2aHawaii
General Topics => Political Discussion => Topic started by: eyeeatingfish on June 30, 2020, 09:11:41 PM
-
Trump wants it to be a crime to burn the US flag.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/06/15/no-brainer-trump-tweets-support-amendment-banning-flag-burning/
I give Trump the benefit of the doubt for now knowing all constitutional cases but just on the face of it the suggestion is unconstitutional and he should no better.
-
Trump wants it to be a crime to burn the US flag.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/06/15/no-brainer-trump-tweets-support-amendment-banning-flag-burning/
I give Trump the benefit of the doubt for now knowing all constitutional cases but just on the face of it the suggestion is unconstitutional and he should no better.
focus
-
focus
?
-
?
I believe he's calling you out for the fact that TRUMP is not voicing an opinion on the 1st Amendment.
Show us in the Constitution where it permits flag burning as "Free Speech." That's a court's interpretation, not a direct reading of the amendment.
If Trump calls for an amendment to stop flag burning, he has that right -- just like any other citizen. Do you think he's going to pass an amendment through an EO? :rofl:
-
I believe he's calling you out for the fact that TRUMP is not voicing an opinion on the 1st Amendment.
Show us in the Constitution where it permits flag burning as "Free Speech." That's a court's interpretation, not a direct reading of the amendment.
If Trump calls for an amendment to stop flag burning, he has that right -- just like any other citizen. Do you think he's going to pass an amendment through an EO? :rofl:
Ditto!
-
focus
3-4-3 :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
I believe he's calling you out for the fact that TRUMP is not voicing an opinion on the 1st Amendment.
Show us in the Constitution where it permits flag burning as "Free Speech." That's a court's interpretation, not a direct reading of the amendment.
If Trump calls for an amendment to stop flag burning, he has that right -- just like any other citizen. Do you think he's going to pass an amendment through an EO? :rofl:
I agree that trump has every right to call for an amendment but how is flag burning not protected by free speech? To be clear I think it’s despicable to burn the flag and do not condone it AT ALL. But to say “ where does it permit flag burning in the constitution” sounds a lot like anti gunners who say “whErE DoeS it sAy yOu caN hAve An ASsaUlt RiFle”
-
Can someone start a fire in the open and claim free speech?
I think the difference is free speech is protected because it uses words. Damaging an object is not free speech. Same would be with tearing statues down. If someone starts a fire at a building, is that free speech also?
-
Can someone start a fire in the open and claim free speech?
I think the difference is free speech is protected because it uses words. Damaging an object is not free speech. Same would be with tearing statues down. If someone starts a fire at a building, is that free speech also?
Setting a building on fire pits other people at risk. Not to mention you’d be destroying someone else’s property assuming it’s not yours.
If freedom of speech is about words then a silent protest should not be protected under the 1st amendment no?
Edit: I realize I didn’t really answer your question. If trumps rationale for banning flag burning because it poses a risk to safety then I can understand. It seems though that it’s more about national pride (which I agree with) then the safety factor.
-
How about if we burn our State flag? How about another nation's flag? There is a double standard when it comes to flag burning. I can guarantee you that if you burn the State of Hawaii's flag and post on social media they will find you and probably end up at your doorstep.
But it'll be a nothing burger if you burn the US flag.
-
No matter what peoples opinions are either way, it is against the law to burn the flag or otherwise desecrate it.
https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCODE-2011-title18/USCODE-2011-title18-partI-chap33-sec700
18 U.S.C.
United States Code, 2011 Edition
Title 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 33 - EMBLEMS, INSIGNIA, AND NAMES
Sec. 700 - Desecration of the flag of the United States; penalties
From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov
§700. Desecration of the flag of the United States; penalties
(a)(1) Whoever knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon any flag of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
(2) This subsection does not prohibit any conduct consisting of the disposal of a flag when it has become worn or soiled.
(b) As used in this section, the term “flag of the United States” means any flag of the United States, or any part thereof, made of any substance, of any size, in a form that is commonly displayed.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of Congress to deprive any State, territory, possession, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico of jurisdiction over any offense over which it would have jurisdiction in the absence of this section.
(d)(1) An appeal may be taken directly to the Supreme Court of the United States from any interlocutory or final judgment, decree, or order issued by a United States district court ruling upon the constitutionality of subsection (a).
