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

[jimnyc]

I know my position is an unpopular one, so Trump taking that stance will be even worse!

I get it, they do this on Flag Day to make a point, and some support it while more so are against it, citing first amendment rights. And they are correct. Even every veteran I have over spoken to on the issue supports their rights to do so. I still disagree - or more accurately just hate ever seeing it burned. In any country. And I would hope that any citizen of any country would feel similarly.

---

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

President Donald Trump said Saturday he is “all in” on supporting a constitutional amendment that would make it illegal to burn the American flag.

“A no brainer!” Trump wrote on Twitter of a bill proposed by Montana Republican Sen. Steve Daines and North Dakota Republican Sen. Kevin Cramer.

The two Republicans introduced a constitutional amendment on Friday that would make it illegal to burn or desecrate the flag. Daines has submitted similar proposals in the past, usually to commemorate Flag Day.

https://i.imgur.com/EpXBfdo.png

Trump has supported criminalizing flag burning in the past.

He said that burning the flag should lead to jail time or loss of citizenship on Nov. 29, 2016.

https://i.imgur.com/4VIB4aJ.png

Trump was also heavily critical of NFL players who knelt during the national anthem at football games.

“I don’t think people should be staying in the locker rooms, but still I think it’s good. You have to stand proudly for the National Anthem. You shouldn’t be playing, you shouldn’t be there. Maybe they shouldn’t be in the country,” Trump said in May 2018, after the NFL enacted a policy banning players from kneeling during the national anthem.

The proposal by Daines and Cramer is unlikely to see success in Congress. To amend the Constitution, two-thirds of both the House and Senate must vote to formally propose an amendment. Then, three-fourths of state legislatures must vote in favor of the amendment for it to be added to the Constitution.

https://dailycaller.com/2019/06/15/trump-amendment-flag-burning/

[High_Plains_Drifter]

I'm all for it... :saluting2:

Shouldn't be too surprising coming from a veteran.

[Elessar]

I am all for it.


The "FLAG CODE"


Previous to Flag Day, June 14, 1923 there were no federal or state regulations governing display of the United States Flag. It was on this date that the National Flag Code was adopted by the National Flag Conference which was attended by representatives of the Army and Navy which had evolved their own procedures, and some 66 other national groups. This purpose of providing guidance based on the Army and Navy procedures relating to display and associated questions about the U. S. Flag was adopted by all organizations in attendance.

A few minor changes were made a year later during the Flag Day 1924 Conference, It was not until June 22, 1942 that Congress passed a joint resolution which was amended on December 22, 1942 to become Public Law 829; Chapter 806, 77th Congress, 2nd session. Exact rules for use and display of the flag (36 U.S.C. 173-178) as well as associated sections (36 U.S.C. 171) Conduct during Playing of the National Anthem, (36 U.S.C. 172) the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, and Manner of Delivery were included.

This code is the guide for all handling and display of the Stars and Stripes. It does not impose penalties for misuse of the United States Flag. That is left to the states and to the federal government for the District of Columbia. Each state has its own flag law.

Criminal penalties for certain acts of desecration to the flag were contained in Title 18 of the United States Code prior to 1989. The Supreme Court decision in Texas v. Johnson; June 21, 1989, held the statute unconstitutional. This statute was amended when the Flag Protection Act of 1989 (Oct. 28, 1989) imposed a fine and/or up to I year in prison for knowingly mutilating, defacing, physically defiling, maintaining on the floor or trampling upon any flag of the United States. The Flag Protection Act of 1989 was struck down by the Supreme Court decision, United States vs. Eichman, decided on June 11, 1990.

While the Code empowers the President of the United States to alter, modify, repeal or prescribe additional rules regarding the Flag, no federal agency has the authority to issue 'official' rulings legally binding on civilians or civilian groups. Consequently, different interpretations of various provisions of the Code may continue to be made. The Flag Code may be fairly tested: 'No disrespect should be shown to the Flag of the United States of America.' Therefore, actions not specifically included in the Code may be deemed acceptable as long as proper respect is shown.

Boy Scouts, American Legion, VFW, Nam Vets,Firehouses and more regularly reverently retire old, worn and weathered U.S. Flags.
I burn mine quietly on my BBQ grill..

