Trump denounces flag burning

Source: USA Today
Published: Nov 29, 2016
Author: David M Jackson
Post Date: 2016-11-29 11:36:29 by misterwhite
Views: 12827

Although the Supreme Court has declared flag burning to be a constitutionally protected form of free speech, Donald Trump said Tuesday he still wants to make the practice illegal.

"Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag," the president-elect tweeted Tuesday. "If they do, there must be consequences — perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!"

It's not known what inspired Trump's condemnation of flag burning, or whether he will call on Congress to attempt a new law banning it.

While the Supreme Court has upheld flag burning, Trump will have at least one appointment to that body and has a chance to alter the court's ideological direction.

Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!
-- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 29, 2016

Post Comment   Private Reply

#1: misterwhite    To: All (#0)

BTW, Hillary proposed this back in 2005.

misterwhite posted on 2016-11-29 11:37:17   Reply   Private Reply

#2: misterwhite    To: All (#0)

"Donald Trump said Tuesday he still wants to make the practice illegal."

Let's keep flag burning legal, but not prosecute anyone who takes action against the flag burner. We avoid a constitutional conflict, free speech is protected (on all sides), and it provides a "teaching moment" -- Actions Have Consequences.

misterwhite posted on 2016-11-29 11:42:01   Reply   Private Reply

#3: Roscoe    To: misterwhite (#2)

Is flag burner burning free speech?

Roscoe posted on 2016-11-29 11:48:11   Reply   Private Reply

#4: misterwhite    To: Roscoe (#3)

"Is flag burner burning free speech?"

Yes it is.

And even though some may object -- especially the flag burner -- we must remember that ALL speech is protected, even speech with which we disagree.

misterwhite posted on 2016-11-29 12:06:25   Reply   Private Reply

#5: no gnu taxes    To: misterwhite (#0)

no gnu taxes posted on 2016-11-29 12:12:37   Reply   Private Reply

#6: misterwhite    To: no gnu taxes (#5)

Heavens! We don't need to do that. Simply declare flag burning as hate speech. Or inciting a riot. Or disturbing the peace. Or that flag burning is equivalent to fighting words.

Free speech doesn't include libel. Or slander. Or shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. Or profanity on the airwaves. We don't have to accept flag burning.

misterwhite posted on 2016-11-29 12:28:23   Reply   Private Reply

#7: Pinguinite    To: misterwhite (#0)

If flag burning ever becomes illegal, all protesters need do is create mock US flags... flags with one extra stripe, a missing star, one color slightly off, or maybe incorrect proportion of hight vs width. Just enough to legally disqualify it as a legal flag, and burn that. It'll look real enough on the street while it burns, but be completely legally defensible, with or without a Constitutional amendment.

Banning flag burning is a waste of time. People need to learn to deal with it as an activity that harms no one.

Pinguinite posted on 2016-11-29 12:55:21   Reply   Private Reply

#8: misterwhite    To: Pinguinite (#7)

"Banning flag burning is a waste of time."

Yep. That's why my solution is to not prosecute the actions of those offended. Short of murder.

misterwhite posted on 2016-11-29 12:59:25   Reply   Private Reply

#9: Deckard    To: misterwhite (#6)

Simply declare flag burning as hate speech. Or inciting a riot. Or disturbing the peace. Or that flag burning is equivalent to fighting words.

We don't have to accept flag burning.

Trump wants you to worship the state and its symbols which he believes are more important than your liberty

Murray Rothbard put the issue into perspective:

Keeping our eye on property rights, the entire flag question is resolved easily and instantly. Everyone has the right to buy (or weave) and therefore own a piece of cloth in the shape and design of an American flag (or in any other design) and to do with it what he will: fly it, burn it, defile it, bury it, put it in the closet, wear it, etc. Flag laws are unjustifiable violations of the rights of private property. (Constitutionally, there are many clauses from which private property rights can be derived.)

On the other hand, no one has the right to come up and burn your flag, or someone else’s. That should be illegal, not because a flag is being burned, but because the arsonist is burning your property without your permission. He is violating your property rights.

For so-called conservatives and faux conservatives like Donald Trump, property rights take a backseat to “desecration” of symbols representative of the state. “Are we to make a religion of statolatry? What sort of grotesque religion is that?” writes Rothbard.

Deckard posted on 2016-11-29 13:08:19   Reply   Private Reply

#10: Deckard    To: misterwhite, Roscoe (#4)

"Is flag burner burning free speech?"

Yes it is.

Unreal - apparently you two fascists don't see the difference between physically harming a person and making a statement by burning a piece of cloth.

And even though some may object -- especially the flag burner -- we must remember that ALL speech is protected, even speech with which we disagree.

So "freedom of speech" to you is to set fire to those whose speech offends you?

Bizarre!

Deckard posted on 2016-11-29 13:12:07   Reply   Private Reply

#11: Roscoe    To: Deckard (#10)

Roscoe posted on 2016-11-29 13:28:32   Reply   Private Reply

#12: misterwhite    To: Deckard (#10)

"Unreal - apparently you two fascists don't see the difference between physically harming a person and making a statement by burning a piece of cloth."

