Texas in the US Supreme Court - Assignment Example

?America Only More So: Texas in the United s Supreme Court The first amendment of the US constitution protects the rights to freedom of religionand freedom of expression. The freedom of expression consists right to freedom of speech, press, assembly, and petition to the government for implied rights of association and belief. On the other hand, fourteenth amendment recognises the sovereignty of persons born in the US and endeavours to protect their life, liberty, and property. This paper examines Texas state laws in relation to capital punishments, abortion, religion, and national emblem to put some light on how the US Supreme Court deals with them. According to Hoye, “on several occasions the US supreme court has determined that state laws and practices have violated basic Americans liberties” (Maxwell et al 65). Although the law clearly stipulates different rights accorded to individuals that allow them to be off the government interference, there is a limit to it. It is the duty of the Supreme Court to interpret the law and determines the extent of violation. On several cases in Texas State, the Supreme Court was confronted with issues that would deny individuals their rights to liberty. First, in 2005, Thomas Van Orden brought a case against the state of Texas for allowing a six-foot by four-foot granite monument displaying the Ten Commandments on the grounds of a capital building. Orden felt that this is against the rights to religion given by the states by the first amendment. Despite a five against four votes, the judge ruled in favour of Texas State. The first amendment gives the right to freedom of worship and prohibits the government or a state from passing legislation that prefer one religion to another. This ruling means that the Supreme Court has the right to make a different interpretation from the rights given to the states. Secondly, an appealed case of Greg Johnson versus Texas State depicts how the Supreme Court can deny individuals the rights of expression. A law exists in the US that demands to honour the flag as a consecrated object. Tampering with the same means dishonour and desecration of the flag. In 1984 summer, in Dallas, Johnson who was leading other protesters burned the flag of US. The Supreme Court found him guilty of desecration of the flag and sentenced him for one year in prison with some fines. However, Texas criminal of court appeals overturned this ruling based on the first amendment that gives individuals rights to freedom of expression. Johnson’s conduct was expressive and thus protected by the first amendment and the fourteenth amendment. Again, this depicts that Supreme Courts can make mistakes, which are subject to correction through appeals by other courts. Lastly, although Texas courts have the most appeals cases compared to other states, arguably, they rank top in the number of cases reported for capital punishments (Maxwell et al. 66). Apparently, this is fostered by poor politics in the state that undermines individualism and the rights of the citizens. The state seems to live in the old times when this was acceptable. Therefore, nobody questions the existence of Sam Houston sculpture that represents the capital regime. Additionally, privacy rights advocate for abortion of innocent children against the human rights Governor EJ Davis and His Legacy for Texas Gauging from past leaders, the type of leadership offered by various governments determines the support they get from their subjects. This paper will examine the government of E J Davis, different policies he passed to his subjects and the balance between personal liberty and order. Many historians describe the government of Davis as the worst in Texas leadership history. Although, Davis was an honest, intelligent, and had a great vision for Texas, the type of people he chose to lead with were not equal to the task. Davis mistrusted the former Texas confederates who were bright enough to assist in his leadership. Davis used state power to enforce civil rights and political rights of former slaves, which attributed to his subjects resenting him (Maxwell et al 64). One reason for this resentment came from the actions of his soldiers who worked very heartlessly when exercising this role. Although in current governments, it is a normal occurrence for governments to use state funds to exercise minority’s interests, there is a budget set aside for such funds. Texans would have reacted less negatively if Davis had pursued fiscally conservative policies, taxing and spending less. The system of collection of taxes included individuals submitting their taxes through corrupt officers who were former slaves. The soldier used great brutality that amounted to revenge of the treatment received by them earlier. Therefore, despite the fact that some taxes went to build schools, roads, and homesteads, Texas residents did not take this lightly because of the brutality used (Maxwell et al 64). His taxes are not progressive in nature because they were imposed on people of all status equally. Additionally, soldiers did not follow the rules of collecting taxes as they would collect it under duress and for their own benefits. This means that taxes were often less than expected. The government can balance between personal liberty and against the need for law and order by selecting the correct team to work with. Davis acted blindly by selecting ex slaves to work as military officials. These are people full of bitterness and would revenge given the slightest chance. Additionally, the military did not represent people of integrity and with the required knowledge to accomplish their roles. With this team, the government was doomed to fail. Davis would have balanced between personal liberty, law, and order through involving his subjects in making policies and laws concerning different departments of his regime. Citizen involvement ensures that their desires are incorporated in the decisions made by the state. In fact, they own the process and thus give it support all the way. The government power, especially the executive power has expanded in today’s society against crime and terror. The current government in the US has formulated a constitution that governs human rights, liberty, and crime and terror. There is a law that governs all human activity, stipulating the necessary measure that can be taken for failure to comply with the laws. Works Cited Maxwell, William et al. “America Only More So: Texas in the United States Supreme Court,” Texas Politics Today, Texas, 2010: Print. Maxwell, William et al. “Governor EJ Davis and His Legacy for Texas,” Texas Politics Today, Texas, 2010: Print. Read More