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Boy Scouts, American Legion, VFW, Nam Vets,Firehouses and more regularly reverently retire old, worn and weathered U.S. Flags.
I burn mine quietly on my BBQ grill..
Yep... Just put up a new flag myself. Old one had a couple rips and was faded. I'll burn it in my next campfire with a proper salute.

[Noir]

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

[jimnyc]

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

Can't just say you disagree and explain why, huh? Gotta be a douche instead. :rolleyes:

[Noir]

Can't just say you disagree and explain why, huh? Gotta be a douche instead.


I disagree because 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.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

It's got nothing to do with the 1st Amendment.

Just like border security and immigration policy has got nothing to do with RACISM.

There is no worse one single stunt one can pull that more disrespects our nation, our history, our sovereignty, our founding fathers, our military, our veterans, and every single American that loves their nation. You burn our flag, and you're pissing in my face and every one of those others telling us that you hate America. Well, then you probably shouldn't be here. Go live in Ireland or somewhere else with the rest of the little pencil necked liberal leftist faggots and burn our flag, I don't care, just don't do it on American soil.

[Kathianne]

It's got nothing to do with the 1st Amendment.

Just like border security and immigration policy has got nothing to do with RACISM.

There is no worse one single stunt one can pull that more disrespects our nation, our history, our sovereignty, our founding fathers, our military, our veterans, and every single American that loves their nation. You burn our flag, and you're pissing in my face and every one of those others telling us that you hate America. Well, then you probably shouldn't be here. Go live in Ireland or somewhere else with the rest of the little pencil necked liberal leftist faggots and burn our flag, I don't care, just don't do it on American soil.

Actually it does. It's protected speech, however that it is 'protected' doesn't diminish your right to be very angry at someone else's spouting off as it were. What you can't do is demonstrate your anger physically. If someone chooses to display their speech on property other than their own or someone's who's like minded, the police can probably arrest them for fire starting.

I think it's a stupid way to demonstrate that one doesn't like this country or what it stands for, but it is protected. Laws against these types of protections, are the same line of reasoning to outlaw 'hate speech.' It's an all or nothing type of deal-slippery slope, if you will.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Actually it does. It's protected speech, however that it is 'protected' doesn't diminish your right to be very angry at someone else's spouting off as it were. What you can't do is demonstrate your anger physically. If someone chooses to display their speech on property other than their own or someone's who's like minded, the police can probably arrest them for fire starting.

I think it's a stupid way to demonstrate that one doesn't like this country or what it stands for, but it is protected. Laws against these types of protections, are the same line of reasoning to outlaw 'hate speech.' It's an all or nothing type of deal-slippery slope, if you will.
You're not "speaking," you're burning a flag. You're starting a fire, often in public. You can do that without "speaking" a word. I don't see this as having anything to do with the 1st Amendment, which pertains to "speech."

[Kathianne]

You're not "speaking," you're burning a flag. You're starting a fire, often in public. You can do that without "speaking" a word. I don't see this as having anything to do with the 1st Amendment, which pertains to "speech."

Symbolic speech. Same as burning the Koran, which folks have done. As I said, personally think it's wrong, but shouldn't be illegal. We agree to disagree. I don't want England's anti-speech laws, symbolic or literal speech.

[Elessar]

Symbolic speech. Same as burning the Koran, which folks have done. As I said, personally think it's wrong, but shouldn't be illegal. We agree to disagree. I don't want England's anti-speech laws, symbolic or literal speech.

Mixed feelings on the 1st Amendment Rights.

Freedom of expression is not listed among them, but has been assumed.
I disagree totally with burning OUR Flag, which I served under for 37 years,
taking that as an act of defiance to our laws.

Try to burn one in public in front of me and I will snatch it away, Period.

[jimnyc]

I disagree because 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.

Pretty sure I know what the 1st states. That's why it's called an amendment.

If someone wanted to somehow ban guns - I guess it's 100% impossible considering the 2nd. No point ever bringing up guns again I guess.

[jimnyc]

Symbolic speech. Same as burning the Koran, which folks have done. As I said, personally think it's wrong, but shouldn't be illegal. We agree to disagree. I don't want England's anti-speech laws, symbolic or literal speech.

