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: 120396
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 speechAlready 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 # 201.
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.
#14. To: misterwhite (#1) (Edited)
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.
Is Flag Burning Protected Speech?
Before the Supreme Court ruled that burning your own flag in public is lawful, federal law and numerous state laws had made it criminal to do so. In analyzing those laws before it declared them to be unconstitutional, the Court looked at the original public understanding of those laws and concluded that they were intended not as fire safety regulations — the same statutes permitted other public fires — but rather as prophylactics intended to coerce reverence for the American flag by criminalizing the burning of privately owned pieces of cloth that were recognizable as American flags.
That is where the former statutes ran into trouble. Had they banned all public fires in given locations, for public safety sake, they probably would have withstood a constitutional challenge. But since these statutes were intended to suppress the ideas manifested by the public flag burning, by making the public expression of those ideas criminal, the statutes ran afoul of the First Amendment.
The First Amendment, which prohibits Congress from enacting laws infringing upon the freedom of speech, has consistently been interpreted in the modern era so as to insulate the public manifestation of political ideas from any government interference, whether the manifestation is by word or deed or both. This protection applies even to ideas that are hateful, offensive, unorthodox and outright un-American. Not a few judges and constitutional scholars have argued that the First Amendment was written for the very purpose of protecting the expression of hateful ideas, as loveable or popular ideas need no protection.
#183. To: Deckard (#14)
If you burn my flag, it is a crime. If I burn my flag it is free speech. The right way to rule on the case is so simple.
#186. To: jeremiad (#183)
"If you burn my flag, it is a crime. If I burn my flag it is free speech."
Hate speech is just words and nothing is burned. Yet there are laws against it.
#201. To: misterwhite (#186)
I have never supported hate speech laws. I see no reason to ban any speech, or action unless it can be proven to damage another human being. With that said, there also should not be any law protecting the State or Federal government as in the govt taking the place of the harmed individual, like The State of Vermont vs a shoplifter, or other common criminal. That is nonsense on its face, and reeks of a Monarchy.
Replies to Comment # 201.
"I have never supported hate speech laws."
Well, we have them. And since we do, I don't see how flag burning is any different.
But, think outside the box. Isn't it possible that Trump brought this flag burning issue up precisely because of hate speech laws? To get people to see that both are the same thing?
And that the result will be that people will insist on free speech, thereby forcing the elimination of our hate speech laws.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 201.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]