Kentucky v. King 1 Audelio Camacho Professor Alva AJ 180 3-27-17 Kentucky v. King The Supreme Court Case of Kentucky v. King occurred on October 2005, when Police officers in Lexington, Kentucky did a “buy bust operation in which a confidential informant attempted to buy crack cocaine from a suspected drug dealer.” The undercover was police officer Gibbons. When officer Gibbons gave the signal that the transaction was completed, the police approached the scene with their marked police cars. Once they were close to the suspect, Officer Gibbons radioed in a description of the suspect and said that King had gone through a specific hallway at a apartment complex. As the officers got to the hallway, a door was shut closed and the officers smelled
Mississippi v. Johnson 71 U.S. (4 Wall) 475 (1867) Facts A case involving After the civil war, Congress passed the Reconstructions Acts of 1867. President Johnson vetoes the legislation, but congress overrode his veto and the acts became federal law. In response, Mississippi sued President Johnson asking for an injunction to prohibit him from enforcing the laws. Mississippi argued that the president should not be and is not above the law.
Fisher v. Texas “Universities all over the country are breathing a sigh of relief,” Sherrilyn Ifill ("Fisher v. University of Texas”). The final decision of the court case Fisher v. Texas, ruled against student Abigail Fisher; rejecting her opinion that colleges taking in consideration of race as a factor of acceptances is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment ("Fisher v University of Texas Syllabus”). This means that, when deciding among a pool of qualified applicants, a university can consider an applicant’s race, along with his or her test scores, grades, such things as extracurricular activities, athletic or musical ability, and special achievements outside school. Miss Fisher filed a suit after being outraged that she was declined by the color of her skin ("Fisher v. University of Texas”).
The first case of the day that was heard by the Supreme Court on December 13th was Texas v. Johnson. Gregory Lee Johnson, a member of the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade, led a protest at the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas to protest Ronald Reagan’s reelection. During this protest, Mr. Johnson soaked an American flag in kerosene and proceed to burn it. Mr. Johnson was then arrested and charged for violating the Texas state law that prevented the desecration of a venerated object. The proceedings began with statements from the petitioners who claimed that precedent cases such as US v. O’Brien (1968), which deemed that the burning of draft cards was an invalid form of free speech, and Boos v. Barry (1988), which reinforced
Reasoning: (Brennan, J.) The majority of the Court, agreed with Johnson and held that flag burning constitutes a form of "symbolic speech" that is protected by the First Amendment. " A law directed at the communicative nature of conduct must, like a law directed at speech itself, be justified by the substantial showing of need that the First Amendment requires." The majority concluded that the Texas law impermissibly discriminated upon viewpoint.
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 Supreme Court’s decision of 1954 in the case of Hernandez v. Texas was the start of a breakthrough for Mexican Americans in the United States. The case was brought to existence after Pete Hernandez was accused of murder in Jackson County, a small town called Edna, Texas. The special thing about this case that makes it significant was the jury that were including in this trial. It was said that a Mexican American hadn’t served on a jury in the county of Jackson in 25 years. With the help of a Mexican American lawyer, Gustavo Garcia, the case was brought to the highest court level and was beheld as a Violation of the constitution.
“Dallas police arrested Gregory Lee Johnson for burning an American Flag outside the 1984 Republican National Convention.” Although the Supreme Court decided that burning the flag was legal, other citizens strongly disagreed with this. I believe that Johnson was only arrested because people protested for him to be arrested. In Texas v. Johnson Majority Opinion, Brennan states
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
Johnson, Gregory Lee Johnson was attending the Republican National Convention of 1984. Some say that he was in a Communist activist group and was protesting by burning an American flag. He was instantly sent to jail and was given a fine for destroying items that should have been given the utmost respect for, i.e. the American flag. When his case reached the Supreme Court he said that the state of Texas revoked his rights of the first amendment, which is the protection of his rights of freedom of speech and expression. He believed that the law that was set in place to define what was a “respected” object wasn’t clear enough.
However, the ban did not address the other issues dealt with by the state flag desecration laws. Gregory Lee Johnson convicted for burning a flag in protest against President Ronald Reagan's policies in Dallas, Texas in 1984 under Texas' flag desecration statute. (Hall, 2014) Congress opposed Johnson decision by passing the
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
According to Texas v. Johnson, 2009, “The court ruled 5 to 4 that Johnson's act of flag burning constituted expressive conduct protected as free speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution” (para. 4). This created a big reaction amongst politicians and a law was passed that made desecrating the flag a federal
In the act of burning the flag, Johnson was taken under arrest for the act that states that they cannot ‘criminally punish a person for burning a flag as a mean of political protest’. The arrest under the First Amendment caused a breach in peace and may be considered a ‘serious offence’. The burning of the flag was an offence to the flag and to Americans today but Johnson did this as an act of free speech and the unjust of the fair treatment to any single individual. The way that people acted towards this act started riots and unfair treatment to Johnson. The way that we
Texas Vs. Johnson and American Flag Stands For Tolerance are two stories that differentiate because of their different context which creates different tones. The tone in Texas Vs. Johnson is formal. It’s formal because the story is written by the Supreme Court whose justifying the ruling decision that was made against Johnson and the reasons for their decision.
