Flag Desecration Essays - Supreme Court Of The United States, Law

Flag Desecration Essays - Supreme Court Of The United States, Law Flag Desecration 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 expression does not infringe on the rights of others; others, however, believe that there are exceptions to this right of speech. Such constitutional issues need to be worked out by the Supreme Court, which uses its powers of constitutional interpretation and judicial review to outline the underpinnings of the Constitution and interpret the law. The case which acted as an impetus for Eichmans actions was that of Texas v. Johnson. In 1984, in Dallas, Gregory Johnson, a member of the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade, a Maoists society, publicly burned a stolen American flag to protests the re-nomination of Ronald Reagan as the Republican candidate (Levy 217). The police consequently arrested Johnson not for his message but for his manner in delivering it; he had violated a Texas statute that prohibited the desecration of a venerated object by acts that the offender knows will seriously offend on or more persons (Downs 83). Johnson had hoped to capture Americas attention with this burning, and he did; however, his protest earned him more than a moment in the national spotlight. Under Texass tough anti-flag-burning statute, Johnson was fine $2,000 and sentenced to a year in prison (Relin 16). In Texas v. Johnson a majority of the Supreme Court considered for the first time whether the First Amendment protects desecration of the United States flag as a form of symbolic speech. A sharply divided Court had previously dealt with symbolic speech cases that involved alleged misuses of the flag. While the Court had ruled in favor of the defendants in those cases (Street v. New York, 1969; Smith v. Goguen, 1974; Spence v. Washington, 1974), it had done so on narrow grounds, refusing to confront the ultimate question status of flag desecration (Downs 868). The court ruled in favor of Johnson (5-4), believing that there was no evidence that Johnsons expression threatened an imminent disturbance of the peace, and that the statutes protection of the integrity of the flag as a symbol was improperly directed at the communicative message entailed in flag burning (Downs 868). Justice Brennan concluded by saying, We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents (Witt 409). Reacting to this ruling, the Untied States Congress sought to pass legislation that would overturn it. The Flag Protection Amendment was introduced and then voted down, but then the Flag Protection Act was passed in both houses. President Bush allowed this act to pass without his signature, an expression of his preference for a Constitutional amendment (Apel Flag Protection). The Act criminalized the conduct of anyone who knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon a United States flag, except conduct related to the disposal of a worn or soiled flag (U.S.). On October 30th, 1989, the day the bill went into effect, hundreds of people burned flags; among them was Shawn Eichman. The Justice Department admitted that the law was unconstitutional under Texas v. Johnson, but prosecuted anyways, hoping to get the court to reverse its decision. The court decided that flag desecration is a form of political expression that is protected under the First Amendment rights to free speech, and ruled in favor of Eichman by a vote of 5 to 4, thus nullify the Flag Protection Act which Eichman had been protesting (House 1144). The majority consisted of Justices Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Scalia, and Kennedy. Dissenting were Justices Stevens, Renquist, White, and OConnor. For the majority opinion, Justice Brennan wrote the following: Although the Flag Protection Act contains no explicit content-based limitation on the scope of prohibited conduct, it is nevertheless clear that the Governments asserted interest is related to the suppression of free expression...Moreover, the precise language of the Acts prohibitions confirms Congress interest in

The Seleucids and Their Dynasty

The Seleucids and Their Dynasty The Seleucids were the rulers of the eastern part of Alexander the Greats empire from June 312 to 64 B.C. They were Hellenistic Greek kings in Asia. When Alexander the Great died, his empire was carved up. His first generation successors were known as the diadochi. [See map of the Kingdoms of the Diadochi.] Ptolemy took the Egyptian part, Antigonus took the area in Europe, including Macedonia, and Seleucus took the eastern part, Asia, which he ruled until 281. The Seleucids were the members of the dynasty that ruled Phoenicia, Asia Minor, northern Syria and Mesopotamia. Jona Lendering names the modern states that comprise this area as: Afghanistan,Iran,Iraq,Syria,Lebanon,parts of Turkey, Armenia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan. The followers of the eponymous Seleucus I were known as the Seleucids or the Seleucid Dynasty. Their actual names included Seleucus, Antiochus, Diodotus, Demetrius, Philip, Cleopatra, Tigranes, and Alexander. Although the Seleucids lost parts of the empire over time, including Transoxania, lost to the Parthians in about 280, and Bactria (Afghanistan) around 140-130 B.C., to the nomadic Yuezhi (possibly the Tocahrians) [E. Knoblochs Beyond the Oxus: Archaeology, Art and Architecture of Central Asia (1972)], they held on to parts. It was only in 64 B.C. that the era of Seleucid rule ended when the Roman leader Pompey annexed Syria and Lebanon.