=============
Well, I wouldn't say treason.
But seriously, flag burning is just the ranting of a spoiled-child-drama-queer. It's a tantrum....nothing more.
If the a-hole is so displeased with their country, there is nothing to stop them from from leaving.
If the burner really wants change, then he/she should work towards change. ie. put up or shut up.

Y'all only can commit treason when the country is at war.
I may be at war with Democrats, but as of today I don't think America
is in a state of Legally declared war.
I'm a disabled Vet. Vietnam era.
If someone wants to show a lack of respect
for the American flag, that is their right.
I also encourage them to leave.
Just because you don't like it here
YOU have no Fvcking right to mess
with my life.
Get out!

I'm surprised AOC isn't already screeching to pass this amendment.

Flag burning, especially the synthetic kind, is destroying our planet!!  We only have  12   11   10   9 years left!

YOU have no Fvcking right to mess with my life.

"Ralph, that is not the Sufi way" 

To them, forcing you to comply is absolutely their right.  Why I think more than a bit of liberal blood will be split before this is settled.

Why NOT ban flag burning if the majority of states vote to amend the Constitution?  Do you hate the government so much that you can't agree with the Constitutional process of amending it?

I am not sure if that would pass muster, have we ever had two constitutional amendments which contradict each other? How would SCOTUS rule?

To me, banning flag burning is like forced patriotism which is empty. I wouldn't support such an amendment to begin with but even if it passed I don't think I would enforce it if I was in the position to.

I am not sure if that would pass muster, have we ever had two constitutional amendments which contradict each other? How would SCOTUS rule?

To me, banning flag burning is like forced patriotism which is empty. I wouldn't support such an amendment to begin with but even if it passed I don't think I would enforce it if I was in the position to.

You mean like the SCOTUS ruling that a woman's right to have an abortion is based on her "right to privacy" -- to do what she wants with her body --
but at the same time they uphold the laws that criminalize recreational drug use -- something that also should be a privacy issue involving ones own body?

You mean that kind of contradiction?

You mean like the SCOTUS ruling that a woman's right to have an abortion is based on her "right to privacy" -- to do what she wants with her body --
but at the same time they uphold the laws that criminalize recreational drug use -- something that also should be a privacy issue involving ones own body?

You mean that kind of contradiction?

Not exactly because in that instance you aren't talking about an amendment which itself specifically restricts another amendment. That is a conflict in rulings on subjects that fall under the two amendments, not a ruling directly on 1 amendment vs another.

Not exactly because in that instance you aren't talking about an amendment which itself specifically restricts another amendment. That is a conflict in rulings on subjects that fall under the two amendments, not a ruling directly on 1 amendment vs another.

The amendment itself is not the issue.  It's the interpretation.

YOU interpret the 1st Amendment to mean any form of protest (marching with signs or burning a flag) is 100% protected as "speech".

Yet, you also have argued multiple time that the 1st Amendment is not absolute.  It can and does involve limits.   But somehow flag burning to provoke and incite -- even though it does not represent debate or discussion --  is not one of those limits?

Even in your own mind, there is a contradiction.

The amendment itself is not the issue.  It's the interpretation.

YOU interpret the 1st Amendment to mean any form of protest (marching with signs or burning a flag) is 100% protected as "speech".

Yet, you also have argued multiple time that the 1st Amendment is not absolute.  It can and does involve limits.   But somehow flag burning to provoke and incite -- even though it does not represent debate or discussion --  is not one of those limits?

Even in your own mind, there is a contradiction.

But the purpose of an amendment banning flag burning would be in direct conflict with the SCOTUS case law on the 1st amendment. Thats the difference. It isn't conflict among interpretations from two different amendments. An amendment specifically outlawing flag burning targets something already interpretive and established as a protected right. What if democrats wanted to pass an amendment that says firearms are illegal? That would be a direct attack on a right we interpret from the 2nd amendment.

Can you think of any other historical instance where such an amendment was made other than perhaps revoking the ban on alcohol?

