Trump and The Constitution

[Mavric]

Flag Protection Act of 2005

 

Actions Promoting Violence.—Any person who destroys or damages a flag of the United States with the primary purpose and intent to incite or produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace, and under circumstances in which the person knows that it is reasonably likely to produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace, shall be fined not more than $100,000, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

 

Cosponsor Date Cosponsored

Sen. Clinton, Hillary Rodham [D-NY]* 10/24/2005

Sen. Boxer, Barbara [D-CA] 06/27/2006

Sen. Carper, Thomas R. [D-DE] 06/27/2006

Sen. Pryor, Mark L. [D-AR] 09/28/2006

[QMany]

What is your point, Mavric?

[Moiraine]

With how much the flag is revered it's starting to seem like a false god to me.

[zoogs]

I didn't know that. It's almost funny how much the liberal media fawned over her at the time for that.

 

And of course:

 

The biggest difference between Clinton and Trump’s proposals is of course that Clinton never supported stripping flag-burners of their citizenship, as Trump suggested Tuesday. Current Supreme Court precedent does not allow Congress to involuntarily strip natural born citizens of their citizenship.

There's zero indication both that this would be received differently today by liberals, or that Hillary has stuck with her apparent inclination to tamp down dissent in the name of America.

 

It's amusing, though, in Googling the topic, to see the thoroughness and eagerness with which the entire conservative media edifice has latched onto this angle.

[JJ Husker]

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.

zoogs- My comment wasn't intended as why should we care about what Trump is doing now. I think you took what I said the wrong way. I was simply trying to say there are much more dire and pressing needs for those who govern this country to be concerned about. I was criticizing Trump for even raising this issue.

[zoogs]

Oh, wow. My mistake, JJ. I completely misread that

 

I think that silencing dissent is actually very near tops on lists of importance for a great many world leaders. Generally, it's not considered an American ideal, though...but to add onto what Moiraine said, bring patriotism into it and it tends to make the issue very murky, across the aisle.

[JJ Husker]

With how much the flag is revered it's starting to seem like a false god to me.

I think some (many?) people confuse what the flag or national anthem actually are for what they represent.

A person can burn a flag or refuse to stand for the anthem but those actions can never really harm the more important aspect of what those things stand for. They are simply symbols (a piece of fabric or a song) but some people have trouble separating the unimportant physical object or actions from the ideals, sacrifice and freedom they represent. It seems to be a more dire problem with those who tend to be easily confused.

[JJ Husker]

Oh, wow. My mistake, JJ. I completely misread that

 

I think that silencing dissent is actually very near tops on lists of importance for a great many world leaders. Generally, it's not considered an American ideal, though...but to add onto what Moiraine said, bring patriotism into it and it tends to make the issue very murky, across the aisle.

No problem. I knew that you read something into it other than taking it at face value. Understandable misinterpretation based on some of my prior posts.

[Danny Bateman]

Conservative media fascination aside, is anyone burning a flag to incite violence or breach the peace? I was under the impression they were doing it because they didn't like Trump.I feel like that bill doesn't even apply to what we're talking about. It's a constitutionally protected action, not something criminal.

[zoogs]

From NYMag:

 

But why would he choose to pick this strange fight? Here is a case where the common complaint that he is distracting the public from unflattering stories rings true. Proposing a flag-burning ban is a classic right-wing nationalist distraction, and Trump has a number of ugly stories from which to distract: his plan for massive, unprecedented corruption, the extreme beliefs of his appointees, a controversy over a recount that highlights his clear defeat in the national vote.

 

Trump does not want coverage of his plans to enrich himself and his family or to strip the safety net. A fight over patriotism and citizenship frames the president-elect as the champion of American nationalism — giving a kind of legitimacy that overcomes his defeat in the national vote, much as standing on the rubble at Ground Zero erased all complaints about George W. Bush governing from the right after losing the national vote. There may not be flag-burners to fight at this very moment, but surely the president highlighting the issue will encourage protesters to burn flags in defiance, drawing media attention. Thus the opposition will demonstrate that their hatred for Trump is actually hatred for the country. And he will proceed to enrich himself and his party’s donor class.

Right along the lines of what you were saying, JJ