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: 110931
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 (1-58) not displayed.
.
.
.
#59. To: misterwhite (#52)
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.
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. In that case it should be easy for you to produce quotes from me. Do it,or STFU about it. 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.
Not protected by who, shit for brains?
Assholes on the internet with diarrhea of the mouth.
Person "A" does something offensive. Person "B" reacts. You place 100% of the blame on person "B" and ignore person "A"'s actions which instigated the confrontation. Yes. You did place the blame. "I cited and quoted the U.S. Supreme Court" So? Everyone knows how the U.S. Supreme Court ruled. If you believe their word is the final word and that's the sum and substance of your argument, why are we even discussing the issue?
You can ask and ask and he'll never get it. So it's lesson time. Back in 1907, before the 14th amendment was perverted by activist judges, the Bill of Rights first amendment did NOT apply to the states. Gasp! Meaning that states were allowed to pass any laws they wished restricting any activity mentioned by the first amendment. Oh how I long for the days of a federal republic.
IOW, you.
Shit-For-Brain's disengenous passive voice evasions and ambiguous terms are all too predictable.
Seems to me that you two clowns don't get it - flag burning has been ruled by SCOTUS as protected speech. I suggest you both sober up and stop whining about it. It's not speech. Still terrified to quote the Court, I see.
Read the thread simpleton. Still terrified to quote the Court, I see.
When the Supreme Court ruled to allow American flag burning On June 21, 1989, a deeply divided United States Supreme Court upheld the rights of protesters to burn the American flag in a landmark First Amendment decision. In the controversial Texas v. Johnson case, the Court voted 5-4 in favor of Gregory Lee Johnson, the protester. Johnson’s actions, the majority argued, were symbolic speech political in nature and could be expressed even at the affront of those who disagreed with him. Justice William Brennan wrote the majority decision, with Justices Anthony Kennedy, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun and Antonin Scalia concurring. “Johnson was convicted for engaging in expressive conduct. The State’s interest in preventing breaches of the peace does not support his conviction because Johnson’s conduct did not threaten to disturb the peace,” said Brennan. “Nor does the State’s interest in preserving the flag as a symbol of nationhood and national unity justify his criminal conviction for engaging in political expression.” Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing a concurrence, spelled out his reasoning succinctly. “The hard fact is that sometimes we must make decisions we do not like. We make them because they are right, right in the sense that the law and the Constitution, as we see them, compel the result,” Kennedy said. “And so great is our commitment to the process that, except in the rare case, we do not pause to express distaste for the result, perhaps for fear of undermining a valued principle that dictates the decision. This is one of those rare cases. In 1984, Gregory Lee Johnson burned a flag at the Republican National Convention in Dallas. Officials in Texas arrested Johnson and convicted him of breaking a state law; he was sentenced to one year in prison and ordered to pay a $2,000 fine. In reaction to the Johnson decision, which only applied to the state of Texas, Congress passed an anti-flag burning law called the Flag Protection Act of 1989. But in 1990, the Court struck down that law as unconstitutional. “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable,” said Justice William Brennan. Now crawl back in your hole. Expressive conduct, whatever that is. Not speech. You really should try reading your cut and pastes.
Expressive conduct, whatever that is. Not speech. You really should try reading your cut and pastes. Maybe you should learn to read the entire post instead of cherry-picking the sentences that you delusionally believe bolster your case. In reaction to the Johnson decision, which only applied to the state of Texas, Congress passed an anti-flag burning law called the Flag Protection Act of 1989. But in 1990, the Court struck down that law as unconstitutional. 1. The word "speech" doesn't even appear in the quote. 2. It's not a quote from the decision. Be careful not to set yourself on fire at your next flag burning.
The Court found that, "Under the circumstances, Johnson's burning of the flag constituted expressive conduct, permitting him to invoke the First Amendment. ... 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." The court concluded that, while "the government generally has a freer hand in restricting expressive conduct than it has in restricting the written or spoken word," it may not "proscribe particular conduct because it has expressive elements." The Court rejected "the view that an apparently limitless variety of conduct can be labeled 'speech' whenever the person engaging in the conduct intends thereby to express an idea," but acknowledged that conduct may be "sufficiently imbued with elements of communication to fall within the scope of the First and Fourteenth Amendments." In deciding whether particular conduct possesses sufficient communicative elements to bring the First Amendment into play, the court asked whether "an intent to convey a particularized message was present, and [whether] the likelihood was great that the message would be understood by those who viewed it." You will never accept the fact that flag burning has been ruled constitutional by SCOTUS, so we're done here. Conduct, not speech. Nice foot shot! When you and your cronies expressively wiggle your dinkies in front of an elementary school, that's not speech either.
Do you not understand the meaning of the phrase "elements of communication"? The Court rejected "the view that an apparently limitless variety of conduct can be labeled 'speech' whenever the person engaging in the conduct intends thereby to express an idea," but acknowledged that conduct may be "sufficiently imbued with elements of communication to fall within the scope of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Fucking moron.
Comments (99 - 265) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestStates 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.
#81. To: A K A Stone (#78)
When and where have I ever made such a claim?
#82. To: nolu chan (#80)
using the U.S. flag on bottles of beer for advertising purposes is not protected free speech.
#83. To: Roscoe (#82)
Not protected by who, shit for brains?
#84. To: nolu chan (#79)
"I did not place the blame."
#85. To: Roscoe, nolu chan (#82)
"Not protected by who, shit for brains?"
#86. To: nolu chan (#83)
Assholes on the internet with diarrhea of the mouth.
#87. To: misterwhite (#85)
(Edited)
You can ask and ask and he'll never get it.
#88. To: Roscoe, misterwhite (#87)
(Edited)
You can ask and ask and he'll never get it.
“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."
#89. To: Deckard (#88)
#90. To: Roscoe (#89)
Still terrified to quote the Court, I see.
“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."
#91. To: Deckard (#90)
#92. To: Roscoe (#91)
(Edited)
“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."
#93. To: Deckard (#92)
Johnson was convicted for engaging in expressive conduct.
#94. To: Roscoe (#93)
Johnson was convicted for engaging in expressive conduct.
“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."
#95. To: Deckard (#94)
In reaction to the Johnson decision, which only applied to the state of Texas, Congress passed an anti-flag burning law called the Flag Protection Act of 1989. But in 1990, the Court struck down that law as unconstitutional.
#96. To: Roscoe (#95)
1. The word "speech" doesn't even appear in the quote.
“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."
#97. To: Deckard (#96)
"the government generally has a freer hand in restricting expressive conduct than it has in restricting the written or spoken word," it may not "proscribe particular conduct because it has expressive elements."
#98. To: Roscoe (#97)
Conduct, not speech.
“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."
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]