When some scumbags tried to burn our flag in the outfield of Dodgers stadium, and Rick Monday swooped in to prevent it. The best was when the bikers saved a flag from burning in DC and all the little protesters pissed their pants and ran!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbr1hNp-nI4

[Noir]

Pretty sure I know what the 1st states. That's why it's called an amendment.

If someone wanted to somehow ban guns - I guess it's 100% impossible considering the 2nd. No point ever bringing up guns again I guess.

Completely different -

Someone wanting a gun ban should be arguing to repeal the 2nd Amendment, regardless of what you think about the topic - that sentiment makes sense.

As far as I know people arguing against flag burning are not arguing to repeal the 1st amendment, so it’s a nonstarter.

[jimnyc]

Completely different -

Someone wanting a gun ban should be arguing to repeal the 2nd Amendment, regardless of what you think about the topic - that sentiment makes sense.

As far as I know people arguing against flag burning are not arguing to repeal the 1st amendment, so it’s a nonstarter.

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

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

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

[Kathianne]

When some scumbags tried to burn our flag in the outfield of Dodgers stadium, and Rick Monday swooped in to prevent it. The best was when the bikers saved a flag from burning in DC and all the little protesters pissed their pants and ran!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbr1hNp-nI4

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

[High_Plains_Drifter]

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

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

[Elessar]

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

I missed this.

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

[Elessar]

Completely different -

Someone wanting a gun ban should be arguing to repeal the 2nd Amendment, regardless of what you think about the topic - that sentiment makes sense.

As far as I know people arguing against flag burning are not arguing to repeal the 1st amendment, so it’s a nonstarter.

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

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Deflection as usual. You don't live here, so why preach to us that do?
I could answer that, but I'd probably be being redundant to what everyone here already knows.

[Noir]

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

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

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

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

[darin]

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

[STTAB]

I know my position is an unpopular one, so Trump taking that stance will be even worse!

I get it, they do this on Flag Day to make a point, and some support it while more so are against it, citing first amendment rights. And they are correct. Even every veteran I have over spoken to on the issue supports their rights to do so. I still disagree - or more accurately just hate ever seeing it burned. In any country. And I would hope that any citizen of any country would feel similarly.

---

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

President Donald Trump said Saturday he is “all in” on supporting a constitutional amendment that would make it illegal to burn the American flag.

“A no brainer!” Trump wrote on Twitter of a bill proposed by Montana Republican Sen. Steve Daines and North Dakota Republican Sen. Kevin Cramer.

The two Republicans introduced a constitutional amendment on Friday that would make it illegal to burn or desecrate the flag. Daines has submitted similar proposals in the past, usually to commemorate Flag Day.

https://i.imgur.com/EpXBfdo.png

Trump has supported criminalizing flag burning in the past.

He said that burning the flag should lead to jail time or loss of citizenship on Nov. 29, 2016.

https://i.imgur.com/4VIB4aJ.png

Trump was also heavily critical of NFL players who knelt during the national anthem at football games.

“I don’t think people should be staying in the locker rooms, but still I think it’s good. You have to stand proudly for the National Anthem. You shouldn’t be playing, you shouldn’t be there. Maybe they shouldn’t be in the country,” Trump said in May 2018, after the NFL enacted a policy banning players from kneeling during the national anthem.

The proposal by Daines and Cramer is unlikely to see success in Congress. To amend the Constitution, two-thirds of both the House and Senate must vote to formally propose an amendment. Then, three-fourths of state legislatures must vote in favor of the amendment for it to be added to the Constitution.

https://dailycaller.com/2019/06/15/trump-amendment-flag-burning/


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

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

We have the right to be assholes in this country.

[jimnyc]

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

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

We have the right to be assholes in this country.

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

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

[STTAB]

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

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

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

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

[jimnyc]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[STTAB]

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

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

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

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


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

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

[jimnyc]

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

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

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

---

Flag Desecration Amendment

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

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

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

Historical background

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

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

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

Proposed amendment

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

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

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

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

Rest - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Desecration_Amendment

[jimnyc]

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

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

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

[Drummond]

Symbolic speech. Same as burning the Koran, which folks have done. As I said, personally think it's wrong, but shouldn't be illegal. We agree to disagree. I don't want England's anti-speech laws, symbolic or literal speech.

