Flag Desecration Essays - Supreme Court Of The United States, Law

Flag Desecration Essays - Supreme Court Of The United States, Law Flag Desecration The issue of flag desecration has been and continues to be a highly controversial issue; on the one side there are those who believe that the flag is a unique symbol for our nation which should be preserved at all costs, while on the other are those who believe that flag burning is a form of free speech and that any legislation designed to prevent this form of expression is contrary to the ideals of the First Amendment to our Constitution. Shawn Eichman, as well as the majority of the United States Supreme Court, is in the latter of these groups. Many citizens believe that the freedom of speech granted to them in the First Amendment means that they can express themselves in any manner they wish as long as their right of expression does not infringe on the rights of others; others, however, believe that there are exceptions to this right of speech. Such constitutional issues need to be worked out by the Supreme Court, which uses its powers of constitutional interpretation and judicial review to outline the underpinnings of the Constitution and interpret the law. The case which acted as an impetus for Eichmans actions was that of Texas v. Johnson. In 1984, in Dallas, Gregory Johnson, a member of the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade, a Maoists society, publicly burned a stolen American flag to protests the re-nomination of Ronald Reagan as the Republican candidate (Levy 217). The police consequently arrested Johnson not for his message but for his manner in delivering it; he had violated a Texas statute that prohibited the desecration of a venerated object by acts that the offender knows will seriously offend on or more persons (Downs 83). Johnson had hoped to capture Americas attention with this burning, and he did; however, his protest earned him more than a moment in the national spotlight. Under Texass tough anti-flag-burning statute, Johnson was fine $2,000 and sentenced to a year in prison (Relin 16). In Texas v. Johnson a majority of the Supreme Court considered for the first time whether the First Amendment protects desecration of the United States flag as a form of symbolic speech. A sharply divided Court had previously dealt with symbolic speech cases that involved alleged misuses of the flag. While the Court had ruled in favor of the defendants in those cases (Street v. New York, 1969; Smith v. Goguen, 1974; Spence v. Washington, 1974), it had done so on narrow grounds, refusing to confront the ultimate question status of flag desecration (Downs 868). The court ruled in favor of Johnson (5-4), believing that there was no evidence that Johnsons expression threatened an imminent disturbance of the peace, and that the statutes protection of the integrity of the flag as a symbol was improperly directed at the communicative message entailed in flag burning (Downs 868). Justice Brennan concluded by saying, We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents (Witt 409). Reacting to this ruling, the Untied States Congress sought to pass legislation that would overturn it. The Flag Protection Amendment was introduced and then voted down, but then the Flag Protection Act was passed in both houses. President Bush allowed this act to pass without his signature, an expression of his preference for a Constitutional amendment (Apel Flag Protection). The Act criminalized the conduct of anyone who knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon a United States flag, except conduct related to the disposal of a worn or soiled flag (U.S.). On October 30th, 1989, the day the bill went into effect, hundreds of people burned flags; among them was Shawn Eichman. The Justice Department admitted that the law was unconstitutional under Texas v. Johnson, but prosecuted anyways, hoping to get the court to reverse its decision. The court decided that flag desecration is a form of political expression that is protected under the First Amendment rights to free speech, and ruled in favor of Eichman by a vote of 5 to 4, thus nullify the Flag Protection Act which Eichman had been protesting (House 1144). The majority consisted of Justices Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Scalia, and Kennedy. Dissenting were Justices Stevens, Renquist, White, and OConnor. For the majority opinion, Justice Brennan wrote the following: Although the Flag Protection Act contains no explicit content-based limitation on the scope of prohibited conduct, it is nevertheless clear that the Governments asserted interest is related to the suppression of free expression...Moreover, the precise language of the Acts prohibitions confirms Congress interest in

