[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race"

He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage

The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom!

"Kamala’s Inane Talking Points"

"The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics"

Easy Drywall Patch

Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast

In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind"

Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’

Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens

Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer?

hurricanes and heat waves are Worse

'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic

Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump

IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons

Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training

The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses

Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists

Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general

Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep

Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA.

Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report

Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence.

Tenn. AG reveals ICE released thousands of ‘murderers and rapists’ from detention centers into US streets

Kamala Harris Touts Mass Amnesty Offering Fast-Tracked Citizenship to Nearly Every Illegal Alien in U.S.

Migration Crisis Fueled Rise in Tuberculosis Cases Study Finds

"They’re Going to Try to Kill Trump Again"

"Dems' Attempts at Power Grab Losing Their Grip"

"Restoring a ‘Great Moderation’ in Fiscal Policy"

"As attacks intensify, Trump becomes more popular"

Posting Articles Now Working Here

Another Test

Testing

Kamala Harris, reparations, and guaranteed income

Did Mudboy Slim finally kill this place?

"Why Young Americans Are Not Taught about Evil"

"New Rules For Radicals — How To Reinvent Kamala Harris"

"Harris’ problem: She’s a complete phony"

Hurricane Beryl strikes Bay City (TX)

Who Is ‘Destroying Democracy In Darkness?’

‘Kamalanomics’ is just ‘Bidenomics’ but dumber

Even The Washington Post Says Kamala's 'Price Control' Plan is 'Communist'

Arthur Ray Hines, "Sneakypete", has passed away.

No righT ... for me To hear --- whaT you say !

"Walz’s Fellow Guardsmen Set the Record Straight on Veep Candidate’s Military Career: ‘He Bailed Out’ "

"Kamala Harris Selects Progressive Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as Running Mate"

"The Teleprompter Campaign"

Good Riddance to Ismail Haniyeh

"Pagans in Paris"

"Liberal groupthink makes American life creepy and could cost Democrats the election".


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

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: 110040
Comments: 265

GOP rep: 'No president is allowed to burn the First Amendment’

© Greg Nash

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.

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  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Comments (1-90) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#91. To: Deckard (#90)

Still terrified to quote the Court, I see.

Roscoe  posted on  2016-12-03   11:40:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#92. To: Roscoe (#91)
(Edited)

When the Supreme Court ruled to allow American flag burning

On June 21, 1989, a deeply divided United States Supreme Court upheld the rights of protesters to burn the American flag in a landmark First Amendment decision.

In the controversial Texas v. Johnson case, the Court voted 5-4 in favor of Gregory Lee Johnson, the protester. Johnson’s actions, the majority argued, were symbolic speech political in nature and could be expressed even at the affront of those who disagreed with him.

Justice William Brennan wrote the majority decision, with Justices Anthony Kennedy, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun and Antonin Scalia concurring.  “Johnson was convicted for engaging in expressive conduct. The State’s interest in preventing breaches of the peace does not support his conviction because Johnson’s conduct did not threaten to disturb the peace,” said Brennan. “Nor does the State’s interest in preserving the flag as a symbol of nationhood and national unity justify his criminal conviction for engaging in political expression.”

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing a concurrence, spelled out his reasoning succinctly.

“The hard fact is that sometimes we must make decisions we do not like. We make them because they are right, right in the sense that the law and the Constitution, as we see them, compel the result,” Kennedy said. “And so great is our commitment to the process that, except in the rare case, we do not pause to express distaste for the result, perhaps for fear of undermining a valued principle that dictates the decision. This is one of those rare cases.

In 1984, Gregory Lee Johnson burned a flag at the Republican National Convention in Dallas. Officials in Texas arrested Johnson and convicted him of breaking a state law; he was sentenced to one year in prison and ordered to pay a $2,000 fine.

In reaction to the Johnson decision, which only applied to the state of Texas, Congress passed an anti-flag burning law called the Flag Protection Act of 1989. But in 1990, the Court struck down that law as unconstitutional.

“If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable,” said Justice William Brennan.

Now crawl back in your hole.

“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."

Deckard  posted on  2016-12-03   11:51:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#93. To: Deckard (#92)

Johnson was convicted for engaging in expressive conduct.

Expressive conduct, whatever that is. Not speech. You really should try reading your cut and pastes.

Roscoe  posted on  2016-12-03   12:00:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#94. To: Roscoe (#93)

Johnson was convicted for engaging in expressive conduct.

Expressive conduct, whatever that is. Not speech. You really should try reading your cut and pastes.

