Constitutional Law, Criminal law, Media, Politics, Society

Trump Calls For Punishing Those Who Burn The American Flag

495px-Donald_Trump_by_Gage_SkidmoreDonald Trump has set off a new controversy with a signature early morning tweet. Trump lashed out at those who burn American flags and said that they should be punished for their actions. The problem is that this question was already answered by the Supreme Court, which found that such acts (while despicable) are constitutionally protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.


Early this morning, Trump went on Twitter to say: “Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag – if they do, there must be consequences – perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!”

I have long been critical of those who burn our flag, which I view as a symbol of our constitutional freedoms and the sacrifice of generations to preserve this Republic. However, there are many things that people say or do that I find disturbing or insulting. That does not alter the fact that they are protected expressions of free speech.

481px-Earl_WarrenPresident-Elect Trump does not appear to see it that way. Yet, both the Constitution and the Supreme Court stand in the way of punitive measures for flag burners.  Having said that, Trump’s view has been shared by various justices in history including such liberal icons as Chief Justice Earl Warren in his dissenting opinion in Street v. New York, 394 U.S. 576 (1969).  Likewise, Hillary Clinton supported such a law in 2005.

Nevertheless, in the United States, the destruction of the flag is a protected form of free speech. In Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), the Supreme Court voted 5-4 that flag burning was protected speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. It is considered one of the core cases defining free speech in the United States. Brennan was joined by Marshall, Blackmun, Scalia, and Kennedy (Kennedy wrote a concurrence). I agree with the decision as did conservatives like Scalia, who Trump has expressed great admiration for. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a powerful concurrence where he famously stated:

Justice Kennedy
Justice Kennedy

“For we are presented with a clear and simple statute to be judged against a pure command of the Constitution. The outcome can be laid at no door but ours. The hard fact is that sometimes we must make decisions we do not like. We make them because they are right, right in the sense that the law and the Constitution, as we see them, compel the result. And so great is our commitment to the process that, except in the rare case, we do not pause to express distaste for the result, perhaps for fear of undermining a valued principle that dictates the decision. This is one of those rare cases.

Though symbols often are what we ourselves make of them, the flag is constant in expressing beliefs Americans share, beliefs in law and peace and that freedom which sustains the human spirit. The case here today forces recognition of the costs to which those beliefs commit us. It is poignant but fundamental that the flag protects those who hold it in contempt.”

Congress has shown the same opposition to the decision as Trump. It passed the 1989 Flag Protection Act to make it a federal crime to desecrate the flag. That law was struck down in United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).  The Court ruled that “the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”

Various congressional members have also sought to pass a constitutional amendment on flag desecration but the proposed amendment has failed in the Senate.  It has been ten years since the last serious effort has been made for an amendment on the issue.  Trump aides might argue that he was not questioning the legitimacy of the decision but supporting a constitutional amendment.

I understand Trump’s anger and I indeed share it when I see the flag burned. However, you do not protect the flag by diminishing the very thing is represented: our constitutional freedoms.

Of course, while Trump cannot change the meaning of the Constitution, he can change the make up of the Court (or support a Flag-Desecration Amendment). Ironically, by replacing Scalia with someone who does not hold as strong a belief in First Amendment rights, he could shift the vote toward a reversal of the 1989 precedent. I hope that that is not the case. It could place this country on a slippery slope of criminalized speech. I prefer to live in a country where tweets and protests are both given ample protection.

217 thoughts on “Trump Calls For Punishing Those Who Burn The American Flag”

  1. It’s only constitutional as long as five guys and gals on First St. NE say it is and one or two of them are likely to be Trump appointees. Stay tuned.🇺🇸

    1. Patriot – how about you let The Donald get his cabinet and top officers picked and then he can get down to the nitty gritty.

      1. The Donald has now made it clear he no longer wants to go after Hillary so while I agree with your point, Patriot has substance for his comment.