But you do see a difference, right? Just like there's a difference between physically harming a person and simply saying words.

Some redneck can walk up to a black guy and call him a nigger and the black guy can't harm him, right? There's a difference between words and hitting, right?

If he did hit him and it went to court, would the judge see a difference between the two acts?

Yeah. Right. Kiss my ass with your "difference".

misterwhite posted on 2016-11-29 13:59:07   Reply   Private Reply

#13: Roscoe    To: misterwhite (#12)

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire

Roscoe posted on 2016-11-29 14:01:18   Reply   Private Reply

#14: misterwhite    To: Deckard (#9)

"Everyone has the right to buy (or weave) and therefore own a piece of cloth in the shape and design of an American flag (or in any other design) and to do with it what he will: fly it, burn it, defile it, bury it, put it in the closet, wear it, etc."

I agree. In private.

But when they intentionally defile the flag in public to make some kind of "statement", then their behavior may be offensive to others.

Anyone offending my country in front of me will be treated the same as if they were offending my wife.

misterwhite posted on 2016-11-29 14:07:43   Reply   Private Reply

#15: misterwhite    To: Roscoe (#13)

"Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire"

" ... and the insulting or "fighting" words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."

Burning the American flag in public sure fits that definition.

misterwhite posted on 2016-11-29 14:25:40   Reply   Private Reply

#16: Roscoe    To: misterwhite (#15)

Burning the American flag in public sure fits that definition.

And if the USSC refuses to apply its doctrine to flag burning, then Congress may require the Court to do so. Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2.

Roscoe posted on 2016-11-29 14:49:33   Reply   Private Reply

#17: misterwhite    To: Roscoe (#16)

Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2.

Congress can remove USSC appellate jurisdiction under that section. In this case, they could deny the USSC any say-so in the flag burning matter.

But I don't believe they can require the court to rule one way or the other

misterwhite posted on 2016-11-29 15:04:54   Reply   Private Reply

#18: Roscoe    To: misterwhite (#17)

Why not? They can regulate the appellate jurisdiction of the court. Tell the Court they must apply their own doctrine reasonably and consistently. If the Court balks, just remind them who has an army.

If that seems a stretch, I have another statutory solution that would work, but I don't want to discuss it with the resident morons. Email me if you're curious.

Roscoe posted on 2016-11-29 15:15:30   Reply   Private Reply

#19: misterwhite    To: Roscoe (#18)

"Tell the Court they must apply their own doctrine reasonably"

They can do that today without bringing up Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2.

misterwhite posted on 2016-11-29 17:33:01   Reply   Private Reply

#20: Roscoe    To: misterwhite (#19)

They can do that today without bringing up Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2.

Of course. There's more than one stick.

Roscoe posted on 2016-11-29 17:51:11   Reply   Private Reply

#21: buckeroo    To: misterwhite (#0)

The government doesn't own the flag anymore than it owns the Constitution. Trump is chasing after rainbows and pixie faeries to get your heart pumping.

buckeroo posted on 2016-11-29 22:08:59   Reply   Private Reply

#22: Fred Mertz    To: buckeroo (#21)

I remember Poppy Bush proclaiming something like this about 28 years ago. I fell for it then like a dumbass. Not this time.

Fred Mertz posted on 2016-11-29 22:13:13   Reply   Private Reply

#23: buckeroo    To: Fred Mertz (#22)

Whats this "jerk" President-elect going to do next tyme?

buckeroo posted on 2016-11-29 22:17:05   Reply   Private Reply

#24: Fred Mertz    To: buckeroo (#23)

He's going to make money for himself and his 'fambly'.

Fred Mertz posted on 2016-11-29 22:22:23   Reply   Private Reply

#25: buckeroo    To: Fred Mertz (#24)

He already is making money. He solde two floors of his Trump Tower in NYC to the USGovernment secret service to protect his family in the Trump suite. A cool deal by the tens of millions of dollars for otherwise empty floors.

American Trump voters ... SUCKAS!

buckeroo posted on 2016-11-29 22:26:48   Reply   Private Reply

#26: GrandIsland    To: buckeroo (#25)

Fuck off, libtards.

KILLary was worse.

GrandIsland posted on 2016-11-29 22:54:07   Reply   Private Reply

#27: misterwhite    To: buckeroo (#21)

"The government doesn't own the flag anymore than it owns the Constitution."

So?

misterwhite posted on 2016-11-30 09:16:34   Reply   Private Reply

#28: misterwhite    To: buckeroo (#25)

"A cool deal by the tens of millions of dollars for otherwise empty floors."

-- The government is not buying the floors. They're renting.

-- The cost is supposedly $3 million per year.

-- This is less money than putting the Secret Service in hotel rooms.

-- Trump is saving the taxpayers money.

So I say the government should pay Trump the difference.

misterwhite posted on 2016-11-30 09:27:44   Reply   Private Reply