Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
burning the flag should be illegal
does the first amendment protect flag burning
analysis on the first amendment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: burning the flag should be illegal
Illegalization of Flag Burning Violates the First Constitutional Amendment
When making flag burning illegal you have to wonder what our lawmakers were thinking. It was clearly not about the First Amendment in which American’s right to free speech is protected. Desecrating a flag is guaranteed in our Bill of Rights, however unpatriotic that may be. It is impossible to draw the line of where desecration begins. What about those that let our sacred symbol touch the ground, a clear violation of respect, do we punish them too? This proposed law is un-American and will only lead to furious citizens exercising their born rights.
In 2000, a flag protection amendment was proposed, the statue contained harsh penalties, with fines up to 250, 000 dollars and two years jail time requested. Amendment “remove freedom” was defeated in the senate by a 36 to 64 vote, 64 people were looking out for our freedom. Laws like this would allow Congress to engage in “thought control”. Allowing a flag burning amendment to pass is letting Congress determine what is acceptable considering free speech.
Surely this law will provoke more than it will help. It is believed, on average, that seven flags are burned a year, and in fact Professor Robert Justin Goldtein documented that only 45 flags were burned in the past 200 years. Seven will multiply if Americans think their rights are being curtailed. During Prohibition, a time when alcohol consumption was outlawed, nearly 30, 000 illegal and secret saloons were started in New York City. This shows that when rights are taken away Americans won’t stop, flag burning won’t cease either with an amendment.
Boy Scouts burn flags when retiring them. How can a flag burning law determine just were to draw the desecration line? The amendment would have to detailed guidelines that punished only the protesters. Burning a flag would only become a crime when the thoughts attached to the act are offensive: or forefathers believed free speech to be one of our most necessary rights.
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.
The first Amendment of the United States Constitution 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 peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”[1] Our fore fathers felt that this statement was plain enough for all to understand, however quite often the United States government deems it necessary to make laws to better define those rights that are stated in the Constitution. Today the framers would be both encouraged and discouraged by our modern interpretation the First Amendment the United States Constitution.
The First Amendment of the United States gives citizens the five main rights to freedom. Freedom of speech is one of the rights. If people did not have the freedom of speech there would be no way of expressing one’s self and no way to show individuality between beliefs. This Amendment becomes one of the issues in the Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District Supreme Court case that happened in December of 1969. In the case of Tinker v. Des Moines there were five students that got suspended for wearing armbands to protest the Government’s policy in Vietnam. Wearing these armbands was letting the students express their beliefs peacefully. Many people would consider that the school did not have the authority to suspend these petitioners because of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.
After ruling the case in Johnson’s favor, it made it difficult to make a law banning the act of flag burning. Laws would be suggested and one would make it to the supreme court. The law would make flag burning a national offense punishable by law. Unfortunately the same majority decision as in the Texas v. Johnson case would arise as a five-to-four majority agreed once again that the law would abridge the right to freedom of speech. Seeing as the same judges presided over the case, the same defense was used to justify their ruling on the law. It was unconstitutional to abridge speech and by their ruling in Texas v. Johnson, the majority still viewed flag burning as a form of symbolic speech. Not only did the ruling in Texas v. Johnson hinder immediate lawmaking against flag burning, but it also divided a nation for a time. Johnson burned the flag, so he says, as an act against the Reagan administration. If this was so as he claimed that divided the nation, not only against him but against the supreme court. You have the protestors during the time who agreed with Johnson, the patriots against Johnson, and those left confused about what was right and wrong. No one side was right, yet no one side was wrong in their eyes. Johnson’s act was crude and even to those who agreed with his right to freedom of speech, they didn’t view his act as unpunishable. The case made the nation doubt itself and its
Can an individual be prosecuted for openly burning the American flag in a political protest? Gregory Johnson did this in a political protest outside Dallas City Hall. He was then tried and convicted of desecrating a venerated object under a Texas law (Penal Code 42.09), which states that "a person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly desecrates a state or national flag" (317). The question of whether this Texas law is in violation of the First Amendment, which "holds that Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech" (316), was brought before the United States Supreme Court in Texas v. Johnson (1989). A divided court ruled 5 to 4 that the Texas law was in violation of the First Amendment. Using the same Constitution, precedents, and legal standards, the Supreme Court justices came to two drastically different positions regarding the constitutionality of prohibiting flag burning. To see how such a division is possible, we are going to compare and contrast both the arguments and the methods of argumentation used by both the majority opinion (written by Associate Justice Brennan) and the dissenting opinion (written by Chief Justice Rehnquist), which critiques the majority opinion.
One may argue that banning the flag would deny free expression, but hanging the flag also says that racism is acceptable and the pain, suffering and cruelty endured by the African Americans has no importance. The color of a person’s skin should not be an issue, just like how religion and gender should not be an issue. The flag is a silent way of saying that one agrees with racism and the seceding of our country. Consequently, the flag should be banned. The controversy over the Confederate flag has been an issue for many years.
