U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: GOP rep: 'No president is allowed to burn the First Amendment’
Source:
The Hill
URL Source: http://thehill.com/homenews/house/3 ... ed-to-burn-the-first-amendment
Published: Nov 30, 2016
Author: Mark Hensch
Post Date: 2016-11-30 19:10:50 by Hondo68
Keywords: Impeach Trump, scofflaw, hates BOR
Views: 98902
Comments: 265
Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) on Tuesday defended the constitutionality of flag burning, saying President-elect Donald Trump would violate freedom of speech if he cracked down on it. "Nobody should burn the American flag, but our Constitution secures our right to do so. No president is allowed to burn the First Amendment," Amash tweeted. Nobody should burn the American flag, but our Constitution secures our right to do so. No president is allowed to burn the First Amendment. https://t.co/nVkq6WcbHV— Justin Amash (@justinamash) November 29, 2016 Trump earlier Tuesday floated severe penalties for flag burning, mentioning loss of citizenship or a year in jail. “Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag – if they do, there must be consequences – perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!” he tweeted. Trump did not specify what inspired his 7 a.m. tweet about flag burning, which is considered protected speech under U.S. law. The Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. Johnson in 1989 that burning the American flag is allowed under the First Amendment. A spokesman for Trump on Tuesday said he agrees with Trump that the controversial act should be outlawed. “I think most Americans would agree with me that flag burning should be illegal. It’s completely despicable,” Jason Miller told CNN’s “New Day." Rep. Sean Duffy (R-Wis.) told CNN he disagrees with Trump, though. “I don’t think we want to make this a legal issue. So I disagree with Mr. Trump on that, and the court is probably right," Duffy said. “I think the court is probably right that we want to protect those people who want to protest and their right to actually demonstrate with disgracing our flag, even though so many of us who love our country and love our flag object to it.” House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) also split with Trump and defended flag burning as free speech. “We have a First Amendment right. We’ll protect our First Amendment. That’s what the court has upheld,” he said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Tuesday. Poster Comment:
House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) also split with Trump and defended flag burning as free speech
Already there are the beginnings of an impeach Trump movement in the HOR, and he hasn't even taken office yet. (1 image)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 150.
#1. To: hondo68 (#0)
In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the U.S. Supreme Court held that "insulting or 'fighting words,' -- those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace -- are not protected by the first amendment. Burning the flag is no different than fighting words. Or, it can be argued that burning the flag is hate speech and is not protected. Or that burning the flag is "likely to incite imminent lawless action". Three reasons why burning the flag is not protected by the first amendment.
And all 3 reasons are meaningless because the courts have consistently ruled that flag burning is a form of political free speech. I personally wouldn't have it any other way. Seems to me we have the enemy identifying themselves. Seems like win/win to me.
5/4 1989 Time to return to original intent.
Original Intent was FREE SPEECH in ALL it's many forms,and NO speech was to be freer than "Political Speech". Be careful what you ask for,lest you get it.
“[N]othing in the text of the Constitution, or in the eighteenth-century understanding of freedom of speech, supports the proposition that prohibiting the burning of the flag infringes free speech...” - Judge Richard Posner
Interesting that you would quote someone like Posner as a source for your dementia. Judge Richard Posner: ‘No value’ in studying the U.S. Constitution “I see absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades, years, months, weeks, day, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments, and its implementation (across the centuries — well, just a little more than two centuries, and of course less for many of the amendments),” he wrote. “Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21st century.” Posner has written several opinions sympathetic to abortion rights, including a decision that held that late term abortion was constitutionally protected in some circumstances.