Should There Be A Constitutional Amendment Prohibiting Flag Burning?

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

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.

The American Flag is symbol of freedom to those individuals living in the United States. To the soldiers who fight for our freedom, seeing the flag they honor and salute disgraced and disrespected is like a “slap in the face”. Topics discussed throughout this paper are as follows The Star Spangled Banner, American traditions involving the flag, how to fold the flag and what each fold symbolizes, how to properly handle and when/when not to fly the flag as well as, flag burning, a few major case laws about the flag, pending Supreme Court cases regarding the American flag, the reasons for the decisions made, how things have changed over time and some arguments for/against, pros/cons will be discussed so that we all

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

Flag Burning can be and usually is a very controversial issue. Many people are offended by the thought of destroying this country's symbol of liberty and freedom. During a political protest during the 1984 Republican Convention, Gregory Lee Johnson was arrested for burning an American flag. Years later in 1989, Johnson got the decision overturned by the United States Supreme Court. In the same year, the state of Texas passed the Flag Protection Act, which prohibited any form of desecration against the American flag. This act provoked many people to protest and burn flags anyway. Two protestors, Shawn Eichman and Mark Haggerty were charged with violating the law and arrested. Both Eichman and Haggerty appealed the

The First Amendment 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 to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. This freedom of speech clause as included in the First Amendment guarantees the citizens of America to express information and ideas freely. But is all form of speech free? On the most basic level, this clause allows for the expression of an opinion or idea without the fear of censorship by the government. It protects all forms of communication, with limits so you cannot always say anything you want, wherever you want, or whenever you want. Fighting words are not protected under the First Amendment, for instance, as are obscene expressions.

Lately, if you turn on the news, the media headlines are covered with the news of protests. These protests include marches, kneeling, and in some cases, even rioting and fighting. However, one from of protesting stands out the most: burning of the United States flag. Recently, protestors have burned the flag to protest the president and the police. Burning the flag is not something new to this country, however. There are many recorded instances of the American flag being burned as a form of speech; especially during the Vietnam War period. I, on the other hand, strongly believe that burning the American flag is wrong. It much more than just a piece of cloth, it is a scared symbol of our country. In order to stop the mutilation of the symbols of our country, I am proposing an amendment to the Constitution. The amendment that I am proposing will empower Congress to utilize their powers to implement restrictions on mistreatment of iconic American symbols.

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.

A 1931 Supreme Court case, Stromberg v. California, set the first precedent for the use of a flag in an act of symbolic speech under the First Amendment, when the Court struck down a California law that banned the flying of a red flag to protest against the government. More than five decades later, Congress passed Flag Protection Act in 1968. The Act was response to the Vietnam protests of the unfavorable Vietnam war. Protesters started the tradition of desecrating the flag, including burning the flag. For more than 20 years, the lower court upheld the act and the Supreme Court denied

The prominent figures on each side of this controversy is the government and the people

In addition to violating one's rights of freedom of expression, the no-flag burning amendment gives government the power to decide what American actions are and are

If the state of Kansas passed this bill, the (CFA) article would be totally for it. The CFA embraces the U.S. flag as a significant nationwide symbol. If people light fire to this vital historical piece of America as a way to protest how could they be called Americans? This bill would be one of the problems to reaching their goal: making another amendment to put on the Constitution that would look after the U.S. Flag as the nation's symbol. It shows how significant the Flag is to the American people. The CFA would need to persuade the federal leaders in order to get the bill passed. A method they can use in their favor could be politicization their representatives to upkeep their bill for people not being able to burn the American

Flag desecration became protected under the first amendment in 1989 in the case of Gregory Johnson. The Supreme Court, in the case of Gregory Johnson (1989), ruled that it was in fact constitutional to allow people to burn the flag, the evidence against this ruling is overwhelming. The law defined desecration as "physical mistreatment of such objects in a way which the accused knows will offend one or more persons likely to observe or discover the act" (Texas v. Johnson). When Gregory Johnson or any other protestor's