Statutory and Constitutional Responses to the Supreme Court Decision in Texas V. Johnson: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred First Congress, First Session, July 13, 18, 19, and 20, 1989U.S. Government Printing Office, 1989 - 572 pages |
Other editions - View all
Common terms and phrases
amend the Constitution American flag BARR believe Bill of Rights burning the flag Chairman CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL committee conduct CONGRESS THE LIBRARY Congressman constitutional amendment contemptuous conviction criminal DANNEMEYER defaces desecrating the flag disagree dissent Don Edwards DOUGLAS draft card EDWARDS expression fact feel flag burning flag desecration statute free speech freedom of speech FRIED Gedeon governmental interest Gregory Johnson honor House Hugo Black idea issue JAMES Judiciary July July 18 Justice KAMENAR KASTENMEIER Laurence Tribe legislation LIBRARY OF CONGRESS majority ment MICHAEL mutilation national symbol O'Brien offensive opinion physical desecration political President problem prohibit proposed prosecution protect the flag punish question reason represents respect ROBERT SCHROEDER Senator Biden SENSENBRENNER statement statute statutory SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL Supreme Court decision testimony Texas Texas statute Thank things tion U.S. flag U.S. Supreme Court unconstitutional United Univ veterans Vietnam vote Washington
Popular passages
Page 401 - But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas...
Page 466 - If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.
Page 13 - I believe in the United States of America as a government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed; a democracy in a republic; a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States; a perfect union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes.
Page 410 - The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts.
Page 355 - Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.
Page 401 - While that experiment is part of our system I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.
Page 140 - The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning.
Page 495 - 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.
Page 167 - Accordingly a function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger.
Page 134 - This Court has held that when "speech" and "nonspeech" elements are combined in the same course of conduct, a sufficiently important governmental interest in regulating the nonspeech element can justify incidental limitations on First Amendment freedoms.