Helen, Sophia,Daniela by Helen Rangel

Texas vs Johnson flag burning case

hcpsrangelhm — 2025-01-29 20:06:23 UTC

The flag burning case is a arguement trying to decide whether or not burning the American flag was a form of political protest was protected by the first amendment. The case involved Gregory Lee johnson, He burned the american flag outside the Republican National convection in 1984, he was arrested under a texas law that prohibited the disrespect of the flag, Johnson argued that his actions were a symbolic speech which is protected by the first amendment, The court ruled in favor of johnson in a 5-4. Justice william brennan wrote The majority opinion that Johnson’s act of burning the American flag was protected by the First Amendment and government cannot prohibit speech just because it is offensive or disagreeable to others. The case ended to be free expression and symbolic speech is protected by the first amendment.

mapp v. ohio (1961)

2025-01-29 20:07:14 UTC

mapp v. ohio (1961) is basically stating that police should need a warrant to search peoples houses. In 1957 a woman named dolree mapp had police come to her door and search her claiming they had a search warrent and they found magazines that where illgal at the time so she got arrested, but before they searched her they wouldnt show her the warrent and physically fought her for the paper back when she took it from them. They also didnt have the paper at court and it was never saw again, soon mapp appealed her conviction and argued that the search violated the 4th ammendment because the police didnt hsve a warrant. The state of ohio disagreed claiming that exclusionary rule only applied to federal trials so mapp wanted the suprememe court to overrule their descion in wolf v. ohio she asked if they would hear her case, and they agreed. Mapp argued that the history of the 4th ammendment shows that everyonr has the right to privacy and security in ones home and that the exclusonary rule discourages federal officers from conducting unlawful cearches and seziures. Ohio argued that the exclusionary rule was never actually written in the 4th ammendment and it does not state what should happen if a search is "unreasonable" and that police are still discouraged from conducting unlawful searches and seziures without the exclusionary rule. In a 6-3 decision the supreme court overturned wolf v. colorado and found for mapp ruling that the exclusionary rule does apply to the states therefore the exclusionary rule recgonized in weeks v, unitied states was extended in the states aswell. by doing that the court encouraged police officers to have a warrant before searching peoples houses, if evidence is found during an illegal search leads police to a additional evidence then it wont be allowed in court.

Korematsu V. United States .1944

2025-01-29 20:07:27 UTC

World war ll officially began 9/1/39 when Germany invaded Poland. The two sides of the war were the Allied powers & the Axis's power. The united states government pointed to a law the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, that allowed the president to imprison citizens of enemy countries during a time of war. Roosevelt argued that Japan invaded a territory of the United States and posed a threat to the country r. Korematsu appealed, arguing that the executive order was unconstitutional. He believed he was denied due process, which is protected by the Fifth Amendment and requires the government to use the courts to prove that an individual committed a crime before that person can be sent to prison . The Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court. Korematsu then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear his case & it agreed . Korematsu is a citizen of the United States, not of a foreign country. This means that the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 does not apply to him