Trump is 'all in' on amendment to ban flag burning

[jimnyc]

I know my position is an unpopular one, so Trump taking that stance will be even worse!

I get it, they do this on Flag Day to make a point, and some support it while more so are against it, citing first amendment rights. And they are correct. Even every veteran I have over spoken to on the issue supports their rights to do so. I still disagree - or more accurately just hate ever seeing it burned. In any country. And I would hope that any citizen of any country would feel similarly.

---

Trump is 'all in' on amendment to ban flag burning

President Donald Trump said Saturday he is “all in” on supporting a constitutional amendment that would make it illegal to burn the American flag.

“A no brainer!” Trump wrote on Twitter of a bill proposed by Montana Republican Sen. Steve Daines and North Dakota Republican Sen. Kevin Cramer.

The two Republicans introduced a constitutional amendment on Friday that would make it illegal to burn or desecrate the flag. Daines has submitted similar proposals in the past, usually to commemorate Flag Day.



Trump has supported criminalizing flag burning in the past.

He said that burning the flag should lead to jail time or loss of citizenship on Nov. 29, 2016.



Trump was also heavily critical of NFL players who knelt during the national anthem at football games.

“I don’t think people should be staying in the locker rooms, but still I think it’s good. You have to stand proudly for the National Anthem. You shouldn’t be playing, you shouldn’t be there. Maybe they shouldn’t be in the country,” Trump said in May 2018, after the NFL enacted a policy banning players from kneeling during the national anthem.

The proposal by Daines and Cramer is unlikely to see success in Congress. To amend the Constitution, two-thirds of both the House and Senate must vote to formally propose an amendment. Then, three-fourths of state legislatures must vote in favor of the amendment for it to be added to the Constitution.

https://dailycaller.com/2019/06/15/t...-flag-burning/

[High_Plains_Drifter]

I'm all for it...

Shouldn't be too surprising coming from a veteran.

[Elessar]

I am all for it.

The "FLAG CODE"


Previous to Flag Day, June 14, 1923 there were no federal or state regulations governing display of the United States Flag. It was on this date that the National Flag Code was adopted by the National Flag Conference which was attended by representatives of the Army and Navy which had evolved their own procedures, and some 66 other national groups. This purpose of providing guidance based on the Army and Navy procedures relating to display and associated questions about the U. S. Flag was adopted by all organizations in attendance.

A few minor changes were made a year later during the Flag Day 1924 Conference, It was not until June 22, 1942 that Congress passed a joint resolution which was amended on December 22, 1942 to become Public Law 829; Chapter 806, 77th Congress, 2nd session. Exact rules for use and display of the flag (36 U.S.C. 173-178) as well as associated sections (36 U.S.C. 171) Conduct during Playing of the National Anthem, (36 U.S.C. 172) the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, and Manner of Delivery were included.

This code is the guide for all handling and display of the Stars and Stripes. It does not impose penalties for misuse of the United States Flag. That is left to the states and to the federal government for the District of Columbia. Each state has its own flag law.

Criminal penalties for certain acts of desecration to the flag were contained in Title 18 of the United States Code prior to 1989. The Supreme Court decision in Texas v. Johnson; June 21, 1989, held the statute unconstitutional. This statute was amended when the Flag Protection Act of 1989 (Oct. 28, 1989) imposed a fine and/or up to I year in prison for knowingly mutilating, defacing, physically defiling, maintaining on the floor or trampling upon any flag of the United States. The Flag Protection Act of 1989 was struck down by the Supreme Court decision, United States vs. Eichman, decided on June 11, 1990.

While the Code empowers the President of the United States to alter, modify, repeal or prescribe additional rules regarding the Flag, no federal agency has the authority to issue 'official' rulings legally binding on civilians or civilian groups. Consequently, different interpretations of various provisions of the Code may continue to be made. The Flag Code may be fairly tested: 'No disrespect should be shown to the Flag of the United States of America.' Therefore, actions not specifically included in the Code may be deemed acceptable as long as proper respect is shown.

Boy Scouts, American Legion, VFW, Nam Vets,Firehouses and more regularly reverently retire old, worn and weathered U.S. Flags.
I burn mine quietly on my BBQ grill..

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Boy Scouts, American Legion, VFW, Nam Vets,Firehouses and more regularly reverently retire old, worn and weathered U.S. Flags.
I burn mine quietly on my BBQ grill..

Yep... Just put up a new flag myself. Old one had a couple rips and was faded. I'll burn it in my next campfire with a proper salute.

[Noir]

Finally someone has the guts to stand up to the tyranny of the *checks notes* First Amendment...

