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.

[VR-21]

I believe what you’re mentioning is when Clinton, possibly the first thing he did in office, was to fire every US Attorney in the country...for the reason you mentioned.

[Boogieman]

If the flag isn’t their property, we already have laws against that, so we don’t need any new ones (or new creative interpretations).

[Boogieman]

No, the internet is a digital medium, everything is just bits on a magnetic drive somewhere. Go ahead and try to make a webpage with a pen or a typewriter, it won’t work.

[Boogieman]

“I’m far more a constitutionalist than you’ll ever be.”

Oh yeah, great argument there. You could improve it by adding a “so there! *raspberry*” at the end though.

“Conflating burning our flag with speech is your first mistake.”

Just repeating your opinion with nothing to back it up isn’t an argument either.

[pissant]

Can you jack-off in the middle of the Smithsonian in the name of free speech?

Can you cut the barbed wire at a military base in the name of protest?

Can you block a train from delivering its cargo?

Can you get on a airplane by burning your ID in the security line?

Can you paint graffiti on public buildings to exercise your free speech?

Can you juggle Molotov cocktails in front of the White House?

Can you block folks from attending church?

Can you burn tires in the Washington Mall?

Can you repeat the Boston Tea Party by raiding the Lipton Plant at night and trashing their product?

Can you shout fire in a theater?

Can you call 911 and bitch out the cops?

Can you fly your Cessna over the top of the Capital?

Can you plan jihad with your muzzie friends?

Can you piss on the graves at Arlington National Cemetery?

Can you take a bullhorn and lambast the guards at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier?

Can you swear allegiance to another country and get a security clearance?

Can you hobnob with foreign spies?

[Lorianne]

Just because you have the right and/or ability to do something does not mean it’s good.

I agree. But not everything that is not good is or should be a crime, especially one instigated at the federal level.

There should be no hate speech crimes then.

I agree again. There should be no "hate speech" laws at all. The entire concept is dangerous and unconstitutional. This practice establishes a class of crimes that could be called thought crimes ... the same as making desecration of the flag would be a thought crime.

If we go down this road we are moving into totalitarian, Stasi-like territory where everyone must at least on the surface appear to all think alike. It is a lie to ourselves (and illogical) to believe everyone thinks alike. We know that people hold anti-American sentiments. Why lie to ourselves that is doesn't exist? Furthermore, laws cannot stamp out thoughts, they can only bury them ... for a time.

This never works. Eventually everyone will be afraid to speak about anything (read history of Soviet era East Germany).

Nothing good can come of government repression of speech, thoughts, or non verbal expression of thoughts. The only thing that can come of that is government persecution which can be very capricious depending on who is in power at the moment. (Remember Pelosi and then DHS sec Napolitano saying that tea party protesters were "potential terrorists" implying that they should be put on some list and watched by the government?).

This is a very serious slippery slope. We do not want to give the government this kind of power over us because the government may one day decide to try to suppress our speech and thoughts.

[ZULU]

It’s tge equivalence of writing. Good night. Have a nice night.

[OldeGoat]

No, we don’t need to revise the Constitution.
We need to revise the definition of “protected speech”.

[Boogieman]

You can dream up a million little quandaries, but that is what we have the courts for. They’ve already decided on this issue long ago.

I suppose we should just put all free speech questions to pissant though, to settle, since you seem to know better than the Constitutional system that we’ve been working with for the last few centuries.

[pissant]

Funny, I don’t recall the constitution mentioning flag burning or equating such action with speech. I do recall the oft-retarded SCOTUS pulling it out of their arses tho. Just like abortion and Obamacare.

[Boogieman]

“Funny, I don’t recall the constitution mentioning flag burning or equating such action with speech.”

It doesn’t say anything about a right to self defense either. Sure, the 2nd amendment says we can bear arms, but not a word about using them to defend ourselves. I guess the government can outlaw that then, eh?

[pissant]

I thought we were talking about speech, not self preservation. But since you mentioned that, the preamble strongly suggests our rights to domestic tranquility and liberty, which would preclude the notion of murderers and rapists being given wanton powers to deprive such things. And the 4A is pretty clear that we have the RIGHT to be secure in their persons, houses, etc.

[RedWulf]

Burning a US flag is a hate crime against Americans. If we’re going to have hate crime laws, we might as well make use them for good.

[LeoWindhorse]

Thru an obsessive compulsive addiction to political correctness our people have come to accept the unacceptable , to tolerate the intolerable. . This has to change . We doom ourselves allowing this pernicious perfidy and cultural sedition to continue to flourish and grow in our midst. It’s time to separate the wheat from the tares. Never a better time , in ages , than now .

[Fury]

Re: 64. I think your statement is pretty accurate. President-Elect Trump is stating an opinion. Even as President, he (or Congress or the courts) could not strip citizenship of a US citizen (maybe for a naturalized citizen if granted citizenship via fraud).

[KeyLargo]

[Boogieman]

“I thought we were talking about speech, not self preservation.”

You want to exclude rights from protection if they aren’t specifically mentioned in the Constitution. I see no reason to limit that logic to speech.

“But since you mentioned that, the preamble strongly suggests our rights to domestic tranquility and liberty, which would preclude the notion of murderers and rapists being given wanton powers to deprive such things.”

Rape and murder are illegal, so they aren’t given “wanton powers” such as that. Doesn’t mean you have a right to defend yourself against them, though. After all, there is nothing in the Constitution that says you do.

“And the 4A is pretty clear that we have the RIGHT to be secure in their persons, houses, etc.”

Sure, from the government. Anyway a “right to be secure in your papers and persons” is not the same as a right to self defense. You’re grasping at straws.

[Lorianne]

We should not have “hate crimes”.
They are opposed to everything the flag supposedly represents.

The people who are desecrating the ideals the flag represents are worse than those desecrating the flag itself.

[Lorianne]

Sure, and when the “progressives” get in power they can re-define all sorts of things they way they want.

You’re playing with fire.

We need solid principles that can’t be “re-defined” every time someone gets their panties in a wad over something.

[pissant]

No, you brought up a non sequitur to move away from the 1A, which we had been discussing. But your logic is still weak.

You say: “Rape and murder are illegal, so they aren’t given “wanton powers” such as that.”

Wait, no mention in the constitution, as you say, yet they are illegal?!? How can that be? Isn’t it unconstitutional to make laws against things not specifically mentioned, as you argue?

You say regarding the 4A: “Sure, from the government”. So the right to be secure only applies to gov’t?? No, it says only government ALONE can determine, with oath, warrant & probable cause when to violate that RIGHT. IOW, the local housing authority, the Mafia, the Elks Club or your next door neighbors cannot do so in any circumstances.