Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essay about from texas v. johnson
Essay about from texas v. johnson
1st amendment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Essay about from texas v. johnson
Here is the history behind the Texas vs. Johnson case. A man by the name of Gregory Lee Johnson was condemned by Texas for breaking a law (which was the desecration of the flag.) Johnson damaged an American flag, in 1984, by burning it. He did so in front of Dallas City Hall, because he disapproved of the policies of Reagan administration. He was fined 2,000 dollars and condemned to jail for a year (Texas v. Johnson, Oyez). Gregory Johnson then tried to petition to the highest criminal cases court in Texas, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. The issue that Texas Court of Criminal Appeals had to take in account was whether Johnson’s burning of the flag represents “symbolic speech” which is protected by the First Amendment. His conviction was then negated by the court because they found that it was within Johnson’s right under the First Amendment to burn the flag. In 1988, the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear the case after the State of Texas filed a petition. In 1989, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals decision. …show more content…
First, it tried to say that protection under the first amendment covers only written and spoken communication, and the burning the flag was neither of those. The Court overruled that by saying the first amendment covers all communications. Then Texas argued that their statute could be supported under the "fighting words" and “hostile audience" doctrine. Both were shot down. Texas’s last argument was “the Texas flag desecration statute should be understood not as a restriction on the expression of an idea-hostility to the policies of the United States government, but as a restriction on the use of a potential means of expression-the American flag. To the extent this argument implies that the Texas flag desecration statute was a regulation of means rather than content, it is clearly wrong.”
Republicans made a last attempt to embed Negro freedom in federal law; they tried but failed to strengthen. On March 31, after many disputes and bloodshed between Democrats and Republicans, whites and Negroes, the Supreme Court sat down to hear the Colfax case. Attorney General George Williams would argue the Colfax case, he promised “he was not going to lose this case without showing the court what he could do…he wasn’t going to lose it without a fight.” Williams reminded the court of the massacre that happened in Colfax and that though Beckwith’s indictment was imperfect it was valid. Williams had to demonstrate that the constitution authorized congress to enact section 6 of the Enforcement Act, which protects whites and blacks voters from conspiracies. Williams made sure to remind the court million of people’s lives depended on the case and if they decided in favor of this law it will do a lot to bring peace and quiet to the south. But when the Supreme Court finally reached a conclusion, they were unanimous in the decision that Beckwith’s indictments were fatally flawed. Chief Justice Waite in his draft dismissed every count and not one mentioned the massacre in it. It broke whatever force the Enforcement Act
Facts: Rex Marshall testified that the deceased came into his store intoxicated, and started whispering things to his wife. The defendant stated that he ordered the deceased out of the store immediately, however the deceased refused to leave and started acting in an aggressive manner; by slamming his hate down on the counter. He then reached for the hammer, the defendant states he had reason to believe the deceased was going to hit him with the hammer attempting to kill him. Once the deceased reached for the hammer the defendant shot him almost immediately.
The Case of Arizona v. Hicks took place in 1986; the case was decided in 1987. It began on April 18th 1984, with a bullet that was shot through the floor in Hick’s apartment; it had injured a man in the room below him. An investigation took place. Officers were called to the scene. They entered Mr. Hicks’ apartment and discovered three weapons and a black stocking mask.
According to the Justice Kagan, in the case of Florida vs. Harris, “we considered how a court should determine if the “alert” of drug-detention during a traffic stop provides probable cause to search a vehicle” (Kagan).
Johnson and his lawyers were dissatisfied with this decision and made an appeal to the Fifth Texas Supreme Judicial District. This appeal, made on May 8, 1985 would be titled as Texas vs. Johnson. The defense argued that Johnson was prosecuted in violation of the first Amendment, clearly states that no law may take away a person's freedom of speech or expression, and of the Bill of Rights and the free speech clause of the Texas Constitution. Johnson argued that in his opinion, flag burning is part of freedom o...
Free speech and the First Amendment rights do not give people lisence to desecrate a symbol of pride and freedom. It is not all right to protect those who let it burn, lighting up the sky with their hatred. It definitely is not acceptable to insult the men and women who fight every day to protect this nation by burning the symbol of their labors. Therefore, it is crucial that the Supreme Court pass the amendment to the Constitution to protect the flag of the US.
subject to the O'Brien test, and that the second was a direct maneuver to limit expression.
