Well France hated the English, so they helped the Americans. Spain on the other hand lost land when the English came along. So they wanted their land back. Hope this helps!
In 2003, the Court overturned a Texas anti-sodomy law as a violation of the right to privacy and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), theSupreme Court ruled that state laws banning homosexual sodomy are unconstitutional as a violation of the right to privacy.
Answer:
His reforms ended apartheid and allowed a majority government of the ANC
Explanation:
F.W. De Klerk became president of South Africa in 1989 and brought the apartheid system to an end and negotiated a majority ruling of the country. De Klerk committed to speed up reform process and initiated postapartheid constitution with the countries four racial parties namely coloured, black, white and asian.
De Klerk moved to release political prisoners after his state of address in Parliament on February 2 1990 fighting off opposition to the idea. He started meeting with black leaders and in 1991 passed legislation that repelled racial discrimination laws with regards to education, residence, public amenities and public health. In 1992 he called a referendum in which 62% of white people supporting his new reforms. In the same year he negotiated with Mandela and black leaders which lead to an all nation election. An agreement was reach for a majority rule in 1993 and after the 1994 elections, the ANC obtained a majority in the new national assembly.
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.
