision
would affect the USA in the future. Instead of just tossing Johnson into prison for burning a flag in
protest, the justices stated the

Speech Free Speech On The Freedom Of Speech
The First Amendment says: 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 to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. This
freedom of speech clause as included in the First Amendment guarantees the citizens of America to
express information and ideas freely. But is all form of speech free? On the most basic level, this
clause allows for the expression of an opinion or idea without the fear of censorship by the
government. It protects all forms of communication, with limits so you cannot always say anything
you want, wherever you want, or whenever you want. Fighting words are not protected under the
First Amendment, for instance, as are obscene expressions. Symbolic speech can be expressed in
many different kinds of forms. The speech can be spoken, written, or be an action. All of these kinds
of conduct could be said to express ideas in some ways, however, only some conduct is protected as
symbolic speech. When the court analyzes these types of cases, they will ask the speaker about
whether they intended on conveying a particular message and whether it was likely that the
audience understood the message and the purpose. For a court to decide that some kind of speech is
speech that is not protected as speech the government must prove and show that the speech has an
important reason as to not be

Texas v. Johnson Essay
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 ... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The act for which appellant was convicted was clearly 'speech' contemplated by the First
Amendment." The court also stated that, "Recognizing that the right to differ is the centerpiece of
our First Amendment freedoms," the court explained, "a government cannot mandate by fiat a
feeling of unity in its citizens. Therefore, that very same government cannot carve out a symbol of
unity and prescribe a set of approved messages to be associated with that symbol when it cannot
mandate the status or feeling the symbol purports to represent." The Supreme Court found that the
state's first interest of preserving the flag as a symbol of national unity was not made. The state had
not shown that the flag was in danger of being stripped of its symbolic value, the Texas court also
decided that flag's special status was not endangered by Johnson's actions. The court also concluded
that that the flag–desecration statute was not drawn narrowly enough to encompass only those flag
burnings that were likely to result in a serious disturbance of the peace. The flag burning in this
particular case did not threaten such a reaction. There were only a few witnesses to the act that
stated that they were upset with the action but were not harmed in any way. There was no breach of
peace nor does the record reflect that the situation was potentially explosive. Just because someone
was

A meaningful quote by Barbara Jordan, thats goes unnoticed by many "We as human beings, must
be willing to accept people who are different from ourselves." "American Flag Stands for
Tolerance", "The Lottery", and "Texas V. Johnson Majority Opinion" are three different stories that
all talk about being able to be yourself. These three readings all relate back to the quote about
accepting others, being different, and having an opinion without being discriminated for it.
In the editorial "American Flag Stands for Tolerance" Ronald J. Allen agrees with the court's
decision that everyone is entitled to freedom of conscience. On lines (5–7) it's stated "A concomitant
of the commitment to freedom of conscience..." Also on lines (70–72) it's stated ... Show more
Johnson Majority Opinion" the supreme court made the decision that everyone is entitled to be
themselves, to have their own opinion, and to show how they feel through actions that don't put
anyone or anything to harm. On lines (1–2) states "We decline, therefore, to create for the flag an
exception to the joust of princes protected by the First Amendment." The quote relates to this piece
of text evidence because no matter who you are or what you say the First Amendment protects you
from being criminally punished for showing who you are. In this case, the flag was burned to show
feelings. People caused riots because of it but eventually the commotion stopped. The case was no
longer talked about often as a problem but more as something to learn from. On lines (7–12) it states
"National Unity... Under our constitution, compulsion as here employed as a permissible means for
its achievement." This piece of text evidence relates to the quote by saying people of the United
States do not need to have national pride and it is okay that one person has it and another person
doesn't. People should be willing to accept anyone who is different or feels different about
something. The First Amendment protects people's rights to be who they want and people have to
accept that. No one in the world is exactly the same and we should be willing to look past the
differences in

