The Effects of Caffeine on the Human Body Essay - 1325 Words

Caffeine has many negative effects on humans, such as increased heart rate (Lane, J.D., 2002), depression (Goldstein, 2008), and addiction to this â€Å"drug.† You may be asking yourself, â€Å"What is caffeine?† Well, caffeine is actually a stimulant (Barone, Roberts, 2008) that is found in beverages such as tea, coffee, and soft drinks. In fact, caffeine is the highest grossing and most used stimulant in the United States (Barone, Roberts, 2008). It is estimated that 85% of adults living in the United States consume caffeine on a daily basis (Barone, Roberts, 2008). That means for every 100 adults, 85 of them have had a drink that contained caffeine on any given day. One reason caffeine is so widely available compared to other stimulants is†¦show more content†¦The study also found out that 23% of the women tested don’t consume caffeine on a daily basis (Hoidrup, Gronbaeck, Gottschau, Lauritzen, Schroll, 2002). A higher percentage of males consume soda as their main source of caffeine, with less of a percentage not consuming any caffeine whatsoever (Hoidrup, Gronbaeck, Gottschau, Lauritzen, Schroll, 2002). One part of the human body that too much consumption of caffeine can affect negatively the your heart. Caffeine speeds up your brain cells, which speeds up your heart beat in the process. Too much caffeine will also raise your blood pressure. Caffeine using adults were polled on their stress levels given a 1 to 5 rating, with 5 being the most stressful. With each stress rating, each adult averaged a 1.7/0.4 mm Hg in blood pressure, and 1.8 beats per minute more in heart rate than adults in the lower stress rating (Lane, J.D., 2002). With further testing, they found that stress level and caffeine went hand in hand, with the highest caffeine users being the ones with 5 stress ratings. This study showed that consuming caffeinated beverages raises your blood pressure and heart rate by a considerable amount. In the same study as abo ve, they used 500 mg of caffeine (close to 4 cups of coffee) to see how much it raised a person’s blood pressure throughout a single day. On average a person’s blood pressure was 4 mm Hg higher during than day than on a normalShow MoreRelatedEffects Of Caffeine On The Human Body Essay2053 Words   |  9 Pageshave been addicted to caffeine. It started out with drinking diet coke which was my mother’s drink of choice, and then slowly as time went on it turned into Coca-Cola. I have experienced the harsh withdrawals that come with caffeine like the headaches, irritability, and those lovely morning shakes telling me that I need caffeine. The headaches and the shakes finally got so bad to the point where I needed coke in the morning just to function. At that point I realized that caffeine was probably not veryRead MoreThe Effects Of Caffeine On Human Brain And Body1825 Words   |  8 PagesCaffeine is a drug that has been studied for many years to learn more about how it effects the human brain and body. There have been many answers and yet there are still more answers to be found as scientists today continue to understand the effects of caffeine. We will look what parts of the brain involve sleep, how caffeine effects the brain and the body and try to determine if caffeine is a serious health threat or not. Adenosine also known as ATP stands for adenosine triphosphate which accordingRead MoreEffects Of Caffeine On The Consumption Of Caffeine1511 Words   |  7 PagesCaffeine, a popularly consumed central nervous system stimulant is consumed on a day to day basis around the globe.  Caffeine can be ingested into the body by either eating it or drinking it. Caffeine comes in forms of many processed foods such as coffee, chocolate bars, candy, sodas, and energy drinks as well as tea. For example millions of people all around the world consume coffee on a daily basis.  Due to the large consumption of caffeine, both the negative and positive side effects of consumingRead MoreCaffeine Addiction Essay800 Words   |  4 PagesIt is important to learn about caffeine addiction because people don’t know that they are addicted to it and that caffeine can damage the body and brain. There are a few positive and negative psychological effects of caffeine on the human body. Positive psychol ogical effects are concentration, focus, attention, improves memory, in some studies, and alertness. Negative psychological effects are anxiety, depression, irritable, and addiction. Some physiological effects are nausea, headache, restlessRead MoreCaffeine, is it Helping or Hurting America?1089 Words   |  5 Pages Caffeine is the most abused drug in the world. Many people wake up, and start there day with some sort of caffeine. Some it is for the energy boost, and to help them stay awake and focused. Others it is for the addictive crave. It is the most popular drug in the United States. Caffeine is in almost everything such as, sodas, over-counter medication, prescription drugs, cigarettes, foods, etc. The most consumed sources of caffeine are coffee and tea, and it [caffeine] can be harmful on your healthRead MoreEffects Of Energy Drink Consumption On All Age Groups Are Real And Impacts1613 Words   |  7 Pagesprovided evidence that just because the product is purchased by the public does not automatically mean it is beneficial long term (Wyrick). This new craze of energy drinks has the world consuming them at a staggering rate. The debates concerning the effects among energy drink consumption in all age groups are real and impacts most of us in some shape or form. Some people will argue t here are benefits found in some of the ingredients that enhance the psychological and physiological mental and cognitiveRead MoreThe Chemical Formula For Caffeine Essay736 Words   |  3 PagesCaffeine is used in various foods all around the world, reaching millions of people. The foods that contain caffeine include coffee, tea, cocoa, carbonated beverages and energy drinks.2 Caffeine is a stimulant that’s used daily to keep people awake and active throughout their busy days. But does this use do more good than harm, or more harm than good? The molecular formula for caffeine is C8H10N4O2 and it is chemically classified in the xanthine group.1 It was first discovered and isolated by FriedrichRead MoreThe Secrets of Caffeine1665 Words   |  7 Pagesaren’t aware that caffeine can act as a stimulant to the central nervous system. So once someone consumes a caffeinated beverage they may begin to notice a slight change in the way their body begins to feel. Caffeine can be found in many different places such as energy drinks, coffee, candy and also in other common beverages and over the counter medications. Caffeine can have major side effects on those who consume it on a regular routine, but caffeine can also have side effects on those who rarelyRead MoreEffects Of Caffeine On Our Health1358 Words   |  6 PagesCaffeine is one of the most commonly used drugs. In today’s fast-paced society, lots of people rely on caffeine from coffee to keep them energized throughout the day. Caffeine is a central nervous sys tem stimulant that can give you bursts of energy, but can also make you jittery if too much is consumed. According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, about 90 percent of the world’s population ingests some form of caffeine. In the United States, about 80 percent of us take in some caffeine everyRead MoreEssay On Caffeine1328 Words   |  6 Pages Today how many people drink caffeine daily and do not realize the harmful effects of doing so? Caffeine is found in many common drinks consumed by both adults and children on a daily basis. People are not concerned with the impact of caffeine on their bodies. Caffeine is addictive and the brain will become dependent on it to keep the mind awake. Caffeine keeps the body from falling asleep by blocking the adenosine receptors; adenosine is what makes the person sleepy. Caffeinated drinks are especially

Differences In Different Seasons By Andy Dufresne And Todd...

Andy Dufresne and Todd Bowden are two of many characters in the book Different Seasons by Stephen King, yet they couldn’t be any more different. One noticeable difference between Andy and Todd is their age. Todd is 13-17 and is still under the influence of his parents, while Andy is old enough to be a banker, and to drink. I believe that the age of both characters plays a major role in their actions throughout the entire story. Andy is a good guy, while Todd transforms into a â€Å"monster† (King, p.141). Despite all the differences, Todd and Andy are both introverted, they keep their feelings bottled up inside. In the beginning of Apt Pupil, Todd starts out as an innocent kid with a well-educated and wealthy family, unlike most adolescent†¦show more content†¦Andy is clinical and tight-lipped. This explains why he went to Shawshank for a crime he didn’t commit. I knew him for close to thirty years, and I can tell you he was the most self-possessed man Ive ever known. What was right with him hed only give you a little at a time. What was wrong with him he kept bottled up inside.(King, p.20). Andy secrecy plays a big role in the story. He was able to stay quiet about his tunnels, he had access to hidden money and not to mention he was outfoxing Norton and Hadley. Todd kept his emotions of anger bottled up, gradually leading him to a never-ending road of murder. â€Å"he felt a mad urge to take the 30.30 back into the house and shoot both of his parents and then go down to the slope overlooking the freeway.†( King, p.221). Both characters lived secretive lives but the r esult of them being so introverted were different. Andy’s secretive behavior led to him escaping prison, a place he didn’t deserve to go to, while it led Todd to a life of murder and the unleashing of the beast within him. The major difference between Todd Bowden and Andy Dufresne is their moral values. While Andy is in prison for being convicted of a crime he didnt commit, he keeps a calm approach to it all. He had something that most of the other prisoners, myself included, seemed to lack. Call it a sense of equanimity, or a feeling of inner peace, maybe even a constant and unwavering faith that someday the

Time Warner Analysis Free Essays

BUSINESS CASE ASSIGNMENT 1 Jie Tian Zhaopeng Li A. As part of strategic planning exercise, describe and analyze the vision and mission statements of Time Warner Inc. There is no explicit vision or mission statements on Time Warner’s website. We will write a custom essay sample on Time Warner Analysis or any similar topic only for you Order Now But according to the description of vision and mission statements on class the â€Å"ABOUT US† statement on the company’s website resembles the mission statement and the â€Å"OUR VALUES† statement fits the definition of vision statement. The â€Å"ABOUT US† statement describes that Time Warner Inc. a global leader in media and entertainment with businesses in television networks, film and TV entertainment and publishing, uses its industry-leading operating scale and brands to create, package and deliver high-quality content worldwide through multiple distribution outlets. First off, this mission statement is a product-oriented mission because it states what products and services it serves its customers. Second, the statement emphasizes that Time Warner is a global leader and provide services worldwide. It shows the scope and domain of the organization is around the globe. And it also clearly describes the organization’s purpose is to create, package and deliver high-quality content through multiple distribution outlets. The â€Å"OUR VALUES† on the website describes that the company encourages risk-taking and divergent voices, makes the highest quality premium content available on every device, creates value by working together within and across our business, upholds editorial independence and artistic expression, attracts and develops the world’s best talent and takes pride in serving the public interest. The â€Å"OUR VALUES† statement falls into seven categories which are creativity, customer focus, agility, teamwork, integrity, diversity and responsibility. The statements show the ambitious long-terms goals of the organization such as recruiting the world’s best talent and making its content available on every device. It also mentions how the organization will generate value for the future through effective teamwork, innovation and originality and embracing changes and opportunities B. Explain, in detail, its basis of competitive advantages using Porter’s generic strategies (show how this is supported through the firm’s value hain activities) Time Warner has four main subsidiaries which are Turner Broadcasting System, Warner Bros. Entertainment, Home Box Office, and Time Inc. Turner’s entertainment networks include TBS, TNT, Cartoon Network, tru TV, Turner Classic Movies and Boomerang. Turner’s news networks consist of CNN and HLN. Each of the subsidiaries of Turner has their own specialties for example that TBS focus on contemporary comedies like The Big Bang Theory, TNT focus on drama, tru TV focus on real-life stories from a first-person perspective. Warner Bros. Entertainment include Warner Bros. which produces and distributes feature films, Warner Bros. Television Group which develops, produces and distributes television series, reality-based entertainment shows and animation programs for the Company’s network and third parties. Other subsidiaries under Warner Bros. Entertainment are Warner Bros. Animation Inc. , Warner Home Video, Warner Bros. Digital Distribution, Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment, Warner Bros. Consumer Products Inc. and DC Entertainment. The third segment of the organization is Time Inc. which is the largest magazine publisher in the U. S. based on commercial avenue and published 21 magazines in print in U. S. and over 70 magazines out of U. S. which covers the topic of style and entertainment, lifestyle, news and sports. Time/Warner Retail Sales Marketing Inc. is also a subsidiary under Time Inc.. Home Box Office (HBO) is the nation’s most widely distributed multi-channel premium pay television service which consists of recently released uncut and uncensored theatrical motion pictures. Based upon the brief introduction of various segments in the organization above it can be concluded that the competitive advantage of Time Warner is founded on differentiation. Porter suggested that a firm could only apply one of the three generic strategies or the company could be â€Å"stuck in the middle† and will not achieve a competitive advantage. However, he also argued that firms could only succeed at multiple strategies by creating separate business units for each strategy. In Time Warner case differentiation strategy and differentiation focus strategy are both applied in achieve its competitive strategy. For networks and film business the company is competing with other film production and network companies. Television programming, feature films and news are the products of these industries which always have a massive audience scope and the companies try to differentiate themselves from competitors. The uniqueness of the product is the key in the competition that customers would like to pay a premium price for the products. Time Warner exploits its brand recognition and embraces innovation and creativity to product various different focused programs and movies to distinguish itself from its competitors. The competitive advantage is achieved through differentiation focus for HBO and magazines business because of their narrow market focus. Magazines like Essence and Golf face targeted audience instead of the broad scope audience. Time Warner has its own well developed distribution channel and sales marketing company. Therefore, its differentiation could be effectively supported by the outbound logistics and Sales Marketing sections in the value chain. C. Mintzberg’s family of strategies. Time Warner is involved in both the midstream and downstream business because it develops, produces and distributes feature films, TV programming and magazines. Time Warner distinguishes itself in achieving competitive advantage through differentiation strategy and differentiation focus strategy. Time Warner elaborates its core business by market development strategy and diversification strategy. Time Warner develops its market mainly by geographic expansion and technology expansion. For example, Turner distributed 57 networks of it regional entertainment brands in over 200 countries. Time Inc. made all of its’ U. S. magazines available at tablet editions. The CW broadcast network cooperated with Netflix. Inc. and Hulu to expand its distribution channel. Time Warner extends its core business by the strategies of entry and control and listening. The 50-50 joint venture between Warner Bros. and CBS Corporation created the CW broadcast network. How to cite Time Warner Analysis, Essay examples

Flag Desecration Essay Example For Students

Flag Desecration Essay The issue of flag desecration has been and continues to be ahighly controversial issue; on the one side there are those whobelieve that the flag is a unique symbol for our nation whichshould be preserved at all costs, while on the other are thosewho believe that flag burning is a form of free speech and thatany legislation designed to prevent this form of expression iscontrary to the ideals of the First Amendment to ourShawn Eichman, as well as the majority of the United StatesSupreme Court, is in the latter of these groups. Many citizensbelieve that the freedom of speech granted to them in the FirstAmendment means that they can express themselves in any mannerthey wish as long as their right of expression does not infringeon the rights of others; others, however, believe that there areexceptions to this right of speech. Such constitutional issuesneed to be worked out by the Supreme Court, which uses its powersof constitutional interpretation and judicial review to outlinethe underpi nnings of the Constitution and interpret the law. The case which acted as an impetus for Eichmans actions wasthat of Texas v. Johnson. In 1984, in Dallas, Gregory Johnson,a member of the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade, a Maoistssociety, publicly burned a stolen American flag to protests there-nomination of Ronald Reagan as the Republican candidate (Levy217). The police consequently arrested Johnson not for hismessage but for his manner in delivering it; he had violated aTexas statute that prohibited the desecration of a veneratedobject by acts that the offender knows will seriously offend onor more persons (Downs 83). Johnson had hoped to captureAmericas attention with this burning, and he did; however, hisprotest 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 Courtconsidered for the first time whether the F irst Amendmentprotects desecration of the United States flag as a form ofsymbolic speech. A sharply divided Court had previously dealtwith symbolic speech cases that involved alleged misuses of theflag. While the Court had ruled in favor of the defendants inthose 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 flagdesecration (Downs 868). The court ruled in favor of Johnson(5-4), believing that there was no evidence that Johnsonsexpression threatened an imminent disturbance of the peace, andthat the statutes protection of the integrity of the flag as asymbol was improperly directed at the communicative messageentailed in flag burning (Downs 868). Justice Brennan concludedby saying, We do not consecrate the flag by punishing itsdesecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedom that thischerished emblem represents (Witt 409). Reacting to this ruling, the Untied St ates Congress soughtto pass legislation that would overturn it. The Flag ProtectionAmendment was introduced and then voted down, but then the FlagProtection Act was passed in both houses. President Bush allowedthis act to pass without his signature, an expression of hispreference for a Constitutional amendment (Apel FlagProtection). The Act criminalized the conduct of anyone whoknowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns,maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon a UnitedStates flag, except conduct related to the disposal of a worn orOn 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 unconstitutionalunder Texas v. Johnson, but prosecuted anyways, hoping to get thecourt to reverse its decision. The court decided that flagdesecration is a form of political expression that is protectedunder the First Amendment rights to free speech, and ruled infavor of Eichman by a vote of 5 to 4, thus nullify the FlagProtection Act which Eichman had been protesting (House 1144). The majority consisted of Justices Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun,Scalia, and Kennedy. Dissenting were Justices Stevens, Renquist,For the majority opinion, Justice Brennan wrote theAlthough the Flag Protection Act contains no explicitcontent-based limitation on the scope of prohibitedconduct, it is nevertheless clear that the Governments asserted interest is related to the suppression of free expressionMoreover, the preciselanguage of the Acts prohibitions confirms Congressinterest in the communicative impact of flag destructionIf there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an ideasimply because society finds the idea offensive ordisagreeable. Punishing desecration of the flag dilutes the very freedom that makes this emblem sorevered, and worth revering. (Supreme) According to Justice Anthony S tevens, The landmark decision wassimply a pure command of the Constitution. It is poignant butfundamental that the flag protects even those who hold it inDissenting, Justice Stevens, along with the Chief Justice,It is equally well settled that certain methods ofexpression may be prohibited if(a) the prohibition issupported by a legitimate societal interest this isunrelated to suppression of the ideas the speakerdesires to express; (b) the prohibition does not entailany interference with the speakers freedom to expressthose ideas by other means; and (c) the interest inallowing the speaker complete freedom of choice among alternative methods of expression is less important than the societal interest supporting theJustice Stevens concluded his opinion that by destroying thesymbol of freedom, the individual communicates a willingness toBy burning the embodiment of Americas collectivecommitment to freedom and equality, the flag burnercharges that the majority has forsaken the commitmentt hat continued respect for the flag isnothing more than hypocrisy. Such a charge may be madeeven if the flag burner loves the country and zealouslypursues the ideals that the country claims to honor. Groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)praised the ruling. Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLUsNational Washington Office showed her support when she said, TheFirst Amendment is this countrys first principle. It is acritical part of what has made our country uniquely free. Wehave been strengthened, not weakened, by the sweep of itslanguage and by the Supreme Courts adherence to its trueMany anti-flag desecration groups, particularly theCitizens Flag Alliance (CFA), were outraged by this ruling. These organizations petitioned Congress to reintroduce the FlagProtection Amendment. Since the ratification of the Constitutionin 1789, some 10,000 attempts have been made to amend it. Theyhave included ideas such as eliminating the Senate, andrenaming the country the United States of Earth. But never inthe nations history has anyone tried to amend the Bill ofRights. (Relin 18) To do so would be a dramatic step in that itcould pave the way for further future limitations on o urFor an amendment to the Constitution to be made, The houseand the Senate have to propose (each by 2/3 vote) exactly thesame text before the amendment is open for ratification by thestates (Apel Hasbrouck). If the amendment (to the FirstAmendment) is passed in both chambers, it then goes to the statesIn 1990, both the House and Senate failed to muster therequired two-thirds majority to pass the Flag ProtectionAmendment (Citizens). In 1995, however, the amendment clearedthe House by a vote of 312-120. This Senate Joint Resolution 31(S.J. Res. 31) was also passed by the Senate Judiciary Committeeby a vote of 12-6, but was then rejected by the Senate by only 3votes. In February of 1998, Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and MaxCleland (D-GA) reintroduced the amendment as S.J. Res. 40, but itwas decided that there was not enough time left in the term tovote on the amendment. Most recently, in March of 1999, the FlagProtection Amendment was reintroduced once again as S. J. Res. 14. Once again, it was passed in the House and by the SenateJudiciary Committee, but to date has not become ratified. Among those against the original amendment in 1990 wereGeorge Mitchell, Tom Daschle, Patrick Leahy, Dale Bumpers, DavidBoren, Howard Metzenbaum, Barbara Mikulski, Jeff Bingaman, BillBradley, Paul Simon, and Christopher Dodd. Perhaps the mostardent opponent to the amendment was Ted Kennedy. In an eloquentspeech he gave on June 11, 1990 he stated:When we pledge allegiance to the flag, we pledge allegiance to the principles for which it stands. Few,if any, of those are more fundamental to the strengthof our democracy than the first amendments guaranteeof freedom of speech. Let us not start down thisdisastrous road of restricting the majestic scope ofthe first amendment by picking the kinds of speech thatare to be permitted in our society. (Ted) He goes on to mention that this constitutional amendment mightirreparably damage the separation of powers that has protectedour constitutional freedoms throughout historybecause judgesinsulated from public pressure can best evaluate the claims of unpopular minorities. Kennedy is saying here that sinceCongress can be greatly influenced by special interest groups,such as the Citizens Flag Alliance, it is the responsibility ofthe judiciary branch of government to objectively rule as to whatIf the Senate amends the Bill of Rights for the first timein history by passing the Flag Protection Amendment, who knowswhere they would stop. Every nation in the world has a flag,and many of them, including some democracies, have laws againstdesecrating their flag. No other nation has a Bill of Rights(Levy 219). The year 1991 marked the 200th anniversary of itsratification, and, in my opinion, it requires no limitingamendment. The American people understand that they are notthreatened by flag burners, and the American people prefer theFirst Amendment undiluted. They understand that imprisoning afew extremists is not what patriotism is all about; forcedpatriotism is surely not American. Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NewYork) expressed these ideas whe n he said, If a jerk burns a flag, America is not threatened. Ifa jerk burns a flag, democracy is not under siege. IfA jerk burns a flag, freedom is not at risk and we arenot threatenedwe are offended; and to change ourConstitution because someone offends us is, in itself,unconscionable. (Apel Chronology). Flag burning may be all wrong, but a lot of wrongheadedspeech is protected by the First Amendment. The Bill or Rightsis a wonderfully terse, eloquent, and effective summation ofindividual freedoms, and there is no need to add except for flagburners. That exception, as the Court majority in United Statesv. Eichman realized, might show that the nation is so lacking infaith in itself that it permits the Johnsons and Eichmans todiminish the flags meaning. They are best treated, as Brennanargued, by saluting the flag that they burn or by ignoring themcontemptuously, not by paving the way for an assault on ourIn this research, I noted that all of the proponents for theEichman decision w ho were also against the Flag ProtectionAmendment used very logical, well-structured arguments, whilethose dissenting and in support of the amendment to anamendment use mostly emotional arguments and focus on therespect owed to all those who have died in the militaryprotecting the nation. These in the latter group seem usually tobe associated with the military themselves (e.g. Major GeneralPatrick H. Brady is the Board Chairman of the Citizens FlagI entirely agree with the Supreme Courts ruling in thiscase. Justice Stevens argued that flag-burning was not anacceptable form of expression because people could convey theirviews by other means; he seems to have failed to realize,however, that it is not the right of the government to limit oneto a certain means of voicing his or her opinions. Flag burningis a form of protest which rarely occurs and which does littlebut offend others. Perhaps a law such as the Flag ProtectionAct, while unconstitutional, is permissible as a means ofsilenci ng organization such as the CFA, but an amendment to ourBill of Rights if certainly going too far. The issue of flag desecration has been and continues to be ahighly controversial issue; on the one side there are those whobelieve that the flag is a unique symbol for our nation whichshould be preserved at all costs, while on the other are thosewho believe that flag burning is a form of free speech and thatany legislation designed to prevent this form of expression iscontrary to the ideals of the First Amendment to ourShawn Eichman, as well as the majority of the United StatesSupreme Court, is in the latter of these groups. Many citizensbelieve that the freedom of speech granted to them in the FirstAmendment means that they can express themselves in any mannerthey wish as long as their right of expression does not infringeon the rights of others; others, however, believe that there areexceptions to this right of speech. Such constitutional issuesneed to be worked out by the Supreme Co urt, which uses its powersof constitutional interpretation and judicial review to outlinethe underpinnings of the Constitution and interpret the law. The case which acted as an impetus for Eichmans actions wasthat of Texas v. Johnson. In 1984, in Dallas, Gregory Johnson,a member of the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade, a Maoistssociety, publicly burned a stolen American flag to protests there-nomination of Ronald Reagan as the Republican candidate (Levy217). The police consequently arrested Johnson not for hismessage but for his manner in delivering it; he had violated aTexas statute that prohibited the desecration of a veneratedobject by acts that the offender knows will seriously offend onor more persons (Downs 83). Johnson had hoped to captureAmericas attention with this burning, and he did; however, hisprotest 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 Courtconsidered for the first time whether the First Amendmentprotects desecration of the United States flag as a form ofsymbolic speech. A sharply divided Court had previously dealtwith symbolic speech cases that involved alleged misuses of theflag. While the Court had ruled in favor of the defendants inthose 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 flagdesecration (Downs 868). The court ruled in favor of Johnson(5-4), believing that there was no evidence that Johnsonsexpression threatened an imminent disturbance of the peace, andthat the statutes protection of the integrity of the flag as asymbol was improperly directed at the communicative messageentailed in flag burning (Downs 868). Justice Brennan concludedby saying, We do not consecrate the flag by punishing itsdesecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedom that thischerished emblem represents (Witt 409). Reacting to this ruling, the Untied States Congress soughtto pass legislation that would overturn it. The Flag ProtectionAmendment was introduced and then voted down, but then the FlagProtection Act was passed in both houses. President Bush allowedthis act to pass without his signature, an expression of hispreference for a Constitutional amendment (Apel FlagProtection). The Act criminalized the conduct of anyone whoknowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns,maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon a UnitedStates flag, except conduct related to the disposal of a worn orOn 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 unconstitutionalunder Texas v. Johnson, but prosecuted anyways, hoping to get thecourt to reverse its decision. The court decided that flagdesecration is a form of poli tical expression that is protectedunder the First Amendment rights to free speech, and ruled infavor of Eichman by a vote of 5 to 4, thus nullify the FlagProtection Act which Eichman had been protesting (House 1144). The majority consisted of Justices Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun,Scalia, and Kennedy. Dissenting were Justices Stevens, Renquist,For the majority opinion, Justice Brennan wrote theAlthough the Flag Protection Act contains no explicitcontent-based limitation on the scope of prohibitedconduct, it is nevertheless clear that the Governments asserted interest is related to the suppression of free expressionMoreover, the preciselanguage of the Acts prohibitions confirms Congressinterest in the communicative impact of flag destructionIf there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an ideasimply because society finds the idea offensive ordisagreeable. Punishing desecration of the flag dilutes the very fr eedom that makes this emblem sorevered, and worth revering. (Supreme) According to Justice Anthony Stevens, The landmark decision wassimply a pure command of the Constitution. It is poignant butfundamental that the flag protects even those who hold it inDissenting, Justice Stevens, along with the Chief Justice,It is equally well settled that certain methods ofexpression may be prohibited if(a) the prohibition issupported by a legitimate societal interest this isunrelated to suppression of the ideas the speakerdesires to express; (b) the prohibition does not entailany interference with the speakers freedom to expressthose ideas by other means; and (c) the interest inallowing the speaker complete freedom of choice among alternative methods of expression is less important than the societal interest supporting theJustice Stevens concluded his opinion that by destroying thesymbol of freedom, the individual communicates a willingness toBy burning the embodiment of Americas collectivecommi tment to freedom and equality, the flag burnercharges that the majority has forsaken the commitmentthat continued respect for the flag isnothing more than hypocrisy. Such a charge may be madeeven if the flag burner loves the country and zealouslypursues the ideals that the country claims to honor. What I Learned In Psychology Class EssayGroups such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)praised the ruling. Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLUsNational Washington Office showed her support when she said, TheFirst Amendment is this countrys first principle. It is acritical part of what has made our country uniquely free. Wehave been strengthened, not weakened, by the sweep of itslanguage and by the Supreme Courts adherence to its trueMany anti-flag desecration groups, particularly theCitizens Flag Alliance (CFA), were outraged by this ruling. These organizations petitioned Congress to reintroduce the FlagProtection Amendment. Since the ratification of the Constitutionin 1789, some 10,000 attempts have been made to amend it. Theyhave included ideas such as eliminating the Senate, andrenaming the country the United States of Earth. But never inthe nations history has anyone tried to amend the Bill ofRights. (Relin 18) To do so would be a dramatic step in that itcould pave t he way for further future limitations on ourFor an amendment to the Constitution to be made, The houseand the Senate have to propose (each by 2/3 vote) exactly thesame text before the amendment is open for ratification by thestates (Apel Hasbrouck). If the amendment (to the FirstAmendment) is passed in both chambers, it then goes to the statesIn 1990, both the House and Senate failed to muster therequired two-thirds majority to pass the Flag ProtectionAmendment (Citizens). In 1995, however, the amendment clearedthe House by a vote of 312-120. This Senate Joint Resolution 31(S.J. Res. 31) was also passed by the Senate Judiciary Committeeby a vote of 12-6, but was then rejected by the Senate by only 3votes. In February of 1998, Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and MaxCleland (D-GA) reintroduced the amendment as S.J. Res. 40, but itwas decided that there was not enough time left in the term tovote on the amendment. Most recently, in March of 1999, the FlagProtection Amendment was reintroduc ed once again as S. J. Res. 14. Once again, it was passed in the House and by the SenateJudiciary Committee, but to date has not become ratified. Among those against the original amendment in 1990 wereGeorge Mitchell, Tom Daschle, Patrick Leahy, Dale Bumpers, DavidBoren, Howard Metzenbaum, Barbara Mikulski, Jeff Bingaman, BillBradley, Paul Simon, and Christopher Dodd. Perhaps the mostardent opponent to the amendment was Ted Kennedy. In an eloquentspeech he gave on June 11, 1990 he stated:When we pledge allegiance to the flag, we pledge allegiance to the principles for which it stands. Few,if any, of those are more fundamental to the strengthof our democracy than the first amendments guaranteeof freedom of speech. Let us not start down thisdisastrous road of restricting the majestic scope ofthe first amendment by picking the kinds of speech thatare to be permitted in our society. (Ted) He goes on to mention that this constitutional amendment mightirreparably damage the separation of powers that has protectedour constitutional freedoms throughout historybecause judgesinsulated from public pressure can best evaluate the claims of unpopular minorities. Kennedy is saying here that sinceCongress can be greatly influenced by special interest groups,such as the Citizens Flag Alliance, it is the responsibility ofthe judiciary branch of government to objectively rule as to whatIf the Senate amends the Bill of Rights for the first timein history by passing the Flag Protection Amendment, who knowswhere they would stop. Every nation in the world has a flag,and many of them, including some democracies, have laws againstdesecrating their flag. No other nation has a Bill of Rights(Levy 219). The year 1991 marked the 200th anniversary of itsratification, and, in my opinion, it requires no limitingamendment. The American people understand that they are notthreatened by flag burners, and the American people prefer theFirst Amendment undiluted. They understand that imprisoning afew extremists is not what patriotism is all about; forcedpatriotism is surely not American. Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NewYork) expressed these ideas whe n he said, If a jerk burns a flag, America is not threatened. Ifa jerk burns a flag, democracy is not under siege. IfA jerk burns a flag, freedom is not at risk and we arenot threatenedwe are offended; and to change ourConstitution because someone offends us is, in itself,unconscionable. (Apel Chronology). Flag burning may be all wrong, but a lot of wrongheadedspeech is protected by the First Amendment. The Bill or Rightsis a wonderfully terse, eloquent, and effective summation ofindividual freedoms, and there is no need to add except for flagburners. That exception, as the Court majority in United Statesv. Eichman realized, might show that the nation is so lacking infaith in itself that it permits the Johnsons and Eichmans todiminish the flags meaning. They are best treated, as Brennanargued, by saluting the flag that they burn or by ignoring themcontemptuously, not by paving the way for an assault on ourIn this research, I noted that all of the proponents for theEichman decision w ho were also against the Flag ProtectionAmendment used very logical, well-structured arguments, whilethose dissenting and in support of the amendment to anamendment use mostly emotional arguments and focus on therespect owed to all those who have died in the militaryprotecting the nation. These in the latter group seem usually tobe associated with the military themselves (e.g. Major GeneralPatrick H. Brady is the Board Chairman of the Citizens FlagI entirely agree with the Supreme Courts ruling in thiscase. Justice Stevens argued that flag-burning was not anacceptable form of expression because people could convey theirviews by other means; he seems to have failed to realize,however, that it is not the right of the government to limit oneto a certain means of voicing his or her opinions. Flag burningis a form of protest which rarely occurs and which does littlebut offend others. Perhaps a law such as the Flag ProtectionAct, while unconstitutional, is permissible as a means ofsilenci ng organization such as the CFA, but an amendment to ourBill of Rights if certainly going too far. Bibliography:Works CitedApel, Warren S. ACLU Action Report. Online. Apel, Warren S. Chronology to Flag Burning. Online. Apel, Warren S. The Flag Protection Act of 1989. Online. Apel, Warren S. Hasbrouk Explains the Voting Procedure. Online. Citizens Flag Alliance: Significant Campaign Events. Online. Downs, Donald A. Eichman, United States v. The Oxford Guide to United States Supreme Court Decisions. NewYork: Oxford University Press, 1999: 83. Downs, Donald A. Texas v. Johnson. The Oxford Companion tothe Supreme Court of the United States. New York:Oxford University Press, 1992: 868-869. House Panel Approves Flag-Burning Measure. CongressionalQuarterly Weekly Report 17 May, 1997: 1444. Levy, Leonard W. Flag Desecration. Encyclopedia of theAmerican Constitution. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company, 1992: 217-220. Relin, David Oliver. A Burning Question. Scholastic Update21 Sept, 1990: 16-19. Supreme Court of the United States. Online. Ted Kennedy. Online. U.S. Supreme CourtUnited States v. Eichman. Online. Witt, Elden. Protest and the Flag. Congressional Quarterlys Guide to the Supreme Court. WashingtonD.C.: Congressional Quarterly Inc., 1990: 409.