[20] In November 2015 Posner authored a decision in Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, inc., et al. v. Brad D. Schimel striking down regulations on abortion clinics in Wisconsin. He rejected the state's argument that the laws were written to protect the health of women and not to make abortion more difficult to obtain. Accusing the state of indirectly trying to ban abortions in the state Posner wrote, "They [Wisconsin] may do this in the name of protecting the health of women who have abortions, yet as in this case the specific measures they support may do little or nothing for health, but rather strew impediments to abortion. Posner opposes the US "War on Drugs" and called it "quixotic". In a 2003 CNBC interview he discussed the difficulty of enforcing criminal marijuana laws, and asserted that it is hard to justify the criminalization of marijuana when compared to other substances. In a talk at Elmhurst College in 2012, Posner said that "I don't think that we should have a fraction of the drug laws that we have. I think it's really absurd to be criminalizing possession or use or distribution of marijuana. At the Cybercrime 2020: The Future of Online Crime and Investigations conference held at Georgetown University Law Center on November 20, 2014, Posner, in addition to further reinforcing his views on privacy being over-rated, stated that "If the NSA wants to vacuum all the trillions of bits of information that are crawling through the electronic worldwide networks, I think that's fine. ... Much of what passes for the name of privacy is really just trying to conceal the disreputable parts of your conduct," Posner added. "Privacy is mainly about trying to improve your social and business opportunities by concealing the sorts of bad activities that would cause other people not to want to deal with you." Posner also criticized mobile OS companies for enabling end-to-end encryption in their newest software. "I'm shocked at the thought that a company would be permitted to manufacture an electronic product that the government would not be able to search" he said In September 2014, Posner authored the opinions in the consolidated cases of Wolf v. Walker and Baskin v. Bogan challenging Wisconsin and Indiana's state level same-sex marriage bans. The opinion of the three-judge panel on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Indiana and Wisconsin's bans on same-sex marriage were unconstitutional, affirming a lower court ruling.[4] During oral arguments, Wisconsin's Attorney General cited tradition as a reason for maintaining the ban, prompting Posner to note that: "It was tradition to not allow blacks and whites to marry – a tradition that got swept away." Posner claimed that the same-sex marriage bans were both "a tradition of hate" and "savage discrimination".[36] Posner wrote the opinion for the unanimous panel, suggesting the laws unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court then denied writ of certiorari and left Posner's ruling to stand. Today, although generally viewed as to the right in academia, Posner's pragmatism, his qualified moral relativism and moral skepticism,[16] and his affection for the thought of Friedrich Nietzsche set him apart from most American conservatives. As a judge, with the exception of his rulings with respect to the sentencing guidelines and the recording of police actions, Posner's judicial votes have always placed him on the moderate-to-liberal wing of the Republican Party, where he has become more isolated over time. In July 2012, Posner stated, "I've become less conservative since the Republican Party started becoming goofy. Obama’s Favorite Law Professor (The apple doesn't fall far from the tree) Eric Posner hates freedom of speech. The University of Chicago law prof made this clear in an article for Slate in 2012 titled “The World Doesn’t Love the First Amendment.” “Americans,” Posner wrote, “need to learn that the rest of the world — and not just Muslims — see no sense in the First Amendment,” and realize that “they might have a point.” Posner, son of Judge Richard Posner and a former classmate of President Barack Obama at Harvard Law School, likened the First Amendment to a “dear old uncle who enacted heroic deeds in his youth but on occasion says embarrassing things about taboo subjects in his decline.” Now Posner has weighed in on freedom of the press. Turns out he’s against that, too. In the case in question, New York Times reporter James Risen is being ordered by the federal government to name his source for a story about an attempt by the CIA to scuttle Iran’s nuclear weapons program. This is part of the Obama administration’s alleged “war on whistleblowers.” Risen is being ordered to testify in the government’s case against former CIA hand James Sterling. Posner, who must be one of Obama’s favorite law professors after he sided with the censors on Benghazi and argued the president could unilaterally lift the debt limit with few consequences, is very much rooting against the journalists. The prof argues the press has “not earned our trust.” Why, “if the Supreme Court were to create a reporter’s privilege, it would encourage leaks that ought to be plugged.” Official White House mouthpiece Jay Carney couldn’t have said it better.
Flag burning isn't particularly high tech. Even you could figure out how to do it.
Seriously? That's the best your feeble mind can come up with? I see you are afraid to own up to your apparent worship of a leftist like Posner. Sucks to be you.
Historical facts are historical facts. I know that's way beyond your ken.
Posner: "Privacy is mainly about trying to improve your social and business opportunities by concealing the sorts of bad activities that would cause other people not to want to deal with you." Hmmm...where have we heard that type of statement before? Oh, I know..
