Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essays on the texas constitution
Essays on the texas constitution
Essays on the texas constitution
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Essays on the texas constitution
Gregory Lee Johnson was convicted for desecration of a venerated object; a violation of a Texas Statute in the County Criminal Court No. 8 of Dallas County by Judge John C. Hendrik. He sentence was one year in prison and a fine of $2000.
The respondent appealed with the Dallas Court of Appeals, Fifth Supreme Judicial District, 706 S.W.2d 120 (1986), Judge Vance affirmed the conviction, and a rehearing was denied.
The defendant subsequently petitioned for a discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, 755 S.W.2d 92 (1988). Judge Campbell held that the flag desecration statute unconstitutionally infringed upon defendant 's First Amendment rights. Judgment was reversed and remanded, and the Supreme Court of the United States granted the writ of certiorari 109 S. Ct. 216 (1988).
The Supreme Court, 490 U.S. 397 (1989), Justice Brennan, held that: the defendant 's act of burning the American flag during a demonstration march was considered expressive conduct and was within the protection of the First Amendment, and the State could not justify the prosecution of the defendant based on the interest to preserve the American flag as a symbol of
…show more content…
In front of the Dallas City Hall at the end of a demonstration march, Johnson burned the American flag. The flag burning seriously offended many witnesses, but no one was threatened with injury nor physically injured. Mr. Johnson was convicted under a Texas statute, which prohibits the desecration of the national flag. To justify the conviction, the State asserted two interests: preserving the flag as a symbol of national unity and preventing breaches of the
Another case is that of 17-year-old Kendrick Johnson whose death was initially ruled the result of accidental suffocation. A second autopsy produced a different conclusion, but when the second autopsy was performed, his body had been stuffed with newspaper, and his organs were missing ("Organ Trafficking, Melanin Theory & the Fountain of Youth -," n.d.). The brain, heart, lungs and liver were missing. He also discovered Johnson's death was due to blunt force trauma to the right side of his neck (Archer,
(7) Right to appellate review: The Supreme Court did not rule regarding appeal since their ruling was this case was to be remanded back to the lower courts.
On July 11th, 1975 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin a doctor by the name of Lester V. Salinsky, performed a surgery on the plaintiff, James Johnson. The surgery was took place at Misericordia Community Hospital (Misericordia), defendant, by Dr. Salinsky. Dr. Salinsky was scheduled to remove a pin fragment from the plaintiff’s right hip. However, “during the course of this surgery, the plaintiff’s common femoral nerve and artery were damaged causing a permanent paralytic condition of his right thigh muscles with resultant atrophy and weakness and loss of function” (Johnson v. Misericordia Community Hospital, n.d.). The plaintiff filed suit against Dr. Salinksy and Misericorida on October 13th, 1976, fifteen months after his unsuccessful surgery, which
Johnson was convicted of desecration of a venerated object in violation of a Texas statute.
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.
Upon her conviction, Mapp appealed the case to the Court of Appeals, Eighth Judicial Circuit, but the cour...
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.
Johnson” case was one for the books. Not only was it one of the most controversial cases of its time, but still is today. Opinions vary on the subject, many agree with the majority of the supreme court, but many are still hesitant to speculate whether the rule in Johnson’s case is legitimate. Was Johnson act unconstitutional? The nation is still baffled at this question, because although it was considered a form of symbolic speech there is no way of knowing if it was meant to be a speech at all. Could it be possible that Johnson formulated this symbolic speech testimony after the fact? With only one man, Johnson, to question the fact, there is no true way of knowing whether or not the act wasn’t just a disgruntled man burning a flag simply because he was getting back at the nation for wronging him. Whatever the fact, the rule still stands and will stand to correct future cases by being a point to look at for
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...
The study of Juvenile delinquency and the theories pertaining to it are vital for several reasons. In order to more effectively engage with youths and foster positive behavior and schemas, the individuals must first be understood. The study of theory provides a means of understanding adolescents and the factors that lead to or detract from delinquent behavior. In the case of juvenile delinquent, Jordan Brown, theory helps to provide insight into why an eleven-year-old boy murdered his stepmother.
In a 1943 landmark Supreme Court case, Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote, "The freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much" (qtd. in Jacoby el al. 20). This concept can be applied in the debate on whether to amend the Constitution to ban flag burning. When one considers the Constitution and the symbolic meaning of the United States flag, he or she can see that this is one issue that does mean a great deal to the American public. The freedom to differ is of extreme importance in this case, which can be seen as one reviews the reasoning for committing such an act and what it might mean beyond the desecration of a revered national symbol.
The first and only time I had ever heard of someone burning the flag when I came across an article on Regory Lee Johnson. In 1984, he showed up at the Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas and burned an American flag in order to show his knowledge of the policies of Reagan administration. At the time, he was convicted of flag desecration, but the Supreme Court overturned that decision by ruling that burning a flag was “expressive conduct within protection of the first Amendment” (Pledging allegiance). The issue of flag desecration is one that been around for a while. There are two sides to the debate: one being that the flag should be protected by law, and one being that it should not because it restricts free speech. There have been times when Congress has tried to pass laws protecting the flag, but Supreme Court as struck those laws down by deeming them as “violating the constitutional guarantee of free speech, and hence unconstitutional” (Wall, 1995). However, despite the Supreme Court’s ruling of the laws being unconstitutional, there are many advocates that are still trying to pass flag protection laws by amending the Constitution to allow it. This cannot be done. The constitution should not be amended to protect the flag because it would be a violation to our first amendment: our right to free speech.
Summary of the Court Case. (Cover story). (1989). Congressional Digest, 68(8/9), 194-224. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.wnc.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=8910300671&login.asp&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Flag burning has always been an issue. Unfortunately, it has become a bigger issue ever since Trump went on Twitter and tweeted, “Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag -- if they do, there must be consequences -- perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail" (CNN). The act of flag burning is considered offensive by many, but flag burning is legal in the U.S. under Supreme Court rulings that it is constitutionally protected speech under the First Amendment. According to Scott Bomboy, “In 1989, the Court first established flag burning as a protected First Amendment act in Texas v. Johnson. Back in 1984, Gregory Lee Johnson burned a flag at the Republican National Convention in Dallas in a protest about presidential candidates Ronald