In the case,Texas v.Johnson,the texas court tried and convicted Mr.Johnson for violating the statute that prohibited the desecration of venerated objects e.g the American flag that could arouse anger in other individuals.Johnson appealed with the argument that the actions were a "symbolic speech" protected by the First Amendment.
Texas laws punishes actions such as flag burning that might arouse anger in other but it this case the outrage alone couldnot justify for supressing Johnson's freedom of speech.In this perspective,the Texas law discriminated upon view point in that though it punishes such actions,it still specifically exempt prosecution of actions with similar defination such as burning or burying of worn-out flag.
Therefore, flag burning in Texas v.Johnson constituted a symbolic speech and is protected by the Firts Amendment.
Answer:
TRUE
Explanation:
Fort Gibson is a historic military site next to the modern city of Fort Gibson, in Muskogee County Oklahoma. It guarded the American frontier in Indian Territory from 1824 to 1888. When it was constructed, the fort was farther west than any other military post in the United States. It formed part of the north-south chain of forts that was intended to maintain peace on the frontier of the American West and to protect the southwestern border of the Louisiana Purchase.
No, it is false that when <span>used as an energy source in a nuclear power plant, uranium is burned in a similar way as one would burn wood or coal for energy, since nuclear energy comes from an entirely different process. </span>
Prior to the Civil War, the (dominant) discourse over the United States’ future reach a crisis point in that the divide grew between the North and the South over the status of slaves with the north favoring a more liberal view.
<h3>What were the arguments regarding the Constitutionality of slavery and notions of citizenship?</h3>
Throughout the mid-1800s, disagreements about the institution of slavery erupted, eventually leading to the Civil War: sociological reasons such as: whites being superior to blacks were presented.
The south contended that slaves were economically useful due to the steady work supply."
Hence the attrition.
<h3>How did relative definitions of liberty/freedom/equality become irreconcilable?</h3>
The relative definitions of liberty and freedom that became irreconcilable was when the notion of negative liberty was coined.
This notion was suggestive of the fact that:
Negative liberty is the freedom from outside intervention and that it is concerned largely with freedom from external restriction, as opposed to positive liberty (ownership of the capacity and resources to realize one's own potential).
Learn more about the civil war at;
brainly.com/question/1020924
#SPJ1
I am not going to answer in a paragraph of 125 words, but I will give you the answer to the first question; The United States didn't want another country to fall to communism. They officially got involved after the attack of the Gulf of Tonkin (U.S destroyers were stationed there and a radio came in that said they had been fired upon by North Vietnamese forces). (45 words BTW).