Maybe you should learn to read the entire post instead of cherry-picking the sentences that you delusionally believe bolster your case.

In reaction to the Johnson decision, which only applied to the state of Texas, Congress passed an anti-flag burning law called the Flag Protection Act of 1989. But in 1990, the Court struck down that law as unconstitutional.

“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."

Deckard  posted on  2016-12-03   12:10:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#95. To: Deckard (#94)

In reaction to the Johnson decision, which only applied to the state of Texas, Congress passed an anti-flag burning law called the Flag Protection Act of 1989. But in 1990, the Court struck down that law as unconstitutional.

1. The word "speech" doesn't even appear in the quote.

2. It's not a quote from the decision.

Be careful not to set yourself on fire at your next flag burning.

Roscoe  posted on  2016-12-03   12:13:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#96. To: Roscoe (#95)

1. The word "speech" doesn't even appear in the quote.

The Court found that, "Under the circumstances, Johnson's burning of the flag constituted expressive conduct, permitting him to invoke the First Amendment.

... 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." The court concluded that, while "the government generally has a freer hand in restricting expressive conduct than it has in restricting the written or spoken word," it may not "proscribe particular conduct because it has expressive elements."

The Court rejected "the view that an apparently limitless variety of conduct can be labeled 'speech' whenever the person engaging in the conduct intends thereby to express an idea," but acknowledged that conduct may be "sufficiently imbued with elements of communication to fall within the scope of the First and Fourteenth Amendments."

In deciding whether particular conduct possesses sufficient communicative elements to bring the First Amendment into play, the court asked whether "an intent to convey a particularized message was present, and [whether] the likelihood was great that the message would be understood by those who viewed it."

You will never accept the fact that flag burning has been ruled constitutional by SCOTUS, so we're done here.

“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."

Deckard  posted on  2016-12-03   12:26:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#97. To: Deckard (#96)

"the government generally has a freer hand in restricting expressive conduct than it has in restricting the written or spoken word," it may not "proscribe particular conduct because it has expressive elements."

Conduct, not speech. Nice foot shot!

When you and your cronies expressively wiggle your dinkies in front of an elementary school, that's not speech either.

Roscoe  posted on  2016-12-03   12:29:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#98. To: Roscoe (#97)

Conduct, not speech.

Do you not understand the meaning of the phrase "elements of communication"?

The Court rejected "the view that an apparently limitless variety of conduct can be labeled 'speech' whenever the person engaging in the conduct intends thereby to express an idea," but acknowledged that conduct may be "sufficiently imbued with elements of communication to fall within the scope of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Fucking moron.

“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."

Deckard  posted on  2016-12-03   12:41:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#99. To: Deckard (#98)

Do you not understand the meaning of the phrase "elements of communication"?

Do you understand the meaning of the word "ambiguous"?

Roscoe  posted on  2016-12-03   12:46:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#100. To: Roscoe (#99)

Good grief man - your whining is becoming tiresome.

SCOTUS has settled the issue - just deal with it.

“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."

Deckard  posted on  2016-12-03   12:49:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#101. To: Deckard (#100)

The 5/4 decision doesn't even say flag burning is speech. Your hatred of our Constitution and original intent permeates your every post.

Roscoe  posted on  2016-12-03   12:52:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#102. To: Roscoe (#101)

The 5/4 decision doesn't even say flag burning is speech.

WTF do you think the First Amendment protects?

Your hatred of our Constitution

Your hatred of free speech is deplorable.

“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."

Deckard  posted on  2016-12-03   12:56:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#103. To: Deckard (#102)

WTF do you think the First Amendment protects?

Amendment I. 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.

Anything else I can help you with?

Roscoe  posted on  2016-12-03   12:58:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#104. To: Deckard (#102)

"WTF do you think the First Amendment protects?"

Nude dancing.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-12-03   13:24:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#105. To: misterwhite (#104)

Nude dancing.

And street riots (aka uprisings, fka looting).

Roscoe  posted on  2016-12-03   13:33:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#106. To: sneakypete (#81)

In that case it should be easy for you to produce quotes from me.

Ok if you want to go there.

You don't think Mayweather should be allowed to do what women do.

But you are not ok with some faggot not being to do what some women do.

Faggots are immoral not born that way. You're immoral too. That is a fact.

You're also a hypocrite and want special privileges for sex offenders.

Don't go making any pro faggot remarks. Pro faggot remarks are greeted with bannings.

A K A Stone  posted on  2016-12-04   8:42:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#107. To: A K A Stone, sneakypete (#106)

Pro faggot remarks are greeted with bannings.

