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.

1. The word "speech" doesn't even appear in the quote.

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.

"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."

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.

Conduct, not speech.

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.

Do you not understand the meaning of the phrase "elements of communication"?

Do you understand the meaning of the word "ambiguous"?

SCOTUS has settled the issue - just deal with it.

The 5/4 decision doesn't even say flag burning is speech.

WTF do you think the First Amendment protects?

Your hatred of our Constitution

Your hatred of free speech is deplorable.

WTF do you think the First Amendment protects?

Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Anything else I can help you with?

"WTF do you think the First Amendment protects?"

Nude dancing.

Nude dancing.

And street riots (aka uprisings, fka looting).

In that case it should be easy for you to produce quotes from me.

Ok if you want to go there.

You don't think Mayweather should be allowed to do what women do.

But you are not ok with some faggot not being to do what some women do.

Faggots are immoral not born that way. You're immoral too. That is a fact.

You're also a hypocrite and want special privileges for sex offenders.

Don't go making any pro faggot remarks. Pro faggot remarks are greeted with bannings.

Pro faggot remarks are greeted with bannings.

You need to change the LF Banner:

Welcome to Liberty's Flame

Welcome to Liberty's Flame, an online meeting place for liberty minded people to discuss any and all national and international current events. There will be discussions about our rights under the constitution and rights endowed to us from our creator. The new world order, Bush's wars, government corruption and the coming cashless society will also be included on the discussion boards. Foreign invasions threatening our nation and its culture. Guns, primitive weapons and outdoor survival will also have discussion boards. A "how to" board as well as boards for business and education. Any 9/11 related news and articles. A Bible discussion board for discussion and Bible study. Also for those users interested we'll also have a place for you to submit your own articles. Also a discussion area to leak documents. The discussion boards are not limited to the topics listed; any news that one feels needs to be discussed is welcome at Liberty's Flame. This site was built upon the idea of free speech so everyone is welcome to come and discuss and debate the issues on hand.

Otherwise you will be known as a hypocrite.

You don't think Mayweather should be allowed to do what women do.

Name ONE woman that is a professional heavyweight boxer.

But you are not ok with some faggot not being to do what some women do.

Which is.....?

Faggots are immoral not born that way. You're immoral too. That is a fact.

No,it's religious dogma,which is nothing more than historic superstition.

You're also a hypocrite and want special privileges for sex offenders.

Either name the special privileges or admit you are a liar.

Don't go making any pro faggot remarks. Pro faggot remarks are greeted with bannings.

The sooner you come out of the closet and admit you are bi-sexual or homosexual,the happier you will be. You may even be happy for the first time in your life. Assuming of course you are not one of those people who are never happy unless they are unhappy. Most of those people vote Dim,though.

BTW,it is you and Fire Island who are ALWAYS the ones that bring up the issue of homosexuality here,not me. You might want to spend a little time wondering why that is the case.

Are you pimping for your faggot friends again?

You can tell your pimp to not worry. Nobody is trying to take you away from him,Princess.

You best live by yourself in the woods like the kook Uni bomber.

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?

Because their opinion states what the law actually is and is enforceable, as distinguished from your misguided ruminations which are not the law and are not enforceable against anyone, no matter how much you insist on repeating your meaningless blather.

As you certify that you know that the U.S. Supreme Court precedent is, you have no valid excuse.

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!

Back in 1869 the 14th Amendment was passed. It went into effect 38 years before 1907. The 1907 case was a 14th Amendment case. It did not set a first amendment precedent then, and it is uncitable for such purpose now.

IOW, you.

No, the dumb asshole who cited a 1907 14th Amendment case as a 21st century precedent on the First Amendment, after having the actual prevailing precedent cited and quoted.

Seems to me that you two clowns don't get it - flag burning has been ruled by SCOTUS as protected speech.

The world is coming to an end. Deckard and I are in perfect agreement.

Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) (see #6) is a First Amendment case, directly on point about flag burning.

