U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: GOP rep: 'No president is allowed to burn the First Amendment’
Source:
The Hill
URL Source: http://thehill.com/homenews/house/3 ... ed-to-burn-the-first-amendment
Published: Nov 30, 2016
Author: Mark Hensch
Post Date: 2016-11-30 19:10:50 by Hondo68
Keywords: Impeach Trump, scofflaw, hates BOR
Views: 98577
Comments: 265
Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) on Tuesday defended the constitutionality of flag burning, saying President-elect Donald Trump would violate freedom of speech if he cracked down on it. "Nobody should burn the American flag, but our Constitution secures our right to do so. No president is allowed to burn the First Amendment," Amash tweeted. Nobody should burn the American flag, but our Constitution secures our right to do so. No president is allowed to burn the First Amendment. https://t.co/nVkq6WcbHV— Justin Amash (@justinamash) November 29, 2016 Trump earlier Tuesday floated severe penalties for flag burning, mentioning loss of citizenship or a year in jail. “Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag – if they do, there must be consequences – perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!” he tweeted. Trump did not specify what inspired his 7 a.m. tweet about flag burning, which is considered protected speech under U.S. law. The Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. Johnson in 1989 that burning the American flag is allowed under the First Amendment. A spokesman for Trump on Tuesday said he agrees with Trump that the controversial act should be outlawed. “I think most Americans would agree with me that flag burning should be illegal. It’s completely despicable,” Jason Miller told CNN’s “New Day." Rep. Sean Duffy (R-Wis.) told CNN he disagrees with Trump, though. “I don’t think we want to make this a legal issue. So I disagree with Mr. Trump on that, and the court is probably right," Duffy said. “I think the court is probably right that we want to protect those people who want to protest and their right to actually demonstrate with disgracing our flag, even though so many of us who love our country and love our flag object to it.” House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) also split with Trump and defended flag burning as free speech. “We have a First Amendment right. We’ll protect our First Amendment. That’s what the court has upheld,” he said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Tuesday. Poster Comment:
House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) also split with Trump and defended flag burning as free speech
Already there are the beginnings of an impeach Trump movement in the HOR, and he hasn't even taken office yet. (1 image)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-40) not displayed.
.
.
.
#41. To: Roscoe, Deckard (#37)
Halter was brought under the 14th Amendment regarding use of the flag in advertising, and not as a case of individual free speech. The court ruled, "we cannot hold that any privilege of American citizenship or that any right of personal liberty is violated by a state enactment forbidding the flag to be used as an advertisement on a bottle of beer." https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/205/34/case.html U.S. Supreme Court Halter v. Nebraska, 205 U.S. 34 (1907) Halter v. Nebraska No. 174 Submitted January 23, 1907 Decided March 4, 1907 [excerpts] The plaintiffs in error were proceeded against by criminal information upon the charge of having, in violation of the statute, unlawfully exposed to public view, sold, exposed for sale, and had in their possession for sale a bottle of beer upon which, for purposes of advertisement, was printed and painted a representation of the flag of the United States. Page 205 U. S. 39 The defendants pleaded not guilty, and at the trial insisted that the statute in question was null and void as infringing their personal liberty guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and depriving them, as citizens of the United States, of the right of exercising a privilege impliedly, if not expressly, guaranteed by the federal Constitution; also that the statute was invalid in that it permitted the use of the flag by publishers, newspapers, books, periodicals, etc., under certain circumstances, thus, it was alleged, discriminating in favor of one class and against others. These contentions were overruled, and the defendants, having been found guilty by a jury, were severally adjudged to pay a fine of $50 and the costs of the prosecution. Upon writ of error, the judgments were affirmed by the Supreme Court of Nebraska, and the case has been brought here upon the ground that the final order in that court deprived the defendants, respectively, or rights specially set up and claimed under the Constitution of the United States. It may be well at the outset to say that Congress has established no regulation as to the use of the flag, except that in the act approved February 20th, 1905, authorizing the registration of trademarks in commerce with foreign nations and among the states, it was provided that no mark shall be refused as a trademark on account of its nature "unless such mark . . . consists of or comprises the flag or coat of arms or other insignia of the United States, or any simulation thereof, or of any state or municipality, or of any foreign nation." 33 Stat. 724, § 5. - - - - - - - - - - Page 205 U. S. 43 in the tangible thing upon which a representation of the flag has been placed, the answer is that such representation -- which, in itself, cannot belong, as property, to an individual -- has been placed on such thing in violation of law, and subject to the power of government to prohibit its use for purposes of advertisement.
