The Texas vs Johnson case didn't drastically change the way people viewed things. Yes, the trial caused a lot of uproar, especially in Texas because of its patriotism, but it wasn't a case in which a law or amendment needed to be changed but rather was a case in which an amendment needed to be understood. Johnson’s act of burning the American flag in front of Dallas City Hall, in order to protest the Reagan administration during the Republican National Convention, was deemed as a sign of “symbolic” speech. Johnson’s act was ruled to be protected by the first amendment because speech was considered more than just the written word. The Supreme Court ruled it as such because of prior cases such as “Stromberg v. California” and “Tinker v. Des …show more content…
Moines Independent Community School District” where in both cases speech was justified as “symbolic” if it was a direct and understandable nonverbal message. In the Stromberg case they displayed red flags and in the Tinker case they wore black wristbands to symbolize their argument. The Texas v. Johnson case was rendered a symbolic act because those who were also protesting with Johnson understood the message he was trying to convey and although spectators viewed it as disgraceful, it caused no physical harm to surrounding people. The case is still discussed today in society, supreme court justice William Brennan would make this so after representing the majority five justices in Johnson’s favor. It was a close call but the fact the matter remained that there was no factual or logical argument to Johnson’s arrest for burning the American flag. Society would be left divided as the judges were on June 21st, 1989 when the decision was announced. The argument would continue within the country as to whether or not flag burning should be an illegal act given the provisions that it was meant to cause chaos and harm. Justice Rehnquist argued that the national government should follow forty-eight of the fifty states’ example in banning flag burning. He stated that the national government should stand by the side of the states in such a delicate matter. Justice John Paul Stevens also dissented against the court's ruling stating rather that the American flag is not only a symbol but an asset to the country and that to diminish it should be punishable. Both justices’ dissents were rejected arguing that there wasn’t enough evidence against Johnson’s act and whether it was meant to cause any harm to the country or it’s reputation. The court would come to the conclusion that the states didn’t have the right to inhibit the expression of a message. Short term, the case showcased an immediate downfall.
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 …show more content…
ruling. Long term, the case brought to light the way states treated certain cases that the public viewed as unconstitutional but was questionable to whether or not it was actually illegal and if the states themselves had the right to punish said acts. Johnson's act of burning the flag, to many in the country and especially in Texas, was an act so vulgar and demeaning that it was just to punish him. The Supreme Court argued that the public’s outrage wasn't enough to punish Johnson and that his act of burning the flag was protected under the first amendment. The supreme court would deal with the issue again when discussing the passing of a law as aforementioned. Although those on the supreme court saw the ethics behind Judge John Paul Stevens’ argument that the national government should stand by its states, they could not bring themselves to ignore the fact that the constitution protected acts that states deemed illegal. The authority that the states could enforce was questioned. It didn’t matter if the states ruled something unconstitutional if the national government wasn’t given a reason or evidence to believe that the act was otherwise. The case changed the way our government works by taking power enforced by the states and channeling it through the national government. It created a bridge where the national government trumped state laws if they hindered a citizens given rights. Of course, this was so before the case as well, but it revitalized the amount of power states actually had. The case, however hindered the way the supreme court handled future cases and laws as the “Stromberg v. California” and “Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District” did for “Texas v. Johnson”. There was no immediate change in government concerning with Johnson’s case. The government didn’t change but rather enforced it’s hold on the states to keep them in line. By ruling with Johnson, the supreme court changed the way the state governments were run, not so much the national government. The state governments now had to logically reason and make make their laws constitutionally sound so a case like johnson’s wouldn’t arise yet again. In conclusion, the “Texas v.
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
guidance.
On the 11th of June, 1982 following the conviction of a criminal offense, Robert Johnson was sentenced to two years probation. The terms of his probation included his person, posessions, and residence being searched upon reasonable request. When a search warrant was executed for Johnson’s roommate, officers testified that with enough reasonable suspicion, they were able to search Johnson’s living area as well.
