Posted on 11/29/2016 5:43:34 AM PST by SamAdams76
President Elect Donald Trump put out an interesting tweet this morning: "Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!"
Maybe some 4-D chess going on? I also found this, Trump's Tweet coupled with a "Flag Protection Act" bill that none other than Crooked Hillary Clinton introduced to the senate floor in 2005.
Anyway, this should provoke some interesting discussion as well as another meltdown from the Left.
You live in a very privileged State.
Want to point that out in the Constitution for us since we are so stupid? Calling a dog a cat doesn’t really change a dog into a cat anymore than a stupid judge that defines anarchy as free speech really makes it free speech. However the media and you have changed this into a constitutional issue instead of a court decision by a dumb@ss judge issue.
It is only defined as free speech by a stupid court decision. Do you think that decision would have been made in 1943?
The only citizens that are not allowed to be offended seems to be White Christians, wonder why that is?
Depends entirely on your definition of free speech doesn't it? Maybe you could get all worked up about the meaning of "shall not be infringed" as well.
Where did you et that idea? Congress can legislate anything they want to, even legislation that the Court can have no say over.
As a military veteran who was in harms way more than once for this country, I respectfully submit that one of the things I was there for was to protect our right to speak out about anything having to do with our government - including but not limited to burning the flag, hanging any elected official in effigy - and burning them if you like - among other things.
If you allow for the government to punish someone who burns the US flag, then where will you draw the line after that? Eventually someone will want to punish someone for something else that a majority may find equally egregious. And they’ll use the “flag burning law” as precedent.
Does it piss me off when someone does it? Sure - but asshats are a dime a dozen. Ignore them and they’ll go away. Give them attention by arresting them and putting them on trial and everything else and you’re just giving them what they want: Attention.
Burning the flag is a small issue - compared to some of the things facing us, I’d say it’s at the sub-atomic level.
Take the moral high ground by ignoring those who do it and focus the national attention on the bigger fish we have to fry.
Or you can choose to act like the leftards and work yourself into a lather over it.
But you don't understand that the supremes can and do amend the Constitution on a regular basis, no Constitutional amendment required. Just a compliant congress.
One thing I never understood was why their is a standard to fold, dispose and care for an American flag, but no standard when it comes to setting it on fire in protest.
Political protest IS the reason for freedom of speech. The government cannot jail you for your opinions and for expressing them. Courts had affirmed,ed that carrying signs, wearing slogan’s on shirts, matching and burin gin flags are protected “speech.” It never ceases to amaze me when some conservatives chose government restrictions over freedom.
Not ever specific thing is spelled out. You can read the founders or research court cases. But political protest is and has been protected since the beginning.
Yeah, I am conspiring with the media to guarantee freedom. What to join us?
Everyone should be allowed to burn the flag . . . but burning the flag for public consumption should be, rebuttably, understood as a renunciation of American citizenship, same to be sold to someone from a foreign land who has been screened and will appreciate it.The proceeds of the sale used to transport the flag burner to any country he/she prefers, of those which will accept him/her.
Of course a hearing would ensue, and the flag burner could publicly reject the offer to buy his/her citizenship. Thereby negating the original insult.
If they censor speech, b=sue them or put them in jail. That doesn’t negate our right to political protest.
The pakistani flag comment is a straw man. If you can burn flags in political protest, you can urn any of them. You think only the supremes recognize the right to political protest?
Of course the word flag doesn’t appear. Shall we have a 10,000 page constitution so you don’t have to think and pay attention?
Carrying signs, wearing slogans on shorts, marching are also not spelled out, so what?
On the off chance that your question is serious, I offer the Constitution as the source of my idea. Article 1, Section 8 to narrow it a bit for you.
If you have not received instruction, regarding the founding of the country the Constitution may confuse you. Let me provide some clarification.
There are two major things to know about the Constitution.
The first is that the Constitution is not about the people. The Constitution is solely about how government is to function.
The second things is that Congress only has the specific legislative powers granted in article 1, Section 8.
Madison in Federalist No. 45: The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.
Perhaps there is more appeal in presenting it in more modern terms.
How to Configure a Packet Filter - General rules - least privilege
All that is not expressly permitted is prohibited
In a nutshell, if the Constitution does not specifically say they can legislate then they can’t.
You will not find the power to legislate marriage, abortion, or flag burning among the enumerated powers.
You are indeed an idiot. Congress can do anything including abolish the Constitution if they have the votes.
A damaged or worn out flag is supposed to be destroyed by burning; respectfully with ceremony.
Am I indeed an idiot because you did find an enumerated power to legislate flag burning or is that your normal reaction after you are correctly informed of something that disturbed your dogma?
The Internet is available for you to increase your awareness and knowledge of America's founding principles. I suggest you take full advantage of the Internet at your earliest opportunity, which is now.
Do not respond to me until you have bothered to increase your awareness of America's founding documents.
Yelling “fire” in a theater does not qualify as political dissent without fear of government retribution. It qualifies as stupid.
You are funny, since you only quote law and precedent with little regard for common sense. You do know Congress can abolish the Supreme Court but the Court cannot abolish the Congress. That ignores the fact that Congress has practically destroyed themselves but that is another argument.
All that is required today to amend the Constitution is to grossly misdefine some choice words. Then you lawyer types can look intelligent while you lecture your lessers in order to feel superior, while you argue in front of some black robed thugs that will nod approvingly while they agree that surely, throwing cr@p against the wall is speech.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.