Halter v. Nebraska, 205 U.S. 34 (1907) (see #37) is not a First Amendment case and it is not on point about flag burning. It is a 14th Amendment case concerning commercial advertising on beer bottles.

Even if Halter could be magically construed to be a First Amendment case related to flag burning, it could still not be cited as precedent over the more recent case, Johnson. Halter is irrelevant to the discussion, as are the irrelevant pictures of beer cans.

JUSTICE SCALIA ON FLAG-BURNING

http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/watch-antonin-scalia-flag-burning-donald-trump-video-justice-say-about-first-amendment-freedom-of-speech/

“If I were king, I wouldn’t go about letting people burn the American flag,” Scalia told Piers Morgan in the above interview. “However, we have a First Amendment which says that the right of free speech shall not be abridged, and it is addressed, in particular to speech critical of the government. I mean, that was the main kind of speech that tyrants would seek to suppress.”

“Burning the flag is a form of expression,” Scalia continued. He later added that burning a flag is an action that “expresses an idea.”

Scalia made similar comments over the years, referring to people who burn flags as “weirdos.”

“If it were up to me, I would put in jail every sandal-wearing, scruffy-bearded weirdo who burns the American flag. But I am not king,” Scalia said at Princeton University in 2015.

In his tweet, Trump showed that he disagrees with that. “Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag – if they do, there must be consequences – perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail,” Trump wrote.

Scalia, who died in February 2016, was on the U.S. Supreme Court when two cases centering on flag burning came up – Texas v. Johnson (1989) and United States v. Eichman (1990). In both cases, Scalia voted to protect flag burning as a form of protected free speech and agreed with the majority opinions written by William J. Brennan Jr. The 1989 case overturned a Texas state statue that banned the burning of the flag, while the 1990 case overturned the Flag Protection Act.

"flag burning has been ruled by SCOTUS as protected speech."

No one is saying they didn't. Where did you read that?

The argument is that SCOTUS is being selective and inconsistent. How can they ban hate speech but allow flag burning? How can they ban "fighting words" but allow flag burning? How can they ban behavior that incites violence but allow flag burning?

The FCC bans swear words over the air. Libel is banned. Slander is banned. Shouting "fire" in a theater is banned. There are plenty of examples of speech banned by the federal government.

In reality, you're supporting an exception.

"Back in 1869 the 14th Amendment was passed."

Yes. But it wasn't perverted by liberal justices until decades later.

Freedom of speech wasn't "incorporated" until 1925, in Gitlow v. New York. Meaning neither the federal government nor the federal Bill of Rights had anything to do with that 1907 case.

But it wasn't perverted by liberal justices until decades later.

You're wasting your time. Shit-For-Brains hates the truth.

No one is saying they didn't. Where did you read that?

Good. Then we are in perfect agreement that, according to law, flag burning is protected free speech as determined and reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Yes. But it wasn't perverted by liberal justices until decades later.

Freedom of speech wasn't "incorporated" until 1925, in Gitlow v. New York. Meaning neither the federal government nor the federal Bill of Rights had anything to do with that 1907 case.

Yes. But it wasn't perverted by liberal justices until decades later.

Whatever you say. But no matter how you disagree with the justices, their opinion is the one that counts, not yours.

Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) (see #6) is a First Amendment case, directly on point about flag burning.

Halter v. Nebraska, 205 U.S. 34 (1907) (see #37) is not a First Amendment case and it is not on point about flag burning. It is a 14th Amendment case concerning commercial advertising on beer bottles.

Even if Halter could be magically construed to be a First Amendment case related to flag burning, it could still not be cited as precedent over the more recent case, Johnson. Halter is irrelevant to the discussion, as the irrelevant pictures of beer cans.

Resort to denigrating a Supreme Court decision as 5-4 (#101), as if that means anything, is fruitless. A 5-4 decision is just as enforceable as a 9-0 decision. Obergefell was 5-4 and it struck down every state law in the land prohibiting same-sex marriage.

Neither will resort to citing Gitlow (1925), or your perception of 14th Amendment perversion, change the prevailing binding precedent set by Johnson in 1989.

