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.

[Boogieman]

“There are all kinds of things we don’t allow for good reason (Westboro freaks yelling on bullhorns at funerals, running around naked in public, for example). And I don’t give a darn how much nudists or feminazis scream that it is their “speech” to flash the world.”

Any laws against stuff like that are local laws. As usual, first the statist conservatives want to throw out the Bill of Rights, next they want to toss out federalism along with it.

[Morpheus2009]

Until the nuts say that burning the flag creates CO2 emissions.

[Boogieman]

“Free expression os freedom of speech. Speech is expression. It includes writing, demonstrating, wearing slogans, and burning flags because it includes POLITICAL PROTEST”

You know what is funny? I didn’t see any of these statist “conservatives” objecting that the Bundy protests weren’t a protected political protest.

I guess principles are relative depending on whether they apply to your allies or your enemies, eh?

[LeoWindhorse]

no , I believe Liberal progressive socialists should cease to exist in this country . It’s time to root out this pernicious social cancer and expunge it entirely from the fabric of our national identity . Clear enough ?

[Boogieman]

“No. The Internet is covered by freedom of the press and speech.”

According to your logic that I quoted, it isn’t. Where is the word “internet” in the Constitution? If “expression” is not protected because the word isn’t in the Bill of Rights, then “internet” is not protected either. You can’t have it both ways.

[morphing libertarian]

I don’t know about what the statist conservatives said. The “church” members had a right to protest in public or public lands. What I saw were a lot of locals and bikers countering. I liked that as a put down.

[Boogieman]

How exactly do you propose to do that? Going to send your “public safety committees” door to door looking for liberals?

[Jim Noble]

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

That's just because he's a nice guy.

If the whole Trump thing doesn't work out, those dudes will be praying for jail.

[Jim Noble]

There is absolutely, positively no First Amendment protection for “expressive conduct”, which is what flag burning is, and the recent developments of the law which allow it while protecting the traitors from a good horsewhipping are to be deplored.

[morphing libertarian]

The first amendment is rooted in political dissent. This includes action and speech. Demonstrations, slogans on clothes, sitting in, marching have all been defined as political expression and protected by the first, as has flag burning .

I have been reading unbelievable interpretations like yours all day. What is it about this issue that makes conservatives abandon basic american freedoms?

[Lorianne]

Sorry I don’t see it that way. Marching in the street and protesting is also free expression. We have the right to protest. If we don’t want to lose the right to protest we better take this very seriously.

Don’t get all caught up in the specifics of flag burning (there are many other ways to desecrate the flag) and think of the bigger picture. If the government can punish us for something like this it can punish us for much more besides.

[Lorianne]

Very clear.
Chrystal clear.
And very totalitarian ... which is not what this country is about.

[Lorianne]

situational ethics ... it’s not just for liberals it seems.

[pissant]

And idiots equate burning something in public with speech. How about we just allow bonfires on freeways. You know, good old speech like that.

[Boogieman]

“How about we just allow bonfires on freeways. You know, good old speech like that.”

Sure, if they can get a permit.

[pissant]

I’m far more a constitutionalist than you’ll ever be. Conflating burning our flag with speech is your first mistake.

[ZULU]

It still written medium.

[nikos1121]

Jeezuz. In the context of damaging public property, I don’t see how this is wrong.

[b4me]

I read somewhere Clinton fired/let go a lot of judges when he came in so he could appoint more along his views. Maybe Trump can do similar?

[b4me]

Just because you have the right and/or ability to do something does not mean it’s good. Or that it should become common when it’s toward the demise of the country and adds to lawlessness.

There should be no hate speech crimes then.

It cannot be both ways that flag burning is freedom of speech while “hate speech” is wrong/a crime, Especially when people can take even innocent words and twist them and say it was “hate speech”.

You cannot cut the baby (speech) in two and have it (the country) live.