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

[jimnyc]

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.

Folks want to repeal - and many have an amendment - to the COTUS because they disagree with the 2nd.

Folks want to have an amendment to the 1st of the COTUS because they disagree as well with actions supported by it.

There is little to no difference. The idea is amending the constitution because of actions protected by it. It's only different because you're a hypocrite. No surprise there.

[Kathianne]

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!

Totally agree. Same with those that have saved or attempted to save a burning flag, even with threat of arrest. As I said, those that do such are ill advised, at best. I still say that with something like a flag burning law, you're more than 1/2 way to 'hate speech' ban. Who makes those rules defining 'hate speech?"

[High_Plains_Drifter]

With our flag being the symbol of everything this nation stands for, and the men and women that have fought, bled and died to create and protect this nation, I don't give a rats behind what amendment someone thinks protects the burning of our flag, I don't believe the 1st Amendment does, so that's why I'm all for a special law protecting it, since it appears that's what's needed.

You can't run through a crowded movie theater screaming FIRE either, yet that's "free speech." You can't have intercourse with someone in public either, yet that's "freedom of expression." There are "exceptions" to every rule. I would think protecting our nation's flag from public displays of desecration and disrespect would be a no brainer.

[Elessar]

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

I missed this.

Have you fixed the UK yet with all of your narrow-minded rhetoric and bullshit?

[Elessar]

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.

Deflection as usual. You don't live here, so why preach to us that do?

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Deflection as usual. You don't live here, so why preach to us that do?

I could answer that, but I'd probably be being redundant to what everyone here already knows.

[Noir]

Folks want to repeal - and many have an amendment - to the COTUS because they disagree with the 2nd.

Folks want to have an amendment to the 1st of the COTUS because they disagree as well with actions supported by it.

There is little to no difference. The idea is amending the constitution because of actions protected by it. It's only different because you're a hypocrite. No surprise there.

So all that being said - in what way exactly do you want the 1st amendment to be changed?

[darin]

I wish the Federal Government would stop making laws and regulations. We have enough. Too many.

[STTAB]

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/

I concede that they have a right to do it, I just think they are assholes.

However, unlike liberals , I stand by my principles even when it comes to people I hate. It should NOT be illegal to burn the American flag. Now, of course, go ask liberals if they believe it should be illegal to fly a confederate flag.

We have the right to be assholes in this country.

[jimnyc]

I concede that they have a right to do it, I just think they are assholes.

However, unlike liberals , I stand by my principles even when it comes to people I hate. It should NOT be illegal to burn the American flag. Now, of course, go ask liberals if they believe it should be illegal to fly a confederate flag.

We have the right to be assholes in this country.

That's a good point I had not thought of. Today, the confederate flag is a no-fly and you'll be crucified for doing so. And you betcha that they would love to make it illegal - along with all kinds of monuments and statues. They want unlimited ability to get rid of/ remove things they don't like, destroy things they don't like, and then dictate to the country what they can do.

While the other side simply wants to protect a symbol of our great country & all of the blood that was spilled for that flag, and all of the incredible places it's been.

[STTAB]

That's a good point I had not thought of. Today, the confederate flag is a no-fly and you'll be crucified for doing so. And you betcha that they would love to make it illegal - along with all kinds of monuments and statues. They want unlimited ability to get rid of/ remove things they don't like, destroy things they don't like, and then dictate to the country what they can do.

While the other side simply wants to protect a symbol of our great country & all of the blood that was spilled for that flag, and all of the incredible places it's been.

But the reasoning i irrelevant Jim. Any form of authoritarian law can be justified. The confederate flag represented an Army that fought to keep slaves, and there are without question people who fly it simply to be racists. In other words, to be the same sort of asshole who burns the American flag.

If you ban burning the American flag, you are opening the door, which sounds good until they want to ban something you consider a freedom. Yes, the American flag represents al of the things you said, but that's all it does is represent them. It isn't actually them.

[jimnyc]

But the reasoning i irrelevant Jim. Any form of authoritarian law can be justified. The confederate flag represented an Army that fought to keep slaves, and there are without question people who fly it simply to be racists. In other words, to be the same sort of asshole who burns the American flag.

If you ban burning the American flag, you are opening the door, which sounds good until they want to ban something you consider a freedom. Yes, the American flag represents al of the things you said, but that's all it does is represent them. It isn't actually them.

Things are our history. I don't like the racist idiots provoking either - but it is our history and does carry a lot more than just racism to it. I don't like our history being re-written or destroyed or hidden. And while there are tons of flags to discuss, only one is the American flag and nothing comes close to matching it's history.

So 1st you have destroying history, and I also disagree with that. Then the flag, and I more than disagree with that.

And sure, as all discussed with presidential emergency declarations, and then some doing similar. If others want to protect something down the road as I would love to see with the flag, it would need the same support all the way from the house to senate to 3/4 of the states. I see exactly what you mean but I don't think it would be as easily as it sounds. Just as admittedly you will likely never see this ban we are discussing.

And then in today's society everything and anything is starting to now be called "hate speech", so I can see some claiming that. But I disagree it would qualify as such. I just think it's anti-American and spits in the faces of veterans and steps on the graves of all of our great heroes.