Some people never learn. ;) True,but it has mostly been the alleged Republican Party that has made a determined effort to keep him in the background. Have you ever seen him on one of the Sunday political talk shows? The area where the USMC base named Camp LeJune is located in is in Jones district,and he actually appeared before an assembly of Marines on the base and gave an anti-Iraq invasion speech before the invasion happened,and I read on the web the report from the local paper that said the Marines gave him a standing ovation for doing so. I stood up and gave him a standing ovation myself when reading about it. I have been hoping ever since that he would run for president. I am guessing that was the only newspaper that wrote about this. BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO! ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION! Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
Thanks! So were Thomas Jefferson,Ben Franklin,and George Washington. BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO! ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION! Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
Depends on the content and the intent of that speech. But burning the flag is done intentionally to provoke a reaction, to incite an immediate breach of the peace, or to incite imminent lawless action.
I think that even you will admit that is one VERY blurry line. BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO! ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION! Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
Burning a flag is done as a form of political expression and all you just said has been repeatedly rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court. Frequently, the very purpose of protected political expression is to provoke a reaction. If someone decides to indulge themselves in a breach of the peace or other lawless action, they are the one committing the criminal action. If a nitwit at a Trump rally was incited to some nitwittery, they did not arrest Donald Trump and remove him from the venue.
It certainly can be. But if someone is arrested for burning a flag, it is almost guaranteed that his attorney will argue that it was political expression. It would be a real challenge to show that there was no political intent. A law prohibiting flag burning per se, prohibits political expression. Hate speech has a nebulous character. Nowadays, it seems snowflakes call anything they do not like hate speech, and they run off to their safe space.
lol They were classical liberals. You're a leftist liberal 75 percent of the time.
Only from the POV of a dogmatic loon. As I keep saying over and over,and over,and over......,We are either ALL free,or NONE of us are free. It is such a simple concept I honestly can't understand how anyone could not understand it. A government that has the authority to monitor and punish MY thoughts,words,and political deeds,also has the authority to monitor and punish YOUR thoughts,words,and political deeds. And if they can,they will. It is the nature of ALL governments EVERYWHERE to seize all the power they can seize in order to stay in power. Free Speech is the most important tool we citizens have to use to prevent that from happening here. BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO! ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION! Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
Apple and oranges. Burning the American flag is not the same as a political editorial or a political speech. So you can stop trying to convince me that there's no difference. What's it going to take -- someone getting injured or killed burning the flag?
No problem with that. I just disagree with you that Floyd Mayweather should be on the woman's olynmpic boxing team. That doesn't make him any less equal and free if he isn't allowed.
States ban cross burning and there's no constitutional crisis. Flag burning can be banned for the same reason -- the intent is to provoke a reaction, to incite an immediate breach of the peace, or to incite imminent lawless action.
I think flag burning is protected "speech'. Even though it isn't really speech. People should be free to protest if they want to. I think people who burn American flags are assholes. I wouldn't even really care if someone kicked their ass. No it shouldn't be legal to kick their ass. But I wouldn't care if someone did.
Then our laws against hate speech and sexual harassment should be repealed. Time for everyone to suck it up.
If you don't threaten to kill someone. You should be able to say what you want. So i'm ok with that. Remember Scalia voted to allow flag burning too. If they made it illegal to burn flags. That wouldn't bother me to much either. Just saying.
The president president can by executive decision, and he has the guns to back him up. There are people and philosophies in this world that deserve to be hated. Giving voice to that hatred is not to be prohibited. There are worse things than hate speach. One of them is to succumb to compliance and repression by not pointing it out.
That's treason and Trump should be impeached, tried, and beheaded by ISIS McCain, if he does it. It would require a Constitutional amendment to make America, like North Korea. What's it going to take -- someone getting injured or killed burning the flag? According to the court, it is protected just the same. If you are offended, and you injure or kill someone, you will be the one going to prison.
That is the law as you want it to be. The law that is, is the law as stated by the U.S. Supreme Court. The have been a few attempts to amend the Constitution to make desecrating the flag a crime. One attempt passed in the House but failed in the Senate. Another Scotus opinion can change it, an amendment can change it, a blog post cannot.