Godwin's law. "The statute of Nebraska preventing and punishing the desecration of the flag of the United States and prohibiting the sale of articles upon which there is a representation of the flag for advertising purposes is not unconstitutional..." - Halter v. Nebraska, 205 U.S. 34 (1907)
Halter was brought under the 14th Amendment regarding use of the flag in advertising, and not as a case of individual free speech. The court ruled, "we cannot hold that any privilege of American citizenship or that any right of personal liberty is violated by a state enactment forbidding the flag to be used as an advertisement on a bottle of beer." https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/205/34/case.html U.S. Supreme Court Halter v. Nebraska, 205 U.S. 34 (1907) Halter v. Nebraska No. 174 Submitted January 23, 1907 Decided March 4, 1907 [excerpts] The plaintiffs in error were proceeded against by criminal information upon the charge of having, in violation of the statute, unlawfully exposed to public view, sold, exposed for sale, and had in their possession for sale a bottle of beer upon which, for purposes of advertisement, was printed and painted a representation of the flag of the United States. Page 205 U. S. 39 The defendants pleaded not guilty, and at the trial insisted that the statute in question was null and void as infringing their personal liberty guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and depriving them, as citizens of the United States, of the right of exercising a privilege impliedly, if not expressly, guaranteed by the federal Constitution; also that the statute was invalid in that it permitted the use of the flag by publishers, newspapers, books, periodicals, etc., under certain circumstances, thus, it was alleged, discriminating in favor of one class and against others. These contentions were overruled, and the defendants, having been found guilty by a jury, were severally adjudged to pay a fine of $50 and the costs of the prosecution. Upon writ of error, the judgments were affirmed by the Supreme Court of Nebraska, and the case has been brought here upon the ground that the final order in that court deprived the defendants, respectively, or rights specially set up and claimed under the Constitution of the United States. It may be well at the outset to say that Congress has established no regulation as to the use of the flag, except that in the act approved February 20th, 1905, authorizing the registration of trademarks in commerce with foreign nations and among the states, it was provided that no mark shall be refused as a trademark on account of its nature "unless such mark . . . consists of or comprises the flag or coat of arms or other insignia of the United States, or any simulation thereof, or of any state or municipality, or of any foreign nation." 33 Stat. 724, § 5. - - - - - - - - - - Page 205 U. S. 43 in the tangible thing upon which a representation of the flag has been placed, the answer is that such representation -- which, in itself, cannot belong, as property, to an individual -- has been placed on such thing in violation of law, and subject to the power of government to prohibit its use for purposes of advertisement.
Dear Shit for Brains:
Advertising is speech. Advertising using the U.S. flag on a beer bottle is not protected free speech. The court clearly stated: "we cannot hold that any privilege of American citizenship or that any right of personal liberty is violated by a state enactment forbidding the flag to be used as an advertisement on a bottle of beer." Which part are you having difficulty understanding. It's the court opinion YOU cited. You should have tried reading it, shit for brains.
Protected by who, shit for brains?
Protected by who, shit for brains? At your #37, YOU cited and quoted a 1907 opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court as precedent. According to the precedent YOU cited, and from which you quoted, using the U.S. flag on bottles of beer for advertising purposes is not protected free speech. The case you cited was not a 1st Amendment case at all. It was brought under the 14th Amendment which you would have known if you had bothered to read it. As had been demonstrated in my #6, Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) indicates, (a) Under the circumstances, Johnson's burning of the flag constituted expressive conduct, permitting him to invoke the First Amendment. The State conceded that the conduct was expressive. Occurring as it did at the end of a demonstration coinciding with the Republican National Convention, the expressive, overtly political nature of the conduct was both intentional and overwhelmingly apparent. Pp. 491 U. S. 402-406. (b) Texas has not asserted an interest in support of Johnson's conviction that is unrelated to the suppression of expression and would therefore permit application of the test set forth in United States v. O'Brien, 391 U. S. 367, whereby an important governmental interest in regulating nonspeech can justify incidental limitations on First Amendment freedoms when speech and nonspeech elements are combined in the same course of conduct. An interest in preventing breaches of the peace is not implicated on this record. Expression may not be prohibited Page 491 U. S. 398 on the basis that an audience that takes serious offense to the expression may disturb the peace, since the Government cannot assume that every expression of a provocative idea will incite a riot, but must look to the actual circumstances surrounding the expression. Johnson's expression of dissatisfaction with the Federal Government's policies also does not fall within the class of "fighting words" likely to be seen as a direct personal insult or an invitation to exchange fisticuffs. Flag burning constituting expressive conduct is protected by the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) is the prevailing precedent on flag burning. The happy horseshit you posted was a 14th Amendment case about using the U.S. flag as advertising on beer bottles.
Not protected by who, shit for brains?
You can ask and ask and he'll never get it. So it's lesson time. Back in 1907, before the 14th amendment was perverted by activist judges, the Bill of Rights first amendment did NOT apply to the states. Gasp! Meaning that states were allowed to pass any laws they wished restricting any activity mentioned by the first amendment. Oh how I long for the days of a federal republic.