In an article written by a Senior student they discuss a monumental moment in Mexican American history concerning equality in the South. The student’s paper revolves around the Pete Hernandez V. Texas case in which Hernandez receives a life in prison sentence by an all white jury. The essay further discusses how Mexican Americans are technically “white” americans because they do not fall into the Indian (Native American), or black categories and because of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848. The student’s paper proceeds to discuss the goals connecting the Hernandez V. Texas case which was to secure Mexican American’s right within the fourteenth amendment [1].
Is the upholding of the American flag as a symbol of the United States more important than the freedom of speech provided by the First Amendment? Are there certain freedoms of expression that are not protected under the First Amendment and if so what qualifies as freedom of speech and expression and what does not? The Supreme Court case of Texas v. Johnson proves that the First Amendment and the freedom of speech are not limited to that of spoken and written word, but also extended to symbolic speech as well. Texas v. Johnson is a case in which the interpretation of the First Amendment rights is at the top of the argument. This case discusses the issue of flag burning as a desecration of national unity and that the flag of the United States should be protected under a law. Texas v. Johnson expanded the rights of symbolic speech and freedom of expression under the First Amendment and was presented as a precedence for future cases along with influencing the final decision on the revision of
Much history came within the Texas v. Johnson case. It all started during the 1984 Republican National Convention, this is where Johnson participated in a political demonstration to protest what policies Regan was administrating (Brennan 1). A march was occurring throughout the city streets, which Johnson did take part in. Johnson burned an American flag while protesters chanted him on (Brennan 1). No person was specifically injured during this protest; although, many witnesses were severely offended (Brennan 1). Johnson was convicted of Desecration of a venerated object, which violated the Texas Statue. The state court of appeals affirmed Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and reversed the case stating it was a form of expressive conduct, so it was alright (Brennan 1). In a 5 to 4 decision the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that Johnson’s burning of the flag was protected under his First Amendment rights (Brennan 1). The court also found that although witnesses may have found it offensive, does not...
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 attention and quite a large number of briefs were filed in the cases.
The United States Government should deem desecration of the American Flag unconstitutional because of the freedom in which the flag represents, along with the blood, sweat, and tears that were shed by our brave soldiers and veterans. Desecration of the American Flag suggests a disdain, or a disregard for the symbolic meaning under which it represents. The American Flag has forever and a day been an image declaring freedom and democracy, and has showcased our principles and beliefs as a country.
Flag Burning can be and usually is a very controversial issue. Many people are offended by the thought of destroying this country's symbol of liberty and freedom. During a political protest during the 1984 Republican Convention, Gregory Lee Johnson was arrested for burning an American flag. Years later in 1989, Johnson got the decision overturned by the United States Supreme Court. In the same year, the state of Texas passed the Flag Protection Act, which prohibited any form of desecration against the American flag. This act provoked many people to protest and burn flags anyway. Two protestors, Shawn Eichman and Mark Haggerty were charged with violating the law and arrested. Both Eichman and Haggerty appealed the decision because the law was inconsistent with the first amendment to the Constitution. The right to petition the government for a redress of grievances is protected by the first amendment of the Constitution. Burning American flags and other such actions are not treasonous and should no be treated as so, as long as these actions are done to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Also the prime suspect had other charges pending against him such as possession of illegal substances and the homeowner of the vacant crime scene said the man was a recovering addict. During the conversation with the officers Johnson refused to give up his DNA sample. The man profess he had not commit any murders and did not commit any crimes regarding the matter. Officers then compel him to give his DNA sample with a warrant compelling him to follow the order. Moreover, after the crime was committed it was discovered that Johnson try to sell one of the victims’ cell phone. He was trying to get rid of the evidence that could implement him on the crime. Witness came forward to verify this story that Johnson indeed try to sell the cell phone for cash. In addition, witness said that Johnson try to be the pimp of the victims that he was
The case of the State of Florida vs. Chad Heins happened in 1994 in Mayport, Florida. It was on April 17, 1994 that Tina Heins, who was pregnant at the time, was found stabbed to death in her apartment. She shared an apartment with her husband Jeremy Heins and Jeremy’s brother Chad Heins. At the time of the incident Jeremy Heins was on a ship because he worked in the navy but Chad Heins was at the apartment. Before the incident happened Chad Heins, the defendant, who was nineteen at the time, used his brothers license to buy alcohol at a strip club near the apartment. After that Chad Heins had went to another bar where his brothers license got confiscated. He left the bar around 12:45 a.m. and went back to the apartment. He then washed his