Trump and The Constitution

[QMany]

Trump's assault on the First Amendment continues.

 

The Supreme Court, including Antonin Scalia, already held that burning the American flag is constitutionally protected free speech under the First Amendment. Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989).

[84HuskerLaw]

For a long time, I believe it was a crime to deface or damage an American flag. Not sure that being able to burn or trash the flag or not is such a vital civil right. The courts have ruled that flag burning is a 'free speech' activity and is protected. There may be ways to criminalize the activity within the Constitutional limits, but it is not goig to happen. It is fun watching Trump manipulate the media though as he has them jumping and flailing wildly every time he drops one of his remarks. Most of the folks understand he is just playing with the fools who call themselves journalists when in reality they are rabid leftist propagandists and Dem activists with nothing better to do.

[Enhance]

For a long time, I believe it was a crime to deface or damage an American flag. Not sure that being able to burn or trash the flag or not is such a vital civil right. The courts have ruled that flag burning is a 'free speech' activity and is protected. There may be ways to criminalize the activity within the Constitutional limits, but it is not goig to happen. It is fun watching Trump manipulate the media though as he has them jumping and flailing wildly every time he drops one of his remarks. Most of the folks understand he is just playing with the fools who call themselves journalists when in reality they are rabid leftist propagandists and Dem activists with nothing better to do.

People need to stop pretending Trump is doing this just to 'manipulate the media' and have some fun. Thousands if not millions of his supporters agree with just about everything he says (and the same can be said for every presidential candidate... oh... ever). There's also a reason parts of the media continue to post and write about these things - his supporters share them to have a laugh/agree and his opponents share them to be critical. Half of my Facebook timeline is filled with it.

 

You know what that results in? Advertising dollars and web impressions. If anything, they should thank Trump for his outlandish comments - they're making "the media" a boat load of money.

[QMany]

Just playing around on Twitter threatening to jail actions protected by the Constitution. That isn't purposefully manipulating media. That is just spouting off-hinged like a crazed lunatic, you should recognize that.

 

Scalia is rolling in his grave.

[commando]

It is fun watching Trump manipulate the media though as he has them jumping and flailing wildly every time he drops one of his remarks. Most of the folks understand he is just playing with the fools who call themselves journalists when in reality they are rabid leftist propagandists and Dem activists with nothing better to do.

your saying that a troll will be in charge of america. what could go wrong with that?

[TGHusker]

I posted this to the 100 Day thread, not knowing this thread was about the flag burning.

 

 

http://www.newsmax.c...1/29/id/761069/

Note sure where to put this post but I figured here is as good as any. If Trump keeps getting off focused on peripheral issues, he won't have a 100 day agenda. In this article, he says flag burners should be stripped of their citizenship and or face a year in jail. Once again, he proves his ignorance as the SC ruled 5-4 that this is free speech. And JUSTICE SCALIA was a part of the majority!! We have 4 years ahead of 'open mouth, insert foot'.

 

 

The article:

President-elect Donald Trump on Tuesday took to Twitter to denounce flag burning, saying it should perhaps result in loss of citizenship or a year in jail.

Trump ostensibly was reacting to the report of students burning a flag at Hampshire College in Amherst, Mass., after his election victory. About 1,000 veterans gathered at the school Sunday to protest the school's decision to remove all flags after the incident.

 

The only stumbling block for the president-elect is that flag burning is protected as free speech by the Supreme Court.

The high court ruled in 1989 Texas vs. Johnson by a 5-4 decision that invalidated prohibitions on flag burning.

Justice Antonin Scalia, whose death left an opening on the court for which Trump will get to replace, sided with the majority.

Trump spokesman Jason Miller backed up his boss later Tuesday in an interview on CNN's "New Day."

"I think most Americans would agree with me that flag burning should be illegal. It’s completely despicable,” Miller told host Chris Cuomo.

