Unconstitutionality in Smith v. Goguen

I agree with the decision that the language in the Massachusetts statute is unconstitutionally vague concerning the presented case. Smith v. Goguen (1974) began in 1970 with two police officers seeing Valerie Goguen as he wore jeans with a four by six inches United States flag sewn to the left rear of the jeans. Later, one of the officers swore out a complaint due to contemptuous treatment of the flag with regard to the Massachusetts flag misuse statute (Smith v. Goguen, 1974). However, the Court held that the statute’s wording opposed the First and the Fourteenth Amendments (Smith v. Goguen, 1974). I agree with the holding because, as noted in the case, it is not clear what is meant by the word “contemptuously” (Smith v. Goguen, 1974, I). The ambiguity of the statute that affects people’s lives is one of the reasons not to support Goguen’s accusation.

The most significant impact of whether the statute is unconstitutionally vague is that it indicates the need for changes and clarification of some laws. The First Amendment prohibits “abridging the freedom of speech,” and Vile (2018) suggests thinking that Goguen was trying to express something with the flag on his jeans (U.S. Const. amend. I). When the police officers first encountered Goguen, he was talking with several people who “apparently” were not protesting or disrupting anything (Smith v. Goguen, 1974, I). Therefore, one can assume that Goguen did not communicate anything with his clothes, and there was no evidence of contemptuous treatment of the flag. Furthermore, Justice Lewis Powell has proposed the varying nature of contemptuous behavior (Vile, 2018). However, as the behavior is, yet again, not described specifically, it is not right to punish someone based on unsubstantiated conclusions. Smith v. Goguen shows that legislative documents must be precise and correspond with the Constitution to make judgments and prevent the confinement of innocent people.

References

Vile, J. R. (2018). The American flag: An encyclopedia of the stars and stripes in US history, culture, and law. ABC-CLIO.

Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566 (1974). Web.

Cite this paper

Select style

Reference

StudyCorgi. (2023, January 18). Unconstitutionality in Smith v. Goguen. https://studycorgi.com/unconstitutionality-in-smith-v-goguen/

Work Cited

"Unconstitutionality in Smith v. Goguen." StudyCorgi, 18 Jan. 2023, studycorgi.com/unconstitutionality-in-smith-v-goguen/.

* Hyperlink the URL after pasting it to your document

References

StudyCorgi. (2023) 'Unconstitutionality in Smith v. Goguen'. 18 January.

1. StudyCorgi. "Unconstitutionality in Smith v. Goguen." January 18, 2023. https://studycorgi.com/unconstitutionality-in-smith-v-goguen/.


Bibliography


StudyCorgi. "Unconstitutionality in Smith v. Goguen." January 18, 2023. https://studycorgi.com/unconstitutionality-in-smith-v-goguen/.

References

StudyCorgi. 2023. "Unconstitutionality in Smith v. Goguen." January 18, 2023. https://studycorgi.com/unconstitutionality-in-smith-v-goguen/.

This paper, “Unconstitutionality in Smith v. Goguen”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal. Please use the “Donate your paper” form to submit an essay.