The Bryan v McPherson case is in reference to the use of a Taser gun. Carl Bryan was stopped by Coronado Police Department Officer McPherson for not wearing his seatbelt. Bryan was irate with himself for not putting it back on after being stopped and cited by the California Highway Patrol for speeding just a short time prior to encountering Officer McPherson. Officer McPherson stated that Mr. Bryan was acting irrational, not listening to verbal commands, and exited his vehicle after being told to stay in his vehicle. “Then, without any warning, Officer McPherson shot Bryan with his ModelX26 Taser gun” (Wu, 2010, p. 365). As a result of being shot with a Taser, he fell to the asphalt face first causing severe damage to his teeth and bruising
In the Lexington, Kentucky a drug operation occurred at an apartment complex. Police officers of Lexington, Kentucky followed a suspected drug dealer into an apartment complex. The officers smelled marijuana outside the door of one of the apartments, as they knocked loudly the officers announced their presence. There were noises coming from the inside of the apartment; the officers believed that the noises were as the sound of destroying evidence. The officers stated that they were about to enter the apartment and kicked the apartment door in in order to save the save any evidence from being destroyed. Once the officer enters the apartment; there the respondent and others were found. The officers took the respondent and the other individuals that were in the apartment into custody. The King and the
Facts: On October 3, 1974, Memphis Police Officers Hymon and Wright were dispatched to answer a “prowler inside call.” When the police arrived at the scene, a neighbor gestured to the house where she had heard glass breaking and that someone was breaking into the house. While one of the officer radioed that they were on the scene, the other officer went to the rear of the house hearing a door slam and saw someone run across the backyard. The suspect, Edward Garner stopped at a 6-feet-high fence at the edge of the yard and proceeded to climb the fence as the police officer called out “police, halt.” The police officer figured that if Garner made it over the fence he would get away and also “figured” that Garner was unarmed. Officer Hymon then shot him, hitting him in the back of the head. In using deadly force to prevent the escape of Garner, Hymon used the argument that actions were made under the authority of the Tennessee statute and pursuant to Police Department policy. Although the department’s policy was slightly more restrictive than the statute it still allowed the use of deadly force in cases of burglary. Garner’s fathers’ argument was made that his son was shot unconstitutionally because he was captured and shot possessing ten dollars that he had stolen and being unarmed showing no threat of danger to the officer. The incident was then reviewed by the Memphis Police Firearm’s Revie...
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).
The Tennessee v. Garner case impacted law enforcement agencies today by utilizing the Fourth Amendment right of not using deadly force to prevent a suspect from fleeing unless the officer is in imminent danger of their life. Consequently, before this was set into place, an officer had the right to use deadly force on a fleeing suspect by all means.” The first time the Court dealt with the use of force was in Tennessee v. Garner, in Garner, a police officer used deadly force despite being "reasonably sure" that the suspect was an unarmed teenager "of slight build" who was running away from him” (Gross,2016). Whereas, with Graham v. Conner case was surrounded around excessive force which also has an impact on law enforcement agencies in today’s society as well. “All claims that law enforcement officers have used excessive force deadly or not in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other “seizure” of s free citizen should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment and its “reasonableness” standard” (Doerner,2016).
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...
America was about halfway divided by Civil Rights. There was the North, the side that supported it the most, and then there was the South, the side that was mostly against the bill. Johnson had been born and raised in the South having a different way of seeing Civil Rights. compared to all the Mexican Americans,
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].
Justice Jackson's disagreement on the ruling of the Terminiello case is supported by many historical examples which demonstrate that freedom of speech is not an absolute right under the law. Although Terminiello had a right to exercise his right under the First Amendment, had the majority carefully considered this principle it should have rejected his claim. In this case, the majority's treatment of Terminiello's case skirted the real issue and did not benefit from true constitutional interpretation.
He mentioned the incident in Selma, Alabama, and he stated, “One good man, a man of God, was killed” (Johnson 1). He explained the situation and gave many other statements about the amount of hatred that was still around at the time. He presents to the citizens that he was concerned about everyone no matter of race, gender, or religion. Throughout the speech, Lyndon Johnson reminds the nation that he wanted to solve the problem with the nation together. He sees the racial discrimination not only as injustice, but is also denied America and dishonor the people who gave their lives for the freedom of America (Johnson 2). By doing this, he persuaded the people with emotions and wanted them to support his idea of the civil rights, which promised everyone the right to register to vote without having any
To this day, Americans have many rights and privileges. Rights stated in the United States constitution may be simple and to the point, but the rights Americans have may cause debate to whether or not something that happens in society, is completely reasonable. The Texas v. Johnson case created much debate due to a burning of the American Flag. One may say the burning of the flag was tolerable because of the rights citizens of the United States have, another may say it was not acceptable due to what the American flag symbolizes for America. (Brennan and Stevens 1). Johnson was outside of his First Amendment rights, and the burning of the American flag was unjust due to what the flag means to America.
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.
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.