As Treanor emphasizes, "What appears to be a puzzling, unconvincing, and uniquely aggressive exercise of judicial review was fully consistent with prior judicial decisions in which courts had invalidated statutes that trenched on judicial authority and autonomy" (455).
Texas v. Johnson (1989). Perhaps as no other issue in the post-September 11, 2001 climate is that of flag-burning. The debate is heated and emotionally charged, and it is easy to get caught up in the rhetoric. Nevertheless, it is important to keep in mind what the flag represents to many people and avoid characterizations that would lead to misunderstandings. The U.S. flag and - in the case of Texas v. Johnson, state flags can mean a great deal to citizens and it is natural to expect them to want their flags honored and respected. When people use the symbolism inherent in the national or a state flag, they touch buttons that are not otherwise reachable and it is not surprising to see legislation seeking to ban such activities in response. Notwithstanding the ability of flags to be used for this button-touching purpose, though, it is equally important to keep in mind just what the First Amendment is all about.
The U.S. flag and the several state flags also represent the fundamental constitutional right of all Americans to speak their minds in any fashion they desire, and this right has been expanded to include such a wide array of activities that to prohibit flag-burning just does not make sense. The U.S. flag from this perspective protects the very right of its citizens to burn it whenever they damn well please. As Raskin (2003) emphasizes, "Because 'speech' and 'nonspeech' were mixed together in the flag-burning [in Texas v. Johnson], Justice Brennan followed the Court's O'Brien standard, which requires government to show a 'sufficiently...
This author also notes that Justice Brennan also maintained that the asserted "governmental interest," though, must be "unrelated to the suppression of free expression" (Texas v. Johnson 414-17 cited in Raskin at 211). According to this author, "The problem for Texas was that its asserted interest 'in preserving the flag as a symbol of nationhood and national unity' was precisely related to political expression. The state wanted to control the symbolic uses of the flag to prevent anti-government messages (emphasis added) (Raskin 211). To hold otherwise, the Court reasoned, would be to sanction different treatments by different interest groups in the physical integrity of the flag. For example, to hold that the ceremonial burning of flags when they had become unserviceable was allowed but to outlaw the practice by those who wanted to burn flags for other reasons would be say that "the flag itself may be used as a symbol only in one direction. We would be permitting a State to 'prescribe what shall be orthodox'" (Texas v. Johnson 414-17 cited in Raskin at 211).
The research showed that each of the three branches of federal government enjoy certain responsibilities and rights and the system of checks and balances that exists provides some balance between them. When the Supreme Court, in its capacity as the "ultimate expositor of the constitutional text," determines that a law fails its judicial review, it would seem there is little the other branches can do to compel it to act otherwise. Certainly, in his capacity as commander in chief of the nation's armed forces, the president could surround the Court building with troops and it is likely this option has been seriously contemplated by several presidents in moments of frustration with their initiatives because of a Supreme Court decision. Nevertheless, the research also showed that the concept of judicial review, even though it is not specifically explicated in the Constitution, remains a fundamental component of the American legislative process and Chief Justice Marshall's decision in Marbury v. Madison set the stage for this concept today.
Black's Law Dictionary. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co., 1990.
Marcus, Maeva. Origins of the Federal Judiciary: Essays on the Judiciary Act of 1789. New York: Oxford, 1992.
Raskin, Jamin B. Overruling Democracy: The Supreme Court…
Tushnet (2005) defends his point-of-view by writing that the advocates of the Stuart lawsuit placed the argument that Justices of the Supreme Court, even though, had the authority to be Supreme Court Justices, but they could not be Circuit Court Judges if the position of Circuit Court Judges already taken up by others had been eradicated. Furthermore, they stated that the eradication of the Circuit Judges had been, in fact,
Judicial Review The most important American political institution is the U.S. Constitution. Of course, this is only a document, but it is also an institution in its own way, for it is the basis of all American political institutions and practices. It is like the DNA of our government: We would have no government without it, no road map to create our form of democracy. Unlike other democracies like Great Britain
Marbury v. Madison In 1801, outgoing president John Adams appointed William Marbury to the judiciary. The following day, the appointment was confirmed by the Senate. When Jefferson took command of the White House the day after that, he refused to send Marbury his commission, thus preventing that latter from assuming his appointment to the judiciary. Marbury sued Jefferson’s Secretary of State James Madison, thus establishing the case Marbury v. Madison, upon
Judicial Appointments Bush's Judicial Appointments An Examination of President George W. Bush's Judicial Appointments During the eight years of his presidency George W. Bush appointed two Supreme Court justices, 61 Appeals Court judges, and 261 Federal District Court judges. Judicial appointments can be one of a president's longest lasting legacies. The people President Bush named to the judiciary will be making decisions and affecting policy long after he leaves office. Courts today, especially
Canada The new Canadian Constitution of 1982 replaced the Bill of Rights with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides the fundamental and immutable rights such as democratic rights, mobility rights, legal rights, language rights, equality rights, and minority language rights, as well as specific freedoms like freedom of religion and thought. However, the Charter includes one of the most controversial elements in the
Post-World War II Japan: A Nation in Transition Devastated by the Allies in World War II, Japan has emerged as one of the world's most economically and technologically advanced societies today. Some observers have suggested that the "Japanese miracle" was the result of a collusion between the government and industry to prosecute economic growth through a series of subsidies and favorable business climates, while others maintain this explosive growth was due