Even with England's 'ultra-PC' climate, burning our national flag, here, isn't illegal. You might find this link amusing (?) ...

https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071208080718AAEh1Qq&guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9kdWNrZHVja2dvLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAJAkvGml-Ui2UBd0dhQSQeE-kI2ltu8GKILqRKGEpqmtjAt2fC9qyiUPLNXt62F5zjHmqolABZ rbkWwN6Oib6TGjGLRq7saQKBUcQ8WhzHsmmtx84b8f6CD1TLiF LcS41v3AcRXy3CDZjifplZ7od0lw6DaCMkzajj3m2o2geYOW

[The context of the act might be relevant, though ...]

As for the burning of the American flag, I can easily see how any patriotic American would consider it offensive, and an outright insult. Seems to me that making doing that illegal sends a good message .. why shouldn't that insult incur consequences .. ?

[jimnyc]

I do agree with a lot in this article. I said I doubt it would ever be passed, and that perhaps it's even just the correct decision across the board. But personally, it sickens me to see it.

2 things I mainly disagree with here in this article: 1) I will NEVER want to burn the American flag. NO REASON will ever be good enough. It doesn't represent the government you dislike or the current administration that you don't like, it will ALWAYS represent the blood spilled for our freedom. 2) Any such restriction or desire for restriction is NOT un-American. As it stands it is protected speech and I get that, but not agreeing with such actions doesn't make me un-American.

---

Nolte: Trump Is Wrong About Outlawing American Flag Burning

President Trump believes a Constitutional Amendment to ban the burning of the American flag is a “no brainer.” I disagree.

The Amendment in question is the brainchild of Sens. Steve Daines (R-MT) and Kevin Cramer (R-ND), and Rep. Steve Womack (R-AR), and is necessary because the Supreme Court has already ruled (correctly) that the burning of the flag is constitutionally protected speech. There is only one avenue around the Supreme Court: a Constitutional Amendment.

The politics behind this are obvious. Once again Democrats and their media confederates will go on the record defending flag desecration. As always, rather than defend the principle, the left will overreach in defense of anything anti-American and in doing so betray their own anti-Americanism. I get all that.

And no one need lecture me on the uniqueness of our flag, why it deserves special protections. Like I said, I get all that, I do…

But as much as I despise the burning of the American flag, what I hate even more is the idea of living in a country where the government can punish you for it.

Any inanimate object I purchase legally belongs to me, which means I now have the right to do whatever I want with it — including the safe and legal burning of it. If I cancel my homeowners insurance and obtain the correct permits, I should be allowed to burn down my house. It’s mine.

If someone purchases an American flag, or the gay flag, or a Bible, or a Koran, it belongs to them and if they want to throw it in the fireplace or on the grill, it is their God-given right as an American to be an asshole.

You see, I’m a bit biased on this issue — I’m a free speech extremist. Any speech that does not encourage criminality or violence should be protected from any kind of government censorship, corporate blacklisting, or social shunning. I want to live in a country where people can express themselves in the most vile ways imaginable without facing any consequence other than a counter-argument.

You see, burning the American flag is no skin off my nose, does not violate my rights. All it does is piss me off and there is no right not to be pissed off in this country, only the right to piss others off.

Do you want to what does violate my rights? Outlawing flag burning, making it illegal for me express myself in whatever way I choose, prohibiting me from doing what I want with my own property.

And think about this…

What if someday you want to burn the flag?

I know that sounds outrageous, but 15 years ago, gay marriage sounded outrageous; ten years ago, biological men competing in women’s sports sounded outrageous; eight years ago, Democrats openly pursuing the legalization of infanticide sounded outrageous; five years ago, the FBI orchestrating a coup against a sitting president seemed outrageous.

We are living in a country where the media and far-left seek to normalize The Outrageous on a regular basis and what if in ten years America is so not-America anymore you want to express yourself by burning the American flag.

What I mean is…

What if someday you believe the only way to fully express yourself is to commit an extreme act that at one time was unthinkable? What if crossing a line is your act of personal expression?

Besides, the fastest way to encourage flag burning is to prohibit it. If a Constitutional Amendment passes, you will see the flag go up in smoke in protest after protest after protest, and while I would never join such a protest, I will defend them.

