Anyone who burns American flag should be jailed or lose citizenship

Dang, wrong thread.

 

No, it's not. First -- the idiot trump doesn't even know you can't take away a US Born person's Citizenship. Nor, apparently, do you.

And if you think US citizenship only entails the right to vote, you need to consider remedial civics lessons.

- - - Updated - - -

It's telling you refused to answer the other Q's I asked.

 

Of course it shouldn't. It's called freedom of speech. Freedom of speech doesn't just protect speech (and actions) that people like. It protects speech that people hate. The only thing that should restrict burning the American flag is basic safety. If it's dangerous to burn anything it should be illegal to burn the flag.

 

So far you have been wrong about trump 100% of the time, we'll sit tight and watch what the Donald does.

- - - Updated - - -

It does not protect "fighting words".

"Words which would likely make the person whom they are addressed commit an act of violence. Fighting words are a category of speech that is unprotected by the First Amendment. Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942)."

 

^ Lie.

& how about you address the post - rather than ad hom? You able?

 

SCOTUS, with Scalia in the majority - disagrees.

Nor does Johnson's expressive conduct fall within that small class of "fighting words" that are "likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace." Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 574 (1942). No reasonable onlooker would have regarded Johnson's generalized expression of dissatisfaction with the policies of the Federal Government as a direct personal insult or an invitation to exchange fisticuffs. See id. at 572-573; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 309 (1940); FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, supra, at 745 (opinion of STEVENS, J.). [p410]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/491/397

 

Ad who? You got the wrong guy.

The expectation of the Donald not being able to revoke someone's citizenship sounds an awful lot like the noises we all heard when people said that Texas could not legally prevent anchor babies from getting US citizenship just by being born here any longer, yet here we are doing it. Legally to boot.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/texas-allowed-deny-birth-certificates-us-born-kids-undocumented-parents

 

I absolutely cannot wait to see what Trump does. (So exciting!)

 

Ad hom. Don't know what that means? Look it up.

Hey, how'd that work out?

"On Friday, Texas agreed to a settlement that will expand the types of documents parents can present, allowing those without legal immigration status to obtain certificates for their children again.

The babies whose parents brought the federal suit were born in Texas medical facilities, so it was not in doubt that they were citizens. Lawyers for the parents said the settlement would be “life-changing” for them.


“The bottom line is, there was a category of people who were being locked out of obtaining a birth certificate to which they are entitled constitutionally as citizens born in the United States just because of the immigration status of the parents,” said Efrén Olivares, the legal director of the Texas Civil Rights Project’s South Texas office and a lead lawyer in the lawsuit.
In the settlement, Texas made no changes to the basic rules for birth certificates, which it argued were designed to ensure that the essential documents were correctly issued. But the state agreed to accept several documents from parents that it had started to reject."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/25/us/lawsuit-texas-immigrants-birth-certificates.html?_r=0

I know a lot of you guys are itching to torch the Constitution, but it's not going to be the easy path you think it is.

No doubt. Many Trumpers would be delighted with Trump as dictator.

BTW: I thought Trump wanted to put SCOTUS judges on the court like Scalia.

*Aw. Sadz.

 

I did not answer the other three questions because they weren't germane. The fact is Hillary is a lawyer. She should have know better than even to cosponsor such a stupid bill. It's telling that your response to my question did not even tangentially address mine. And no I don't think the government can strip you of your citizenship any more all though almost anything is possible under due process.

 

Don't know who Ad is? Ha! Laff/Snort!

And as for illegals continued efforts to get something for nothing I had no expectation for them to just lay down and take it, they will fight back, but we mean to put them out regardless.

The times, they are a'changin'. So excited to see what solutions Trump comes up with to solve these problems. As for Scalia, Trump has proven time and again that he's dynamic and capable of changing his mind after conferring with others who know more, (y'all called it flip flopping) and I trust Trump to do the right thing.