        Of course it’s also true that Mr. Trump can change his mind as he so often at least seems to have done in the past and go after Hillary and Bush and Cheney all at the same time for war crimes regarding a preemptive and known unwarranted war on Iraq. I doubt he will, but I suppose stranger things have happened. That said, using that criteria – that he can change his mind from one sentence to the next so lets wait and see – one would have to wait for his entire 4 years to be over before being able to make any judgements. I exaggerate, but the point is still fair. It’s been almost a month and the outlines of his choices are becoming observable and therefore comment-able even if a little additional waiting would be better.

        1. Never for a moment expected Trump to drain any swamp, and even less to go after his friends Hillary or Bill, but I was still disappointed to hear it stated so explicitly.

  3. Any Trump voters who believed the drain the swamp crap was a sucker. The tweets are a distraction from the very conservative insider appointments that are going on.

    1. No one I spoke to was unaware that either choice (if you can call it a choice) was terrible and that this would be a bumpy ride.

      Hopefully, next time – if there is one – the DNC, the powers that be, whoever, will see fit to provide a real choice the people want rather than the choice the elite made eight years ago and those paralyzed with fear followed at Pavlov time. Hell, they might even have a fair non rigged nomination process. On the other hand, they could simply blame sun spots, the Martians and the Russians and go full on with another neoliberal rammed down our throats vs.a purposefully hyped up scary bogyman (though also – I can assure you – a neoliberal) that will do the exact same things only with more colorful expressions.

  4. I agree with the Court that flag burning falls under the protection of Free Speech, though abhorrent. However, it would also be an open flame, so there may be prohibitions of open flames in fire prone states such as in the West. And, of course, burning a flag that does not belong to you would be vandalism.

    As someone who comes from a family with a very long military history, the sight of the burning flag hits me in the gut. It’s spitting in the face of all the soldiers dead or maimed fighting for our country, and it’s spitting in the face of Freedom. But it falls in the same category of ugly speech, which is just as protected as the most beautiful and compassionate speech. And we have to have the freedom to criticize our government, fairly or unfairly, out of wisdom or ignorance. Outlawing the burning of the flag may encourage the weaponization of such a law. In the Middle East, it is unfortunately a common occurrence for warring neighbors to bring spurious charges of desecrating the Koran, especially against non-Muslims. I would not want to go down that road.

    That said, realistically, if you burn a flag in front of a vet you may start a fight. And I would accept the defense of “temporary insanity”.

    So, both Trump, and Hillary Clinton in 2005, were misguided in their attempts to criminalize flag burning.

    Aside from the law, it does strike me as unfair that native Oak trees are so protected in CA that dead trees or branches smash through cars or houses because the permitting approval process to remove them takes so long, while the Flag is vulnerable. The Giant Sequoias are also treated wth great care, as they should be. At the very least, I am glad that there is deep cultural protective instincts for our Flag.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/29/trump-takes-heat-for-wanting-to-outlaw-flag-burning-but-clinton-wanted-same-in-2005.html

    1. . This flag burning tweet is a distraction from the real news about the dismantling of MEDICARE.

      1. LInks? Are you referring to the article on the Intercept? https://theintercept.com/2016/11/29/donald-trump-campaigned-on-protecting-medicare-but-his-health-secretary-pick-wants-to-privatize-it/

        Any other links with additional info?

        Take heart! With Trump lights out will only occur in about 100 to 200 years through anthropogenic extinction (though on the down side it will be a truly horrible prolonged agony). With Hillary, it would probably have come in the next few years with a full on nuclear war with Russia sparked off probably by something as stupid as a no fly zone in Syria. See, I knew I could cheer you up.

        1. Thanks, Brooklin.

          Desecration of the Flag is one of those instances where I find defending Free Speech quite difficult. A lot of our military have suffered greatly to ensure we have the right to express outrageous things. I just cannot imagine what a vet would feel watching that Flag burn. Those are boots I have not walked in. It’s so rare for the vets in my family and friends to even talk about their experiences in combat. I don’t understand people who would want to hurt vets who have given us so much already.

          1. Karen S, The fact that you find it difficult (for good reason – and I imagine that is understatement) only makes your opinion that it still falls under the protection of free speech that much more meaningful and precious. You, more than many, would be able to convey to others real respect for these symbols.

  5. SCOTUS is the same outfit that wouldn’t protect the life of an unborn baby, so why would they protect the Stars and Stripes?

  6. OK, I thought of a new approach to this issue. First, all you liberals and progressives — quit hyperventilating for a moment. Now, assuming that you have regained a normal breathing pattern, ask yourself the following question:

    If Flag Burning is banned in America, and upheld by the courts, then on the very next day, exactly how does your life change? In detail please. Please describe IN DETAIL how your life has changed now that you can no longer legally burn an American Flag in protest:

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter:

    1. 🙂 Well, for one, I couldn’t burn an American Flag which would mean that a Constitutional right, such as the right to bear arms, even if only to make a statement to hyperventillating symbol &gt reality right wing ideologues and tribalists, was taken away from me.

      Now, back to breathing…

      1. Testing…

        symbol > reality

        That should have come out, symbol [greater than symbol] reality

      2. First, I don’t see “flag burning” enumerated in the Constitution as a right. There is a free speech right, and a right to peacefully assemble, but I think the “right” to burn stuff in public was pretty much a court thing. I asked a question, which you did not answer. How IN DETAIL does your life change? You can still protest, you can still write :I Hate America” in an editorial, or in a flyer, and you can still march up and down the street with effigy’s of Trump with a rope around his neck.

        Sooo, how IN DETAIL has your life changed?

        As far as the gun stuff, nice try, but non sequitur. If my gun rights are abridged, that means no gun in my purse, and I can’t go out at night for fear of rape, murder, and robbery with no means to protect myself. That’s pretty concrete.

        As far as your snark above, and a modicum of respect and gun rights, then you should see Chicago, where a modicum of respect is required of criminals, that they not possess a gun. However, the Democrats there do not enforce the law, and frankly, with 60,000+ gang members, the majority of whom are armed, I do not see anything short of several divisions of troops doing anything about it in the long run. But people would probably object to gunning down criminals in large numbers. Go figure.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

        1. Freedom of expression, and anything that would abridge or erode it, is equally important if not more so than gun rights because it is more abstract and protects you in far more ways than merely keeping and bearing arms. It’s a non sequitur only in the eyes of the beholder. Anyway, sorry Squeeky but you seem to be the one doing the hyperventilating here.

          1. Also, for the record, I am in favor of gun ownership. I am also in favor of reasonable regulations protecting society from nut cases. Having said that, in all seriousness, I have to work at it to see why some restrictions on flag burning wouldn’t be just as reasonable as some regulation on gun ownership. I imagine there may be a very good argument for the one and not the other, but I just don’t see it at the moment.

            1. We have very reasonable gun regulations that makes it unlawful for an ex-felon to possess a firearm, or even ammunition. Nonetheless, these ex-felons continue to shoot up the country.

              The pro-gun control side actually advocates “trickle down” gun control. By taking away law-abiding citizen’s rights to own weapons, they hope it will eventually trickle down to the criminal class not have weapons. Frankly, it makes more sense to just go after the criminal class. But no, we must not mass-incarcerate the goobers, nor execute them about the third time they commit a felony.

              Further, if the “trickle down” theory actually worked, what about the period of time between when law-abiding citizens gave up their guns, and the “trickle down” worked? We would be sitting ducks for the criminals.

              What I really think is, that the elite class just doesn’t want the “deplorable class” to own guns because we may one day turn those guns on them. Which I think is at least 75 years away.

              IMHOs.

              Squeeky Fromm
              Girl Reporter

        2. “…I can’t go out at night for fear of rape, murder, and robbery with no means to protect myself. ”

          Come on Squeaky, you know this isn’t true. A gun isn’t the only means of protecting yourself. Sure, a gun may be a more convenient and lethal means of protection. But it is not the only option.

      3. Another way of saying the same thing is that if passing a law against flag burning will have no effect on anyone, then not passing that same law will also have no effect on anyone and I would prefer the latter since it preserves rather than erodes an instance of freedom of expression where such does not bring harm to others (certainly no more harm than to the farmer of a shot gun blasted cow with the word “COW” painted on it in big bright red lettrers which I saw happen with my own incredulous eyes – I might add the cow didn’t like it either).

