Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

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

Posted on 11/29/2016 11:06:20 AM PST by 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.



TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: citizenship; flagburning; oldglory; trump; trumpagenda; trumptransition
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161 last
To: pissant

“No, you brought up a non sequitur to move away from the 1A”

Applying your logic consistently (to show its absurdity) is not a non sequitur. It doesn’t seem like you even know what a non sequitur is from the way you are trying to use the term here.

“Wait, no mention in the constitution, as you say, yet they are illegal?”

Certainly. Now you are going to argue that everything that is illegal must be mentioned in the Constitution? That’s a whole new level of absurdity from you.

“Isn’t it unconstitutional to make laws against things not specifically mentioned, as you argue?”

No, it was YOUR argument that only rights that are specifically mentioned in the Constitution are protected (which of course would make the 10th amendment meaningless if it were true). I simply applied YOUR logic to other rights in order to show the absurdity of your thinking. Either way, rights and criminal laws are different subjects, if you want to conflate them, it is just going to make it that much easier to destroy your argument.

“You say regarding the 4A: “Sure, from the government”. So the right to be secure only applies to gov’t??”

The entire Bill of Rights only applies to the government. It is a list of things that the government is constrained from doing, not a list of things that private citizens are constrained from doing. Things that private citizens are constrained from doing would be “criminal laws”, which are not contained in the Constitution at all.

Pissant, you are old enough to have had to take a civics class before you graduated school. How is it that you are so confused about this stuff?


161 posted on 11/30/2016 10:18:28 AM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson