The American Flag: More Than Just a Piece of Cloth

What does the American Flag mean to me? It means freedom,respect,equal right, faith and hope. Soldiers help protect this country, they fight for us, they give up everything for us. People don’t know how important the flag is. The flag means our country’s freedom. When I look up at the flag, I see people, not just any people, the great Americans that have fought for this country.

The American Flag means a lot to many different people. It could mean the liberty of living freely without the government interfering, the chance of opportunities not given in other countries, even the ability to practice their traditions and religions freely. But, what the American Flag means to me is the opportunity at having a bright future, hard work, and freedom. In America every person has the resources available to them, using them wisely gives everyone a chance at a bright future. America is a nation that was built on hard work and continues to thrive off of it to continue and progress and improve. Through the hard work and dreams of a bright future people continue to use their freedoms to achieve success. The American Flag clearly

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.

In 1969, the Supreme Court of the United States (U.S. Supreme Court) put forth rules allowing the burning of the flag to be protected under the First Amendment. The U. S. Supreme Court first ruled on flag discretion in 1907 in the Halter v. Nebraska case. Prior to this ruling flag discretion statues strictly prohibited the burning of the American flag , as well as, disrespecting the flag in any way shape or form. In 1968, Congress reacted to the burning of the American flag in New York during a protest against the Vietnam War by passing the Federal Flag Desecration Law. In a few court cases it has been declared that burning the American flag is only illegal if the flag has been stolen. When a flag is worn/torn the proper way of disposing of the flag is to burn it; however, when disposing of a flag by burning it there are steps that should be followed in order to do so honorably. The flag should be folded in its customary manner and then placed on a fire that is fairly large with sufficient intensity to ensure complete burning of the flag. After placing the flag on the fire all individuals should come to attention, salute the flag while reciting the Pledge of Allegiance and observing a brief moment of silence. Once the flag has been completely consumed the fire should be safely extinguished and the ashes should be buried. Congress has made seven attempts to overrule the Supreme Court decision regarding the burning of the American flag by passing a constitutional amendment that had an exception to the First Amendment and allowed the government to ban flag desecration. (Thelawdictionary.org,

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

The burning or desecration of the American Flag may fall under both freedoms. When one thinks of the flag, they usually think of the blood that was shed for this country. It was shed so that we could have liberties, such as, freedom of speech and expression, which fall under the First Amendment rights of the Constitution. However, when you think of a burning flag, what comes to mind? One might say it shows disrespect and hatred to a country that has given so much. In the case of Texas v. Johnson, Johnson was accused of desecrating a sacred object, but, his actions were protected by the First Amendment. Although his actions may have been offensive, he did not utter fighting words. As stated in Source D “Justice William Brennan wrote the 5-4 majority decision in holding that the defendant’s act of flag burning was protected speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.” By burning the flag, Johnson did not infringe upon another's natural human rights. He was simply expressing his outrage towards the government, which is within the jurisdiction of the First Amendment. Another court case, where the 5-4 majority ruled in favor of the defendant was United States v. Eichman in 1980, a year after the Johnson case. “In the case of United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990), the law was struck down by the same five person majority of justices as in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989).” [Source D] Multiple times in flag burning cases,

This brought on the Supreme Court striking down all laws banning flag desecration in 1989. Justice Brennan wrote “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable (civilliberty website, n.d) One cannot simply ban or outlaw a person’s right to exercise their ideas publically because it goes against the majority or popular belief. Taking away ones freedom of speech, you then take away the voice of a nation. You don’t have to always agree with the words, ideas or views someone expresses but you must give them the right to say it without repercussions. We recite the pledge of allegiance, not fully understanding what it means. The last section of the pledge states “with liberty and justice for all”. (UsFlag.org, n.d) Which means, the freedom to live, speak and to carry on without fear or injustice. No matter the race, gender or ethnicity George Washington said it best, “if the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”(Washington, n.d line 31 ) This nation was built upon principles that we are all free. Free to live and exercise our rights to speak freely and protest as citizens without fear. The Constitution also allows one to peacefully

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.

This case analysis of Texas v. Gregory Lee Johnson was a Supreme Court case that overthrew bans on damaging the American flag in 48 of the 50 states. Gregory Lee Johnson participated in a political demonstration during the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas, where he burned the American flag. Consequently, Johnson was charged with violating the Texas law that bans vandalizing valued objects. However, Johnson appealed his conviction, and his case

In the year 1984-1989 there was a case that struck America and shows a very good example to having your first amendment rights, not everyone will necessarily agree with this but this is how Mr. Johnson took his actions against the supreme court. This case is based on Mr. Johnson feeling violated against his first amendment right and standing up for himself and burning the American flag. Many patriotic people would completely disagree with this but, in our first amendment we have the freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Leading Mr. Johnson to this case because the American flag is supposed to represent our country and our freedom. “Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag outside of the convention center where the 1984 Republican National Convention was being held in Dallas, Texas. Johnson burned the flag to protest the policies of President Ronald Reagan. He was arrested and 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. A Texas court tried and convicted Johnson. He appealed, arguing that his actions were "symbolic speech" protected by the First Amendment.” Based off this case with this evidence this shows how much this could affect Mr. Johnson and the public significantly.

It should be considered safer to allow a few protestors to burn or disrespect the flag, than to allow the government to repress our birth rights by banning desecration of the flag. Deemed offensive by many citizens, and a form of symbolic speech by others, the constitutionality of flag desecration has been in question since the late 1800s. Desecration of the United States flag is constitutional, as a form of symbolic speech and protected under the First Amendment, even though many citizens do find it offensive.

Ever since the creation of the flag in the late 1770’s there have been debates about whether burning the flag should be a crime (“History of..”). The earliest court cases about burning or defacing the flag are as early as 1907 (Bomboy); although the first court case was centuries later, 1907 is surprisingly early considering the modern 13-striped and 50-starred flag was not around until the 1960’s when Hawaii officially became a state in the U.S. (“History of…”). Many of the cases were about creating “laws protecting the flag from physical abuse, but also from commercial abuse” (Bomboy). The new laws would be considered a “model flag desecration law.” In the law, the word “flag” would not just apply to The American Flag but all

Opponents of the Flag Desecration Amendment, propose reasons that make sense in not passing such an amendment and in doing so would lead to an ultimate betrayal of the freedoms granted to us by the First Amendment. In passing the Flag Desecration Amendment, it would mean that if a person wanted to express political freedom of speech by desecrating the flag they could not. A proposed Amendment would undermine the First Amendment. As Americans we are granted many freedoms and the freedom of speech is a major one, so if congress were to say that a person could not express themselves and to have it in writing then what else would change. Opponents also make a point that flag burning is rare. They say that is doesn’t happen every year, but when it has that it was to express political speech as the Supreme Court held in 1989. Opponents also say that once freedoms such as this be taken away then what’s to say what else congress will regulate and subject to violations. Anna Ross, form the “How a Member Decides to Vote” module mentions, that while it might make us mad to see our flag being desecrated, it is not good enough reason to weaken one of the most important principals of democracy.

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.

This includes freedom of expression, under which one could conceivably place flag desecration. In 1989, the Supreme Court upheld this first amendment right in the case of Texas v. Johnson. This case established the right to burn a flag is an act of free expression (Ken Paulsen, Trump’s Imaginary Flag Burning Ban). The Supreme Court has twice ruled that burning a flag is a protected form of “free” speech (Kitchener/Cambridge/Waterloo, Burning the U.S. Flag: Wrong, but not Illegal). During the Texas v. Johnson court case, Justice Anton Scalia said, “If it were up to me, I would put in jail every sandal wearing, scruffy bearded, weirdo who burns the American flag.