        1. Now you’re cooking with gas! Yes, outside of a few twits who burn flags, there would be no impact one way or the other on anybody else. Those few twits could still protest and assemble and act like jerks, but could be arrested if they carry on beyond those protected rights to burning a flag. Which means the whole thing is pretty much symbolic, and the country would not descend into Totalitarianism or a Nazi-like Hell.

          Glad you got it!

          Sorry for slow replies. I am nursing a kitten and it wants to play on the keyboard.

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

          1. No problem on the speed of reply. I think far more slowly than you anyway and I would be even slower to take my attention away from a playful kitten.

            1. Oh yes, and clearly I was wrong; you are not hyperventilating (though it’s not bad if you are about to dive for pears without a tank).

            2. I am not positive that it is a kitten. There were seven others which I am sure are kittens. This one is either the runt, or a baby chupacabra that took up with the momma cat. After bottle feeding it some, and fancy feasting it, it is beginning to look more like a kitten. But there is this bald spot on its tail, and its leg. For a while, it was all ears and a head. Two others had such spots, but they are hairing back up. This one is slower, but it is lively, and will play. And it insists on grabbing the baby bottle, and now my last nipple has been chewed thru. Each bottle comes with 2 nipples, and this will one will properly suck, but I made the mistake of letting the other runty one use it earlier, and off came the tip of the nipple. I think that is the fourth bottle I have been thru. Maybe the third. I am a little tired.

              I wonder if there is any such thing as industrial strength kitten nipples???

              Squeeky Fromm
              Girl Reporter

              1. industrial strength kitten nipples – can’t wait for the Super Bowl advertisements!

          2. The only assurance we have that criminalizing flag burning won’t produce a descent in totalitarianism is your claim that it won’t occur. Somehow, I don’t find your assurances very assuring. Furthermore, avoiding a Nazi-like hell isn’t the primary or only concern about banning flag burning. There are plenty of forms of hell that fall short of a Nazi-like version that are also worth avoiding.

    2. Let’s alter that question slightly Squeaky. If a Constitutional Amendment banning flag burning is not approved, and things remain as they are, in what way will this change or impact your life? Describe in detail how your life will be or has been negatively impacted by the right of anyone to burn a flag?

  7. Given Trump’s administration picks, never mind his fiery statements, the strategy may be that he gets four years to struggle with Democrats in congress (who will likely be embarrassed – if nothing else – into exercising the filibuster) as a means of preparing the country to accept the next Vichy Dem as a God Send when, of course, it’s all a set up for the Vichy Dem to do the real dirty work of selling off the last of the country’s assets (including Medicare and Social Security) to private enterprise.

  8. NY Times 12/2005:

    “

    Hillary Clinton is co-sponsoring a bill to criminalize the burning of the American flag. Her supporters would characterize this as an attempt to find a middle way between those who believe that flag-burning is constitutionally protected free speech and those who want to ban it, even if it takes a constitutional amendment. Unfortunately, it looks to us more like a simple attempt to have it both ways.

    Senator Clinton says she opposes a constitutional amendment to outlaw flag-burning. In 1989, the Supreme Court ruled that flag-burning was protected by the First Amendment. But her bill, which is sponsored by Senator Robert Bennett, Republican of Utah, is clearly intended to put the issue back before the current, more conservative, Supreme Court in hopes of getting a turnaround.

    It’s hard to see this as anything but pandering — there certainly isn’t any urgent need to resolve the issue. Flag-burning hasn’t been in fashion since college students used slide rules in math class and went to pay phones at the student union to call their friends. Even then, it was a rarity that certainly never put the nation’s security in peril.

    “

  9. What gets me is all the lawyers who act like America will turn into the Third Reich if a bunch of twits can’t burn the flag. Because some judges said that was protected “speech’. Heck, if that is the case, take the flag in the courtroom and go burn it! See what the judge says. Spout off in the courtroom, and holler “free speech” and see how long it takes the judge to find you in contempt.

    Judges live in theory land, but when it comes to their little bailiwicks, their little courtrooms, they expect dignity and decorum and RESPECT. As well they should. But why should that be restricted to their little bailiwicks?

