Barbara Jordan states; “We, as human beings, must be willing to accept people who are different from ourselves.” This quote, in other words, is basically saying that we must accept people for who they are, even if they are different from you. The articles we have read this week all relate to this quote because they all deal with issues of people making choices that other people don’t agree with. The three articles I will be talking about are; Texas V. Johnson Majority Opinion, American Flag Stands for Tolerance and PRO/CON: Should Apple have resisted FBI pressure to hack an iPhone? The first article Texas v. Johnson Majority Opinion is a court opinion from William J. Brennan about Gregory Lee. Johnson who burned an American flag in protest, and whether he should be criminally punished or not for doing so. Brennan believes Johnson should not be punished, but rather persuaded into thinking he was in the wrong …show more content…
This relates to Barbara Jordan’s quote; “ We, as human beings, must be willing to accept people who are different from ourselves” because not everyone was willing to accept that Gregory Lee. Johnson made his decision to burn the American flag in protest for what he felt our country was falling in. If you believe burning the American flag is a wrong thing to do then that would be your opinion, but burning the flag was Johnson’ opinion and the quote is saying that we have to respect everyone even if their opinions differ from yours. On the other hand, the second article American Flag Stands for Tolerance deals with the same issue as described above, however the author Ronald J. Allen discusses why he is on both sides of the argument. Allen states that the American flag is a “cherished symbol of our
The court for this case found that the search and seizure of the stereo violated the fourth and fourteenth Amendments. The Decision was 6 votes for Hicks and 3 votes against.
VI. Opinion: Justice Fortas delivered the opinion of the Court. The Judgment of the Arizona Supreme Court is reversed and the matter remanded. Justices Black and White concurred with the Court’s opinion. Justice Harlan concurred in part and dissented in part; and Justice Stewart dissented based on his opinion that juvenile hearings are not the same as adversary proceedings.
The State court of Appeals affirmed that Johnson was in the wrong, however, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed.
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...
The case was decided 6-3 in favor of Alvarez. The Supreme Court ruled the Stolen Valor Act unconstitutional in violation of the First Amendment. Justices Kennedy, Roberts, Ginsburg and Sotomayor joined in a plurality opinion. The plurality stated that freedom of speech under the First Amendment protects lying and false statements. Although the lies are frowned upon and socially unacceptable, the First Amendment protects those types of statements. With the application of strict scrutiny to this case, the Justices within the plurality found that the Stolen Valor Act was very broad and if it had more specific restric...
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
To the Majority Opinion it’s a flag of our nation but to the Dissenting opinion its means more than just a flag. It means “White signifies purity and innocence, Red, hardiness & velour, and Blue, the color of the Chief (the broad band above the stripes) signifies vigilance, perseverance & justice." In this case the Dissenting opinion gave reasons why flag burning should be banned. Eventually Congress passed the Flag Protection Act of 1989. The Act banned flag burning regardless of whether the person burning the flag intended to cause offense to
Texas v. White. Cornell University Law School Supreme Court Collection, 1850. Web. 03 Dec. 2009.
The majority opinion of the court was the most accurate for this case because of the fact that Johnson was expressing his personal beliefs and opinions. The 5 to 4 decision was the most constitutional and well thought through judgment. Johnson was not threatening the United States in any way, let alone the people of the United States. Although society may find expressive events hostile, the government cannot ban it because it’s expressive conduct and it underlies in one’s First Amendment rights. The majority opinion was the most constitutionally accurate, but one may think, does our Constitution need revising?
Gregory Lee Johnson was among the people who were participating in the political demonstration to protest the policies of the President Ronald Reagan administration. During the march, Johnson burned an American flag; neither he nor others were hurt during the protest and burning of the flag. After Johnson publicly burnt the American flag, he was arrested and convicted of desecrating a flag in violation of Texas law. The court of Criminal Appeals overturned his conviction after the Supreme Court found that Texas law was unconstitutional.
LAWRENCE V. TEXAS. 478 U. S. 186 :: Volume 478 :: 1986 :: Full Text." US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez. .
Tomlinson, Chris. "Federal Judge Declares Texas Anti-Abortion Law Unconstitutional." 28 October 2013. www.talkingpointsmemo.com. Online Article. 6 November 2013.
...ts, detailed explanation, and the First Amendment to show how the policy of the armbands goes against the First Amendment. As for Justice Hugo Black, he uses facts and other case decisions to explain why the policy is permissible under the First Amendment. Yet, Justice Black does not explain, in elaborate detail, the facts included nor a strong reasoning behind why he believes the policy is allowed. While Justice Abe Fortas and Justice Hugo Black did include strong points, Justice Abe Fortas was more convincing with his argument. For Justice Abe, every point connected, and the main points introduced were further developed through the case facts, the District Court’s decision, and other case decisions. There is a fluency that Justice Fortas had, which was not present in Justice Black’s dissenting opinion. Justice Black seemed jumpy, and his organization was confusing.
In 1971, Norma McCorvey or Jane Roe, filled a case against the district attorney of Dallas County, Henry Wade, because he enforced a Texas law that prohibited abortion unless the abortion was needed medically, to save the mother’s life. Being a single, pregnant woman , Roe did not have the choice to have an abortion because the pregnancy was not endangering her life. Plus, Roe could not afford to travel to have the operation done safely. As a result, Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington, two lawyers that graduated from the University of Texas Law School, claimed a lawsuit against the abortion laws in Texas because they violated Roe’s constitutional rights. Besides Roe’s two laywers, Hallford, a licensed physician, and a childless married couple known as the Does supported Roe’s case. The lawsuit against Wade was filed in a Texas Federal Court. The Texas Federal Court heard the case on December 13th, 1971 and again, on October 11th, 1972. After the examination of Weddington and Coffee’s argument against Jay Floyd’s, the lawyer for Wade during the first argument, and Robert C. Flower’s, the lawyer for Texas in the second argument, the court ruled in Roe’s favor by claiming that the law did violate the Constitution. Consequently, Wade appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In “People Like Us”, the writer talks about tolerance and diversity in the United States. America has for a long time been cited as one of the most diverse countries. Upon investigation of that statement, one will find that it is a fact, for the country is filled with millions of individuals from different ethnic extractions, political affiliations, religion, socioeconomic status, personalities, interests, etc. However, according to “People Like Us”, instead of the population of the country uniting in its diversity and using that as a strength, individuals are trying really hard to distance themselves from others who are not like themselves, and to band themselves together with those who are like them. David