Back in 1869 the 14th Amendment was passed. It went into effect 38 years before 1907. The 1907 case was a 14th Amendment case. It did not set a first amendment precedent then, and it is uncitable for such purpose now.
Yes. But it wasn't perverted by liberal justices until decades later. Freedom of speech wasn't "incorporated" until 1925, in Gitlow v. New York. Meaning neither the federal government nor the federal Bill of Rights had anything to do with that 1907 case.
Freedom of speech wasn't "incorporated" until 1925, in Gitlow v. New York. Meaning neither the federal government nor the federal Bill of Rights had anything to do with that 1907 case. Whatever you say. But no matter how you disagree with the justices, their opinion is the one that counts, not yours. Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) (see #6) is a First Amendment case, directly on point about flag burning. Halter v. Nebraska, 205 U.S. 34 (1907) (see #37) is not a First Amendment case and it is not on point about flag burning. It is a 14th Amendment case concerning commercial advertising on beer bottles. Even if Halter could be magically construed to be a First Amendment case related to flag burning, it could still not be cited as precedent over the more recent case, Johnson. Halter is irrelevant to the discussion, as the irrelevant pictures of beer cans. Resort to denigrating a Supreme Court decision as 5-4 (#101), as if that means anything, is fruitless. A 5-4 decision is just as enforceable as a 9-0 decision. Obergefell was 5-4 and it struck down every state law in the land prohibiting same-sex marriage. Neither will resort to citing Gitlow (1925), or your perception of 14th Amendment perversion, change the prevailing binding precedent set by Johnson in 1989. As Antonin Scalia, no perverter of the Constitution, said, So, stop running about espousing the ideas of tyrants. Join with the conservative, original constructionist Justice Scalia, and reject tyranny. Give up trying to be king. Americans do not want a king. Flag burning is a form of protected free speech. Work yourself through the seven stages of grief. You seem to be stuck on denial and anger.
He's dead. And he's wrong. He's dead wrong. The court could rule tomorrow that flag burning is hate speech or 'fighting words' or incites violence. If every time someone burned a flag they got the shit kicked out of them and sent to the hospital, the court would rule that way in a hurry. Is that what you want?
The court could rule tomorrow that flag burning is hate speech or 'fighting words' or incites violence. The court could rule tomorrow that they got it wrong in Brown v. Topeka Board of Education and bring back segregation. One can posit that the court could rule any dumb thing one can imagine. If you entertain a good faith belief that the court will rule that flag burning is hate speech or "fighting words," or incites violence, or is an illegal act, I strongly support a course of therapy. You are fully entitled to your opinion that the Supreme Court is wrong on just about everything. Their opinion is the law, and yours and mine are not.
My point is that there is no "constitutional crisis" created by making flag burning illegal. The U.S. Supreme Court simply declares that behavior to be hate speech or "fighting words," or that it incites violence, or is an illegal act. Done.
Done. And that is still as ridiculous a presumption as the Court ruling that Brown was wrong and separate but equal was decided correctly in Plessy. Tell me you really have a good faith belief that the U.S. Supreme Court is going to overturn Johnson. Not too long ago there was a proposed constitutional amendment that cleared the House but not the Senate. If it is to change any time soon, it will be by an amendment. PROPOSED FLAG DESCECRATION AMENDMENT An amendment proposal almost made it to the states in 2005. https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-joint-resolution/10 H.J.Res.10 - Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. 109th Congress (2005-2006) Sponsor: Rep. Cunningham, Randy (Duke) [R-CA-50] (Introduced 01/25/2005) Committees: House - Judiciary Committee Reports: H. Rept. 109-131 Latest Action: 06/22/2005 Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection. - - - - - - - - - - https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/12 109th Congress (2005-2006) Sponsor: Sen. Hatch, Orrin G. [R-UT] (Introduced 04/14/2005) Committees: Senate - Judiciary Latest Action: 06/27/2006 Failed of passage in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 66 - 34. Record Vote Number: 189.
Trump (and Congress) could threaten to "eliminate any judicial review by the U.S. Supreme Court of certain federal legislative or executive actions and of certain state actions, or alternatively transfer the judicial review responsibility to state courts by "knocking [federal courts]...out of the game." If the U.S. Supreme Court refuses to define flag burning as "hate speech", "fighting words" or an incitement to imminent violence, then Congress should act, leaving the decision to the states. I think everyone has had enough of this f**king judicial oligarchy.
