Gregory Johnson's First Amendment Case

First, was displaying the Ten Commandments in courthouses and public schools a violation of the First Amendment?s establishment clause that prevents the government from passing laws in favor of any religion (Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, 2004a)? Secondly, was an assumption that the purpose of these displays had been for promoting religion enough of a determination for prohibition (Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, 2004a)? With a dissenting opinion on the matter, Justice Scalia first tells how he was in Rome, Italy on September 11, 2001. The President of the United States gave an address to the nation, ending it with ?

The case involves the question of whether or not the police were within their rights to search the trash that was left at the curbside without a warrant. The amendment

Issue: Did the President’s orders and the power given to the military authorities differentiate against Americans and residing Japanese ancestry violate the 5th Amendment of no individual should be deprived of liberty without due process? Holding: no.

During the 1984 Republic Nation Convention in Dallas, Texas, Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag while protesting the policies of President Ronald Reagan. He was arrested and charged with the violation of a Texas statute that prohibited the desecration of a respected object, including the American flag, if such actions would likely cause anger in others. Johnson was tried and convicted by a Texas court where he then appealed, arguing that his actions were a “symbolic speech” and therefore protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, with the issue of whether or not the burning of an American flag was or could be considered “symbolic speech”.

Justice Fortas explained the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in the case of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. One of the main points Justice Fortas maintained was that the right of freedom of speech extends onto the school grounds. Fortas explained that wearing a black armband to school did not cause disruptions to the learning in the school and is a pure form of free speech that is protected in the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Fortas continued to explain that the wearing of the black armbands to school is protected under the Fourteen Amendment. This amendment prevents interference in the liberties of teachers, students and parents.

I believe this case applies to the Criminal Justice Field because with all the protests and things being said it’s hard to really know when is the breaking point or the point where you take action. For example, if someone tweets “I hate all lunch ladies” and then decides to burn a lunch lady hat, is that person still protected under the first amendment? It’s ultimately a hard question to answer when you are stuck between what is right and what is wrong. Chief Justice Warren said, “We cannot accept the view that an apparently limitless variety of conduct can be labeled "speech" whenever the person engaging in the conduct intends thereby to express an idea” which I agree with today, in the justice field, we see quite a few cops being threatened but you cannot just shoot a cop and yell I did it to express my first amendment rights. Without this case, the criminal justice field would not have a diverse way of amending certain situation involving the first amendment also we would not have the O’Brien test.

In Texas v. Johnson the court ruled that courts cannot limit freedom of speech solely because the thing being said is offensive or disagreeable to others. I agree with the courts on these last two rulings when comparing them to Fields case because I believe that Fields has the right to freedom of speech even if his speech contained a false statement. I believe that Fields’ statement although morally wrong, was not an act of malaise and did not cause harm to any individual. I think that most people would agree that what Fields said was morally wrong and was hurtful to those who have fought and been injured to protect our freedom here in the United States of

The Supreme Court decided in favor of Johnson. The Supreme Court believed that Johnson's actions were expressive conduct and there was a purpose to the flag burning. The Supreme Court decided that because this was an expression it is protected under the First Amendment. Image: Oregon Employment Division v. Smith 1990 Constitutional Question: Can a person be denied unemployment benefits when fired because of using illegal drugs in religious ceremonies? Background Information: Smith and a colleague worked at a drug rehabilitation center.

Gregg V Georgia Background of the Case Troy Gregg was found guilty and was charged in 1976, these charges included murder and armed robbery and he was sentenced to death. He murdered Fred Edward Simmons and Bob Durwood Moore. Fred and Bob gave Troy Gregg and another man a ride because Troy appeared to be hitchhiking. Gregg then shot both men and continued to rob them.

On lines 10-21 its expressing that burning the flag from the case “Texas v. Johnson” should NOT be tolerated. This shows that acceptance in this instance is bad. Although the overall view I still that acceptance is better for everyone , where as Ronald J. Allen (the author) is expressing the same view as the prior court

The law in Texas at the time banned flag burnings. He was convicted, and the case was appealed to the Supreme Court. We ruled that Johnson’s right to free speech had been violated. He was expressing symbolic speech. We ruled that even though an opinion is unpopular, doesn’t mean we have the right to restrict his freedom of

State of Georgia V. Marcus Dwayne Dixon (2003) Marcus Dixon was a highly recruited high school football player. His life suddenly took a tragic turn when he was falsely convicted of raping a 15 year old girl. The elements around his false conviction could have been avoided with some reform to the criminal justice courts system. Dixon initially had many charges against him but were narrowed down to statutory rape and aggravated child molestation. There was much racial disparity surrounding the jury on Dixon’s case, in that the county that Dixon committed his “crime” was a predominantly white population.

In 1945, the High Court of Australia heard the case of Gratwick v Johnson and ultimately decided to dismiss the appeal in a unanimous decision by the Judges. While different reasoning was employed, all five judges drew the conclusion that the appeal should be dismissed as the statute the defendant was charged under was inconsistent with s.92 of the Australian Constitution. To provide some context for this case in 1944, Dulcie Johnson was charged with an offence against the National Security Act 1939-1943 in that she did contravene par.3 of the Restriction of Interstate Passenger Transport Order by travelling from South Australia to Western Australia by rail. In brief terms par.3 of the Restriction of Interstate Passenger Transport Order provided that no person shall, without a valid permit, travel from state to state or territory.

The Effects of the Marbury vs. Madison Case on the Rights of Americans The Marbury vs. Madison case had a monumental effect on the government. It was the first United States Supreme Court case where the decision was made (by the US Supreme Court) to declare a law unconstitutional. The reason for the suit occurred on President John Adams’ last night of presidency, commonly called his “midnight appointment,” in which he appointed a Federalist land speculator from Maryland named William Marbury into the office of justice of the peace in Washington D.C.. When James Madison took his office as secretary of state, Marbury’s letter of appointment remained undelivered and Thomas Jefferson had him retain it. Outraged by this, Marbury sued Madison in

Cornell University stated in an article, “Johnson was convicted of desertion of a venerated object in violation of Texas statute.” Johnson's actions were protected by the First Amendment so he was not sent to prison as stated in the United States Supreme Court case Texas v Johnson. His actions against the flag should have been more severe. Since Johnson’s actions were not threatening the branches of peace, there was no threat in the moment. “... and since the