(2) The Supreme Court shall, if it has not previously ruled on the question, accept jurisdiction over the appeal and advance on the docket and expedite to the greatest extent possible.
(Added Pub. L. 90–381, §1, July 5, 1968, 82 Stat. 291; amended Pub. L. 101–131, §§2, 3, Oct. 28, 1989, 103 Stat. 777.)
Amendments
1989—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 101–131, §2(a), amended subsec. (a) generally. Prior to amendment, subsec. (a) read as follows: “Whoever knowingly casts contempt upon any flag of the United States by publicly mutilating, defacing, defiling, burning, or trampling upon it shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.”
Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 101–131, §2(b), amended subsec. (b) generally. Prior to amendment, subsec. (b) read as follows: “The term ‘flag of the United States’ as used in this section, shall include any flag, standard colors, ensign, or any picture or representation of either, or of any part or parts of either, made of any substance or represented on any substance, of any size evidently purporting to be either of said flag, standard, color, or ensign of the United States of America, or a picture or a representation of either, upon which shall be shown the colors, the stars and the stripes, in any number of either thereof, or of any part or parts of either, by which the average person seeing the same without deliberation may believe the same to represent the flag, standards, colors, or ensign of the United States of America.”
Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 101–131, §3, added subsec. (d).
Short Title of 2000 Amendment
Pub. L. 106–547, §1, Dec. 19, 2000, 114 Stat. 2738, provided that: “This Act [enacting sections 716 and 1036 of this title] may be cited as the ‘Enhanced Federal Security Act of 2000’.”
Short Title of 1989 Amendment
Section 1 of Pub. L. 101–131 provided that: “This Act [amending this section] may be cited as the ‘Flag Protection Act of 1989’.”
-
3-4-3 :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Know-ing is half the battle. And apparently half the word. . .
I know you don't know what you don't know. . .
is very different from you
Not noing what you don't no. . .
Damn that was painful. . .
-
I agree that trump has every right to call for an amendment but how is flag burning not protected by free speech? To be clear I think it’s despicable to burn the flag and do not condone it AT ALL. But to say “ where does it permit flag burning in the constitution” sounds a lot like anti gunners who say “whErE DoeS it sAy yOu caN hAve An ASsaUlt RiFle”
It says it... right next to the line that limits firearms to muskets. :rofl:
-
The Amendments in the Bill of Rights are not intended to list the things one can or can't do as a private citizen, but rather what the government's limits are with regards to protected rights of individuals.
To list all the things one has a right to do would never be a complete list. instead, they give a broad description of what rights you have and what limits and procedures the gov't is subjected to.
Flag burning is not list. It's therefore up to interpretation of "Free Speech" to try and include that as a protected right under 1A.
Just because a court has ruled that flag burning is a protected right does not make it true. That's an opinion, and the law CURRENTLY protects it -- even though the act itself is forbidden by law. :wacko:
The Supreme Court doesn't always get it right. Roe v. Wade is a perfect example. There is no such right under the Constitution as "Right to Privacy". They made that up in order to cram the abortion "right" into their opinion. If such a right existed to protect your right to do with your body as you decide, there would be no laws against recreational drug use. So, just because the courts have interpreted something to fall under a protected right doesn't mean it can't still be debated and possible changed.
If I want to pay for a billboard in Hawaii, but the laws here prohibit billboards, is that not an infringement on my free speech rights?
-
If I want to pay for a billboard in Hawaii, but the laws here prohibit billboards, is that not an infringement on my free speech rights?
I'm sure if you gave a fat red envelope to the Outdoor Circle and it was for a "social cause" such as BLM than it would be OK :thumbsup:
-
I agree that trump has every right to call for an amendment but how is flag burning not protected by free speech? To be clear I think it’s despicable to burn the flag and do not condone it AT ALL. But to say “ where does it permit flag burning in the constitution” sounds a lot like anti gunners who say “whErE DoeS it sAy yOu caN hAve An ASsaUlt RiFle”
Amen brother.
-
Can someone start a fire in the open and claim free speech?
I think the difference is free speech is protected because it uses words. Damaging an object is not free speech. Same would be with tearing statues down. If someone starts a fire at a building, is that free speech also?
