Sectionson the grounds that they are unconstitutional on their face and as applied to plaintiff. BACKGROUND  At the time this action was filed, plaintiff was a PhD candidate in mathematics at University of California at Berkeley working in the field of cryptography, an area of applied mathematics that seeks to develop confidentiality in electronic communication.
Senators had until the end of to take action on H. The following day, the amendment, sponsored by Senator Orrin Hatchfell one vote short in the Senate, with 66 in support and 34 opposed.
The vote on Senator Richard Durbin 's alternative amendment, which would have given Congress the power to ban flag desecration intended to intimidate or breach peace on federal land, was 36— Potential interpretations of the amendment[ edit ] This section possibly contains original research.
Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. An end to the controversy Supreme Court, to parse the exact meaning of ambiguous terms contained therein.
The focus of the report was on the meanings that would be assigned to the phrases, "physical desecration" and "flag of the United States.
It remains an open question whether flags such as this one, which contains corporate logos in place of the fifty stars, would fall under the amendment. The phrase "physical desecration" might be open to various interpretations concerning the uncertainty of the context of desecration.
For example, uncertainty exists over whether the term includes the wearing of the flag as clothing, as a tattoo, or flying a flag upside-down. It is uncertain what can be interpreted as "physical desecration". Does it require that the flag be physically damaged, or made to appear damaged?
It is also unclear whether " virtual flag desecration" which could be defined as an artistic depiction of flag desecration, a computerized simulation of flag desecration, or burning any object which has a flag on it would be subject to the amendment.
There is also the question whether the perpetrator of such an act is required to have a specific intent to "desecrate" to be prosecuted. The Report of the th Congress, in proposing this amendment, stated: This seems to suggest that the amendment will apply only to acts where the actor intends offense.
Since the amendment would allow prohibition against only "the flag of the United States," it could be construed as only applying to flags that are the property of the United States government, as opposed to private property.
This language could also be interpreted as being limited to flags that meet the exact specifications for the United States flag laid out in federal law. It is unclear what effect the amendment would have with respect to former flags of the United States, such as the star flag that preceded the admission of Alaska and Hawaiior the original star Betsy Ross flagor how far from the traditional definition of a flag a symbol could deviate for example, having orange stripes instead of red before falling out of the ambit of the amendment's jurisdiction.
The First Amendment Center concluded that the Supreme Court was likely to interpret this language narrowly, resulting in decisions that would not satisfy either proponents or opponents of the proposed amendment.
Other possible interpretive issues were not addressed by the First Amendment Center report. First, no scope is stated in the amendment. The Supreme Court has previously held that Congress may prohibit foreign acts that have an effect in the United States,  and certainly the desecration of the flag on foreign soil would likely have the intended effect of offending United States citizens.
The general rule is, however, that a law does not apply outside the United States unless the language of the law expressly provides for such an application. It is, therefore, unclear whether Congress would be able to prescribe punishments for those who burn the flag of the United States in a foreign country.
Second, the amendment would empower Congress to act, but not the states.united states district court northern district of california.
daniel j. bernstein, plaintiff, vs. united states department of state et al., no. c mhp. The Great Republic: Presidents and States of the United States of America, and Comments on American History. Taking everything together then, I declare that our city is the School [or "Education"] of Greece [, tês Helládos Paídeusis], and I declare that in my opinion each single one of our citizens, in all the manifold aspects of life, is able to .
The Flag Desecration Amendment (often referred to as the Flag-burning Amendment) is an American proposed law, in the form of constitutional amendment to the Bill of Rights, that would allow the U.S. Congress to prohibit by statute and provide punishment for the physical "desecration" of .
Texas v. Johnson, U.S. ,, was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that invalidated prohibitions on desecrating the American flag enforced in 48 of the 50 states. Justice William Brennan wrote for a five-justice majority in holding that the defendant Gregory Lee Johnson's act of flag burning was protected speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Johnson . TOP. Opinion. BRENNAN, J., Opinion of the Court. JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court. After publicly burning an American flag as a means of political protest, Gregory Lee Johnson was convicted of desecrating a flag .
The Constitution of the United States, Article III, section 3 states that treason against the United States, "Shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." This does not describe flag burning.