Question;CASE 1In this case, defendant Johnson was found guilty in a Texas trial court for violating a state law making it a crime to burn the American flag. He did this at the Republican National Convention held in Texas. Johnson appealed and eventually the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari. When the court grants certiorari, it is agreeing to hear the case. The question was whether burning the flag was protected under the First Amendment right to free speech. The Supreme Court held that it was. The following is an excerpt from the Supreme Court decision.20 21OpinionAfter publicly burning an American flag as a means of political protest, Gregory Lee Johnson was convicted of desecrating a flag in violation of Texas law. This case presents the question whether his conviction is consistent with the First Amendment. We hold that it is not.While the Republican National Convention was taking place in Dallas in 1984, respondent Johnson participated in a political demonstration dubbed the ?Republican War Chest Tour.? As explained in literature distributed by the demonstrators and in speeches made by them, the purpose of this event was to protest the policies of the Reagan administration and of certain Dallas-based corporations. The demonstrators marched through the Dallas streets, chanting political slogans and stopping at several corporate locations to stage ?die-ins? intended to dramatize the consequences of nuclear war. On several occasions they spray-painted the walls of buildings and overturned potted plants, but Johnson himself took no part in such activities. He did, however, accept an American flag handed to him by a fellow protestor who had taken it from a flagpole outside one of the targeted buildings.Of the approximately 100 demonstrators, Johnson alone was charged with a crime. The only criminal offense with which he was charged was the desecration of a venerated object in violation of Tex. Penal Code Ann. ? 42.09(a)(3) (1959). After trial, he was convicted, sentenced to one year in prison, and fined $2,000. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas at Dallas affirmed Johnson?s conviction, 706 S.W.2d 120 (1986), but the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, 755 S.W.2d 92 (1988), holding that the State could not, consistent with the First Amendment, punish Johnson for burning the flag in these circumstances.Johnson was convicted of flag desecration for burning the flag rather than for uttering insulting words. This fact somewhat complicates our consideration of his conviction under the First Amendment. We must first determine whether Johnson?s burning of the flag constituted expressive conduct, permitting him to invoke the First Amendment in challenging his conviction....The First Amendment literally forbids the abridgment only of ?speech,? but we have long recognized that its protection does not end at the spoken or written word. While we have rejected 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,? United States v. O?Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968) at 376, we have acknowledged that conduct may be ?sufficiently imbued with elements of communication to fall within the scope of the First and Fourteenth Amendments,? Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405, 409 (1974).The State of Texas conceded for the purposes of its oral argument in this case that Johnson?s conduct was expressive conduct and this concession seems to us as prudent. Johnson burned an American flag as part?indeed, as the culmination?of a political demonstration that coincided with the convening of the Republican Party and its renomination of Ronald Reagan for President. The expressive, overtly political nature of this conduct was both intentional and overwhelmingly apparent. At his trial, Johnson explained his reasons for burning the flag as follows: ?The American flag was burned as Ronald Reagan was being renominated as President. And a more powerful statement of symbolic speech, whether you agree with it or not, couldn?t have been made at that time.? In these circumstances, Johnson?s burning of the flag was conduct sufficiently imbued with elements of communication to implicate the First Amendment.If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.In short, nothing in our precedents suggests that a State may foster its own view of the flag by prohibiting expressive conduct relating to it.Johnson was convicted for engaging in expressive conduct. The State?s interest in preventing breaches of the peace does not support his conviction because Johnson?s conduct did not threaten to disturb the peace. Nor does the State?s interest in preserving the flag as a symbol of nationhood and national unity justify his criminal conviction for engaging in political expression. The judgment of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is therefore affirmed.question1. What gave the U.S. Supreme Court, a federal court, the right to review a Texas state law?2. Suppose that Johnson had burned a Texas state flag instead of the U.S. flag.a. Would the U.S. Supreme Court have jurisdiction to hear the case?b. If the Supreme Court did hear the case, do you think the decision would have been any different from this case?case 2Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court.These cases come to us from the States of Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware. They are premised on different facts and different local conditions, but a common legal question justifies their consideration together in this consolidated opinion. In each of the cases, minors of the Negro race, through their legal representatives, seek the aid of the courts in obtaining admission to the public schools of their community on a nonsegregated basis. In each instance, they had been denied admission to schools attended by white children under laws requiring or permitting segregation according to race. This segregation was alleged to deprive the plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment. In each of the cases other than the Delaware case, a three-judge federal district court denied relief to the plaintiffs on the so-called ?separate but equal? doctrine announced by this Court in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537. Under that doctrine, equality of treatment is accorded when the races are provided substantially equal facilities, even though these facilities be separate. In the Delaware case, the Supreme Court of Delaware adhered to that doctrine, but ordered that the plaintiffs be admitted to the white schools because of their superiority to the Negro schools.The plaintiffs contend that segregated public schools are not ?equal? and cannot be made ?equal,? and that hence they are deprived of the equal protection of the laws. Because of the obvious importance of the question presented, the Court took jurisdiction. Argument was heard in the 1952 Term, and reargument was heard this Term on certain questions propounded by the Court.Reargument was largely devoted to the circumstances surrounding the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. It covered exhaustively consideration of the Amendment in Congress, ratification by the states, then existing practices in racial segregation, and the views of proponents and opponents of the Amendment. This discussion and our own investigation convince us that, although these sources cast some light, it is not enough to