All those types of issues really have nothing to do with the flag itself and instead has to do with property ownership and safety concerns. So if there is an ordinance that says no burning things in the park then you can't burn a flag, not because it is a flag but because it is burning something in the park. Same thing about burning a flag that does not belong to you, it is illegal because you are damaging someone else's property, not because it is a flag. A law specifically protecting a flag is unconstitutional.
-
The Amendments in the Bill of Rights are not intended to list the things one can or can't do as a private citizen, but rather what the government's limits are with regards to protected rights of individuals.
To list all the things one has a right to do would never be a complete list. instead, they give a broad description of what rights you have and what limits and procedures the gov't is subjected to.
Flag burning is not list. It's therefore up to interpretation of "Free Speech" to try and include that as a protected right under 1A.
Just because a court has ruled that flag burning is a protected right does not make it true. That's an opinion, and the law CURRENTLY protects it -- even though the act itself is forbidden by law. :wacko:
The Supreme Court doesn't always get it right. Roe v. Wade is a perfect example. There is no such right under the Constitution as "Right to Privacy". They made that up in order to cram the abortion "right" into their opinion. If such a right existed to protect your right to do with your body as you decide, there would be no laws against recreational drug use. So, just because the courts have interpreted something to fall under a protected right doesn't mean it can't still be debated and possible changed.
If I want to pay for a billboard in Hawaii, but the laws here prohibit billboards, is that not an infringement on my free speech rights?
So then if the supreme court decided that assault weapons were not protected under the 2nd amendment you would say it's just your opinion that the court is wrong? You aren't wrong that it is an interpretation of the first amendment but you must also admit that you are interpreting the 2nd amendment when you say there is a right to own semiautomatic firearms.
If you are going to break it down that far then there is no real truth of any rights, just words on a paper that get followed sometimes. But this isn't just an issue of some legal interpretation of the law, whether the 1st amendment specifically or vaguely allows/prohibits a certain law. This issue is greater than that, it is the principle of the matter, that the government shouldn't be able to quiet speech it doesn't like.
Personally I don't care whether someone burns a flag because I don't subscribe to symbolism. People who burn the flag are in the same boat as people who are upset about burning the flag to me.
-
So then if the supreme court decided that assault weapons were not protected under the 2nd amendment you would say it's just your opinion that the court is wrong? You aren't wrong that it is an interpretation of the first amendment but you must also admit that you are interpreting the 2nd amendment when you say there is a right to own semiautomatic firearms.
If you are going to break it down that far then there is no real truth of any rights, just words on a paper that get followed sometimes. But this isn't just an issue of some legal interpretation of the law, whether the 1st amendment specifically or vaguely allows/prohibits a certain law. This issue is greater than that, it is the principle of the matter, that the government shouldn't be able to quiet speech it doesn't like.
Personally I don't care whether someone burns a flag because I don't subscribe to symbolism. People who burn the flag are in the same boat as people who are upset about burning the flag to me.
Rights exist regardless of what someone puts on paper. That's the definition of "God-given rights".
Your personal opinion on flag burning is YOUR right to voice (1st amendment). My opinion is that flag burning goes beyond the 1st Amendment and crosses over into inciting or provoking others which is one of the underlying factors in breaching the peace.
-
Flag burning is free expression. Take that away and all the people who fought for that flag died for nothing, except to make some rich guys richer.
-
But it is illegal to have an open flame in public. So 1 could burn the flag at a protest, but get arrested for starting a fire. Compared to them burning it on private property.
Either way, flag sales are up, so it's all G.
-
Flag burning is free expression. Take that away and all the people who fought for that flag died for nothing, except to make some rich guys richer.
I have a different perspective.
What if I burned a Koran, a Christian Bible, or a Gay Pride flag? What if I burned a mannequin that was made to look like Pelosi, AOC or Kamala Harris?
Do you really think the Dems would be supporting my 1A rights? Or would they be looking to get me on some vague terroristic threatening, hate crime or other statute?
-
I have a different perspective.
What if I burned a Koran, a Christian Bible, or a Gay Pride flag? What if I burned a mannequin that was made to look like Pelosi, AOC or Kamala Harris?
Do you really think the Dems would be supporting my 1A rights? Or would they be looking to get me on some vague terroristic threatening, hate crime or other statute?
"Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime."
Lavrentiy Beria
Beria was a good Democrat socialist.
