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: 98792
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
Comments (1-100) not displayed.
.
.
.
#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.
WTF do you think the First Amendment protects? Your hatred of our Constitution Your hatred of free speech is deplorable. 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?
Nude dancing.
And street riots (aka uprisings, fka looting).
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.
You need to change the LF Banner: Otherwise you will be known as a hypocrite.
Are you pimping for your faggot friends again?
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
You must be one of Stinky Pee Pee's faggot relatives.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
You are disgusting POS, donuteater.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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. .
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
Nasty FUCK people are not allowed in my home.
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
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.
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.
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.
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 “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.
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.
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.
You're wasting your time. Shit-For-Brains hates the truth.
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.
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.
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?
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?
Since these are all legal, there's no point in discussing them, right? The point of such discussion is that you disagree with the law as it is. That does not change the law. Whether one agrees with it or not, abortion is legal, marijuana is illegal, same-sex marriage is legal... well, you get the idea.
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.
You best live by yourself in the woods like the kook Uni bomber. No one would dare call the useless 9-1-1 for any type of help from a fascist government. What are you crazy with silly assumptions?
9-1-1 doesn't get any calls. Who knew?
I wish Buckys stupidity was true. I'd have had a more fun, boring career. But just like Buckys sexual preferences, he's just WRONG. The sheeple love to call government to solve their problems.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
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.
Comments (141 - 265) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#102. To: Roscoe (#101)
The 5/4 decision doesn't even say flag burning is speech.
“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."
#103. To: Deckard (#102)
WTF do you think the First Amendment protects?
#104. To: Deckard (#102)
"WTF do you think the First Amendment protects?"
#105. To: misterwhite (#104)
Nude dancing.
#106. To: sneakypete (#81)
In that case it should be easy for you to produce quotes from me.
#107. To: A K A Stone, sneakypete (#106)
Pro faggot remarks are greeted with bannings.
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.
#108. To: sneakypete (#75)
#109. To: buckeroo (#107)
#110. To: GrandIsland (#109)
#111. To: A K A Stone (#106)
(Edited)
You don't think Mayweather should be allowed to do what women do.
#112. To: GrandIsland (#108)
Are you pimping for your faggot friends again?
#113. To: buckeroo (#110)
#114. To: GrandIsland (#113)
(Edited)
#115. To: buckeroo (#114)
#116. To: GrandIsland (#115)
#117. To: buckeroo (#116)
#118. To: GrandIsland (#117)
#119. To: buckeroo (#118)
#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?
#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!
#122. To: Roscoe (#86)
IOW, you.
#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.
“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.”
#124. To: nolu chan (#123)
"flag burning has been ruled by SCOTUS as protected speech."
#125. To: nolu chan (#121)
"Back in 1869 the 14th Amendment was passed."
#126. To: misterwhite (#125)
But it wasn't perverted by liberal justices until decades later.
#127. To: misterwhite (#124)
No one is saying they didn't. Where did you read that?
#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.
#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."
#130. To: nolu chan (#128)
"Join with the conservative, original constructionist Justice Scalia"
#131. To: misterwhite (#129)
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.
#132. To: misterwhite (#130)
He's dead. And he's wrong. He's dead wrong.
#133. To: GrandIsland (#119)
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.
#134. To: buckeroo, GrandIsland (#133)
No one would dare call the useless 9-1-1 for any type of help from a fascist government. What are you crazy with silly assumptions?
#135. To: nolu chan (#134)
#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."
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]