Does the separation of powers provide the President with an absolute power to withhold information from the other branches?

The issue of burning the American flag, as a means of expression is continuously argued today. Many

“The [American] flag uniquely symbolizes the ideas of liberty, equality and tolerance - ideas that Americans have passionately defended and debated throughout our history. Thus, the Government…should protect the symbolic values of the flag” wrote Justice John Paul Stevens in the Texas v. Johnson (1989) Supreme Court Case (History of Flag Burning). Justice Antonin Scalia agreed, “If it were up to me, I would put in jail every…wierdo who burns the American flag” 9. However these Justices may have felt personally, this was not the result of the vote. In 1989, the Supreme Court defended flag burning as part of the First Amendment freedom of expression.

This document supports limiting online student speech because the court ruled that even though it happened out of school, the school’s reason was strong enough to justify their actions toward K.K.

This case then was put up to the national level and sent to the United States Supreme Court. There was great public attention because of media. Many groups involved themselves in either trying to support that Texas violated Johnson's first amendment right of freedom of expression, or tried to get a new amendment passed to the constitution stopping the burning of the United States’ flag. The final decision by the Supreme Court on June 21, 1989 was by a 5 – 4 vote, that the Texas court of criminal appeals violated Johnson's first amendment rights by prosecuting him under its law for burning a flag as a means of a peaceful political demonstration. The Supreme Court upheld this ruling, stating the flag burning was "expressive conduct" because it was an attempt to "convey a particularized message." This ruling invalidated flag protection laws in 48 states and the District of Columbia.

Johnson was decided on June 21st of 1989 by the United States Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court ruled that Gregory Lee Johnson's liberties and rights were violated, and that the burning of the U.S. flag was a constitutionally protected form of speech under the First Amendment. The court decided that flag burning was symbolic speech, and protected under the First Amendment. The opinion of the Court came down as a controversial 5–4 decision, with the majority opinion delivered by William J. Brennan, Jr. and Justices Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Antonin Scalia, and Anthony Kennedy. Texas v. Johnson, was an important decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that revoked prohibitions on desecrating the American flag, enforced in 48 of the 50 states. Johnson’s actions, who were supported by the majority argued, that flag burning was explicitly symbolic speech, political in nature and could be expressed even if those disagreed with him, stated William Brennan. The majority also noted that freedom of speech protects actions that society may find very offensive, but society's outrage is not justification for suppressing Johnson’s actions, or symbolic speech. The dissenting opinion, which was written by Justice Stevens, and included Justices Rehnquist, White, Stevens, and O’ Connor, was that the flag's unique status as a symbol of national unity outweighed "symbolic speech" concerns, and thus, the government could lawfully prohibit flag

Is burning the American flag freedoms for speech? The Supreme Court says that burning the American flag is a form of expression that's protected by the first amendment. Flag burning is something that needed to be protected. Congress passed the Flag Protection Act in 1989 that stated anyone who knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or templates upon a United States flag can be prosecuted. The Boston Tea Party carried a message and no one expected that act of civil disobedience was protected by free speech. Burning the American Flag is wrong no matter who burns it, it is wrong to do so. You wouldn't want no one burning your flag so I believe it's not okay to burn any flag at all and it shouldn't

Des Moines is an important case for free speech in the United States. It affirms that students don’t lose their rights when they go to school. However, it also affirmed that schools can limit speech that “materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others” (Tinker v. Des Moines, 1969). However, the Court has ruled that there are times that the school can limit speech. In 1986, the Supreme Court ruled in Bethel v. Fraser that students can be disciplined for using vulgar and offensive language in school (Gooden, Eckes, Mead, McNeal, & Torres, 2013, p. 25). This case differed from Tinker v. Des Moines because that case was about political speech or expression. Another example of where school can limit the First Amendment is school sponsored newspapers. This was affirmed by the Court in Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988). That decision stated that schools can reasonably limit the content of school-sponsored newspapers (Gooden, Eckes, Mead, McNeal, & Torres, 2013, p.

The decision in this case seems to have left public school students’ free speech rights in an ambiguous state. The Justices in support of the majority opinion—Justices Thomas, Alito, Kennedy, and Scalia—were thus

On August 22, 1984, Gregory Lee Johnson was arrested for setting the U.S. flag on fire. His simple act of protest led to the Supreme Court ruling that flag burning is protected under the First Amendment as free speech, thus overturning his conviction. The flag symbolizes freedom, and part of that freedom is being able to express dissatisfaction with the government. However, some see flag burning not merely as a demonstration of opinion, but as an attack on national unity and American values. Should it be illegal to burn the U.S. flag as an form of protest, or is this method within the rights of American citizens?

In United States v Nixon, five burglars broke into the Democratic Party headquarters. After investigations, president Nixon received a subpoena ordering him to release tapes and transcripts connected to meetings between him and some individuals who had been indicted in the incident. Although the president released edited copies of the transcripts, his attorney filed a motion to quash the subpoena on grounds of executive privilege. The attorneys claim was that the judiciary lacked the powers to determine the president’s claim of executive privilege. It was held that no individual, not even the president is above the law and, therefore, the president cannot use executive privilege to withhold criminal evidence. The problem of separation of powers in this case arises from the president’s attorney that the concept of executive privilege stems from the doctrine of separation of powers and the independence of the executive insulates the president from judicial proceedings. Although the constitution provides for the separation of powers, these powers are not intended to operate independently and the assumption that the president is immune to judicial proceedings would affect the constitutional balance and impair the functionality of the judiciary. It is noteworthy that the offenses that led to the resignation of Nixon were relatively minor and the crisis was constitutional.

Outside of the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas, many people protested President Ronald Reagan’s policies. Among the protestors was one man named Gregory Lee Johnson. This man was so upset by the policies of the President that he burned an American flag in protest. By doing this, a statute in Texas was violated. This statute prevented the desecration of an American flag if it could possibly anger other people amongst the protest. Johnson was arrested and charged with this violation. He was later tried in court and convicted, but he made an appeal stating that by burning the flag he was expressing his rights of “symbolic speech” which are protected by the first amendment (uscourts.gov). The definition of symbolic speech is the same as a term called “speech plus”. This is a form of expression in which behavior is used by itself or in coordination with written or spoken

believe it is an expression of free speech, which is protected under the First Amendment in the United

The struggle for the tapes began immediately after Alexander Butterfield’s announcement that they even existed. The day after the announcement the Ervin committee requested that Nixon had hand over the tapes he declined due to the fact that separation of power of

The Supreme Court has twice ruled that the desecration of the American flag was a form of free speech and is protected by the first amendment. The first Amendment states, “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.” The constitution clearly states that the people have the rights to

Nixon’s attorneys argued that Nixon had the right to not give up the recordings due the executive privilege right. They argued that the tapes were confidential and no one had a right to view them. The court disagreed with Nixon and decided that the executive privilege power wasn’t enough to keep the tapes out the supreme courts hands. This meant that Nixon had to comply with the subpoena and release the recordings. Not even three weeks later, the Supreme Court reached a unanimous vote. The court discovered that Jaworski had found enough information that the recordings were indeed relevant to the break in. The Court then decided to reject Nixon’s claim of executive privilege. Soon after the decision, Nixon resigned. This landmark supreme court case is known as the Watergate Scandal. This case is such a landmark in Supreme Court case studies because it showed that the president doesn’t receive special privilege because of his title. He is not insusceptible from judicial process, and must obey the court and give up any evidence subpoenaed by the courts. Although the doctrine of executive privilege recognizes the presidents’ great degree of privacy from the courts; if the evidence involves matters of national security or other sensitive information, the president cannot withhold evidence.