You need to change the LF Banner:

Welcome to Liberty's Flame

Welcome to Liberty's Flame, an online meeting place for liberty minded people to discuss any and all national and international current events. There will be discussions about our rights under the constitution and rights endowed to us from our creator. The new world order, Bush's wars, government corruption and the coming cashless society will also be included on the discussion boards. Foreign invasions threatening our nation and its culture. Guns, primitive weapons and outdoor survival will also have discussion boards. A "how to" board as well as boards for business and education. Any 9/11 related news and articles. A Bible discussion board for discussion and Bible study. Also for those users interested we'll also have a place for you to submit your own articles. Also a discussion area to leak documents. The discussion boards are not limited to the topics listed; any news that one feels needs to be discussed is welcome at Liberty's Flame. This site was built upon the idea of free speech so everyone is welcome to come and discuss and debate the issues on hand.

Otherwise you will be known as a hypocrite.

buckeroo  posted on  2016-12-04   11:08:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#108. To: sneakypete (#75)

Are you pimping for your faggot friends again?

I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح

GrandIsland  posted on  2016-12-04   11:49:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#109. To: buckeroo (#107)

You must be one of Stinky Pee Pee's faggot relatives.

I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح

GrandIsland  posted on  2016-12-04   11:50:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#110. To: GrandIsland (#109)

You are disgusting POS, donuteater.

buckeroo  posted on  2016-12-04   12:09:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#111. To: A K A Stone (#106) (Edited)

You don't think Mayweather should be allowed to do what women do.

Name ONE woman that is a professional heavyweight boxer.

But you are not ok with some faggot not being to do what some women do.

Which is.....?

Faggots are immoral not born that way. You're immoral too. That is a fact.

No,it's religious dogma,which is nothing more than historic superstition.

You're also a hypocrite and want special privileges for sex offenders.

Either name the special privileges or admit you are a liar.

Don't go making any pro faggot remarks. Pro faggot remarks are greeted with bannings.

The sooner you come out of the closet and admit you are bi-sexual or homosexual,the happier you will be. You may even be happy for the first time in your life. Assuming of course you are not one of those people who are never happy unless they are unhappy. Most of those people vote Dim,though.

BTW,it is you and Fire Island who are ALWAYS the ones that bring up the issue of homosexuality here,not me. You might want to spend a little time wondering why that is the case.

BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO!

ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION!

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

sneakypete  posted on  2016-12-04   12:40:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#112. To: GrandIsland (#108)

Are you pimping for your faggot friends again?

You can tell your pimp to not worry. Nobody is trying to take you away from him,Princess.

BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO!

ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION!

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

sneakypete  posted on  2016-12-04   12:44:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#113. To: buckeroo (#110)

It must be stressful to live in fear like you do. Using the net to say shit that otherwise would cause your blood pressure to plummet

I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح

GrandIsland  posted on  2016-12-04   13:12:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#114. To: GrandIsland (#113) (Edited)

Go FUCK YOURSELF with some of your 50,000 rusted primers from your mother's basement. Pack all of your rusted primers into your ass, queerbait. Make sure your mommy slaps your ass in the basement of her house.

buckeroo  posted on  2016-12-04   13:24:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#115. To: buckeroo (#114)

My mom doesn't have a basement any more so than you have a set of balls. I can guarantee you, you wouldn't say any of the fucking things you think are "phunny", to my face... as you freely feel brave enough to flap your Stinky Pee Pee faggot flapping lips on here.

I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح

GrandIsland  posted on  2016-12-04   14:05:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#116. To: GrandIsland (#115)

You so nasty, GI. I bet you wet your basement cot in hopes that you can fuck yourself on a pillow crowded with rusted primers that were advertised as stainless steel but were not properly passivized when you bought SHIT from China. .

buckeroo  posted on  2016-12-04   14:21:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#117. To: buckeroo (#116)

I'm nasty enough to arrive at your house for a PHYSICAL DOMESTIC... walk in and find you bled out due to a kitchen fork to your neck... and explain to your wife the elements of self defense before I question her about the crime scene.

I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح

GrandIsland  posted on  2016-12-04   14:53:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#118. To: GrandIsland (#117)

Nasty FUCK people are not allowed in my home.

buckeroo  posted on  2016-12-04   15:05:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#119. To: buckeroo (#118)

Check case law. When your old lady calls 911... the Po Po is coming and entering... and if you don't like that, train your varmint family to not call for help. No search warrant needed.