I suspect most American Democrat leaning
Prosecutors, Media, and politicians have
that one memorized.
-
Rights exist regardless of what someone puts on paper. That's the definition of "God-given rights".
Your personal opinion on flag burning is YOUR right to voice (1st amendment). My opinion is that flag burning goes beyond the 1st Amendment and crosses over into inciting or provoking others which is one of the underlying factors in breaching the peace.
Sounds like the same thing liberals say when they want to justify restricting "hate speech". It is "too dangerous" to say because it could incite violence. And no I am not trying to call you a liberal nor am I using the term liberal as a pejorative, I am pointing out only that you are using the same line of reasoning that would justify restricting hate speech. I don't know if you support restricting hate speech or not, but just pointing that out.
-
But it is illegal to have an open flame in public. So 1 could burn the flag at a protest, but get arrested for starting a fire. Compared to them burning it on private property.
Either way, flag sales are up, so it's all G.
The the flag has nothing to do with it, it is just a violation of an open flame law and it doesn't matter what they burn, but that isn't what Trump suggested. If you target the flag then you are being selective about which messages can be made and that is why it is unconstitutional. If you target the flame and apply it to whatever is burning then it would be constitutional. Of course desecration of a flag goes beyond just burning, covers leaving it on the ground, and all manner of other things that could be done to it.
I hope that the flags are made in America at least :thumbsup:
-
I have a different perspective.
What if I burned a Koran, a Christian Bible, or a Gay Pride flag? What if I burned a mannequin that was made to look like Pelosi, AOC or Kamala Harris?
Do you really think the Dems would be supporting my 1A rights? Or would they be looking to get me on some vague terroristic threatening, hate crime or other statute?
Pretty sure lots of dems would not try to stop you from burning any of those. Some might label it hate speech of course but there are democrats who haven't tossed the 1st amendment out the window. Believe it or not even the ACLU would probably protect you.
-
Sounds like the same thing liberals say when they want to justify restricting "hate speech". It is "too dangerous" to say because it could incite violence. And no I am not trying to call you a liberal nor am I using the term liberal as a pejorative, I am pointing out only that you are using the same line of reasoning that would justify restricting hate speech. I don't know if you support restricting hate speech or not, but just pointing that out.
I reject your feeble attempt at "what-about-ism".
If the intention of the flag burner is to express their hatred of the nation, then why is it not hate speech?
If the laws could manage a little consistency, these issues would never be a problem.
Hate speech, in reality, doesn't exist. The creation of hate crimes was an attempt to make certain groups more protected than all the others. Yet, when the same circumstances exist for a non-protected person (not a member of a protected class), then the same laws do not apply. So, no, I do not support hate crime/hate speech laws.
This is totally different. ANY speech, labeled as "hate or not" that is intended to incite and provoke others should be viewed as an attempt to disrupt the peace, particularly if it's on public property.
Burning a flag does not state an argument for or against an issue. It's meant to get attention pure and simple, and it should not be protected as "speech".
Flag burnings serve no real purpose, and any ban would not diminish anyone's ability or right to express their political views.
-
Pretty sure lots of dems would not try to stop you from burning any of those. Some might label it hate speech of course but there are democrats who haven't tossed the 1st amendment out the window. Believe it or not even the ACLU would probably protect you.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
The A C L WHO?
Where have they been the last 4 years? 12 years? All these "Constitutional Crises" going on, and they are nowhere to be found.
I couldn't give half a fart if the ACLU supported my views or not. That you do says alot.
-
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
The A C L WHO?
Where have they been the last 4 years? 12 years? All these "Constitutional Crises" going on, and they are nowhere to be found.
Yeah yeah, they have consistently failed to get involved to protect our 2nd amendment rights but they have a fairly strong record of supporting 1st amendment rights time and time again on both sides of the aisle. They caught huge flack when they defended a white supremacist group's right to protest. Pretty sure you burning the Quran would be an easy one for them.
I couldn't give half a fart if the ACLU supported my views or not. That you do says alot.
The issue was whether they would, not whether you cared. Focus.
-
I reject your feeble attempt at "what-about-ism".
If the intention of the flag burner is to express their hatred of the nation, then why is it not hate speech?
If the laws could manage a little consistency, these issues would never be a problem.