    If you wonder where all the America hating, Castro loving, pro-illegal alien invaders, open border progressives and liberals come from, it is a hatred of all things normal, and all things American. Sooo, I am all in favor of making flag burning a crime, and a year of hard labor is very appropriate. A year of living around people (criminals) who also disrespect the country and its laws is a bonus. That will teach these idiots some respect.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. Squeeky,

      Dissent is normal. It is protected by the Constitution.

      What you and Trump are proposing is a totalitarian form of govt. and does not respect the rights of the citizens of our country. You might just as well praise Obama for his war on whistleblowers. He’s restricted our rights. Now Trump is restricting them.

      At some point, I am hoping Americans will be the best of who we are and refuse to allow the govt. to take away our rights. It’s always sad for me to see my fellow citizen wishing to destroy the rights of the people. We are the only ones left to enforce our rights, but many, on the left and the right, would like those rights taken away as long as their side is the one taking them away. This attitude is exactly how we’ve ended up where we are now.

      Decreeing that citizens lose their citizenship over burning a flag is totalitarianism. As others point out above, 1. Clinton did support this and 2. dissent is normal and necessary to the protection of our rights as delineated in the Constitution.

      1. Dissent is normal because no two people ever agree with anybody else 100% about stuff. But there have to be rules for us to live together. The libertarian left and right hate rules, and see any infringement on their absolute freedom to do whatever they want to do, to be authoritarianism.

        As for me, I don’t think the country does any harm to itself by expecting a modicum of respect from its citizens, including NOT burning its flag. No, that is NOT totalitarianism. It’s just expecting people to behave themselves. No more than passing laws to not run around naked in public is totalitarianism.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

        1. Finally, someone on the right who recognizes that expecting a modicum of respect, say for the way guns should be bought and used, is not totalitarianism but simply expecting people to behave themselves. No more than passing laws to not run around naked in public is totalitarianism..

          I think you may have a point, but such restrictions should be eminently reasonable if not practical, and not simply based on one’s ideological pov. There would seem to be reasonable restrictions on gun acquisition/usage that do not take away one’s right to own and/or use them, and there may well be restrictions on treatment of national symbols that do not infringe on one’s ability to express their patriotism or suspension of it in ways unacceptable to others without necessarily infringing on the rights of others.

        2. Squeeky,

          The nation is us. Our leaders work for us and are not due respect unless they display behavior worthy of respect. You are defining people “behaving” themselves as people being obedient to the authorities which you approve of.

          There is nothing in our Constitution which requires us to respect leaders, the govt. or a flag. In fact, our founders behaved quite badly in the eyes of their govt. The Constitution lays out the limits of power of the govt. over the people. It is not a document of obedience by the people towards the govt or any of the govt.’s symbols.

          Demanding that people behave obediently to authorities as Trump says (or one’s chosen leader, for you, Trump,) or lose their citizen is in fact totalitarianism. It is no part of our Constitution–period.

          1. Someone pointed out earlier something to the effect that making it a crime to burn a flag is the same as mandating political correctness. I absolutely agree. Forcing symbolism down one’s throat is the epitome of mind control. A flag is a flag is a flag. Prof Turley’s claim that flag burning is “despicable” per se is preposterous.

            1. Boy Steve you must never have served your country or knew those who did to claim “a flag is flag is a flag.” Medals of honor are won for protecting or capturing a flag, Men die raising that flag over taken ground. People swear allegiance to the ideas it represents. You need a civics class or a patriotism transplant stat.

              1. mespo: I enlisted in the Marine Corps for three years back when three-year enlistments were still available and spent my entire tour at HQ, USMC, Wash, D.C., when it was located at the Navy Annex in Arlington. I had a final top secret clearance, and worked in the administrative office of Major General William Fitch, Deputy Chief of Staff for Research, Development and Studies.

                I’m the guy in the foreground on the right:

                https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=4525563253462&set=pb.1122314956.-2207520000.1480482460.&type=3&size=1263%2C725

                The right to dissent is far more important than nationalistic symbols or the Kool-Aid that makes us believe in them and blindly fight for them.

                1. I’m having no success in posting a photo of me in my fancy uniform on graduation day at the Marine Corps Recruit Depot here in San Diego.