As Antonin Scalia, no perverter of the Constitution, said,

“If I were king, I wouldn’t go about letting people burn the American flag,” Scalia told Piers Morgan in the above interview. “However, we have a First Amendment which says that the right of free speech shall not be abridged, and it is addressed, in particular to speech critical of the government. I mean, that was the main kind of speech that tyrants would seek to suppress.”

So, stop running about espousing the ideas of tyrants. Join with the conservative, original constructionist Justice Scalia, and reject tyranny.

“If it were up to me, I would put in jail every sandal-wearing, scruffy-bearded weirdo who burns the American flag. But I am not king,” Scalia said at Princeton University in 2015.

Give up trying to be king. Americans do not want a king.

Scalia, who died in February 2016, was on the U.S. Supreme Court when two cases centering on flag burning came up – Texas v. Johnson (1989) and United States v. Eichman (1990). In both cases, Scalia voted to protect flag burning as a form of protected free speech and agreed with the majority opinions written by William J. Brennan Jr.

Flag burning is a form of protected free speech. Work yourself through the seven stages of grief. You seem to be stuck on denial and anger.

• Shock or Disbelief
• Denial
• Anger
• Bargaining
• Guilt
• Depression
• Acceptance and Hope

"Good. Then we are in perfect agreement that, according to law, flag burning is protected free speech as determined and reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court."

Yep. And we are in perfect agreement that, according to law, abortion is legal, marijuana is illegal, asset forfeiture is legal, school prayer is not allowed, gay marriage is legal, gays in the military is allowed, discrimination against gays is illegal (despite religious views), nativity scenes on public lands are illegal, hate crimes (charged against whites) are legal, reverse discrimination is legal at universities, diversity targets (quotas) are legal, voluntary black segregation (at universities) is legal ... well, you get the idea.

Since these are all legal, there's no point in discussing them, right?

"Join with the conservative, original constructionist Justice Scalia"

He's dead. And he's wrong. He's dead wrong.

The court could rule tomorrow that flag burning is hate speech or 'fighting words' or incites violence.

If every time someone burned a flag they got the shit kicked out of them and sent to the hospital, the court would rule that way in a hurry. Is that what you want?

Yep. And we are in perfect agreement that, according to law, abortion is legal, marijuana is illegal, asset forfeiture is legal, school prayer is not allowed, gay marriage is legal, gays in the military is allowed, discrimination against gays is illegal (despite religious views), nativity scenes on public lands are illegal, hate crimes (charged against whites) are legal, reverse discrimination is legal at universities, diversity targets (quotas) are legal, voluntary black segregation (at universities) is legal ... well, you get the idea.

Since these are all legal, there's no point in discussing them, right?

The point of such discussion is that you disagree with the law as it is. That does not change the law. Whether one agrees with it or not, abortion is legal, marijuana is illegal, same-sex marriage is legal... well, you get the idea.

He's dead. And he's wrong. He's dead wrong.

The court could rule tomorrow that flag burning is hate speech or 'fighting words' or incites violence.

The court could rule tomorrow that they got it wrong in Brown v. Topeka Board of Education and bring back segregation.

One can posit that the court could rule any dumb thing one can imagine. If you entertain a good faith belief that the court will rule that flag burning is hate speech or "fighting words," or incites violence, or is an illegal act, I strongly support a course of therapy.

You are fully entitled to your opinion that the Supreme Court is wrong on just about everything. Their opinion is the law, and yours and mine are not.

Check case law. When your old lady calls 911... the Po Po is coming and entering... and if you don't like that, train your varmint family to not call for help. No search warrant needed.

You best live by yourself in the woods like the kook Uni bomber.

No one would dare call the useless 9-1-1 for any type of help from a fascist government. What are you crazy with silly assumptions?

No one would dare call the useless 9-1-1 for any type of help from a fascist government. What are you crazy with silly assumptions?

9-1-1 doesn't get any calls. Who knew?