Socrates on Life Meaning Essays

Socrates on Life Meaning Essays Socrates on Life Meaning Paper Socrates on Life Meaning Paper What did Socrates meant by â€Å"an unexamined life is not worth living†? Socrates’ reasoning in passing up the chance to escape his sentence after being condemned to death on fabricated charges Socrates is one of the most influential Greek philosophers, who as influential in ushering the Hellenistic Age. His powers of logical reasoning and the invention of the Socratic method has left a lasting impression on Western philosophy. Although he was a prominent member of the Aristocratic class, his lack of deference to authority would lead to his tragic death. Even when given the choice between a life in exile or immediate execution, he chose the latter as a matter of adhering to principle. According to Socrates, a commitment to moral reasoning is an essential condition of a well-lived life. An individual should base his actions upon the outcomes of such internal dialogues. The exercise of self-examination and introspection as a way of arriving at moral truths is of paramount importance to Socrates. So much so that he unequivocally declared that â€Å"an unexamined life is not worth living† (Vlastos, p.121). This commitment to truth by way of rational, critical enquiry would eventually cost Socrates his life. But, even when in sight of his impending death, Socrates calmly reasoned with his friends and supporters that accepting the judgment of the state is to follow the moral course of action and he refused to escape into exile. Socrates was brought to trial by the democratic Athenian jury, which had scores to settle with prominent members of the previous regime. Socrates’ association with the previous regime made him a target of persecution, irrespective of the validity of the alleged charges. He was accused of undermining religious and state authority and for also corrupting the minds of Athenians. But in reality, Socrates made no deliberate attempts to bring down the religious and state authorities. Instead, he encouraged his students to adopt a critical approach to moral actions, also suggesting that the Athenian rulers themselves are not exempt from such scrutiny. Hence, Socrates sacrificed his life as a way of standing by the principles he endorsed to others. Despite his tragic death in this fashion, the event has acquired him a martyr status among subsequent generation of intellectuals and philosophers. Starting with Plato, his most illustrious disciple, intellectuals have taken inspiration and strength from Socrates’ choice and have contributed to positive social change. Two millennium since the execution of Socrates, in the more progressive and liberal democracies of Western Europe and North America, the citizens enjoy a whole array of civil rights. This includes the right to freedom of speech as well – a right that was not available to Socrates. While there is no doubt that modern democracies offer their citizens rights and privileges that were unknown of before, dissidents still don’t find it easy to get their views across. For example, it is fair to say that those from far left of the political spectrum face plenty of hostility from the mainstream establishment. The mainstream media and political institutions simply ignore critical analyses from this quarter. This points out that modern liberal democracies are far from ideal and utopian. There is still progress to be made in terms of fulfilling Socrates’ notion of living an ‘examined life’, which would allow citizens of a state to critically examine their state a nd its wielding of authority. : Vlastos, Gregory (1991). Socrates, Ironist and Moral Philosopher. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Hanson, V.D. (2001). â€Å"Socrates Dies at Delium, 424 B.C.†, What If? 2, Robert Cowley, editor, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, NY. Socrates’ reasoning in passing up the chance to escape his sentence after being condemned to death on fabricated charges Socrates is one of the most influential Greek philosophers, who as influential in ushering the Hellenistic Age. His powers of logical reasoning and the invention of the Socratic method has left a lasting impression on Western philosophy. Although he was a prominent member of the Aristocratic class, his lack of deference to authority would lead to his tragic death. Even when given the choice between a life in exile or immediate execution, he chose the latter as a matter of adhering to principle. According to Socrates, a commitment to moral reasoning is an essential condition of a well-lived life. An individual should base his actions upon the outcomes of such internal dialogues. The exercise of self-examination and introspection as a way of arriving at moral truths is of paramount importance to Socrates. So much so that he unequivocally .

Lean operations Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Lean operations - Essay Example Some scholars argued that the differences between the service and manufacturing (product) firms may interfere with the effectiveness of lean operations for the service sector (Atkinson, 2010; Lee et al., 2008). Services are intangible and can hardly be evaluated after â€Å"production,† so evaluation of efficiency and effectiveness can render complications. Other scholars stressed that lean operations are viable in the service firms, but important â€Å"actors,† such as managers, champions, enthusiast converters and implementers, must have fully prepared a change management plan (Esain, Williams, & Massey, 2008; Hines, Martins, & Beale, 2008). This essay explores how lean operations can be applied to the service industry, particularly to the United Kingdom’s National Health Service (NHS). The NHS has applied Six Sigma and lean operations concepts to develop process and quality improvements. This paper begins with an overview of operation management, and then it d iscusses the theory of lean operations and lean operations at the NHS. This paper also identifies the advantages and disadvantages of lean services. Operation Management Operations management generally refers to managing processes that produce products or render services (Greasley, 2008, p.3). During the twentieth century, developments in the theory of operations management progressed. ... Factory management slowly evolved into operations management on the supposition that manufacturing ideas could also be implemented for service organizations (Seddonand, & O'Donovan, 2010, p.34). Operation management has increasingly adopted quality management philosophies, such as Just-in-time (JIT) or lean operations and Six Sigma. These management philosophies or strategies have different objectives, but they generally agree about continued incremental quality improvements that will streamline operations and make production of goods and services more effective and efficient (Coronad et al., 2004; Dean, et al., 2009). They also have the same perspective on being part of the broader strategic management objectives of the company, and the lack of this integration has led to many lean operations efforts (Seddonand, & O'Donovan, 2010, p.34). Theory of Lean Operations Lean operations started from the theory of â€Å"lean manufacturing† that was popularized by Toyota’s Produ ction System (TPS). In the 1950s, Toyota created a set of techniques that concentrated on the supply chain side of production (Lee et al., 2008, p.973). Founder of Toyota and a renowned inventor Sakichi Toyoda started the development of the lean manufacturing concept, where the management focused on constantly improving work flow to reduce costs (Karanjkar, 2008, p.10.1). With his son Kiichiro Toyoda, they perfected the operations management concept of lean manufacturing (Karanjkar, 2008, p.10.1). Nevertheless, although lean operations is closely connected with the Japanese, in reality, some elements of its framework can be linked to Henry Ford’s production system, who also designed his production system, so that he could make customized products by