Trump wants one year jail sentence for flag burning

[devil21]

I disagree.

Trump knows perfectly well that:
(1) he isn't going to be able to do it (Presidents don't set prison terms for federal crimes - Congress does), and
(2) if he (or Congress) tried, the courts would slap him down, toot sweet.

He's just throwing red meat to the part of his base that doesn't know any better.

They are the "chumps" here, not him.

That's pretty much his entire base.

"I love the poorly educated." - Donnie

Any way, SCOTUS already ruled it's a First Amendment freedom of speech right. Let's not go throwing the baby out with the bath water. Seems like every time a Republican wins the White House, the Constitution ends up taking more of a beating than when a Democrat wins. Strange how that works....

 

[oyarde]

Right wing political correctness. The dumb SOB has obviously never read Texas v Johnson. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/491/397/#tab-opinion-1958037

Lol , ya,I dont tink trump cares

 

[69360]

That's pretty much his entire base.

"I love the poorly educated." - Donnie

Any way, SCOTUS already ruled it's a First Amendment freedom of speech right. Let's not go throwing the baby out with the bath water. Seems like every time a Republican wins the White House, the Constitution ends up taking more of a beating than when a Democrat wins. Strange how that works....

SCOTUS just got rid of ROE v. Wade. It's not beyond the realm of possiblity they could reverse on this issue as well. But I can't imagine this is really a Trump priority. He tends to get off track at his little maga pep rallys and say things like this.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Seems like every time a Republican wins the White House, the Constitution ends up taking more of a beating than when a Democrat wins. Strange how that works....

Go sell that bilge water to the thousands of 6 Jan political prisoners.

Or to the millions that will find regulatory relief due to the overturning of "Chevron".

Or the hundreds of thousands that will now live due to "Roe" being overturned.

The GOP is no white horse, is no savior.

99 times out of a hundred, they will do the wrong thing.

On the rare occasion they do, it will likely be by accident or for the wrong reasons.

The Marxists, however, will never do the right thing, ever.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Exactly right.

This has already been adjudicated a hundred times, and the courts have routinely ruled that flag burning is 1st Amendment protected free speech.

Now, try burning a fagg flag and see what happens to you.

https://x.com/LeadingReport/status/1816610609619705974

Meanwhile...

 

[Occam's Banana]

Meh, if that was a proposed federal law, I would not fight for or against a specific law FOR THAT ACT ONLY. It's not an important issue to me, but I could live with a ban on it.

"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." -- Thomas Jefferson (apocryphal)

"Meh, whatever." -- 69360

I heard trump just said you should get a year for flag burning. I want to hear the trumpsters spin that one.

I could live with that. I don't see it as a pressing issue, I'm for freedom of speech and expression, but if that one particular act became illegal I don't see it as the end of the world.

Then you are not, in fact, "for freedom of speech and expression".

But you are right about one thing: the "end of the world" - or at least, the end of whatever liberty we have left in the world - won't be due to "that one particular act".

Rather, it will be due to the combination of "that one particular act" with all the other "particular acts" to which you will no doubt also have few or no particular objections (because you "don't see it as a pressing issue", or whatever bland excuse) - until one day you find yourself wondering where the hell what was left of your freedom went. But by then, it will be much too late.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Take whatever side of the issue you want about it being protected speech, but it's not "criticizing the government", it's a statement of hatred for the country itself and its people.

It's a physical statement of "Death to America and it's people".

Any foreigner caught doing it should get instant deportation.

 

[acptulsa]

Take whatever side of the issue you want about it being protected speech, but it's not "criticizing the government", it's a statement of hatred for the country itself and its people.

So, if someone does something for a reason you don't understand, that's never "crazy like a fox", that's always invalid just because you don't get it.

A centrist position, taken by pretty much everyone who is the center of his own little universe.

 

[69360]

"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." -- Thomas Jefferson (apocryphal)

"Meh, whatever." -- 69360



Then you are not, in fact, "for freedom of speech and expression".

But you are right about one thing: the "end of the world" - or at least, the end of whatever liberty we have left in the world - won't be due to "that one particular act".

Rather, it will be due to the combination of "that one particular act" with all the other "particular acts" to which you will no doubt also have few or no particular objections (because you "don't see it as a pressing issue", or whatever bland excuse) - until one day you find yourself wondering where the hell what was left of your freedom went. But by then, it will be much too late.