[STTAB]

Things are our history. I don't like the racist idiots provoking either - but it is our history and does carry a lot more than just racism to it. I don't like our history being re-written or destroyed or hidden. And while there are tons of flags to discuss, only one is the American flag and nothing comes close to matching it's history.

So 1st you have destroying history, and I also disagree with that. Then the flag, and I more than disagree with that.

And sure, as all discussed with presidential emergency declarations, and then some doing similar. If others want to protect something down the road as I would love to see with the flag, it would need the same support all the way from the house to senate to 3/4 of the states. I see exactly what you mean but I don't think it would be as easily as it sounds. Just as admittedly you will likely never see this ban we are discussing.

And then in today's society everything and anything is starting to now be called "hate speech", so I can see some claiming that. But I disagree it would qualify as such. I just think it's anti-American and spits in the faces of veterans and steps on the graves of all of our great heroes.

I FULLY support your right to attempt to amend the COTUS.

I then of course have to ask if you support Pete's right to attempt to repeal the 2nd.

[jimnyc]

So all that being said - in what way exactly do you want the 1st amendment to be changed?

It can be an amendment to the 1st or simply an additional amendment to the COTUS in general. There have been 33 amendments proposed and 27 were ratified by the states and became part of the constitution. Somewhere in the constitution spelling out the treatment of the flag. Here, rather than my confusing take, which is basically anything to protect the flag and outlaw specifically burning it - here's a better take on what some want and what I would support.

I placed one part in bold for @Drummond But, as pointed out, the great Antonin Scalia shot it down as well.

---

Flag Desecration Amendment

The Flag Desecration Amendment (often referred to as the Flag-burning Amendment) is an American proposed law, in the form of constitutional amendment to the Bill of Rights, that would allow the U.S. Congress to prohibit by statute and provide punishment for the physical "desecration" of the flag of the United States. The concept of flag desecration continues to provoke a heated debate over protecting a national symbol, preserving free speech, and upholding the liberty said to be represented by that national symbol.

While the proposed amendment is frequently referred to colloquially in terms of expression of political views through "flag burning," the language would permit the prohibition of all forms of flag desecration, which may take forms other than burning, such as using the flag for clothing or napkins.

The most recent legislative attempt to propose a flag desecration amendment failed in the United States Senate by one vote on June 27, 2006. In June 2019, President Donald Trump tweeted support for proposal by Senator Steve Daines to revive the previously unsuccessful language.

Historical background

The first federal Flag Protection Act was passed by Congress in 1968 in response to protest burnings of the flag at demonstrations against the Vietnam War. Over time, 48 of the 50 U.S. states also enacted similar flag protection laws. All of these statutes were overturned by the Supreme Court of the United States by a 5–4 vote in the case Texas v. Johnson as unconstitutional restrictions of public expression. Congress responded to the Johnson decision by passing a Flag Protection Act, only to see the Supreme Court reaffirm Johnson by the same 5–4 majority in United States v. Eichman, declaring that flag burning was constitutionally-protected free speech.

In both cases, William J. Brennan wrote the majority opinion, joined by Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Antonin Scalia, and Anthony Kennedy (Kennedy also authored a separate concurrence in Johnson), and the dissenters in both cases were then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist (who authored a dissent in Johnson), and Justices John Paul Stevens (who authored dissents in both cases), Byron White and Sandra Day O'Connor.

The decisions were controversial and have prompted Congress to consider the only remaining legal avenue to enact flag protection statutes—a constitutional amendment. Following the Johnson decision, successive sessions of Congress considered creating a flag desecration amendment. From 1995 to 2005, beginning with the 104th Congress, the proposed amendment was approved biennially by the two-thirds majority necessary in the U.S. House of Representatives, but it consistently failed to achieve the same constitutionally-required super-majority vote in the U.S. Senate. During some sessions, the proposed amendment did not even come to a vote in the Senate before the expiration of the Congress' term. The last time it was considered, in the 109th Congress, the Amendment failed by one vote in the Senate. Some Senate Republican aides indicated that almost a dozen of the Republican senators who voted for the amendment were privately opposed to it, and they believed that these senators would have voted to defeat the amendment if required.

Proposed amendment

The full text of the amendment (passed several times by the U.S. House of Representatives) is as follows:

The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.

This proposed amendment was intended to give Congress the right to enact statutes criminalizing the burning or other desecration of the United States flag in a public protest. Proponents of legislation to proscribe flag burning argue that burning the flag is a very offensive gesture that deserves to be outlawed. Opponents maintain that giving Congress such power would essentially limit the principle of freedom of speech, enshrined in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and symbolized by the flag itself.

The theories underlying these First Amendment principles include: a robust national discourse about political and social ideas; individual self-realization; the search for truth; and, speech as a "safety valve." These concepts are expounded in both the majority and dissenting opinions of the cases described below. There Justice William Joseph Brennan, Jr. noted that the "principal function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute; it may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger."

Rest - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_D...tion_Amendment

[jimnyc]

I FULLY support your right to attempt to amend the COTUS.

I then of course have to ask if you support Pete's right to attempt to repeal the 2nd.

Of course, I fully support anyone's right to access to our justice system, even if at times misguided and things I vehemently disagree with. I don't want that to be successful, nor do I think it would be at this time anyway. But I do support the attempt.