Changes

In 1935, two young Witnesses Lillian Gobitas and her younger brother William refused to salute the American flag in school in Minersville, Pennsylvania; both were expelled from public school. Their father found relief in the 3d Circuit Court of Appeals, but the children were still not accepted back in school. The case went to the Supreme Court, where the court held for the school board in an opinion written by Justice [[Felix Frankfurter]].  The Supreme Court ruled that the flag salute could be made mandatory despite religious convictions. The ruling led to assaults on Jehovah's Witnesses,  Three years later the court reversed its ruling against the Witnesses in 'West Virginia State Board of Education' v. 'Barnette' (1943). The Witnesses' trials support the position that American liberty does not emanate so much from localities and states taking their stand against a potentially tyrannical federal government as from an elite legal culture that places the Constitution and individual rights above the passions of communities and crowds.<ref>See Francis (2000)</ref>  

In 1935, two young Witnesses Lillian Gobitas and her younger brother William refused to salute the American flag in school in Minersville, Pennsylvania; both were expelled from public school. Their father found relief in the 3d Circuit Court of Appeals, but the children were still not accepted back in school. The case went to the Supreme Court, where the court held for the school board in an opinion written by Justice [[Felix Frankfurter]].  The Supreme Court ruled that the flag salute could be made mandatory despite religious convictions. The ruling led to assaults on Jehovah's Witnesses,  Three years later the court reversed its ruling against the Witnesses in 'West Virginia State Board of Education' v. 'Barnette' (1943). The Witnesses' trials support the position that American liberty does not emanate so much from localities and states taking their stand against a potentially tyrannical federal government as from an elite legal culture that places the Constitution and individual rights above the passions of communities and crowds.<ref>See Francis (2000)</ref>  

The many legal battles waged by the Jehovah's Witnesses in the Supreme Court during the 1930s-40's were not accidental but rather a result of a strategy employed by leaders of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society to secure the right to proselytization through winning key 1st Amendment cases in the high courts. Judge Joseph Franklin Rutherford envisioned using the law to empower and protect Jehovah's Witnesses against canvassing prohibitions and mob violence, but it was Hayden Covington of the group's legal department who actively steered Witnesses into legal confrontations nationwide. Covington deliberately sent Witnesses into areas where their activity was either prohibited or unpopular.{{citation needed}} Witnesses were aptly prepared for arrest and were given legal guidance about how to get their cases appealed to higher courts. The end result of this strategy was that 19 cases regarding Jehovah's Witnesses reached the Supreme Court during 1939-50.<ref>Jennifer Jacobs Henderson, "Witnesses and their Plan to Expand First Amendment Freedoms," ''Journal of Church & State'' 2004 46(4): 811-832, in [[EBSCO]]</ref>

The many legal battles waged by the Jehovah's Witnesses in the Supreme Court during the 1930s-40's were not accidental but rather a result of a strategy employed by leaders of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society to secure the right to proselytization through winning key 1st Amendment cases in the high courts. Judge Joseph Franklin Rutherford envisioned using the law to empower and protect Jehovah's Witnesses against canvassing prohibitions and mob violence, but it was Hayden Covington of the group's legal department who actively steered Witnesses into legal confrontations nationwide. Covington deliberately sent Witnesses into areas where their activity was either prohibited or unpopular.{{citation needed}} Witnesses were aptly prepared for arrest and were given legal guidance about how to get their cases appealed to higher courts. The end result of this strategy was that 19 cases regarding Jehovah's Witnesses reached the Supreme Court during 1939–50.<ref>Jennifer Jacobs Henderson, "Witnesses and their Plan to Expand First Amendment Freedoms," ''Journal of Church & State'' 2004 46(4): 811-832, in [[EBSCO]]</ref>

===Canada===

===Canada===