But the purpose of an amendment banning flag burning would be in direct conflict with the SCOTUS case law on the 1st amendment. Thats the difference. It isn't conflict among interpretations from two different amendments. An amendment specifically outlawing flag burning targets something already interpretive and established as a protected right. What if democrats wanted to pass an amendment that says firearms are illegal? That would be a direct attack on a right we interpret from the 2nd amendment.

Can you think of any other historical instance where such an amendment was made other than perhaps revoking the ban on alcohol?

You just made my point.  The conflict is NOT with the amendment itself, but in the interpretation.

Thank you.

Slavery was legal even though the Constitution protected the rights of slaves.  It took an amendment (14th) to end slavery and change the INTERPRETATION of the Constitution that excluded slaves from its Bill of Rights.  It'll take another amendment to CORRECT the poor interpretation of the 1st Amendment which says it includes flag burning.

There are already laws that make firearms illegal. Are you able to "KEEP AND BEAR ARMS" in this state?  No?  Funny how that 2nd Amendment doesn't matter here.

You just made my point.  The conflict is NOT with the amendment itself, but in the interpretation.

Thank you.

Slavery was legal even though the Constitution protected the rights of slaves.  It took an amendment (14th) to end slavery and change the INTERPRETATION of the Constitution that excluded slaves from its Bill of Rights.  It'll take another amendment to CORRECT the poor interpretation of the 1st Amendment which says it includes flag burning.

There are already laws that make firearms illegal. Are you able to "KEEP AND BEAR ARMS" in this state?  No?  Funny how that 2nd Amendment doesn't matter here.

You still haven't given me a single example of a constitutional amendment that was written to take away something that had been recognized as a right by the SCOTUS.

Plus how can you claim to be a conservative while at the same time thinking the government should be able to outlaw the burning of the US flag? If it is my flag I own then I get to burn if I want to without big government dictating  what I can and can't do with my own flag.

You still haven't given me a single example of a constitutional amendment that was written to take away something that had been recognized as a right by the SCOTUS.

Plus how can you claim to be a conservative while at the same time thinking the government should be able to outlaw the burning of the US flag? If it is my flag I own then I get to burn if I want to without big government dictating  what I can and can't do with my own flag.

You still don't get it.

The proposed amendment would not take away anything the 1st Amendment protects.  It would LIMIT the TYPE of "free speech" so that it excludes flag burning.

The reason there are no other amendments in this "category" is because the passage of amendments to the Constitution is SUPER DIFFICULT. 

You already spotted the one exception.  The 18th AMENDMENT to prohibit the manufacture and sale of alcohol for consumption was repealed by the 21st AMENDMENT. 

You do realize that there is an entire Constitution that was written before the amendments, right?  Why are you so focused on "what amendment changes another amendment?"  Every single amendment augments or changes some parr of the Constitution, whether it's an amendment or the original articles.  To ask for a specific example that's confined to only amendments is argumentative and irrelevant.

You still don't get it.

The proposed amendment would not take away anything the 1st Amendment protects.  It would LIMIT the TYPE of "free speech" so that it excludes flag burning.

The reason there are no other amendments in this "category" is because the passage of amendments to the Constitution is SUPER DIFFICULT. 

You already spotted the one exception.  The 18th AMENDMENT to prohibit the manufacture and sale of alcohol for consumption was repealed by the 21st AMENDMENT. 

You do realize that there is an entire Constitution that was written before the amendments, right?  Why are you so focused on "what amendment changes another amendment?"  Every single amendment augments or changes some parr of the Constitution, whether it's an amendment or the original articles.  To ask for a specific example that's confined to only amendments is argumentative and irrelevant.

I get your argument, I just disagree.

I said it was unprecedented and you are arguing with me yet have failed to show any such precedent. I gave you an example and it isn't even a great one either.

Regardless, if I were out there enforcing laws I wouldn't enforce one on flag banning. Such would be antithetical to free speech, checks on government power, and the values of freedom we hold dear. 

Regardless, if I were out there enforcing laws I wouldn't enforce one on flag banning. Such would be antithetical to free speech, checks on government power, and the values of freedom we hold dear. 

