Texas v. Johnson Argumentative To this day, Americans have many rights and privileges. The rights enshrined in the United States Constitution may be simple and to the point, but the rights Americans enjoy can raise questions about whether something happening in society is entirely reasonable or not. The case Texas v. Johnson created a lot of debate because of the burning of the American flag. Some might say that flag burning was tolerable because of the rights of United States citizens, another might say that it was not acceptable because of what the American flag symbolizes to America. (Brennan and Stevens 1). Johnson was outside of his First Amendment rights, and the burning of the American flag was unjust because of the flag's significance to America. Much of the story falls within the Texas v. Johnson case. It all started during the 1984 Republican National Convention, this is where Johnson attended a political rally to protest the policies that Regan was administering (Brennan 1). A march was taking place through the streets of the city, in which Johnson took part. Johnson burned an American flag while protesters cheered him (Brennan 1). No people were specifically injured during this protest; however, many witnesses were seriously offended (Brennan 1). Johnson was convicted of desecration of a venerated object, which violated the Texas statue. The state appeals court affirmed the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and reversed the case stating that it was a form of expressive conduct, so it was okay (Brennan 1). In a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court concluded that Johnson's flag burning was protected by his First Amendment rights (Brennan 1). The court further found that, although witnesses may have found it offensive, it is not...... middle of paper ...... the Constitution, but natural rights are. (Brennan 1). The government cannot prohibit expressive conduct because of the reactions it might elicit from society. (Brennan 1). Because of the evidence provided by the majority opinion, Johnson was within his First Amendment rights. The court's majority opinion was the most accurate for this case because Johnson was expressing his personal beliefs and opinions. The 5-4 decision was the most constitutional and well thought out in the judgment. Johnson was not threatening the United States in any way, much less the people of the United States. While society may find expressive events hostile, the government cannot ban them because it is expressive conduct and is the basis of First Amendment rights. The majority opinion was the most correct from the constitutional point of view, but one might wonder whether our Constitution needs to be revised?