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?   

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?   

Ditto!

focus

3-4-3 

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?   

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 

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.   

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.   

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

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.   

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.