No president is legally authorized, but he has the power if the army will obey the unlawful order. The Lincoln administration used the army to smash printing presses.
Legally means nothing to Obama & Company. They've already committed enough crimes to be hung and gotten away with it.
That is the law if it were consistently applied. If the intent and the result of the action incites an immediate breach of the peace it should not be constitutionally protected. You're so focused on the action you're ignoring the consequences. Worse, you fault those offended by the action.
Nope. Just call it hate speech. Hate speech is not protected under the first amendment. Game over.
Really? In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, (1992) the issue of freedom to express hatred arose again when a gang of white people burned a cross in the front yard of a black family. The local ordinance in St. Paul, Minnesota, criminalized such racist and hate-filled expressions and the teenager was charged thereunder. Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the Supreme Court, held that the prohibition against hate speech was unconstitutional as it contravened the First Amendment. The Supreme Court struck down the ordinance. Scalia explicated the fighting words exception as follows: “The reason why fighting words are categorically excluded from the protection of the First Amendment is not that their content communicates any particular idea, but that their content embodies a particularly intolerable (and socially unnecessary) mode of expressing whatever idea the speaker wishes to convey”. Because the hate speech ordinance was not concerned with the mode of expression, but with the content of expression, it was a violation of the freedom of speech. Thus, the Supreme Court embraced the idea that hate speech is permissible unless it will lead to imminent hate violence. The opinion noted "This conduct, if proved, might well have violated various Minnesota laws against arson, criminal damage to property", among a number of others, none of which was charged, including threats to any person, not to only protected classes. In 2011, the Supreme Court issued their ruling on Snyder v. Phelps, which concerned the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to protest with signs found offensive by many Americans. The issue presented was whether the 1st Amendment protected the expressions written on the signs. In an 8–1 decision the court sided with Phelps, the head of Westboro Baptist Church, thereby confirming their historically strong protection of hate speech, so long as it doesn't promote imminent violence. The Court explained, "speech deals with matters of public concern when it can 'be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community' or when it 'is a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public." Game over. That's what I've been saying about burning the flag. If the intent and the result of the action incites an immediate breach of the peace it should not be constitutionally protected.
Wrong. It's the stuff you don't like that really needs that protection. Right. "Thus, the Supreme Court embraced the idea that hate speech is permissible unless it will lead to imminent hate violence."
Dear Shit for Brains:
You got to give him credit. He excels at foot shots.
"IF". No. If one engages in political speech, as did Donald Trump, and some asshole or group of assholes decide to breach the peace or engage in riotous behavior, as some assholes did, it is the assholes who have committed the criminal offense. The speaker cannot be held criminally liable for what some hotheaded, or intolerant asshole will do in response to protected free speech. If Gary Great wears a MAGA hat, and Arnie Asshole punches him in the face, Gary has committed no criminal offense, Arnie has. I do not fault anyone for being offended. I fault them for responding with unlawful actions such as disturbing the peace, committing assault, or rioting.
Advertising is speech. Advertising using the U.S. flag on a beer bottle is not protected free speech. The court clearly stated: "we cannot hold that any privilege of American citizenship or that any right of personal liberty is violated by a state enactment forbidding the flag to be used as an advertisement on a bottle of beer." Which part are you having difficulty understanding. It's the court opinion YOU cited. You should have tried reading it, shit for brains.
It is just the difference between being legally authorized and simply usurping authority where legal authority is lacking.
... and if his speech intended and resulted in an immediate breach of the peace then he should be held liable. "I do not fault anyone for being offended." But that's where you're placing 100% of the blame. I should have asked the question earlier -- Does the first amendment protect all speech or is there some speech that is not protected?
When and where have I ever made such a claim? The Olympics is not a government,and they have the right to establish any set of rules they want to establish. In the FREE COUNTRY that America was CREATED to be,INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS had the undisputed right to discriminate against anyone and everyone they wanted to discriminate against BECAUSE THEY ARE PRIVATE CITIZENS,NOT THE GOVERNMENT. It's the GOVERNMENT THAT IS NOT ALLOWED TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST CITIZENS,and the feral government of today seems to do little that isn't discriminating against white people. Especially white males. BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO! ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION! Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
Then our laws against hate speech and sexual harassment should be repealed. Time for everyone to suck it up. BINGO! Give the man a cigar! If you don't like seeing or hearing what someone is doing,you have the right to turn around and walk away,or to get in their faces and tell them what's making you unhappy. BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO! ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION! Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
Protected by who, shit for brains?
