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: delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions
Explanation:
Is was about getting revenge for the Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand yet many countries has peace treatise with many others so they all attacked one one-another
Answer:
Tiger grrrr lol jsp it would be a <u>WOLF</u> , John Locke would be represented as a lone wolf an animal that acts independently or generally lives or spends time alone instead of with a group not being led by one single leader (Monarch) and having a more complex governing of himself (Democracy).
Explanation:
Represnting Locke, all humans have pre-political rights that afford them protection against the aggression of others. <em>But where does this leave animals? For Locke, animals do not have natural rights, and therefore human interactions with animals are property governed (Side By Side Comparison to The Governing of Rights with a single Monarch as a leader and then a Majority Ruled GOVT) </em>. <u>John would be an independent self governed animal such as a more complex democracy .</u>