Don't enforce any laws that have due to with "flags". Like red flags too. 

Don't enforce any laws that have due to with "flags". Like red flags too.  :rofl

Typical law enforcement mindset.  Never mind that it would be a federal crime and outside his jurisdiction.   

Easy to say "I would not" when he'll never be in that position -- ever.

If he were in an HPD uniform (hypothetically, of course), and video taped standing and watching a flag being burned without enforcing the law banning the action, he would be fired or at least reprimanded.

Yes, Cops are allowed to exercise some degree of discretion.  But, they are not allowed to ignore an obvious, blatant violation of the law, especially when it's a federal crime.  He's supposed to make the arrest, and the case would be forwarded to the feds for possible prosecution.

The phrase "dereliction of duty" comes to mind.

Don't enforce any laws that have due to with "flags". Like red flags too. 

Disctint difference there.

Typical law enforcement mindset.  Never mind that it would be a federal crime and outside his jurisdiction.   

Easy to say "I would not" when he'll never be in that position -- ever.

If he were in an HPD uniform (hypothetically, of course), and video taped standing and watching a flag being burned without enforcing the law banning the action, he would be fired or at least reprimanded.

Yes, Cops are allowed to exercise some degree of discretion.  But, they are not allowed to ignore an obvious, blatant violation of the law, especially when it's a federal crime.  He's supposed to make the arrest, and the case would be forwarded to the feds for possible prosecution.

The phrase "dereliction of duty" comes to mind.

Refusing to enforce an unconstitutional law would not be dereliction of duty.

Refusing to enforce an unconstitutional law would not be dereliction of duty.

There's a problem with your premise. 

It's YOUR OPINION as to the Constitutionality of a law.  What if you're wrong? 

You really think law makers pass laws before making sure they pass muster with what the Supreme Court has already ruled?

There's a problem with your premise. 

It's YOUR OPINION as to the Constitutionality of a law.  What if you're wrong? 

You really think law makers pass laws before making sure they pass muster with what the Supreme Court has already ruled?

That is a risk cops have to take. So much case law comes from cops doing something right or wrong that wasn't clearly established and then courts ruling about it.

I suppose the safest bet would be to consult the police union. They probably have lawyers on staff they could ask.

And yes, law makers pass laws all the time which end up being overturned as unconstitutional.

That is a risk cops have to take. So much case law comes from cops doing something right or wrong that wasn't clearly established and then courts ruling about it.

I suppose the safest bet would be to consult the police union. They probably have lawyers on staff they could ask.

And yes, law makers pass laws all the time which end up being overturned as unconstitutional.

Cops are not lawyers.  Expecting them to be Constitutional lawyers is a stretch.

You say they pass unconstitutional laws "ALL THE TIME".  If that were true, there would be Constitutional challenges to new laws ALL THE TIME.  There are not.

Obama was the worst President for coloring outside the lines of the Constitution,  I think most elected law makers are not going to go down the path of having every other law they pass quashed in court as unconstitutional.  The Capitol is choke full of lawyers,  They ought to have the expertise to know what's Constitutional and what's not.

Cops are not lawyers.  Expecting them to be Constitutional lawyers is a stretch.

You are right.

You say they pass unconstitutional laws "ALL THE TIME".  If that were true, there would be Constitutional challenges to new laws ALL THE TIME.  There are not.

Except that there are.
https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/unconstitutional-laws/

Obama was the worst President for coloring outside the lines of the Constitution,  I think most elected law makers are not going to go down the path of having every other law they pass quashed in court as unconstitutional.  The Capitol is choke full of lawyers,  They ought to have the expertise to know what's Constitutional and what's not.

Lawmakers are nearly always immune from the passing of laws later ruled unconstitutional. Yet the cops and city get sued when they end up enforcing it only later to have it ruled unconstitutional.  They should know what is constitutional and what is not but even they don't all the time. Thats the type of instance I am talking about, where the cops have to have the knowledge of constitutional scholars and know which laws to enforce and how when lawmakers don't even get it right when they pass the laws.