And you could hold your breath until you turn blue. The Executive and Legislature cannot overturn a SCOTUS decision interpreting the Constitution. Continuing the argument to its logical conclusion, the Executive could use the army to imprison the judges and legislatures, and the President could proclaim himself King. In theory, the Congress could totally defund the Executive and Judicial branches by doing nothing. Before the Executive and Legislative engage in nonsense, they could initiate an amendment and give it to the states for ratification. There is a reasonable chance that 3/4ths of the states would ratify it.
No. I said they could threaten to eliminate judicial review in the hope that the U.S.Supreme Court would come to it's senses. Only if the U.S. Supreme Court refused to recognize the will of the people would Congress act.
Only if the U.S. Supreme Court refused to recognize the will of the people would Congress act. The U.S. Supreme Court is a court of law. It is not there to "recognize the will of the people." It is there to interpret the law as it is, and render decisions in accordance with the law. It is not there to stick a finger in the wind, or rule in accordance with the latest opinion poll. Congress can act to change the law via statute, or the Constitution can be amended pursuant to Article 5. Threatening to eliminate judicial review would be threatening to overthrow the lawfully established form of government.
The Roe v Wade decision was based on an "emanation from a penumbra" in response to the will of the people at the time. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution which protects the right of mothers to kill their unborn children. And that's one example of maybe 10 that come to mind. "Threatening to eliminate judicial review would be threatening to overthrow the lawfully established form of government." Baloney. Our lawfully established form of government allows the elimination of judicial review via the U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2.
#151. To: misterwhite (#150)
Shit-For-Brains loves judicial legislation, almost as much as he hates original intent.
The Roe v Wade decision was based on an "emanation from a penumbra" in response to the will of the people at the time. I have voiced my dissent to Roe, believing jurisdiction should reside with the states. The courts do not exist to "recognize the will of the people." It is not their purpose to respond to polls. It is YOU who espouses that they MUST respond to what you perceive to be the will of the people, or unlawful and unconstitutional action should be taken to knock them out of the game. You explicitly made reference to "eliminate any judicial review by the U.S. Supreme Court of certain federal legislative or executive actions and of certain state actions...." This is preposterous nonsense. There is no provision to eliminate judicial review. Read it again, more carefully this time. Your assertion leads to the inevitable conclusion that the whole judicial branch can effectively, and permanently, be eliminated by the legislature. If, as you posit, the legislature has the power to "eliminate any judicial review by the U.S. Supreme Court of certain federal legislative or executive actions and of certain state actions," what would escape this awesome power? If the lawful power exists to eliminate any judicial review of federal legislative or executive actions you desire to exempt from judicial review, what federal legislative or executive actions cannot be exempted from judicial review? There is authority given to the Congress to limit APPELLATE JURISDICTION of the Supreme Court. However, were judicial review eliminated, as you indicate it can be, that would result in a king whose edicts could not be challenged by any legal process.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#17. To: misterwhite (#1)
Three reasons why burning the flag is not protected by the first amendment.
#18. To: sneakypete (#17)
(Edited)
courts have consistently ruled
#22. To: Roscoe (#18)
Time to return to original intent.
#23. To: sneakypete (#22)
Original Intent was FREE SPEECH in ALL it's many forms
#26. To: Roscoe, sneakypete, hondo68 (#23)
(Edited)
Judge Richard Posner
Abortion
Drugs
National Security
Same-sex marriage
#29. To: Deckard (#26)
“Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21st century.”
#30. To: Roscoe (#29)
(Edited)
#31. To: Deckard (#30)
#34. To: Roscoe (#31)
Historical facts are historical facts.
#37. To: Deckard (#34)
#41. To: Roscoe, Deckard (#37)
"The statute of Nebraska preventing and punishing the desecration of the flag of the United States and prohibiting the sale of articles upon which there is a representation of the flag for advertising purposes is not unconstitutional..." - Halter v. Nebraska, 205 U.S. 34 (1907)
The act, among other things, makes it a misdemeanor, punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, for anyone to sell, expose for sale, or have in possession for sale, any article of merchandise upon which shall have been printed or placed, for purposes of advertisement, a representation of the flag of the United States. It expressly excepted, however, from its operation any newspaper, periodical, book, etc., on which should be printed, painted, or placed a representation of the flag "disconnected from any advertisement." 1 Cobbey's Ann.Stat.Neb. 1903, c. 139.
