The Flag Of The United States

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 [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 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

While the Republican National Convention was taking place in Dallas in 1984, respondent Johnson participated in a political protest. The purpose of this event was to protest the policies of the Reagan administration and of certain Dallas-based corporations. The demonstrators marched through the Dallas streets, chanting political slogans and stopping at several corporate locations to dramatize the consequences of nuclear war. On several occasions they spray-painted the walls of buildings and overturned potted plants, but Johnson himself took no part in such activities. He did, however, accept an American flag handed to him by a fellow protestor. The demonstration ended in front of Dallas City Hall, where Johnson unfolded the American flag, drenched it with kerosene, and set it on fire. While the flag burned, the protestors chanted. No one was physically injured or threatened with injury, though several witnesses had said that they had been seriously offended by the flag burning.

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

This week’s case study, Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag in front of Dallas City Hall as a means of protest against the policies of the Reagan administration. He was arrested by Dallas police officers and he was charged with violating section 42.09(a)(3) of the Texas Penal Code, which prohibited the “desecration of a venerable object.” In this case, it was the contention of the arresting officers that burning the American flag was an act of desecration which was punishable by law. Section 42.09(a)(3) of the Texas Penal Code was enacted by the Texas State Legislature, at the time when this matter was brought to trial, the parties involved were the State of Texas and Mr. Gregory Lee Johnson. The case was heard by three lower courts before it reached the United States Supreme Court. List those three courts in order, beginning with the court that has the most authority and ending with the court that has the least

Burning a flag, as Johnson did, to express dissatisfaction with the policies of our country is the wrong way to express feeling. Other wrong ways to treat the flag is by spitting on, writing on, tearing up, or stepping on the flag.

When the U.S. declared it is independence from the British the American flag became a symbol of freedom. Today's flag has fifty stars representing each state and thirteen stripes representing the 13 colonies, and it is an example of Americans’ values, hope and liberty. On August 22, 1984, Gregory Lee Johnson, a political activist, and other activist went on a march in Dallas Texas during the Republican National Convention. They went to protest the policies of the Reagan administration. When they arrived the Dallas City Hall Johnson doused an American flag with kerosene, and he set it on fire while the other people shouted, “American, the red, white, and blue, we spit on you was reported by Texas v. Johnson article.” There are several significant aspects in the case of Johnson v Texas including the Johnson’s conviction in the Dallas Country Criminal Court, Johnson’s appeal to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court.

In response to the decision made in Texas v. Johnson, Congress enacted the Flag Protection Act of 1989. The Act, this time focused not on simply prohibiting the desecration of a flag, but of protecting the entire physical integrity of a flag. The Act did, however allow for the proper disposal of old, torn, worn, or soiled flags. Congress did this with the purpose of removing language that the courts might find made the statute a statute that aimed to suppress certain kinds of expression. They also tried to challenge the Court and prior rulings to prohibit the burning and desecration of American flags. After Congress passed this law, many burned flags in protest.

The court also concluded that that the flag-desecration statute was not drawn narrowly enough to encompass only those flag burnings that were likely to result in a serious disturbance of the peace. The flag burning in this particular case did not threaten such a reaction. There were only a few witnesses to the act that stated that they were upset with the action but were not harmed in any way. There was no breach of peace nor does the record reflect that the situation was potentially explosive. Just because someone was

A recent struggle that the Gadsden flag has endured occurred on June 8th, 2014. A married ‘white supremacists’ couple entered a Las Vegas pizzeria and killed two police officers. The officers were shot, laid on the floor, and had their weapons and ammunition stolen. After the fatalities, the couple draped the Gadsden flag over one of the policemen's lifeless body. “They placed a swastika-stamped manifesto on top of the flag, and… a note on the other officer’s body that read, This is the start of the revolution” (MacNab). The couple then moved to a nearby department store where they killed a bystander and had a shootout with new policemen. After about fifteen minutes, the woman killed herself and the man was killed by the police. The couple was in a subgroup of the Sovereign Ideology world and were told that they were being too extreme. This is what many people believe was the couple's motive to lash out on innocent cops. The man was angry because he no longer had the right to bare arms because he was a convicted felon. He made a video complaining about how it was unfair that he had the restriction. People who look over this tragedy find that the couple draped the Gadsden flag to send a clear message to the government: “this is what happens when you mess with us” (MacNab). The flag was originally designed to tell the government to not mess with the colonies, so

Explained by the author, Judy Bray Garrison, the opinion section of the Morning Call is begging the question in this type of fallacy by assuming everyone knows the American flag represents proper respect for the United States men and women who served our country in order to defend our freedom. There are different meanings by the way the flag is display known as the “flag code” that spells out the protocol to define how to demonstrate respect. Students in school should return to stating the pledge of allegiance to their flag and break down the sentences to learn the sacrifices made for which it stands. When children destroy a display of 250 flags while laughing at the sight, showing disrespect to those who took the time and money to purchase

People are approached to their demise of the flag as they would associate it to be something dear to them while others would see it and try to use it under their advantage to the extreme for raising attention and seeking others help. Conflicts such as this are shown in multiple sources all around and describe much of any event that would lead up to it. A source under by Gruber-Miller, Stephan “Flag Burning Protest Sets Off Clash in Ped Mall” ,made in January 26,2017, shows a case of a group of protesters burning the flag for them trying to seek racial and social injustice and social imperialism. “When I see the flag, I see racial injustice… I see social injustice from Native American genocide to African-American slavery to failing to recognize women in citizens until the 20th century” Eventually, one person then come to rise up against the protests and claims that it was disrespectful to military veterans. In the end, the two protestors were then given a fine consequently for their actions of burning the flag, with one of them still suggesting that it shouldn’t be criminalized with the acknowledgement that they still violating. Now, after all of the events that happened, it all ultimately resulted to depict in in a offensive action that should be prohibited as to reflect on them being arrested. The protesters raised their point of why they still burned the flag and still acknowledge that it was still a violation, but

The American flag; our nation’s symbol that we as citizens have all come to maintain common relations when reflecting on our country. The iconic symbol prides with thirteen white and red stripes representing what was once our country’s thirteen colonies. There are fifty white stars placed upon a blue background representing all of our fifty states. The nation’s flag waves high in the sky or is pinned to people’s walls representing our nationalism and accomplishments. The colors of the flag can be easily manipulated from red, white, and blue to become multicolored. Stripes are changed to rainbow-like colors to represent a piece of our country that seems to be brushed under the rug most of the time. This alteration of rainbow colors on the flag represent a group of people who want to be seen as normal in our society, but are so often marginalized and ostracized. The alterations of colors that are done to the flag can be easily altered physically, but so hard to grasp mentally from those who think one-dimensionally. Why is that, if it is easy to alter things physically, should we not see a positive uproar when it comes to accepting new perceptions about same-sex marriage mentally?