Should flag burners lose citizenship?

[LouisBooth]

So... what's changed since then?

the court. The nation, the world. This isn't a logical point. The fact is they have overturned their cases, and it could happen in the future. That's the only point I'm making.

 

[LouisBooth]

No, my disapproval doesn't make the laws.

but it does show you're being inconsistent doesn't it? How does it not?

 

[TLK Valentine]

The opportunity to pack the court?

You mean with justices like Scalia and Kennedy?

 

[variant]

but it does show you're being inconsistent doesn't it? How does it not?

Because I don't approve of those laws. My reasoning and beliefs don't change based upon which laws are on the books.

 

[variant]

You mean with justices like Scalia and Kennedy?

Thomas, Alito, Roberts, Kennedy and whoever.

Still not going to win the case IMO. Maybe with one or two more fascists, but it's not a lock.

 

[TLK Valentine]

the court. The nation, the world.

The moon, the stars, the sun...

This isn't a logical point.

QFT.

The fact is they have overturned their cases, and it could happen in the future. That's the only point I'm making.

It could, but let's deal in what's plausible before engaging in flights of fancy... and it's going to take a drastic change in the court's makeup before they reverse such a decision... and the kind of people who would want that have been trying for decades to do it to Roe v Wade (1973), with zero success, and more recently to Obergefell v Hodges (2015).

They failed, as bad ideas tend to do.

 

[variant]

They failed, as bad ideas tend to do.

If this were only usually more true.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Thomas, Alito, Roberts, Kennedy and whoever.

Still not going to win the case IMO. Maybe with one or two more fascists, but it's not a lock.

Meh, Scalia was a protofascist, and even he sided with the flag burners... Thomas wasn't on the court at the time, but had he been, he'd have followed Scalia's lead. Kennedy is a COnservative, but a bit of a wildcard, and he, like Scalia, was on the court and sided with the Constitution.

Trump's going to have to get several egregiously bad SCOTUS choices past Congress for this one.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Sorry your premise is incorrect. They aren't burning a cloth, the political speech is saying burn America.

Why should that phrase be illegal to say?

 

[variant]

Meh, Scalia was a protofascist, and even he sided with the flag burners... Thomas wasn't on the court at the time, but had he been, he'd have followed Scalia's lead. Kennedy is a COnservative, but a bit of a wildcard, and he, like Scalia, was on the court and sided with the Constitution.

I wouldn't expect it from Anthony Kennedy under any circumstances actually, he is a big fat first amendment believer, to the extent that he is happy to expand it rather than contract it.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Why should that phrase be illegal to say?

Because Donald Trump is America now, and He doesn't approve.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Because Donald Trump is America now, and He doesn't approve.

With Big Brother Cheeto watching over us, we have no reason to dissent.

 

[jayem]

Supreme Court does not know how to read. Speech is protected, not "expression". If the founding fathers believed expression should be protected, they would have said so.

I know this is off topic, but the founders never said funneling unlimited amounts of money anonymously to superpacs is free speech either. But SCOTUS decided it is.

I'd be willing to make a trade. I'll support an amendment that makes flag burning illegal if an amendment is also ratified that allows strict regulation of campaign spending. That addresses a far greater threat to our society than desecrating a flag.

Sorry for going off topic.

 

[KCfromNC]

People should be made ineligible for government services for constitutionally protected acts of protest?

Let's just throw in the rest of the stuff protected by the 1st amendment as well. Go to church? You just lost your social security check! Makes perfect sense, right?

 

[morningstar2651]

So where do you end "free speech"? Obviously its ok to burn a flag, then why not yell fire in a non crowded building, or why is it a crime to tell someone that you're going to kill them?

If you can't figure out the difference between threatening to commit first-degree murder and burning a piece of fabric in protest, then there is really no point in continuing a conversation on this subject with you.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Supreme Court does not know how to read. Speech is protected, not "expression". If the founding fathers believed expression should be protected, they would have said so.

"Speech" is only spoken. If the Founding Fathers believed the written word should be protected, they would have said so, amirite?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Yes because burning the nation's flag to me is tantamount to renouncing citizenship anyway, or worse, declaring yourself an enemy of the nation.

Says who?

 

[morningstar2651]

Says who?

President-elect Donald...and about 6 of the people that voted on the poll in this thread.

 

[Chesterton]

"Speech" is only spoken. If the Founding Fathers believed the written word should be protected, they would have said so, amirite?

No urnot.

Says who?

Lemme check...um, the name above that speech says "Chesterton".

 

[Aryeh Jay]

If you can't figure out the difference between threatening to commit first-degree murder and burning a piece of fabric in protest

Just wait, that is coming.