Honestly, I'm not going to fall for your little trap. I don't give a shit.

Not everything is some slippery slope gray area that is going to steal your "freedoms"

Properly worded laws barring specific actions work.

 

[Occam's Banana]

I could live with that. I don't see it as a pressing issue, I'm for freedom of speech and expression, but if that one particular act became illegal I don't see it as the end of the world.

Then you are not, in fact, "for freedom of speech and expression".

Honestly, I'm not going to fall for your little trap. I don't give a shit.

Not everything is some slippery slope gray area that is going to steal your "freedoms"

Properly worded laws barring specific actions work.

QED

Don't be coy.

Next time, just stick to saying you don't give a shit.

There's no need to waste anyone's time (yours or others') with all that "I'm for freedom of speech and expression" BS.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

SCOTUS just got rid of ROE v. Wade. It's not beyond the realm of possiblity they could reverse on this issue as well.

The interesting thing about Texas v. Johnson was that the most conservative Justice (Scalia) was in the majority and a liberal Justice (Stevens) dissented.

 

[PAF]

Trump Says We ‘Gotta’ Restrict the First Amendment

The former president vowed to torch free-speech protections days after RFK Jr. touted him as anti-censorship

By Nikki McCann Ramirez
August 26, 2024

Donald Trump speaks at the National Guard Association of the United States' 146th General Conference, Monday, Aug. 26, 2024, in Detroit. AP Photo/Paul Sancya


On Friday, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. made a show of selectively exiting the presidential race and throwing his support behind Donald Trump, hailing the former president as a champion of free speech. Less than a week later, Trump is already promising to crush First Amendment protections if elected in November.

On Monday, Trump complained about pushback to a proposal to sentence people to a year in jail for burning the American flag.

“I wanna get a law passed […] You burn an American flag, you go to jail for one year. Gotta do it — you gotta do it,” Trump said.

“They say, ‘Sir, that’s unconstitutional.’ We’ll make it constitutional.”



https://x.com/FOX4/status/1828149971746451586

People may tell Trump that jailing anyone who burns the flag is unconstitutional because burning the flag is protected by the First Amendment. In 1989, the Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. Johnson that while the desecration of the flag may be objectionable, “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.”



Continue:

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-restrict-first-amendment-1235088402/


​

 

[TheTexan]

He's not the dictator we want, but he's the dictator we need

 

[PAF]

He's not the dictator we want, but he's the dictator we need

Do ya ever wonder why he donated to Hillary to ensure her U.S. Senate win... and Kamala twice?

Tyranny is always better when your "side" does it... but, just to make sure...

 

[TheTexan]

Do ya ever wonder why he donated to Hillary to ensure her U.S. Senate win... and Kamala twice?

Tyranny is always better when your "side" does it... but, just to make sure...

Honestly, if I had several billion dollars, I'd be donating to everybody as well. It's a trivial amount of money to me, and gets my foot in the door if I need influence with any of them.

There are plenty of things to criticize Trump on (e.g. the topic of this thread), but I don't consider his polltical funding habits, personally, to be one of them.

 

[PAF]

Honestly, if I had several billion dollars, I'd be donating to everybody as well. It's a trivial amount of money to me, and gets my foot in the door if I need influence with any of them.

There are plenty of things to criticize Trump on (e.g. the topic of this thread), but I don't consider his polltical funding habits, personally, to be one of them.

1. Closet Democrats

-or-

2. Based on his prior Record, and what he proposes now, "Out in the Open" ones.

 

[PAF]

And I would add that the part of his base that does know better are apt to just gloss it over and shrug it off, because they know it won't go anywhere.

I've heard that before. We certainly didn't get to where we are in one single week. What is it that they say about today's republicans da-ta-da yesterday's da-ta-da?

I'm almost to the point of wishing for pop reduction and AI takeover

 

[James_Madison_Lives]

This is just Trump being Trump, throwing red meat to the paleo part of his base.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Trump knows perfectly well that:
(1) he isn't going to be able to do it (Presidents don't set prison terms for federal crimes - Congress does), and
(2) if he (or Congress) tried, the courts would slap him down, toot sweet.

He's just throwing red meat to the part of his base that doesn't know any better.

They are the "chumps" here, not him.

Trump still be chumpin' the chumps:

 

[acptulsa]

Does he mean this one or that one?