According to “Freedom of Speech” by Gerald Leinwand, Abraham Lincoln once asked, “Must a government, of necessity, be too strong for the liberties of its people, or too weak to maintain its own existence (7)?” This question is particularly appropriate when considering what is perhaps the most sacred of all our Constitutionally guaranteed rights, freedom of expression. Lincoln knew well the potential dangers of expression, having steered the Union through the bitterly divisive Civil War, but he held the Constitution dear enough to protect its promises whenever possible (8).
"Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus” by Derek Bok, published in Boston Globe in 1991, is an essay about what we should do when we are faced with expressions that are offensive to some people. The author discusses that although the First Amendment may protect our speech, but that does not mean it protects our speech if we use it immorally and inappropriately. The author claims that when people do things such as hanging the Confederate flag, “they would upset many fellow students and ignore the decent regard for the feelings of others” (70). The author discusses how this issue has approached Supreme Court and how the Supreme Court backs up the First Amendment and if it offends any groups, it does not affect the fact that everyone has his or her own freedom of speech. The author discusses how censorship may not be the way to go, because it might bring unwanted attention that would only make more devastating situations. The author believes the best solutions to these kind of situations would be to
Though the Senate expects to vote on this amendment before the 105th Congress adjourns this fall, this is not the first time such a bill has been introduced to Congress. Nonetheless, this is the closest that it has ever come to actually passing through both Houses. The Citizens Flag Alliance recorded that the House passed the flag-protection resolution by a vote of 310-144 on June 12, 1997 (internet). It was then sent to the Senate in February for a vote. Is there a possibility such a bill could pass in the Senate? According to Daniel S. Webster, President of the Citizens Flag Alliance, as many as 64 Senators have already committed to voting "yes" for the amendment (internet). The Constitution states that only 67 votes are needed to propose the amendment to the state legislatures. If 38 state legislatures approve the proposed amendment, it will then ratify the Constitution (Wilson). According to the Citizens Flag Alliance, 49 states have already passed the resolution (internet). With such a close margin, those Senators who oppose the legislation need o...
Climate change is not often the sole cause of increases in the burden of climate sensitive health outcomes, but it interacts with other public health stresses. The increasing extent and rate of climate change means it is expected to be a major health...
One place that the LGBT community is looking for equality is in the workplace. In the United States it is legal for a company or employer to fire or not hire someone based on his or her sexual orientation. Although there are some federal recourse through civil rights and equal employment claims, there’s no national anti-discrimination law to protect the LGBT workers from state discrimination (Stone). Discrimination against the LGBT community in the workplace has begun to take the national spotlight due to the Supreme Court 's 5-4 decision on June 26, 2015. Workplace discrimination against the LGBT community is detrimental and should be unlawful. Not only does an LGBT member experience lower wages, they also are less likely to receive a promotion when running up against other applicants that are not apart of the LGBT community (Isaacs). According to the Center for American Progress, 10-28 percent of the LGBT community receive negative performance evaluations or were passed over for a promotion because of their sexual orientation. Along with those numbers it is also proven that 8-17 percent of gay and transgender workers report being passed over or fired from a job due to their gender orientation (Burns). These numbers are proof that discrimination in the workplace is violating the equality rights of those that are apart of the LGBT
3. How would you rank your mental health currently Please circle one of the following:
Climate change is a global problem because this Earth is home to many, and the artificial sources causing climate changes have been caused by many people over the course of many years. The changes can be seen on a day-to-day level through the rise in average surface temperatures (Figure 3A, Figure 3B). Climate change will change landscapes and increase sea levels due to the melting of ice and changes in water runoff; put wildlife at risk of extinction; increase the risk of drought, wildfires, and floods; lead to increased likelihood of storm damage due to stronger storms and storms occurring in previously not at risk regions; and cause a development in more heat related illness (“Climate Change: Threats and Impacts”). The repercussions of climate change will affect every nation, and major changes will have to be made for everything from farming to fashion. With every way of life at risk and every person and nation making contributions, whether extreme or minute, climate change is undoubtedly a global
McMichael A, Lindgren E. Climate change: present and future risks to health, and necessary responses. Journal Of Internal Medicine. November 2011;270(5):401-413. Accessed October 29, 2013.
One of the effects of climate change is how it will affect the people. Climate change will have a huge impact on the people’s health. The health of the people will be affected mostly by air pollution and respiratory problems will have the greatest risk of health effects. Increases in moulds and pollens due to warmer temperatures could also cause respiratory problems such as asthma for some people. Should the effects of climate change get any worse than what it is now, people around the world will have to face some serious problems. Food security will be affected and thus diseases can easily get transmitted. Food or waterborne diseases are acquired through eating or drinking. For example, Hepatitis A is a viral disease that interferes with the functioning of the liver. It can be spread through consumption of food or water contaminated by fecal matter (CIA World Factbook, 2011). Apart from being infected with Hepatitis A, people around the world can potentially get infected with Hepatitis E, bacterial diarrhoea, and Typhoid fever.