Texas V. Johnson Case Study

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

The decision of the United States Supreme Court was an unconstitutional one in my opinion. Johnson burning the flag as a way of expression should still be considered to be a rebellious

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

Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), was heard in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Johnson v. State, 755 S.W.2d 92 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the decision of the Texas Court of Appeals, Fifth District holding that “Johnson’s right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution was violated by the statute. States cannot pass laws which take away freedoms that are promised under the United States Constitution, and in passing section 42.09(a)(3), the state had deprived Johnson of his constitutional right to express his views about the government.” Johnson v. State, 706 S.W.2d 120 (Tex. App. – Dallas 1986). The Texas Court of Appeals, Fifth District had affirmed the decision of the Dallas County Criminal Court which found Mr. Johnson guilty of desecration of the American flag. State v. Johnson, No. CCR 84-46013-J (Crim. Ct. No. 7, Dallas Cnty. Tex. Dec. 13,

On August 22, 1984, Gregory Lee Johnson was participating in a demonstration in Dallas, protesting the Rhegan administration and the Republican National Convention. Johnson was accused of burning the American flag, which offended onlookers as well as other patriots in the street(Goldstein 32). Johnson, who was convicted of violating a Texas law by burning a US Flag (because it is considered "desecration of a venerated object"), was later acquitted on all charges by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. They stated that because the ruling "was not consistent with the First Amendment that the State could not criminally sanction flag desecration in order to preserve the flag as a symbol of national unity" (B 1). However, on June 21, 1981 the Supreme Court and Justice Brennan defended Johnson and his actions by stating, "[a]fter publicly burning an American flag as a means of political protest, Gregory Lee Johnson was convicted of desecrating a flag

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

Under Texas law, does a third party possessor with an unrecorded deed to the property, in the absence of bad faith or inadequate consideration, have a superior claim to a property than a subsequent purchaser if circumstances suggest that the subsequent purchaser should have had constructive notice of his presence on the property?

In 2014, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposed a guidance policy called the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA), which would grant temporary deportation protection to about 4.3 million undocumented immigrants. But in that year, twenty-six states challenged the DAPA guidance, therefore the Supreme Court will decide whether the states have standing to challenge DAPA if will increase the costs of state-subsidized benefits, for example drivers license , and if DAPA is lawful and constitutional under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Take Care Clause of the Constitution. This case is called United States v. Texas. The United States states that Texas lacks Article III standing to challenge

In the case of Johnson vs. Texas, Gregory Lee Johnson was brought to court for burning the American Flag outside of the convention center during the Republican National Convention. The incident occurred in Dallas Texas in the year 1984 when Ronald Reagan was President. The report stated that Johnson was protesting against Reagan’s policies in America. Johnson was proved to be a member of a private institution that promoted the communist movement. His protest against Reagan expressed his dissatisfaction. Johnson was arrested and charged for violating a Texas statue fined $2000 dollars for his actions. In response to the fine, Johnson appealed and took his case to the United States Supreme Court.

Whether a person convicted of burning the American Flag under a state law can appeal their conviction on the grounds that their action are expressive free speech and therefore cover by the First Amendment

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

During the year of 1989, the Supreme Court was faced with a vigorously challenging trial Texas v. Johnson. The supreme court questioned the trail by asking themselves “Is the desecration of an American flag, by burning, or otherwise, a form of speech that is protected under the First Amendment? The first amendment of the United States grants anyone and everyone the right of freedom of speech. This means that anyone can say whatever they want no matter how radical or how extreme it might be. However speech isn't only through talking, speech can also be done through actions.

I chose to talk about how Texas has two supreme courts because it is very interesting. The United States only has one and they do an adequate job at responding back but they never have enough time to actually do lots of cases. I had a class on criminal justice and my teacher explained to me that the Supreme Court can only take a number of cases per year.

In addition, the second problem of Texas Constitution is too much split of government authority and responsibility, particularly within the executive branch. Texas Constitution states that shall consists of six distinct offices: the governor, who serve as the chief executive; the lieutenant governor, who serves as the president of the Senate; the secretary of state, who keeps the official seal of the state; the comptroller of public accounts; the commissioner of the General Land Office; and the attorney general who act as the state’s chief legal office. too much spilled of government authorities can lead to conflict. The Texas Constitution creates a plural executive which means, an executive branch in which power is fragmented because the election

Towards the end of the Civil War, African Americans were to enforce to follow the fourteenth Amendment after that occurred, several years passed and they were finally protected equitable among the whites. “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”. Which this amendment acknowledges the African Americans proper rights in the country and also lets them free from the restraint of any social or political belief. The United States Constitution gave everyone freedom and a relative chance to all. But these opportunities were not given to us as a guaranteed process that’s going to occur because for decades African Americans schools were in really poor conditions and unsanitary