By the statute in question, the state has in substance declared that no one subject to its jurisdiction shall use the flag for purposes of trade and traffic -- a purpose wholly foreign to that for which it was provided by the nation. Such a use tends to degrade and cheapen the flag in the estimation of the people, as well as to defeat the object of maintaining it as an emblem of national power and national honor. And we cannot hold that any privilege of American citizenship or that any right of personal liberty is violated by a state enactment forbidding the flag to be used as an advertisement on a bottle of beer. It is familiar law that even the privileges of citizenship and the rights inhering in personal liberty are subject, in their enjoyment, to such reasonable restraints as may be required for the general good. Nor can we hold that anyone has a right of property which is violated by such an enactment as the one in question. If it be said that there is a right of property
#68. To: nolu chan (#41)
Halter was brought under the 14th Amendment regarding use of the flag in advertising, and not as a case of individual free speech.
#72. To: Roscoe (#68)
Dear Shit for Brains:
#77. To: nolu chan (#72)
protected free speech.
#80. To: Roscoe (#77)
protected free speech.
Held: Johnson's conviction for flag desecration is inconsistent with the First Amendment. Pp. 491 U. S. 402-420.
#82. To: nolu chan (#80)
using the U.S. flag on bottles of beer for advertising purposes is not protected free speech.
#85. To: Roscoe, nolu chan (#82)
"Not protected by who, shit for brains?"
#121. To: misterwhite (#85)
Back in 1907, before the 14th amendment was perverted by activist judges, the Bill of Rights first amendment did NOT apply to the states. Gasp!
#125. To: nolu chan (#121)
"Back in 1869 the 14th Amendment was passed."
#128. To: misterwhite (#125)
Yes. But it wasn't perverted by liberal justices until decades later.
Yes. But it wasn't perverted by liberal justices until decades later.
“If I were king, I wouldn’t go about letting people burn the American flag,” Scalia told Piers Morgan in the above interview. “However, we have a First Amendment which says that the right of free speech shall not be abridged, and it is addressed, in particular to speech critical of the government. I mean, that was the main kind of speech that tyrants would seek to suppress.”
“If it were up to me, I would put in jail every sandal-wearing, scruffy-bearded weirdo who burns the American flag. But I am not king,” Scalia said at Princeton University in 2015.
Scalia, who died in February 2016, was on the U.S. Supreme Court when two cases centering on flag burning came up – Texas v. Johnson (1989) and United States v. Eichman (1990). In both cases, Scalia voted to protect flag burning as a form of protected free speech and agreed with the majority opinions written by William J. Brennan Jr.
#130. To: nolu chan (#128)
"Join with the conservative, original constructionist Justice Scalia"
#132. To: misterwhite (#130)
He's dead. And he's wrong. He's dead wrong.
#136. To: nolu chan (#132)
"If you entertain a good faith belief that the court will rule that flag burning is hate speech or "fighting words," or incites violence, or is an illegal act"
#137. To: misterwhite (#136)
My point is that there is no "constitutional crisis" created by making flag burning illegal. The U.S. Supreme Court simply declares that behavior to be hate speech or "fighting words," or that it incites violence, or is an illegal act.
06/22/2005-2:38pm
On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 286 - 130 (Roll no. 296). (text: CR H4904)
Action By: House of Representatives S.J.Res.12 - A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.
#138. To: nolu chan (#137)
"Tell me you really have a good faith belief that the U.S. Supreme Court is going to overturn Johnson."
#139. To: misterwhite (#138)
Trump (and Congress) could threaten to "eliminate any judicial review by the U.S. Supreme Court of certain federal legislative or executive actions and of certain state actions, or alternatively transfer the judicial review responsibility to state courts by "knocking [federal courts]...out of the game."
#140. To: nolu chan (#139)
"And you could hold your breath until you turn blue."
#149. To: misterwhite (#140)
No. I said they could threaten to eliminate judicial review in the hope that the U.S.Supreme Court would come to it's senses.
#150. To: nolu chan (#149)
"It is not there to "recognize the will of the people. It is there to interpret the law as it is, and render decisions in accordance with the law."
Replies to Comment # 150. The Roe v Wade decision was based on an "emanation from a penumbra" in response to the will of the people at the time. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution which protects the right of mothers to kill their unborn children.
#154. To: misterwhite (#150)
"It is not there to "recognize the will of the people. It is there to interpret the law as it is, and render decisions in accordance with the law."
[misterwhite #139] Trump (and Congress) could threaten to "eliminate any judicial review by the U.S. Supreme Court of certain federal legislative or executive actions and of certain state actions, or alternatively transfer the judicial review responsibility to state courts by "knocking [federal courts]...out of the game."
Our lawfully established form of government allows the elimination of judicial review via the U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 150.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]