Regardless, this is the most important thing…

The only way to protect your own speech, to protect your right to express yourself, is to defend speech and expression that disgust you. Outlawing flag burning moves the line against your speech a little closer to you.

As I wrote in my defense of Louis Farrakhan and Alex Jones:


If you are going to defend free speech, don’t defend your own speech, don’t defend speech you agree with, don’t defend speech you find acceptable — if you are going to defend speech, be an American… go out there and find the most offensive and disgusting speech you can find and defend that because that is the most important speech in the world.

…

The best movie ever made about how free speech works is Milos Forman’s The People vs. Larry Flynt. Give it a look. We defend pigs like Larry Flynt as a means to defend ourselves, we defend pigs because no one should have the ultimate power to decide what is and is not piggish behavior — because once you give someone that power, they get drunk on the power, and as they decide to perfect society (the goal of every Bond villain), the Pig Line is always going to move closer to you and me.

Sure, I used to believe in outlawing flag burning. But over the past decade, as the left and their media allies seek to silence us with fascist hate speech laws, as the blacklisters in Silicon Valley exterminate ideas they disagree with in their monopolized public square, the importance of the First Amendment, of protecting all speech and expression, has made me a bit wiser.

Restricting speech is every bit as un-American as burning the flag.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/06/17/nolte-trump-is-wrong-about-outlawing-american-flag-burning/

[Kathianne]

I do agree with a lot in this article. I said I doubt it would ever be passed, and that perhaps it's even just the correct decision across the board. But personally, it sickens me to see it.

2 things I mainly disagree with here in this article: 1) I will NEVER want to burn the American flag. NO REASON will ever be good enough. It doesn't represent the government you dislike or the current administration that you don't like, it will ALWAYS represent the blood spilled for our freedom. 2) Any such restriction or desire for restriction is NOT un-American. As it stands it is protected speech and I get that, but not agreeing with such actions doesn't make me un-American.

---

Nolte: Trump Is Wrong About Outlawing American Flag Burning

President Trump believes a Constitutional Amendment to ban the burning of the American flag is a “no brainer.” I disagree.

The Amendment in question is the brainchild of Sens. Steve Daines (R-MT) and Kevin Cramer (R-ND), and Rep. Steve Womack (R-AR), and is necessary because the Supreme Court has already ruled (correctly) that the burning of the flag is constitutionally protected speech. There is only one avenue around the Supreme Court: a Constitutional Amendment.

The politics behind this are obvious. Once again Democrats and their media confederates will go on the record defending flag desecration. As always, rather than defend the principle, the left will overreach in defense of anything anti-American and in doing so betray their own anti-Americanism. I get all that.

And no one need lecture me on the uniqueness of our flag, why it deserves special protections. Like I said, I get all that, I do…

But as much as I despise the burning of the American flag, what I hate even more is the idea of living in a country where the government can punish you for it.

Any inanimate object I purchase legally belongs to me, which means I now have the right to do whatever I want with it — including the safe and legal burning of it. If I cancel my homeowners insurance and obtain the correct permits, I should be allowed to burn down my house. It’s mine.

If someone purchases an American flag, or the gay flag, or a Bible, or a Koran, it belongs to them and if they want to throw it in the fireplace or on the grill, it is their God-given right as an American to be an asshole.

You see, I’m a bit biased on this issue — I’m a free speech extremist. Any speech that does not encourage criminality or violence should be protected from any kind of government censorship, corporate blacklisting, or social shunning. I want to live in a country where people can express themselves in the most vile ways imaginable without facing any consequence other than a counter-argument.

You see, burning the American flag is no skin off my nose, does not violate my rights. All it does is piss me off and there is no right not to be pissed off in this country, only the right to piss others off.

Do you want to what does violate my rights? Outlawing flag burning, making it illegal for me express myself in whatever way I choose, prohibiting me from doing what I want with my own property.

And think about this…

What if someday you want to burn the flag?

I know that sounds outrageous, but 15 years ago, gay marriage sounded outrageous; ten years ago, biological men competing in women’s sports sounded outrageous; eight years ago, Democrats openly pursuing the legalization of infanticide sounded outrageous; five years ago, the FBI orchestrating a coup against a sitting president seemed outrageous.