resolve the problem with which we are faced. At best, they are inconclusive. The most avid proponents of the post-War Amendments undoubtedly intended them to remove all legal distinctions among ?all persons born or naturalized in the United States.? Their opponents, just as certainly, were antagonistic to both the letter and the spirit of the Amendments and wished them to have the most limited effect. What others in Congress and the state legislatures had in mind cannot be determined with any degree of certainty.An additional reason for the inconclusive nature of the Amendment?s history, with respect to segregated schools, is the status of public education at that time. In the South, the movement toward free common schools, supported by general taxation, had not yet taken hold. Education of white children was largely in the hands of private groups. Education of Negroes was almost nonexistent, and practically all of the race were illiterate. In fact, any education of Negroes was forbidden by law in some states. Today, in contrast, many Negroes have achieved outstanding success in the arts and sciences as well as in the business and professional world. It is true that public school education at the time of the Amendment had advanced further in the North, but the effect of the Amendment on Northern States was generally ignored in the congressional debates. Even in the North, the conditions of public education did not approximate those existing today. The curriculum was usually rudimentary, ungraded schools were common in rural areas, the school term was but three months a year in many states, and compulsory school attendance was virtually unknown. As a consequence, it is not surprising that there should be so little in the history of the Fourteenth Amendment relating to its intended effect on public education.124 125In the first cases in this Court construing the Fourteenth Amendment, decided shortly after its adoption, the Court interpreted it as proscribing all state-imposed discriminations against the Negro race. The doctrine of ?separate but equal? did not make its appearance in this Court until 1896 in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson involving not education but transportation. American courts have since labored with the doctrine for over half a century. In this Court, there have been six cases involving the ?separate but equal? doctrine in the field of public education. In Cumming v. County Board of Education, 175 U.S. 528, and Gong Lum v. Rice, 275 U.S. 78, the validity of the doctrine itself was not challenged. In more recent cases, all on the graduate school level, inequality was found in that specific benefits enjoyed by white students were denied to Negro students of the same educational qualifications. Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U.S. 337, Sipuel v. Oklahoma, 332 U.S. 631, Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629, McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637. In none of these cases was it necessary to re-examine the doctrine to grant relief to the Negro plaintiff. And in Sweatt v. Painter the Court expressly reserved decision on the question whether Plessy v. Ferguson should be held inapplicable to public education.In the instant cases, that question is directly presented. Here, unlike Sweatt v. Painter, there are findings below that the Negro and white schools involved have been equalized, or are being equalized, with respect to buildings, curricula, qualifications and salaries of teachers, and other ?tangible? factors. Our decision, therefore, cannot turn on merely a comparison of these tangible factors in the Negro and white schools involved in each of the cases. We must look instead to the effect of segregation itself on public education.In approaching this problem, we cannot turn the clock back to 1868 when the Amendment was adopted, or even to 1896 when Plessy v. Ferguson was written. We must consider public education in the light of its full development and its present place in American life throughout the Nation. Only in this way can it be determined if segregation in public schools deprives these plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws.Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other ?tangible? factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does.In Sweatt v. Painter in finding that a segregated law school for Negroes could not provide them equal educational opportunities, this Court relied in large part on ?those qualities which are incapable of objective measurement but which make for greatness in a law school.? In McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents the Court, in requiring that a Negro admitted to a white graduate school be treated like all other students, again resorted to intangible considerations: ?... his ability to study, to engage in discussions and exchange views with other students, and, in general, to learn his profession.? Such considerations apply with added force to children in grade and high schools. To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone. The effect of this separation on their educational opportunities was well stated by a finding in the Kansas case by a court which nevertheless felt compelled to rule against the Negro plaintiffs:?Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racially integrated school system.?Whatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy v. Ferguson, this 125126finding is amply supported by modern authority. Any language in Plessy v. Ferguson contrary to this finding is rejected.We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of ?separate but equal? has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. This disposition makes unnecessary any discussion whether such segregation also violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.It is so ordered.question1. What is the doctrine of separate but equal?2. What did the Court say about that doctrine in this case?3. How much importance did this Court give to the actual intent of the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment?case 3The Thornton County School District recently adopted a uniform dress policy for all students. Students must wear only those items of clothing approved by the school. Students are prohibited from wearing hats or other head apparel on school premises. No exceptions are allowed. One month prior to graduation, several high school seniors challenged the policy by attending school out of uniform. The school principal expelled them all from school immediately and told them that they could not graduate with their class. They were not given a hearing prior to or subsequent to the principal?s action. The parents of several students wish to challenge both the school dress policy and the expulsion of their children. Some parents claim that the prohibition on head coverings interferes with their religious beliefs. Others simply claim that their children?s choice of dress is part of their right to express themselves. All of the parents believe their children should have the right to a hearing.question1. Refer to the case file at the beginning of the chapter. If you represented the students, what arguments would you make that your constitutional rights are being violated? If you represented the school, what arguments would you make that the rules and procedures are constitutional?
Paper#59128 | Written in 18-Jul-2015Price : $25