About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

19 Ariz. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 679 (2002)
Political Symbols in Two Constitutional Orders: The Flag Desecration Decisions of the United States Supreme Court and the German Federal Constitutional Court

handle is hein.journals/ajicl19 and id is 695 raw text is: POLITICAL SYMBOLS IN TWO CONSTITUTIONAL ORDERS: THE FLAG DESECRATION DECISIONS OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT AND THE GERMAN FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL COURT Ute Krildewagen' Symbolism is a primitive but effective way of communicating ideas. The use of an emblem or flag to symbolize some system, idea, institution, or personality, is a short cut from mind to mind. Causes and nations, political parties, lodges and ecclesiastical groups seek to knit the loyalty of their followings to a flag or banner, a color or design.2 I. INTRODUCTION A symbol is a sign or representation, suggesting an idea or quality as by resemblance or by convention.' Daily life is saturated with symbols of all kinds: graphical, audible and textual symbols, gestures, facial expressions, clothes and odors. Symbols often operate on a subconscious or emotional level. This might explain why the treatment of political symbols such as flags or national anthems in constitutional jurisprudence sometimes has aroused immense passion.4 A recent example is the United States Supreme Court (Supreme Court) decision in Texas v. Johnson.' By a close five to four vote, the Court held that the conviction of Gregory Lee Johnson for burning the American flag in political protest violated his First Amendment right to free speech. In the public uproar that followed the Court's decision, a proposal to amend the United States Constitution failed and Congress enacted a federal Flag Protection Act, which the Supreme Court invalidated in the decision United States v. Eichman.6 On March 7, 1990, three months before the Supreme Court handed down the Eichman decision, the German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) 1. Attorney at Law, California and New York; Dr. iur. Candidate, University of Cologne; LL.M., University of California at Berkeley 2000; Erstes Staatsexamen (J.D. equivalent), University of Cologne 1998. 2. West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624,632 (1943). 3. See WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE 2316 (Philip Babcock ed., 1986). 4. See also Anerkennung fir das Sonnenbanner, FRANKFURTER ALLGEMEINE ZErrUNG, May 19, 1999, at 9; Kathryn Tolbert, A Pledge ofAllegiance, WASH. POST, Mar. 2, 2000, at A13 for the controversy around the so-called flag-and-anthem bill passed in Japan in 1999. 5. 491 U.S. 397 (1989). 6. 496 U.S. 310 (1990).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most