Trump Threatens Flag-Burning Americans With Loss Of Citizenship Or Jail

Fox News via Zero Hedge ^ | November 29, 2016 10:29 AM | by Tyler Durden

[SeekAndFind]

With snowflakes everywhere across America seemingly content to burn the Stars & Stripes to protest democracy's decision to elect what they have been told is a racist, homophobic, anti-semitic, sexist, tax-fraud as president...

... President-elect Donald Trump has put his foot down in this seemingly most unpatriotic of endeavors:

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

Of course, there is the small issue of changing the Constitution as flag burning remains protected speech by the First Amendment.

The catalyst for Trump's 7 a.m. tweet is unclear. Fox News reported earlier this month that Hampshire College in Massachusetts would stop flying all flags on campus after an American flag was burned following Trump’s win.

"We hope this will enable us to instead focus our efforts on addressing racist, misogynistic, Islamophobic, anti-immigrant, anti-Semitic and anti-LGBTQ rhetoric and behaviors," Hampshire's president, Jonathan Lash, said in a statement at the time. 

Rep. Sean Duffy (R-Wis.) pushed back on Trump’s proposal during an early morning interview. "I don't think we want to make this a legal issue," Duffy told CNN on Tuesday.

And before the liberal media gets hold of this tweet and claims Trump's fascist tyranny is peaking through against constitutionally protected rights to do whatever a citizen wants, don't forget that none other than the Hillary Clinton herself sponsored exactly this punishment in The Flag Protection Act of 2005

In 2005 a bill was introduced that would outlaw burning the American flag.

That bill was introed by: @HillaryClinton & Sen Bennett (R-UT) pic.twitter.com/3hKzTjV0E9

— Frank Thorp V (@frankthorp) November 29, 2016

The Flag Protection Act of 2005 was a proposed United States federal law introduced by Senators Hillary Clinton and Robert Bennett. The law would have outlawed flag burning, and called for a punishment of one year in jail and a fine of $100,000. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, the act was summarized as such:

Amends the federal criminal code to revise provisions regarding desecration of the flag to prohibit: (1) destroying or damaging a U.S. flag with the primary purpose and intent to incite or produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace; or (2) stealing or knowingly converting the use of a U.S. flag either belonging to the United States or on lands reserved for the United States and intentionally destroying or damaging that flag.

Early in his presidential campaign, Trump said that he supported revoking the citizenship of babies born to undocumented immigrants, but this appears to be the first time since then that he’s proposed revoking citizenship as a punishment.

[Lorianne]

... or from displaying the Confederate flag, etc.

Basically if you give the government to ability to tell you what you can and cannot say (or express in other ways) there is no end to it.

[ZULU]

I think you need to morph more Libertarian, read the dissenting opinion, and think a little on it.

The Flag represents America and the people of America and what America stands for at its best. Brave men and women died protecting that flag from abuse in the face of an enemy and we shouldn’t allow domestic enemies to do it scot free here.

There is little doubt that decisions of 9 men and women on the SCOTUS have often been WRONG, have been reversed and rejected in the past and there is good reason for revisiting this now. Its PAST time we got a little self respect back and stopped allowing a small bunch of radical drama queens who hate America dictate what we will accept.

As for respecting the Constitution, I do and that is why I believe in original intent and freedom of speech and freedom of the press and speech is exactly that and has nothing to do with “expression”. If “expression” was always protected, people would be allowed to walk down the street naked or screw dogs in public, and they are not for good reason. And for good reason, no one should be allowed to disgrace our flag.

Until 1989 when Brennan’s court decision suddenly “discovered” this previously unknown “right” at the urging of mad dog liberal William Kunstler, a hate America type of the first order, very few if ANY people would have considered this act a matter of free speech.

[Electric Graffiti]

As for respecting the Constitution, I do and that is why I believe in original intent and freedom of speech and freedom of the press and speech is exactly that and has nothing to do with “expression”. If “expression” was always protected, people would be allowed to walk down the street naked or screw dogs in public, and they are not for good reason. And for good reason, no one should be allowed to disgrace our flag.

Spot on.

[morphing libertarian]

The fact that the flag represents hose things makes it even more fodder as a symbol of protest because it pushes buttons of people like you.

I don’t read dissenting opinions when I have fully formulated my opinions. I have understood the bill of rights since we were taught them by a catholic priest born in Ireland.

No ne is asking you to accept anything except people’s rights as your rights should be respected.

You may respect the constitution but you clearly don’t understand some of the basic precepts.

[ZULU]

No. The Internet is covered by freedom of the press and speech. But not of expression.

[ZULU]

Rehnquist would disagree with you. No freedom is absolute.

[ZULU]

Rehnquist would disagree with you. No freedom is absolute.

[Roman_War_Criminal]

I disagree and he’ll have a good time enforcing this in court.

[fwdude]

Actually starting a fire in public is what the cops charge you with, not burning the flag per se

Which the leftist Am Flag burners never get charged with.

[fwdude]

Anti-sodomy protesters in my city were arrested along a route of the “gay pride” parade in my city. And no code violations were committed. They were arrested for “hate.”

[Lorianne]

Well since I didn’t argue that it is absolute, I don’t have to defend that position.

I’m pointing out the slippery slope that so many here want to ignore.

[CelesteChristi]

Right

[Lorianne]

Which is wrong and where we are headed with repeated incursions into 1A. The flag issue is a camel’s nose under the tent.

[ZULU]

People like me??

I am not a priest and I was not born in Ireland but in America and I don’t need any foreigner to teach me my rights, especially somebody who was probably born much later then I was.

Society needs to have some respect for itself and the things it values or it becomes an association of self centered pigs who think they have a privilege to do anything that seizes them at the moment regardless of how impacts or insults others.

I was born in 1946, right after WW2 ended. I lived at a time when America still respected itself as it deserves to be respected because it is the best place that ever existed.

I saw it change, not for the better, thanks to people like you and wacko liberal jurists who feel people have a right to do anything they choose regardless of how it impacts society and other people.

During most of the lifetime of America, the American flag was an object of special reverence and respect and if anyone tried disgracing it in public, there would have been little need of a court to deal with the problem. We would have seen to it ourselves.

To my knowledge, nobody came down from Heaven in 1989 with a new revelation from God to the effect that it was now O.K. to allow pigs to insult the American flag with impugnity.

[tumblindice]

“Would you like to see a federal agency that forces people to stand for the National Anthem?”
We’re not talking about forcing people to stand for the national anthem. The issue is flag desecration.

[morphing libertarian]

I guess were done. I have some protesters to arrest.

[ZULU]

Exactly, because once movements like this get some legitimacy from the courts and the drive by media and the liberal establishment, people immediately stand back and refuse to get involved.

All of which is a reason for doing exactly what Trump proposes.

It seems ridiculous to have to adopt an Amendment to protect our national flag from pigs, but it would seem it has to come down to this if necessary.

[ZULU]

You mean, “I guess we’re done.”

[Boogieman]

The flag code is not a criminal law, it’s just a bunch of optional advice.

[Boogieman]

What, you don’t believe they exist???