"If you entertain a good faith belief that the court will rule that flag burning is hate speech or "fighting words," or incites violence, or is an illegal act"

My point is that there is no "constitutional crisis" created by making flag burning illegal. The U.S. Supreme Court simply declares that behavior to be hate speech or "fighting words," or that it incites violence, or is an illegal act.

Done.

My point is that there is no "constitutional crisis" created by making flag burning illegal. The U.S. Supreme Court simply declares that behavior to be hate speech or "fighting words," or that it incites violence, or is an illegal act.

Done.

And that is still as ridiculous a presumption as the Court ruling that Brown was wrong and separate but equal was decided correctly in Plessy. Tell me you really have a good faith belief that the U.S. Supreme Court is going to overturn Johnson.

Not too long ago there was a proposed constitutional amendment that cleared the House but not the Senate. If it is to change any time soon, it will be by an amendment.

PROPOSED FLAG DESCECRATION AMENDMENT

An amendment proposal almost made it to the states in 2005.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-joint-resolution/10

H.J.Res.10 - Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.

109th Congress (2005-2006)

Sponsor: Rep. Cunningham, Randy (Duke) [R-CA-50] (Introduced 01/25/2005)

Committees: House - Judiciary

Committee Reports: H. Rept. 109-131

Latest Action: 06/22/2005 Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-joint-resolution/10/all-actions?overview=closed&q=%7B%22roll-call-vote%22%3A%22all%22%7D

06/22/2005-2:38pm
On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 286 - 130 (Roll no. 296). (text: CR H4904)
Action By: House of Representatives

- - - - - - - - - -

https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/12

S.J.Res.12 - A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.

109th Congress (2005-2006)

Sponsor: Sen. Hatch, Orrin G. [R-UT] (Introduced 04/14/2005)

Committees: Senate - Judiciary

Latest Action: 06/27/2006 Failed of passage in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 66 - 34. Record Vote Number: 189.

"Tell me you really have a good faith belief that the U.S. Supreme Court is going to overturn Johnson."

Trump (and Congress) could threaten to "eliminate any judicial review by the U.S. Supreme Court of certain federal legislative or executive actions and of certain state actions, or alternatively transfer the judicial review responsibility to state courts by "knocking [federal courts]...out of the game."

If the U.S. Supreme Court refuses to define flag burning as "hate speech", "fighting words" or an incitement to imminent violence, then Congress should act, leaving the decision to the states. I think everyone has had enough of this f**king judicial oligarchy.

Trump (and Congress) could threaten to "eliminate any judicial review by the U.S. Supreme Court of certain federal legislative or executive actions and of certain state actions, or alternatively transfer the judicial review responsibility to state courts by "knocking [federal courts]...out of the game."

And you could hold your breath until you turn blue.

The Executive and Legislature cannot overturn a SCOTUS decision interpreting the Constitution. Continuing the argument to its logical conclusion, the Executive could use the army to imprison the judges and legislatures, and the President could proclaim himself King.

In theory, the Congress could totally defund the Executive and Judicial branches by doing nothing.

Before the Executive and Legislative engage in nonsense, they could initiate an amendment and give it to the states for ratification. There is a reasonable chance that 3/4ths of the states would ratify it.

"And you could hold your breath until you turn blue."

No. I said they could threaten to eliminate judicial review in the hope that the U.S.Supreme Court would come to it's senses.

Only if the U.S. Supreme Court refused to recognize the will of the people would Congress act.

Time to end the judicial oligarchy and get back to a government which reflects the will of the people.

With the U.S. Supreme Court always having the final word, that kind of negates the Founder's intent of three co-equal branches of government.

Time to end the judicial oligarchy and get back to a government which reflects the will of the people.

I agree that the Supreme court was never given the power it has usurped.

Question though. What happens when courts disagree?

I guess we will never have a perfect system.

In the 90's the Ohio Supreme court ruled that the schools in Ohio are unconstitutionally funded. Today we have the same system.

So maybe there is a way to ignore the Supreme court and some of its dumb decisions.