We are living in a country where the media and far-left seek to normalize The Outrageous on a regular basis and what if in ten years America is so not-America anymore you want to express yourself by burning the American flag.

What I mean is…

What if someday you believe the only way to fully express yourself is to commit an extreme act that at one time was unthinkable? What if crossing a line is your act of personal expression?

Besides, the fastest way to encourage flag burning is to prohibit it. If a Constitutional Amendment passes, you will see the flag go up in smoke in protest after protest after protest, and while I would never join such a protest, I will defend them.

Regardless, this is the most important thing…

The only way to protect your own speech, to protect your right to express yourself, is to defend speech and expression that disgust you. Outlawing flag burning moves the line against your speech a little closer to you.

As I wrote in my defense of Louis Farrakhan and Alex Jones:



Sure, I used to believe in outlawing flag burning. But over the past decade, as the left and their media allies seek to silence us with fascist hate speech laws, as the blacklisters in Silicon Valley exterminate ideas they disagree with in their monopolized public square, the importance of the First Amendment, of protecting all speech and expression, has made me a bit wiser.

Restricting speech is every bit as un-American as burning the flag.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/06/17/nolte-trump-is-wrong-about-outlawing-american-flag-burning/

And that is what I have been saying since the beginning of this thread and any others over the years about 'flag burning bans.' It IS offensive to me, yes, it angers me and I really don't know what I'd do or say if it happened in my presence. However, that the government forbids it; OR passes a law saying that my language or writings cannot offend YOU, no. That I CAN'T burn Korans or Bibles or pornography or what have you? No.

As I said in one of my earliest posts here, slippery slope. Once one exception is made because it offends some, more will follow.

[STTAB]

And that is what I have been saying since the beginning of this thread and any others over the years about 'flag burning bans.' It IS offensive to me, yes, it angers me and I really don't know what I'd do or say if it happened in my presence. However, that the government forbids it; OR passes a law saying that my language or writings cannot offend YOU, no. That I CAN'T burn Korans or Bibles or pornography or what have you? No.

As I said in one of my earliest posts here, slippery slope. Once one exception is made because it offends some, more will follow.

I'm gonna disagree with you SLIGHTLY here Kath, in that we already have exceptions. Such as

try running into a bank and yelling "this is a robbery" and see what happens
Try standing up in an airplane and yelling "I have a bomb" and see what happens
Try standing up in a crowded theater and shouting "Fire" and see what happens.
Try lying to Congress (if you're a conservative) and see what happens

etc, etc.

We're already down the rabbit hole and at this point we only have the ILLUSION of free speech and probably 90% of the idiots in this country are fine with that. People on the left and the right want to use force of law to silence those they disagree with (though no doubt the left is FAR worse about that then the right)

[Kathianne]

I'm gonna disagree with you SLIGHTLY here Kath, in that we already have exceptions. Such as

try running into a bank and yelling "this is a robbery" and see what happens
Try standing up in an airplane and yelling "I have a bomb" and see what happens
Try standing up in a crowded theater and shouting "Fire" and see what happens.
Try lying to Congress (if you're a conservative) and see what happens

etc, etc.

We're already down the rabbit hole and at this point we only have the ILLUSION of free speech and probably 90% of the idiots in this country are fine with that. People on the left and the right want to use force of law to silence those they disagree with (though no doubt the left is FAR worse about that then the right)


Those are covered under 'imminent danger' set in Brandenburg. Flag burning, as long as it isn't set to ignite someone else's property on fire, won't pass that test. Neither do, 'fighting words.'

'Yelling fire!' was brought up in Shenck and partially repealed in other cases, up to and including Brandenburg.

[STTAB]

Those are covered under 'imminent danger' set in Brandenburg. Flag burning, as long as it isn't set to ignite someone else's property on fire, won't pass that test. Neither do, 'fighting words.'

'Yelling fire!' was brought up in Shenck and partially repealed in other cases, up to and including Brandenburg.

I could argue that being an asshole and burning a US flag is creating an imminent danger. I won't , because I hate the snowflake culture of using the law to prevent others from offending me, but I could.