"Flag burning is completely ridiculous and I think you know that and that the vast majority of Americans would agree," he continued.

 

 

Cuomo protested, though, that the act is "constitutional," and asked whether Miller and his boss know that?

"It should be illegal, Chris," Miller insisted, without answering Cuomo's question.

[JJ Husker]

Dear Lord, please tell me this moron has more important things to spend his time on than crap like this. This doesn't make anybody's top 1000 list of issues facing this country.

 

Is it possible Trump is smarter than anyone thinks and all this bullsh#t he comes up with is just meant to divert half the country's attention to trivial sh#t?

[BigRedBuster]

Dear Lord, please tell me this moron has more important things to spend his time on than crap like this. This doesn't make anybody's top 1000 list of issues facing this country.

 

Is it possible Trump is smarter than anyone thinks and all this bullsh#t he comes up with is just meant to divert half the country's attention to trivial sh#t?

Away from what??? That's an important question.

[zoogs]

Trump says things like "judges in the mold of Scalia" without knowing what

that means. This should have been clear from the start.

 

TG's article showing the efforts of Trump's spokesperson is a clear signal of the incoming administration's intent to rabble-rouse. Try to push their way by rallying the troops around what "should be" illegal, when we are a nation of laws, not mobs.

 

There's also the clear promise of severe retribution for expressions of dissent. The outlandish proposal of revoking citizenship. An official drawing of the lines of what it means to "be American" -- with all the non-prosecution that implies -- that didn't start and won't end here.

 

JJ, I think we're all struggling with how to properly cover and respond to Trump. But your response to everything seems to be "Why should we care? There are more important things." This is tolerance, in its own way. More than that, "why should we care" is an exact alignment with the Trump team's efforts -- this is exactly how they want people to respond.

 

I don't see how this is trivial. And I see the mental cartwheels required to think of this as normal or harmless as an unhealthy exercise.

[Landlord]

 

Dear Lord, please tell me this moron has more important things to spend his time on than crap like this. This doesn't make anybody's top 1000 list of issues facing this country.

 

Is it possible Trump is smarter than anyone thinks and all this bullsh#t he comes up with is just meant to divert half the country's attention to trivial sh#t?

Away from what??? That's an important question.

 

 

 

Away from things like fraud and lawsuits and sexual assault and conflicts of interest?

[Bigred_inSD]

Can Trump propose all his goals and declaration of war on Twitter too?

[zoogs]

Away from things like fraud and lawsuits and sexual assault and conflicts of interest?

Honestly, as heinous as those are, I think Trump's policy accomplishments and his shaping of American norms present a far more important and urgent threat than his various individual liabilities.

 

If there's a sideshow, those are it.

[NM11046]

I actually wrote to Farenholdt that I think it would be interesting to see a timeline of his tweets aligned to breaking news stories. This one coincided with a piece that the NYT (I think) came out with showing conflicts of interest with his son in law and all the loans he has internationally and in the US. I think if you go back and look at the timing of his most flagrant tweets they likely are right after or the same time as a negative, potential blockbuster story comes out about him.

[Danny Bateman]

I actually wrote to Farenholdt that I think it would be interesting to see a timeline of his tweets aligned to breaking news stories. This one coincided with a piece that the NYT (I think) came out with showing conflicts of interest with his son in law and all the loans he has internationally and in the US. I think if you go back and look at the timing of his most flagrant tweets they likely are right after or the same time as a negative, potential blockbuster story comes out about him.

 

Bingo.

[TGHusker]

I actually wrote to Farenholdt that I think it would be interesting to see a timeline of his tweets aligned to breaking news stories. This one coincided with a piece that the NYT (I think) came out with showing conflicts of interest with his son in law and all the loans he has internationally and in the US. I think if you go back and look at the timing of his most flagrant tweets they likely are right after or the same time as a negative, potential blockbuster story comes out about him.

I think you are on to something here, NM. As Sgt Shultz would say VERY INTERESTING