[jimnyc]

Finally someone has the guts to stand up to the tyranny of the *checks notes* First Amendment...

Can't just say you disagree and explain why, huh? Gotta be a douche instead.

[Noir]

Can't just say you disagree and explain why, huh? Gotta be a douche instead.

I disagree because Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

It's got nothing to do with the 1st Amendment.

Just like border security and immigration policy has got nothing to do with RACISM.

There is no worse one single stunt one can pull that more disrespects our nation, our history, our sovereignty, our founding fathers, our military, our veterans, and every single American that loves their nation. You burn our flag, and you're pissing in my face and every one of those others telling us that you hate America. Well, then you probably shouldn't be here. Go live in Ireland or somewhere else with the rest of the little pencil necked liberal leftist faggots and burn our flag, I don't care, just don't do it on American soil.

[Kathianne]

It's got nothing to do with the 1st Amendment.

Just like border security and immigration policy has got nothing to do with RACISM.

There is no worse one single stunt one can pull that more disrespects our nation, our history, our sovereignty, our founding fathers, our military, our veterans, and every single American that loves their nation. You burn our flag, and you're pissing in my face and every one of those others telling us that you hate America. Well, then you probably shouldn't be here. Go live in Ireland or somewhere else with the rest of the little pencil necked liberal leftist faggots and burn our flag, I don't care, just don't do it on American soil.

Actually it does. It's protected speech, however that it is 'protected' doesn't diminish your right to be very angry at someone else's spouting off as it were. What you can't do is demonstrate your anger physically. If someone chooses to display their speech on property other than their own or someone's who's like minded, the police can probably arrest them for fire starting.

I think it's a stupid way to demonstrate that one doesn't like this country or what it stands for, but it is protected. Laws against these types of protections, are the same line of reasoning to outlaw 'hate speech.' It's an all or nothing type of deal-slippery slope, if you will.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Actually it does. It's protected speech, however that it is 'protected' doesn't diminish your right to be very angry at someone else's spouting off as it were. What you can't do is demonstrate your anger physically. If someone chooses to display their speech on property other than their own or someone's who's like minded, the police can probably arrest them for fire starting.

I think it's a stupid way to demonstrate that one doesn't like this country or what it stands for, but it is protected. Laws against these types of protections, are the same line of reasoning to outlaw 'hate speech.' It's an all or nothing type of deal-slippery slope, if you will.

You're not "speaking," you're burning a flag. You're starting a fire, often in public. You can do that without "speaking" a word. I don't see this as having anything to do with the 1st Amendment, which pertains to "speech."

[Kathianne]

You're not "speaking," you're burning a flag. You're starting a fire, often in public. You can do that without "speaking" a word. I don't see this as having anything to do with the 1st Amendment, which pertains to "speech."

Symbolic speech. Same as burning the Koran, which folks have done. As I said, personally think it's wrong, but shouldn't be illegal. We agree to disagree. I don't want England's anti-speech laws, symbolic or literal speech.

[Elessar]

Symbolic speech. Same as burning the Koran, which folks have done. As I said, personally think it's wrong, but shouldn't be illegal. We agree to disagree. I don't want England's anti-speech laws, symbolic or literal speech.

Mixed feelings on the 1st Amendment Rights.

Freedom of expression is not listed among them, but has been assumed.
I disagree totally with burning OUR Flag, which I served under for 37 years,
taking that as an act of defiance to our laws.

Try to burn one in public in front of me and I will snatch it away, Period.

[jimnyc]

I disagree because Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Pretty sure I know what the 1st states. That's why it's called an amendment.

If someone wanted to somehow ban guns - I guess it's 100% impossible considering the 2nd. No point ever bringing up guns again I guess.

[jimnyc]

Symbolic speech. Same as burning the Koran, which folks have done. As I said, personally think it's wrong, but shouldn't be illegal. We agree to disagree. I don't want England's anti-speech laws, symbolic or literal speech.

When some scumbags tried to burn our flag in the outfield of Dodgers stadium, and Rick Monday swooped in to prevent it. The best was when the bikers saved a flag from burning in DC and all the little protesters pissed their pants and ran!

[Noir]

Pretty sure I know what the 1st states. That's why it's called an amendment.

If someone wanted to somehow ban guns - I guess it's 100% impossible considering the 2nd. No point ever bringing up guns again I guess.

Completely different -

Someone wanting a gun ban should be arguing to repeal the 2nd Amendment, regardless of what you think about the topic - that sentiment makes sense.

As far as I know people arguing against flag burning are not arguing to repeal the 1st amendment, so it’s a nonstarter.