[jimnyc]

I wish I could find the video of the bikers and antifa protesters. They're all kinds of tough with an inanimate object but suddenly piss their pants when some bikers don't appreciate their burning efforts. Perhaps THAT is how it should be handled then. :)

Simply don't allow it to happen when possible, just like Monday or the bikers. Take it away from them. At least I would in a heartbeat. Similar as with the bakers and the homos. If you won't get support, take matters into your own hands - legally.

And if your response will be that its theft, good luck finding a cop that will arrest someone for preventing the American flag from being burnt. And at least for myself, even if, I would proudly take such charges. Or, at the very minimum, blast it with an entire fire extinguisher on it, as you are simply putting out a dangerous fire.

[STTAB]

I wish I could find the video of the bikers and antifa protesters. They're all kinds of tough with an inanimate object but suddenly piss their pants when some bikers don't appreciate their burning efforts. Perhaps THAT is how it should be handled then. :)

Simply don't allow it to happen when possible, just like Monday or the bikers. Take it away from them. At least I would in a heartbeat. Similar as with the bakers and the homos. If you won't get support, take matters into your own hands - legally.

And if your response will be that its theft, good luck finding a cop that will arrest someone for preventing the American flag from being burnt. And at least for myself, even if, I would proudly take such charges. Or, at the very minimum, blast it with an entire fire extinguisher on it, as you are simply putting out a dangerous fire.

Oh, if only we could return to a time where if you were offensive you might get your ass kicked without the law getting involved. But those days are long gone. Yeah Okay go ahead and have your "gay pride" parade out in the street but I might beat your ass for having your wiener hanging out. That sort of thing.......... I was born 100 year too late.

[hjmick]

I wish I could find the video of the bikers and antifa protesters. They're all kinds of tough with an inanimate object but suddenly piss their pants when some bikers don't appreciate their burning efforts. Perhaps THAT is how it should be handled then. :)

Simply don't allow it to happen when possible, just like Monday or the bikers. Take it away from them. At least I would in a heartbeat. Similar as with the bakers and the homos. If you won't get support, take matters into your own hands - legally.

And if your response will be that its theft, good luck finding a cop that will arrest someone for preventing the American flag from being burnt. And at least for myself, even if, I would proudly take such charges. Or, at the very minimum, blast it with an entire fire extinguisher on it, as you are simply putting out a dangerous fire.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j358bcLbgk

[jimnyc]

You rock, HJ!! Thx!

[hjmick]

You rock, HJ!! Thx!


My pleasure Jim.


I am always entertained by the morons who set themselves on fire while attempting to set the flag on fire...



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-c1XlHCWRdY



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kwh3ZHLjZWA



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqnNvK4LYJk


I'm not a fan of people burning the flag, but I even less of a fan of a law making it illegal. I am huge fan of people setting themselves one fire while doing it, that never gets old...

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Here's the thing... "to me"... we only have ONE national symbol, and that's our flag. It's OK to argue the slippery slope and all this and that, but there is no comparison. We have no other flag, no other national symbol, so it's not like our flag is easily compared to hundreds of other items or instances, it's not, IMO. It's our flag, it's what represents our nation and all the men and women that created it, fought for it, bled and died for it. I don't see as though a law protecting it would be such an egregious affront to anyone's freedom. You just shouldn't do it, not in America, not on our soil, and if we have to make a law forbidding it, I'm all for it.

But I have no problem with everyone else and their opinion. I'm not saying I'm right and everyone else is wrong. I'm simply stating my opinion.

[hjmick]

The bald eagle?


Now granted, you can't hang a bald eagle from a pole, that would be cruel and frighten small children, but I would argue it is a symbol of our nation.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

The bald eagle?


Now granted, you can't hang a bald eagle from a pole, that would be cruel and frighten small children, but I would argue it is a symbol of our nation.
"A" symbol, but a bird isn't our flag. People didn't fight and die for a bird. They didn't carry a bird into combat. They don't drape a bird across deceased military coffins returning from war. They don't stick thousands of birds in the ground on Veterans Day next to veterans graves... etc, etc, etc.

Our flag is "the" symbol of America.

But isn't it odd that they when the Bold Eagle was on the endangered list, it was illegal to harm and/or kill a Bald Eagle. So we'll protect a bird before we'll protect our own flag.