Posted on 11/29/2016 11:06:20 AM PST by SeekAndFind
The interesting fact that Hitlary is said to have promoted this way back when is that she was going with the tide on this. It was found to be a freedom of speech to burn the US Flag in protest which quickly put a kabosh on her touting the flag burning ban. I am not defending Hitlary nor am I defending the right to burn the flag. I think if people in the USA wants to burn the flag, they should also burn their citizenship as well. I proudly supported and defended the flag back then and still do so today. The only reason I bring this up is because the MSM won’t.
If would save a lot of cops lives.
Just because some judges claim speech and burning are the same thing doesn't make it true. Let's make it known that burning equals endangerment-of-the-public and throw the burners in jail.
Trump isn’t threatening them. He knows that it their Constitutional right; he’s just expressing his disgust as an American for an act that he considers anti-American.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson#Rehnquist.27s_dissent
I agree with Rehnquist AND TRUMP. People who desecrate the flag should face legal punishment. It is NOT a valid expression of political belief.
I am 100 percent in support of fag burning.
I think he is wrong with or without the SC (which I agree has made wrong decisions in the past).
Free speech and freedom of religion (both part of 1A) cannot be assailed without serious repercussions. It cannot be jiggered with on one issue without affecting all the rest.
You have the right take.
This is a diversion feeding frenzy for the state run media and also to stake the ground far far to the other side then negotiate from there.
It’s vintage Trump. Magnificent bastard.
Liberals really are mental, flag burning has been protected as free speech by liberal judges; not because it has anything to do with the First Amendment.
Liberals twist the Constitution and Bill of Rights especially...flag burning, abortion, killing disabled people all in the name of rights.
Yes you sure can.
Congress, under it’s authority to establish a uniform rule of naturalization CAN and HAS established conditions by which an individual can loose their citizenship:
See INA § 349
My philosophy on flag burning is as follows:
If you paid for the flag, or otherwise legally obtained it, then it is your flag. You are empowered to define its meaning and importance as you understand them, and you are free to do whatever you please with that flag, up to and including burning it.
However, if I paid for the flag, or if my tax dollars paid for the flag, then it is not your flag. You are not allowed to define its meaning and importance, and you are not allowed to burn it or otherwise deface or burn it. In fact, if you set out to burn or otherwise deface it, I have both the right and responsibility to protect that flag using whatever means I deem necessary.
Exactly. It’s preposterous to even suggest such a thing (and dangerous).
As long as you did not steal the flag from someone else then absolutely, yes.
just allow for Public Safety Committees within our communities to deal with them
“Colin Kapaernik is a Castro loving, white America hating, Communist, Black Lives Matter POS. He is a role model whose message is construes by some maniacs as “kill cops” There should not be a law, just dismissal.”
More government agencies?
More laws?
How about we let the market decide about Kapaernik and the NFL and not hire federal agents to force Colin Kapaernik to stand during the Star Spangled Banner?
There should be no civil penalty but flag burning
should fall under the “Fighting Words” statutes
and be judged a provication to violence.
I don’t think people should be legally allowed to burn or otherwise disrespect the flag.
I don’t want to extend that to not standing for the Anthem or any other craziness- just the flag. I think everyone should respect our National Anthem but don’t think there should be a penalty for not doing it. I did see a man get his arse kicked at a rodeo once for refusing to stand for the National Anthem but that was an individual disagreement, nothing to do with the government forcing it.
‘This is a diversion feeding frenzy for the state run media and also to stake the ground far far to the other side then negotiate from there.’
_________________________________________________
I really need to read ‘The Art of the Deal.’
If the President can get a couple of appointees on the high court, then such Constitutional obstacles can be overcome..
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.