The tone of Texas V. Johnson is a more strict tone and serious. Starting with ¨We decline, …¨ makes it sound as a decrease and make the rest of the passes more important as if it was being declared as a new law. But in the fact that it is not it still shows great importance. By including the First Amendment in the passes it showed the importance of the argument. By not having any personal opinion gave it a show of facts and truth.…
(O’Brien 708). None of those statements got Johnson arrested. Burning the flag is what lead to Johnson’s arrest. Flag burning is antagonistic and not expressive (O’Brien 707-708).…
In the case of US vs. Gonzalez-Lopez lies many facts within the case. Some of the reliable facts is that a man named Cuauhtemoc Gonzalez-Lopez was charged with conspiracy to distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana. His family hired him an attorney by the name of John Fahle to represent him but Lopez had another person in mind. Lopez went ahead and hired attorney Joseph Low to represent him in the hopes of including him with Fahle or instead of. As time went on both attorneys represented Lopez but the Magistrate Judge only accepted Low’s provisional entry of appearance and allowed him to participate only if he immediately file a motion for admission pro hac vice.…
Texas vs. Johnson (An analysis of the supreme court case Texas vs. Johnson and the current repercussions of the decision) The first amendment protects many of our basic rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, etc. The framers of our constitution left a broad wording to leave room for our country to grow and change as time went on. One of the adjustments our country has made over time is to define the actions and words protected under the freedom of speech. There are three basic categories of free speech; pure speech, is communication only through words, speech plus is speech plus an aid such as a sign or a chant, and symbolic speech, an action that communicates meaning without the use of words.…
Alexandra Cox Johnson vs. Nixon Kennedy and Johnson started and expanded the war in Vietnam, making it the dominant issue of foreign policy. Johnson escalated the Soviet containment strategy in Vietnam with more ground troops. Johnson wanted to focus on internal affairs like health care but had to address the war he inherited in Vietnam and could not fulfill both domestic or foreign policy successfully. Nixon ended the war in Vietnam, his slogan while running for presidency was “Peace with honor” and he succeeded at it through political negotiations. Most of Nixon’s foreign policy was to prioritize détente with China and the Soviet Union so it helped increase political slack.…
“Jackson wanted to contact an attorney but was dissuaded from doing so by Austrian, who promised Jackson that he would not be punished if he confessed. Shortly afterward, Jackson telephoned Judge McDonald and asked for the same consideration afforded Cicotte (a White Sox pitcher who was also a suspect). But when Jackson later spoke to McDonald personally in chambers, the judge did not like Jackson’s story (confession) and told him to expect no sympathy from the court” (Lamb 120). The case at this point seemed a little unfair in Jackson’s point of view, because there was no communication as to what the right thing for him to do was, he was told to give his story to reduce the penalty and was told that there will be no sympathy for himself. Judge Kenesaw Landis was a Chicago federal judge who was appointed to take control of the case and would later be the Major League Baseball commissioner.…
The nail shop that the comedian, Anjelah Johnson, is in hosts some very aggressive nail technicians who love to upsell their products and services. They put down their customers somewhat to get them to feel insecure and purchase more services to look better and dim their insecurities. Johnson’s stand up exploits the Superiority Theory. She plays with the topic by making the audience laugh at her while she laughs with them at herself.…
The constitution was the founding document that laid the groundwork for American and everything it stands for. Johnson emphasizes this fact by telling “the Constitution says that no person shall be kept from voting because of his race or his color” and “we all have sworn an oath before God to support and to defend that Constitution.” Bringing up these facts adds the credibility to his message by implying that the Founding Fathers would have approved and the right to vote is actually in the basis of the country’s values, which is a necessary support considering that most citizens had contrasting opinions due to racism. Similarly, Johnson repeatedly mentions facts surrounding the beliefs and founding of the country in order to further support his purpose. He states “Our mission is at once the oldest and the most basic of this country- to right wrong, to do justice, to serve man” and “This was the first nation in the history of the world to be founded with a purpose.”…
When Congress passed the Flag Protection Act of 1989, the Court upheld the Johnson ruling by deciding on the Eichman case in a 5-4 decision. Because the Supreme Court ruled on United States v. Eichman with the intention of completely respecting the Texas v. Johnson decision, it can be seen that judicial restraint was…
He says that her request is just a desire, a want, and is a request that does not abide to the general rules of society. He goes on in his complex sentence to state that her request is not proper, not made with reason, and does not follow common occurrences in life that should be changed, but rather, is being forced to change, through the woman’s request. In the end, by using complex syntax in his letter, Johnson is able to craft his denial effectively by comparing how the woman made her request, which is improper and unorthodox, to how society’s requests should be made, which is proper, sophisticated, and pondered…
In between these phrases, he mentions political issues that need to be passed through congress quickly. Johnson uses the past president's death as a way to make the American people believe that they need to pass these laws. By using this contrast at the end, Johnson truly uplifts and motivates the audience. He also alludes to the previous work he had done with the civil rights movement. Once again using credibility, instead of emotion, to persuade his audience.…
The advertisement was full of factual errors. In the end the judgement was overturned. They couldn’t be convicted because there was no malice. In the case of Texas v Johnson, he was convicted for burning a flag. He later appealed his case and it went to the supreme court.…
“Fighting Racism” Jack Johnson is considered as one of the greatest boxers of all time. Jack, who was actually born by the name of John Johnson, grew up in a time when African Americans did not have many rights. Johnson had to fight for any opportunity or almost anything he ever wanted because of racial discrimination. He was never one to be controlled by the social norms of the time; this made him a perfect fit to become a boxer.…
When the court ruled that Phillips had to bake a cake for Charlie and David, he did have his First Amendment rights violated. In the future, the court should consider a different ruling, such as a fine and allow people to run their business in a way that doesn’t violate the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, rather than forcing him to provide the service. My decision would support the reasoning that people can have their own beliefs under the First Amendment, as long as they do not violate the rights of another. My decision would not force Jack Phillips to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples unless he is making them for heterosexual couples; he has the decision to make wedding cakes for everyone, or for no one. This ruling supports that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act are…
Juror #8 In the play “Twelve Angry Men” the Juror No.8 was a very important character, without him there would not have been any conflict and the young boy would have been executed without a proper trial. An Architect by profession, he stood out from the rest of jurors. He had the gift for intuitive thinking, understanding complex human relationships and inspiring others. He believed in trial-by-jury system and did his best to have the necessary procedures to come up with a fair outcome.…