There are a number of landmark court cases of special education in the country that have become the basis of how we currently provide services to students with disabilities. Diana v. California State Board of Education (1970) and Larry P. v. Riles (1984) are two of these landmark court cases that highlight nondiscriminatory assessments. Below is the analysis of the two court cases in four major sections: The Legal Cases, Summary, Future Practice, and Comparison and Contrasts.
The central issue in the Stromberg case was whether the state of California violated the First and Fourteenth Amendment by making it illegal to display red flags that suggested support of organizations that dissented organized government or favored anarchic action (Communism). This case was a significant landmark in constitutional law because of the Court’s use of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect a First Amendment right, symbolic speech, from state infringement. It impacted American society in a positive way because it expanded the freedoms in the First amendment and created the doctrine that would be used in cases involving subjects like American flag and draft card burning. The Supreme Court ruled accurately, the government cannot outlaw speech or expressive conduct because it disapproves the ideas expressed. “Nonverbal expressive activity can be banned because of the action it entails, but not the ideas it expresses.” (pg.25)
The United States is well-known for its principles of freedom and democracy, which is demonstrated through the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause. Thus, American citizens can openly discuss political matters; criticize the President and his Cabinet on television, radio talk show or in the newspaper; or publicly protest against the government tax policy. However, Free Speech protection becomes debatable when some American citizens burn the nation’s flag to express their disagreement to the government. The act of burning the American Flag should be constitutionally protected under the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause because the act is a symbolic expression that communicates an individual’s idea or opinion about his nation; and that
One of the most important cases in the history of the United States, especially for the freedom of American speech and expression, was Texas v. Johnson. This landmark Supreme Court case allows burning the American flag as grounds of symbolic speech. For the Supreme Court, the question was the desecration of an American flag, by burning or otherwise, a form of speech that is protected under the First Amendment? During the Reagan administration, many were upset due to Reagan’s policies, especially his military buildups and his missile reforms. During the Reagan administration, many protests took place, including arm bands to protest military, and sign waving to protest Reagan’s tax cuts that “favored the wealthy”. When the Republican National
The Supreme Court’s stance on flag burning has remained the same since. Nevertheless, thirty years after United States v. Eichman, there is still controversy over whether or not it should be legal. A recent example of the present discussion on flag burning is a tweet made by President Donald Trump in 2016: “Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag – if they do, there must be consequences – perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!” However, without a reason to change the law besides personal opinion, the Supreme Court is not likely to reverse their decision and make flag burning
Though the First Amendment nationally guarantees our right to free expression, the Fourteenth Amendment also champions our cause in the states by means of the due-process clause. The due-process clause states that "no state shall...deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law" (Wilson). Until 1925, it was legal for the states to pass legislation prohibiting such forms of protest as symbolic speech because the Supreme Court had previosly denied that the due-process clause made the Bill of Rights applicable to the states. However, in the case Gitlow v. New York, the Supreme Court decided that freedom of speech and of the press implicated the "fundamental personal rights" protected by the due-process clause, and the states could no longer breach through legislation those freedoms guaranteed to each individual (Wilson). This case established the precedence that state laws involving speech violate the freedom of expression guarantees of the First Amendment, made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, no matter how offensive or repugnant some forms of expression may be, that expression has strong and definite constitutional protections that cannot be encroached by the national or state governments. To create an amendment to weaken our civil liberties constitutes a means to further destroy the representation of our national symbol - the flag.
People watched in shock; Protesters and none protesters circled around as Gregory Lee Johnson lit the American Flag on fire. Why would a man disrespect a symbol such as the American flag, that represents freedom, liberty and democracy? Was he protected by the constitution's first amendment? The Supreme Court answered all these questions we had by voting in favor of Johnson. Johnson's intentions were only political, and he as the freedom of speech. The Supreme Court was correct on this decision on letting Johnson go, since he was protected by his amendments, and no matter what the action was, if the amendment gives us the right, we should be entitled to our freedoms.
This paper will dive in and analyze the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case, Texas v. Johnson, and the still active controversy among the public concerning what circumstances state governments and the federal government have the right to constitutionally prohibit the burning or other form of desecration to the American Flag. Under its decision in Texas v. Johnson the later ruling in the case of United States v. Eichman, in 1990, the Supreme Court had ruled that government can not bring criminal prosecutions against those whom burn or desecrate the American flag so long as they are engaged in expressions of political views without abridging the right of free speech guaranteed under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution at the time. These rulings have sparked public controversy over whether the Court has gone beyond its correct constitutional role and multiple proposed constitutional amendments to overturn the Court 's decisions which have failed to pass due to lack of majority.
The issue of flag desecration has been and continues to be a highly controversial issue; on the one side there are those who believe that the flag is a unique symbol for our nation which should be preserved at all costs, while on the other are those who believe that flag burning is a form of free speech and that any legislation designed to prevent this form of expression is contrary to the ideals of the First Amendment to our Constitution. Shawn Eichman, as well as the majority of the United States Supreme Court, is in the latter of these groups. Many citizens believe that the freedom of speech granted to them in the First Amendment means that they can express themselves in any manner they wish as long as their right of
The act for which appellant was convicted was clearly 'speech' contemplated by the First Amendment." The court also stated that, "Recognizing that the right to differ is the centerpiece of our First Amendment freedoms," the court explained, "a government cannot mandate by fiat a feeling of unity in its citizens. Therefore, that very same government cannot carve out a symbol of unity and prescribe a set of approved messages to be associated with that symbol when it cannot mandate the status or feeling the symbol purports to represent." The Supreme Court found that the state's first interest of preserving the flag as a symbol of national unity was not made. The state had not shown that the flag was in danger of being stripped of its symbolic value, the Texas court also decided that flag's special status was not endangered by Johnson's actions.
Throughout history, Americans have fought hard to gain independence and the freedoms that come with it. However, some choose to test the limitations of those freedoms. For some time, Americans have shown their disgust of the American government by burning flags, and even cutting them up to use as clothing. Although mocking the American government and the flag is disrespectful, revoking the right to do so would be a violation of freedom of expression, which is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Those who support the no-flag burning amendment argue that the United States flag is a special case. Because it would undermine the constitution and set a dangerous precedent that will make it easier for others enact restrictive amendments to the
The riveting court case of Texas v Johnson challenges the limits of the First Amendment, particularly freedom of speech. The First Amendment states that, 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. Texas vs Johnson revolves around the burning of the American flag, and deciding whether that constitutes as freedom of speech, or not. This essay will cover the background of the court case, followed by an explanation of why court cases such as these are important issues to examine. Next, two sides, one against the
The supreme court ruling regarding the destruction of the American flag decided it was legal because it was an expression of an opinion. Gregory Lee Johnson burned the American Flag publicly at the 1984 Republican Convention to protest Ronald Reagan’s policies - he was “charged with violating a Texas statute that prevented the desecration of a venerated object, including the American flag, if such action were likely to incite anger in others”, however, the court ruled in Johnson’s favor (United States Courts, n.d.). Many witnesses were offended but the burning flag did not physically harm anyone or put anyone in danger, further backing up Johnson with the First Amendment's freedom of (symbolic) speech.