Earl Warren

Name: Street v. New York — Dissent
Author: Earl Warren

Street v. New York — Dissent

Summary

“Street v. New York — Dissent”, is a work by Earl Warren. It explores elements such as flag, appellant and Stromberg.

Quotes from Street v. New York — Dissent (Earl Warren)

Earl Warren, Street v. New York — Dissent

“ Both those who seek constitutional shelter for acts of flag desecration perpetrated in the course of a political protest and those who must enforce the law are entitled to know the scope of constitutional protection. The Court's explicit reservation of the constitutionality of flag-burning prohibitions encourages others to test in the streets the power of our States and National Government to impose criminal sanctions upon those who would desecrate the flag. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Earl Warren, Street v. New York — Dissent

“ The Federal law provides you may burn an American flag; therefore, New York State is without power to make a complaint and convict a man for the burning of an American flag.
'Court: Motions denied. The question here would be whether he burned it because it was in such poor condition that it should be burned, or if it was an illegal demonstration.' (Emphasis added.)
Defense counsel insisted that burning the flag, an act he equated with a demonstration or picketing, was a form of speech for which his client could not be constitutionally punished. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Earl Warren, Street v. New York — Dissent

“ The Court first determined that a criminal conviction for display of a red flag as a symbol of opposition to organized government would impinge upon First Amendment freedoms. Since the jury charge was disjunctive, i.e., Miss Stromberg could be convicted if the jury found that she conducted the ceremony for any of the three statutorily prohibited goals, it was possible that her conviction rested totally upon an act entitled to constitutional protection. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Earl Warren, Street v. New York — Dissent

“ The parties obviously believe that the constitutionality of flag-desecration statutes is before the Court. The question posed by the Court of Appeals is the most succinct. Chief Judge Fuld, writing for a unanimous Court of Appeals, answered the question squarely; we should do likewise if we are to meet our responsibility. But the Court specifically refuses to decide this issue. Instead, it searches microscopically for the opportunity to decide the case on the peripheral Stromberg ground, holding that it is impossible to determine the basis for appellant's conviction. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Earl Warren, Street v. New York — Dissent

“ The federal statute to which counsel referred, 56 Stat. 377, c. 435, 36 U.S.C. § 173 et seq., concerns the manner in which the flag is to be displayed and in § 4 (j) , 56 Stat. 380, 36 U.S.C. § 176 (j) , mandates that the flag, when no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning. At the time of appellant's trial the federal prohibition of flag desecration, which in all material particulars was identical to New York's, applied only to the District of Columbia and could therefore not have pre-empted state legislation on the same subject. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Earl Warren, Street v. New York — Dissent

“ The allegation simply says that the defendant did wilfully and unlawfully set fire to an American flag and did say: 'If they did that to Meredith we don't need an American flag.' Under the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States and under the New York State constitution on freedom of speech they provide for protest in many forms, whether it be by burning a flag, demonstration or picketing. This is a form of demonstration and protest.
'Court: You say burning the flag is a form of demonstration? ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Earl Warren, Street v. New York — Dissent

“ However, w ere only the broad question is presented, it is our task and our responsibility to confront that question squarely and resolve it. In a time when the American flag has increasingly become an integral part of public protests, the constitutionality of the flag-desecration statutes enacted by all of the States [8] and Congress [9] is a matter of the most widespread concern. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Earl Warren, Street v. New York — Dissent

“ Now, we have two cases! One is Disorderly Conduct and one is Malicious Mischief.
'Mr. Goldstick: I see nothing in the information regarding a charge of Disorderly Conduct.
'Court: We have two ch rges before me! ”

Earl Warren

Summary

Quotes from Street v. New York — Dissent (Earl Warren)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature