Question

I'm having trouble understanding US v Eichman case when it comes to the argument of the US. Based on the act created after Johnson there doesn't seem to be much solid support on why should the burning of the flag be illegal, if they don't have a strong support then why would they enforce the act?

Answer 1

@Shadow

Answer 2

Burning the flag is a disrespect to that country, and what it stands for.

Answer 3

yes but eichman used the first amendment and they could have used a million other ideas to defend themsleves, however, the US didn't do such thing.

Answer 4

Imagine a tug war if the US only pulls once and Eichman pulls like 10 times the US loses and I'm sure that they could have thought of better arguments.

Answer 5

@Aeon

Answer 6

@JustSaiyan

Answer 7

she is offline :/

Answer 8

Thats a he XD But I think he will be on tomorrow ^_^ Very good with history and science

Answer 9

oh ok sorry the picture misled me -.-' but thank you for tagging him then :) very helpful as usual

Answer 10

its okie and no problem :D

Answer 11

@SmokeyBrown when you get off work can you take a look at this

Answer 12

@SmokeyBrown

Answer 13

I think the reason why the US didn't really defend was cause it was a criminal case. Eichman broke a flag burning law and was arrested. So basically Eichman was being prosecuted, and he had to defend himself.

If it was a civil case, it would be like Eichman suing the U.S., and then both sides would have to argue.

I guess like the U.S.'s argument here is just violating the Flag Burning Act.

Answer 14

thank you!