You best live by yourself in the woods like the kook Uni bomber.

I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح

GrandIsland  posted on  2016-12-04   19:12:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#120. To: misterwhite (#84)

So? Everyone knows how the U.S. Supreme Court ruled. If you believe their word is the final word and that's the sum and substance of your argument, why are we even discussing the issue?

Because their opinion states what the law actually is and is enforceable, as distinguished from your misguided ruminations which are not the law and are not enforceable against anyone, no matter how much you insist on repeating your meaningless blather.

As you certify that you know that the U.S. Supreme Court precedent is, you have no valid excuse.

nolu chan  posted on  2016-12-04   19:49:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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!

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.

nolu chan  posted on  2016-12-04   19:53:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#122. To: Roscoe (#86)

IOW, you.

No, the dumb asshole who cited a 1907 14th Amendment case as a 21st century precedent on the First Amendment, after having the actual prevailing precedent cited and quoted.

nolu chan  posted on  2016-12-04   19:55:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#123. To: Deckard, Roscoe, misterwhite (#88) (Edited)

Seems to me that you two clowns don't get it - flag burning has been ruled by SCOTUS as protected speech.

The world is coming to an end. Deckard and I are in perfect agreement.

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 are the irrelevant pictures of beer cans.

JUSTICE SCALIA ON FLAG-BURNING

http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/watch-antonin-scalia-flag-burning-donald-trump-video-justice-say-about-first-amendment-freedom-of-speech/

“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.”

“Burning the flag is a form of expression,” Scalia continued. He later added that burning a flag is an action that “expresses an idea.”

Scalia made similar comments over the years, referring to people who burn flags as “weirdos.”

“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.

In his tweet, Trump showed that he disagrees with that. “Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag – if they do, there must be consequences – perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail,” Trump wrote.

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. The 1989 case overturned a Texas state statue that banned the burning of the flag, while the 1990 case overturned the Flag Protection Act.

nolu chan  posted on  2016-12-04   20:20:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#124. To: nolu chan (#123)

"flag burning has been ruled by SCOTUS as protected speech."

No one is saying they didn't. Where did you read that?

The argument is that SCOTUS is being selective and inconsistent. How can they ban hate speech but allow flag burning? How can they ban "fighting words" but allow flag burning? How can they ban behavior that incites violence but allow flag burning?

The FCC bans swear words over the air. Libel is banned. Slander is banned. Shouting "fire" in a theater is banned. There are plenty of examples of speech banned by the federal government.

In reality, you're supporting an exception.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-12-05   9:07:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#125. To: nolu chan (#121)

"Back in 1869 the 14th Amendment was passed."

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.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-12-05   9:19:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#126. To: misterwhite (#125)

But it wasn't perverted by liberal justices until decades later.

You're wasting your time. Shit-For-Brains hates the truth.

Roscoe  posted on  2016-12-05   9:51:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#127. To: misterwhite (#124)

No one is saying they didn't. Where did you read that?

Good. Then we are in perfect agreement that, according to law, flag burning is protected free speech as determined and reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

nolu chan  posted on  2016-12-05   10:26:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#128. To: misterwhite (#125)

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.

Yes. But it wasn't perverted by liberal justices until decades later.

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,

“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.”

So, stop running about espousing the ideas of tyrants. Join with the conservative, original constructionist Justice Scalia, and reject tyranny.

“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.

Give up trying to be king. Americans do not want a king.

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.

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.

  • Shock or Disbelief
  • Denial
  • Anger
  • Bargaining
  • Guilt
  • Depression
  • Acceptance and Hope

nolu chan  posted on  2016-12-05   11:01:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#129. To: nolu chan (#127)

"Good. Then we are in perfect agreement that, according to law, flag burning is protected free speech as determined and reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court."

Yep. And we are in perfect agreement that, according to law, abortion is legal, marijuana is illegal, asset forfeiture is legal, school prayer is not allowed, gay marriage is legal, gays in the military is allowed, discrimination against gays is illegal (despite religious views), nativity scenes on public lands are illegal, hate crimes (charged against whites) are legal, reverse discrimination is legal at universities, diversity targets (quotas) are legal, voluntary black segregation (at universities) is legal ... well, you get the idea.

Since these are all legal, there's no point in discussing them, right?

misterwhite  posted on  2016-12-05   11:11:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#130. To: nolu chan (#128)

"Join with the conservative, original constructionist Justice Scalia"

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?

misterwhite  posted on  2016-12-05   11:17:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (131 - 265) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com