Hate speech, in reality, doesn't exist. The creation of hate crimes was an attempt to make certain groups more protected than all the others. Yet, when the same circumstances exist for a non-protected person (not a member of a protected class), then the same laws do not apply. So, no, I do not support hate crime/hate speech laws.
This is totally different. ANY speech, labeled as "hate or not" that is intended to incite and provoke others should be viewed as an attempt to disrupt the peace, particularly if it's on public property.
Burning a flag does not state an argument for or against an issue. It's meant to get attention pure and simple, and it should not be protected as "speech".
Flag burnings serve no real purpose, and any ban would not diminish anyone's ability or right to express their political views.
It isn't whatboutism, it is seeing if you are honest and logically consistent. If hate speech doesn't exist and can't be regulated because of the 1st amendment then neither can flag burning. Otherwise you are just picking and choosing, selectively enforcing when you want rights to apply. You can't outlaw flag burning because it might cause strife while at the same time allow other speech which would cause similar strife.
How do you know that flag burning isn't a message? Can you read minds? It's not for you to allow or disallow forms of protest based on what you think their intent is or whether you think their form of message is valid or not.
Face it, all the arguments you are making in favor of making it illegal to burn a flag are arguments the leftists use to try and limit "hate speech".
-
I think the spirit of the 1st amendment is to allow speech to facilitate discussion and debate.
Hate speech is subjective and written into law by those that were in power.
The architects of this country assuned that we would be ladies and gentlemen about how we conduct ourselves. That certainly went out the window. We got people who just are assholes with no social responsibility and title themselves as people "who push boundaries".
Flag burning like "hate speech" is an act akin to a child throwing a tantrum.
Some people will do desicable things and hide under the letter of the law.
-
The Constitution's Bill of Rights protects PEACEFUL protests.
I see nothing peaceful about burning a US Flag in public. You can't debate the underlying issues for the burning when it's obvious the person hates the country and are promoting hatred in others, too.
Burning a flag is about as peaceful as burning a cross.
-
The Constitution's Bill of Rights protects PEACEFUL protests.
I see nothing peaceful about burning a US Flag in public. You can't debate the underlying issues for the burning when it's obvious the person hates the country and are promoting hatred in others, too.
Burning a flag is about as peaceful as burning a cross.
So take flame out of it. People just walking on the flag or tearing it up, that's fine then?
-
I think the spirit of the 1st amendment is to allow speech to facilitate discussion and debate.
Hate speech is subjective and written into law by those that were in power.
The architects of this country assuned that we would be ladies and gentlemen about how we conduct ourselves. That certainly went out the window. We got people who just are assholes with no social responsibility and title themselves as people "who push boundaries".
Flag burning like "hate speech" is an act akin to a child throwing a tantrum.
Some people will do desicable things and hide under the letter of the law.
A very good assessment.
-
So take flame out of it. People just walking on the flag or tearing it up, that's fine then?
If your alternatives to burning the flag offer the same demonstration of one's opinions, why NOT ban burning?
The amendment would ban FLAG BURNING, so you should support it. Alternatives = no infringement of the 1st amendment.
-
If your alternatives to burning the flag offer the same demonstration of one's opinions, why NOT ban burning?
The amendment would ban FLAG BURNING, so you should support it. Alternatives = no infringement of the 1st amendment.
I am pointing out the fallacy where people try to ban flag burning because burning is dangerous. If risk was really their concern then they would be perfectly fine with other non-dangerous forms of desecration.
-
I am pointing out the fallacy where people try to ban flag burning because burning is dangerous. If risk was really their concern then they would be perfectly fine with other non-dangerous forms of desecration.
A tub of acid? Liquid nitrogen and a hammer? Fry it up in a wok and serve it to a dog, then eat the dog?
-
I am pointing out the fallacy where people try to ban flag burning because burning is dangerous. If risk was really their concern then they would be perfectly fine with other non-dangerous forms of desecration.
The symbolism of burning anything mimics destruction of whatever the thing represents and creates more provocative reactions than a simpler demonstration, such as wiping one's shoes in it ir cutting it.
You still avoided my question -- as usual. 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 consider burning the American flag an act of Treason. :grrr:
-
I consider burning the American flag an act of Treason. :grrr:
=============
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.