The Flag Resolution Act Of The United States
On June 14, 1787, The Second Continental Congress passed the Flag Resolution Act that states:
"That the flag of the thirteen United States be thirteen stripes, alternate red and white; that the union
be thirteen stars, white in a blue field, representing a new constellation."(Cite) Flag Day is observed
on every June 14 for the sacred symbol of the United States of America of what is the Flag. As each
star increased on the flag, turmoil on how the flag should or should not be treated also grew. Many
americans, including myself, see it a national symbols that need no discretion what so ever. This
including punishment under the law and from public policies. Some protesters, mainly libertarians
saw the symbol as the face of the government ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
In any event, three–fourths of the state legislatures must ratify the amendment for it to become a
permanent part of the Constitution.
Supporters of the amendment believed to have honored for the fallen men and women who sacrifice
for this country. Especially for those who commit the ultimate sacrifice. Opposition for the proposed
amendment included that the government would infringe on their given rights by the government in
the preamble and the 1st amendment. With the support of the judicial review of the case Texas vs
Johnson (1989) and other Supreme Court cases, the opposition makes a strong constitutional case
against the rest of the branches of government. The Opposition of the amendment would believe
that the government would suppress the rights of of the rest of the country, for a small minority, the
supporters of the amendment. A 1931 Supreme Court case, Stromberg v. California, set the first
precedent for the use of a flag in an act of symbolic speech under the First Amendment, when the
Court struck down a California law that banned the flying of a red flag to protest against the
government. More than five decades later, Congress passed Flag Protection Act in 1968. The Act
was response to the Vietnam protests of the unfavorable Vietnam war. Protesters started the tradition
of desecrating the flag, including burning the flag. For more than 20 years, the lower court upheld
the act and the Supreme Court denied

Texas V. Johnson. The Case Texas V. Johnson Happened In
Texas v. Johnson The case Texas v. Johnson happened in 1984, Gregory Lee Johnson burned an
American flag to protest President Ronald Reagan in front of the convention center in Dallas, Texas.
He was a member of the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade (Texas v. Johnson in 1989:
Summary, Decision & Significance, Stephen Benz). During the 1984 Republican National
Convention, he participated in a political demonstration. The demonstrators were protesting the
policies of the Reagan Administration. While they were marching through the streets, another
demonstrator handed Johnson an American flag. Johnson set the flag on fire when they reached
Dallas City Hall, where the Convention was held. After their protest, Johnson was arrested and ...
Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Brenna. It indicated that the Court agreed with Johnson that flag burning constitutes a form of
"symbolic speech" that is protected by the First Amendment. And the Court disagreed with Texas'
argument that Johnson's action breaches of the peace. What's more, it emphasized that the state may
not discriminate upon different view point. Justice John Paul Steven also wrote a dissenting opinion,
arguing the national flag is a valuable asset, and Johnson's action belittled the value of this
important national symbol (Texas v. Johnson, LII / Legal Information Institute). This case did not
change or add any amendments, but the first amendment played a big role in it. The First
Amendment guarantees the rights of free expression and action that are fundamental to democratic
government, These rights include freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, freedom of religion,
and freedom of speech (First Amendment, Dictionary.com). It protects people's freedom of speech,
and emphasize the right of symbolic speech as well, This case remains relevant today, and it is still a
controversial issue. Because under the first amendment, people have the freedom of speech. The
Court supports the flag burning is the same as other legal forms of symbolic speech, such as sit–ins
and wearing armbands. After this case, several laws and statutes had been brought up to make
desecrating the flag a federal crime; but ultimately, all of them were stuck down. Most recently,

Scalia Textualism Analysis
There are many forms of constitutional interpretation, including constructionism, originalism,
balancing, precedent, and reliance on foreign law and courts. The late Justice Antonin Scalia was a
close adherer to the doctrine known as textualism. A textualist seeks to look at the actual text and
then examine the meaning of the text based on original intent and other criteria. Scalia's approach to
legal interpretation has garnered praise from many sources. Justice Elena Kagan said of Scalia's
approach, that "his views on textualism and originalism, his views on the role of judges in our
society, on the practice of judging, have really transformed the terms of legal debate in this country."
In the following paragraphs, I will seek to argue that ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
He argues that the court is no longer relying "upon text and tradition practice to determine the law,
but upon what the Court calls "reasoned judgement," which turns out to be nothing but
philosophical predilection and moral intuition." Through this reasoning, the Court is expanding the
amount of liberties protected beyond what the Constitution

The Case Texas V. Johnson

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Carol

More from Carol (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

The Case Texas V. Johnson