Oh so you are a hypocrite on what you said earlier. It's ok a lot of people are inconsistent. TO bad you're inconsistent in the evil direction.
But that's where you're placing 100% of the blame. I should have asked the question earlier -- Does the first amendment protect all speech or is there some speech that is not protected? I did not place the blame. I cited and quoted the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly placing the blame and gave you multiple examples which you can only ignore. When Donald Trump proclaimed an intent to build a wall, and the liberal nutbags proceded to break the law, Donald Trump was not the criminal. Some speech is not protected, the classic example being shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. That has nothing to do with the specific example of burning a flag which has been directly and explicitly resolved, for legal purposes, by the U.S. Supreme Court. You do not have to like or approve of the opinion of the court, but what they say matters. It can be reversed by bringing another case before the court and having the court overturn its prior decisions, or by amending the Constitution. Disagreeing with Roe v. Wade or Obergefell does not make abortion or same-sex marriage illegal.
Protected by who, shit for brains? At your #37, YOU cited and quoted a 1907 opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court as precedent. According to the precedent YOU cited, and from which you quoted, using the U.S. flag on bottles of beer for advertising purposes is not protected free speech. The case you cited was not a 1st Amendment case at all. It was brought under the 14th Amendment which you would have known if you had bothered to read it. As had been demonstrated in my #6, Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) indicates, (a) Under the circumstances, Johnson's burning of the flag constituted expressive conduct, permitting him to invoke the First Amendment. The State conceded that the conduct was expressive. Occurring as it did at the end of a demonstration coinciding with the Republican National Convention, the expressive, overtly political nature of the conduct was both intentional and overwhelmingly apparent. Pp. 491 U. S. 402-406. (b) Texas has not asserted an interest in support of Johnson's conviction that is unrelated to the suppression of expression and would therefore permit application of the test set forth in United States v. O'Brien, 391 U. S. 367, whereby an important governmental interest in regulating nonspeech can justify incidental limitations on First Amendment freedoms when speech and nonspeech elements are combined in the same course of conduct. An interest in preventing breaches of the peace is not implicated on this record. Expression may not be prohibited Page 491 U. S. 398 on the basis that an audience that takes serious offense to the expression may disturb the peace, since the Government cannot assume that every expression of a provocative idea will incite a riot, but must look to the actual circumstances surrounding the expression. Johnson's expression of dissatisfaction with the Federal Government's policies also does not fall within the class of "fighting words" likely to be seen as a direct personal insult or an invitation to exchange fisticuffs. Flag burning constituting expressive conduct is protected by the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) is the prevailing precedent on flag burning. The happy horseshit you posted was a 14th Amendment case about using the U.S. flag as advertising on beer bottles.
Comments (81 - 265) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest"The statute of Nebraska preventing and punishing the desecration of the flag of the United States and prohibiting the sale of articles upon which there is a representation of the flag for advertising purposes is not unconstitutional..." - Halter v. Nebraska, 205 U.S. 34 (1907)
The act, among other things, makes it a misdemeanor, punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, for anyone to sell, expose for sale, or have in possession for sale, any article of merchandise upon which shall have been printed or placed, for purposes of advertisement, a representation of the flag of the United States. It expressly excepted, however, from its operation any newspaper, periodical, book, etc., on which should be printed, painted, or placed a representation of the flag "disconnected from any advertisement." 1 Cobbey's Ann.Stat.Neb. 1903, c. 139.
By the statute in question, the state has in substance declared that no one subject to its jurisdiction shall use the flag for purposes of trade and traffic -- a purpose wholly foreign to that for which it was provided by the nation. Such a use tends to degrade and cheapen the flag in the estimation of the people, as well as to defeat the object of maintaining it as an emblem of national power and national honor. And we cannot hold that any privilege of American citizenship or that any right of personal liberty is violated by a state enactment forbidding the flag to be used as an advertisement on a bottle of beer. It is familiar law that even the privileges of citizenship and the rights inhering in personal liberty are subject, in their enjoyment, to such reasonable restraints as may be required for the general good. Nor can we hold that anyone has a right of property which is violated by such an enactment as the one in question. If it be said that there is a right of property
#42. To: hondo68 (#27)
Walter B. Jones is still in the HOR, and retains his seat on the Armed Services Committee, in spite of Boehner removing him from others. At 73 years old, he still refuses to tow the party line. He's also a member of the Liberty Caucus.