-
=============
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. :closed:
-
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. :closed:
Don't enforce any laws that have due to with "flags". Like red flags too. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
Don't enforce any laws that have due to with "flags". Like red flags too. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl
Typical law enforcement mindset. Never mind that it would be a federal crime and outside his jurisdiction. :rofl:
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. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Disctint difference there.
-
Typical law enforcement mindset. Never mind that it would be a federal crime and outside his jurisdiction. :rofl:
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.
-
You are right.
Except that there are.
https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/unconstitutional-laws/
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.
Really? 4 cases in 2018, 5 in 2017, 7 in 2016, 3 in 2015 ... an average of less than 5 laws per year over the last 5 years is your definition of "all the time?"
Ridiculous, considering the number of actual laws being enacted every year by the 50 states and feds.
The federal gov't enacted 413 laws in 2018 (that's just one year). I'm not going to go through all the states, but I'd bet my last dollar it's much more than that.
Based on your ridiculous logic, if we just looked at the number of federal laws for 2018, that's 413 passed vs. 2 federal laws found to violate the Constitution in 2018.
Try again. This is TOO EASY! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
.
-
Really? 4 cases in 2018, 5 in 2017, 7 in 2016, 3 in 2015 ... an average of less than 5 laws per year over the last 5 years is your definition of "all the time?"
Often enough to be significant. And that's just looking at cases that make it to the SCOTUS, not laws overruled by federal appeals courts or by state supreme courts.
Ridiculous, considering the number of actual laws being enacted every year by the 50 states and feds.
The federal gov't enacted 413 laws in 2018 (that's just one year). I'm not going to go through all the states, but I'd bet my last dollar it's much more than that.
Based on your ridiculous logic, if we just looked at the number of federal laws for 2018, that's 413 passed vs. 2 federal laws found to violate the Constitution in 2018.
Straw man, my argument never relied on percentages of laws passed vs laws ruled unconstitutional. Your objection is irrelevant.
-
Often enough to be significant. And that's just looking at cases that make it to the SCOTUS, not laws overruled by federal appeals courts or by state supreme courts.
Straw man, my argument never relied on percentages of laws passed vs laws ruled unconstitutional. Your objection is irrelevant.
Bullshit. Plain, old bullshit.
I was using YOUR source numbers. Now you want to argue about the numbers you posted? Typical.
WRONG! You said "all the time". I illustrated how ridiculous that characterization was. "All the time" is not a percentage. It's a FREQUENCY. Your numbers are nowhere near frequent enough to support your claim.
Webster's dictionary defines "all the time" as : at all times : constantly. Your exaggeration has been exposed.
-
Bullshit. Plain, old bullshit.
WRONG!
I was using YOUR source numbers. Now you want to argue about the numbers you posted? Typical.
Nope, I am saying you are not the opinion Nazi who gets to define how I use the word significant.
-
WRONG!
Nope, I am saying you are not the opinion Nazi who gets to define how I use the word significant.
But you are?
LOL! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
But you are?
LOL! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
When I use a word with a subjective nature then yes, I get to decide what it means to me.
Gosh, I could call a pizza tasty and you would reply "WRONG!"
-
When I use a word with a subjective nature then yes, I get to decide what it means to me.
Gosh, I could call a pizza tasty and you would reply "WRONG!"
That's 100% subjective. I can find people who can't stand pizza. I used to be one -- until college.
We were discussing "significant", which is not subjective in it's definition.
Look it up.
-
That's 100% subjective. I can find people who can't stand pizza. I used to be one -- until college.
We were discussing "significant", which is not subjective in it's definition.
Look it up.
significant[ sig-nif-i-kuhnt ]SHOW IPA
SEE SYNONYMS FOR significant ON THESAURUS.COM
adjective
important and deserving of attention; of consequence:
Their advice played a significant role in saving my marriage.
relatively large in amount or quantity:
a significant decrease in revenue.
having or expressing a meaning; indicative:
a significant symbol of royalty.
having a special, secret, or disguised meaning; suggestive:
a significant wink.
Statistics. of or relating to observations that are unlikely to occur by chance and that therefore indicate a systematic cause:
Memory training produced a statistically significant improvement in group performance.
Looked it up for ya. Yup, subjective in nature as I correctly pointed out.
Unless of course you can find somewhere in that definition that gives a specific percentage or specific number. I'll wait for you to find it.