Time will tell. It's like Christmas, ever single day.

 

Institute an outdoor burn ban in the city limits, and prosecute any one who violates it, many cities and towns have them anyway, then it is against the law free speech or not!

Using the flag burning logic you should be able to torch government land, claim you are protesting an oppressive government via the first amendment, and face no consequence.

 

Are you 12 years old?

 

To me, people displaying the Confederate Flag is ugly and hateful; yet our laws allow private citizens to fly the same. I don't like everyone's form of expression per se... but I do value the freedom we all have to do so.

I make it clear to people that I despise the Confederacy (especially what it stood for)... but recognize people's right to honor its symbols. The same applies to people doing ugly or distasteful things with our flag. After all, people create ads, wear clothing, hats, underwear...etc, with some form or representation of our flag on the same... and that is also allowed.

Freedom of expression isn't always what we want it to be, but there are good reasons that we have that right.

 

My thoughts are that, as despicable as I find the practice, I do believe it should be protected as "free speech".


Of course, we now know who DOESN'T agree with me (besides Donald Trump): yup - none other than the left's most recent failed she-messiah -- Hillary Rodham Clinton!

Let's recall exactly what SHE had to say about it in 2006 when President George W. Bush was in office and the Republicans had Congress:

“So I hope, Mr. President, that we can pass a law that criminalizes flag burning and desecration....I agree that this burning, this desecration that can happen to our flag is something that people have a right to ask this body to try to prohibit and prevent.”

I just wonder how she feels about that statement now that President-Elect Donald J. Trump is proposing the same thing she introduced in her bill?

Do you think her thoughts might have changed since all the flag-burning going on now is anti-Trump?

I'd LOVE to hear what she has to say now.

Maybe her views have "evolved"?

 

You change it from flag burning to assaulting? Stick to what was being discussed.
Flag burning is a form of expressing speech. I believe the USSC has ruled on it.

So your rant is worthless.

 

I love the thought process people use to advocate for imprisoning or stripping citizenship from people who burn the flag.

"Burning the flag is unAmerican!! So let's do the most unAmerican thing we can think of (throw out free speech) as a response!"

Mental midgets.

 

So why ban the confederate flag...couldn't you just burn it too?

Why do you think banning the confederate flag is not an attack on free speech but burning the American flag is?

 

What are the flag burners expressing when they burn the flag? Anyone can do it, it doesn't take much skill and it's legal, but it doesn't say much for their creativity, intelligence or offer an explanation of their concerns. It seems rather immature, doesn't it?

 

You'd have to ask the flag burner(s).
I assume, it's they don't like something that the gov't is doing.

 

That's it exactly. You'd have to ask them what they are protesting because just burning the flag makes no sense at all. That's why these flag burners are rightfully thought to be inarticulate, unaware of the issues, adolescent, and not very bright.

 

What are you even talking about? Where the hell did I advocate for banning the confederate flag? Where did I say that banning the confederate flag is not an attack on free speech?

Please respond to what I actually say, not what you'd like me to say.

 

So are you against banning it or not? I don't care what you say, just say it without dragging it out for a week like you did in another thread!

Do you think state governments banning the confederate flag is an attack on free speech?

Yes or No will do.

 

You are right, it is protected as free speech.

Saying the "n" word is free speech as well, yet if someone uses the word, it will never be forgiven. Perhaps we need to treat flag-burners with the same contempt.

On the other hand, what do you think the reaction would be if they were burning rainbow flags and Mexican flags? Where does "free speech" cross the line to hate speech?

 

I think you made an excellent point about naturalized citizens - and I would also include people holding green cards or visas; and especially the ones who are here illegally. They should have the privilege of being in this country revoked. It's beyond rude, when you think about it... like going into someone else's house and trashing it.

Those who become an American by choice understand that while America is not perfect, at least it possesses an ideology of perfection. We try. Other countries don't even come close.