#43. To: A K A Stone (#28)
You're liberal,
#44. To: nolu chan (#40)
"If Donald Trump went somewhere and gave a political speech, and a bunch of rabble took umbrage and decided to riot, that does not make the speech of Donald Trump a crime."
#45. To: nolu chan (#40)
Political speech is protected. Hate speech is not necessarily political speech and can be made for the purpose of creating a disturbance.
#46. To: misterwhite (#44)
But burning the flag is done intentionally to provoke a reaction, to incite an immediate breach of the peace, or to incite imminent lawless action.
#47. To: sneakypete (#45)
I think that even you will admit that is one VERY blurry line.
#48. To: sneakypete (#43)
You're liberal, Thanks! So were Thomas Jefferson,Ben Franklin,and George Washington.
#49. To: A K A Stone (#48)
You're a leftist liberal 75 percent of the time.
#50. To: nolu chan (#46)
#51. To: sneakypete (#49)
We are either ALL free,or NONE of us are free.
#52. To: nolu chan (#47)
"A law prohibiting flag burning per se, prohibits political expression."
#53. To: misterwhite (#52)
#54. To: A K A Stone (#53)
"I think flag burning is protected "speech'.
#55. To: misterwhite (#54)
Then our laws against hate speech and sexual harassment should be repealed. Time for everyone to suck it up.
#56. To: hondo68 (#0)
'No president is allowed to burn the First Amendment’
#57. To: rlk, Kim Jung Trump (#56)
president can [burn the First Amendment] by executive decision
The "anti-establishment" establishment
#58. To: misterwhite (#50)
Apple and oranges. Burning the American flag is not the same as a political editorial or a political speech. So you can stop trying to convince me that there's no difference.
#59. To: misterwhite (#52)
States ban cross burning and there's no constitutional crisis. Flag burning can be banned for the same reason -- the intent is to provoke a reaction, to incite an immediate breach of the peace, or to incite imminent lawless action.
#60. To: rlk, hondo68 (#56)
The president president can by executive decision, and he has the guns to back him up.
#61. To: nolu chan (#60)
No president is legally authorized, but he has the power if the army will obey the unlawful order.
#62. To: nolu chan (#59)
"That is the law as you want it to be."
#63. To: hondo68 (#57)
"It would require a Constitutional amendment ..."
#64. To: misterwhite, hondo68 (#63)
Just call it hate speech. Hate speech is not protected under the first amendment.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#65. To: Deckard (#64)
"Thus, the Supreme Court embraced the idea that hate speech is permissible unless it will lead to imminent hate violence."
#66. To: misterwhite, hate speech, ha ha (#63)
Hate speech is not protected under the first amendment
The "anti-establishment" establishment
#67. To: hondo68 (#66)
Hate speech is not protected under the first amendment.
Wrong.
#68. To: nolu chan (#41)
Halter was brought under the 14th Amendment regarding use of the flag in advertising, and not as a case of individual free speech.
#69. To: misterwhite (#67)
"Thus, the Supreme Court embraced the idea that hate speech is permissible unless it will lead to imminent hate violence."
#70. To: misterwhite (#65)
(Edited)
If the intent and the result of the action incites an immediate breach of the peace it should not be constitutionally protected.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#71. To: misterwhite (#62)
That is the law if it were consistently applied. If the intent and the result of the action incites an immediate breach of the peace it should not be constitutionally protected.
#72. To: Roscoe (#68)
Dear Shit for Brains:
#73. To: rlk (#61)
Legally means nothing to Obama & Company.
#74. To: nolu chan (#71)
"If one engages in political speech, as did Donald Trump..."
#75. To: A K A Stone (#51)
I just disagree with you that Floyd Mayweather should be on the woman's olynmpic boxing team.
#76. To: misterwhite (#54)
I think flag burning is protected "speech'.
#77. To: nolu chan (#72)
protected free speech.
#78. To: sneakypete (#75)
When and where have I ever made such a claim?
#79. To: misterwhite (#74)
"I do not fault anyone for being offended."
#80. To: Roscoe (#77)
protected free speech.
Held: Johnson's conviction for flag desecration is inconsistent with the First Amendment. Pp. 491 U. S. 402-420.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]