                    1. It was a difficult schedule to maintain: morning shoots were the worst; casting couches; director idiosyncrasies; contractually-mandated photo ops. But the money made it all worth the while.

                    2. Steve Groen – one of my fellow theatre students went to San Diego. His pictures showed up in a nude magazine for gay men. He was in good shape. 🙂

                    3. There were gays in the Marine Corps when I was in, but they were few and far between. The only one I knew was a good Marine. He smoked good dope, too.

                      Interestingly enough, a gay neighbor of mine who was a Navy Reserve Lt. Commander at the start of Desert Storm was a doctoral student in pacific rim studies at UCSD when the Gulf War started. He was of Indian (Asian subcontinental) and Puerto Rican (where he was born) ancestry as I recall, but he was fluent in Russian, Arabic, Spanish, and English (with no foreign accent). He was one of the translator when a Russian naval vessel was invited to San Diego for the first time since perhaps before the Cold War.

                      He was activated and went directly to the Pentagon to work with General Powell. When he first arrived, Powell introduced him to his Pentagon Press Secretary, Pete Williams, by saying, “He’s one of yours.”

                      This Lt. Commander spent most of the Gulf War in Saudi Arabia working for General Schwarzkopf, who offered him a brevet promotion to Captain (skipping the rank of commander). The rationale was to put him above the rank of the senior Saudi commander in his unit. The offer was rejected for being only temporary, at which Schwarzkopf made it a permanent promotion. This new Captain was in his mid-thirties.

                      The moral here is that making jokes about gays in the military is about as moronic as worshiping a flag. As a commentor on this list earlier suggested, demanding political correctness about flag burning juxtaposed to no political correctness for gays is hypocritical . . . at best.

                      Jus’ sayin’.

            2. To many thousands if not millions of people, the flag is important, as important as or perhaps even more so than what it supposedly stands for. The importance to them is what makes it important period no matter what you or I think or feel or even if we are correct.

              And while I agree in principal that the object of the symbol (that which the symbol stands for) is what really counts (or what really needs criticism), I also agree that desecration of the symbols representing those things is a very significant act.

              Naturally I also agree wholeheartedly with you that if you remove the right to desecrate these symbols, you have by an equal extent reduced the value of freedom the symbols supposedly stand for, and for which our citizens fight and die for (and I would add as the most difficult of all for many – live for and struggle to make better).

              2. Brooklin Bridge – what do you think would have happened to a soldier who tore down and burned the flag at Iwo Jima?

                1. Paul, re-read my comment. It is not disrespectful of symbols.

                  Those same soldiers, in a previous incarnation, may well have burned the British flag.

                2. Also Paul, the military (those soldiers at Iwo Jima) is not a democracy. It may protect and serve a democracy, but it is not organized under the same principals nor does it serve the same purpose.

                  1. Brooklin Bridge – as best I can tell, you have yet to clearly answer my question?

                    1. Paul, I might be better able to answer you, if you tell me the reason behind the question?

                      So far, I have answered that

                      Everything depends on context. The soldiers at Iwo Jima were in the military, not citizens protesting in a democracy. The two are completely incompatible and this thread is discussing the latter.

                      Even if I were able to meld the two, and no one can, I don’t see what you are getting at, so I need further clarification.

                      If you are trying to say that because I did not answer your question, you must be right – then fine, you’re right.

                    2. Brooklin Bridge – weren’t the soldiers/marines at Iwo Jima Americans? Did they or did they not have the right to burn that flag that was raised? And if they burned it, what would have happened?

              3. The significance of a flag is relevant only when it supersedes free speech. Why a flag is being distinguished from, say, “Je suis Charlie Hebdo,” is propaganda aimed at the working class, the “cheap labor guys like you — the black, brown and yellow folks who take it up the shorts — who make capitalism look like it actually works.” Without such propaganda, the wealthy would have to fight their own wars.

                1. Steve,
                  The significance of a flag is made more relevant as the loss of rights become more apparent. Our flag is a symbol of our journey to become a more perfect union. It is a reminder for some that we’ve made enormous sacrifices to be where we are and they don’t want to lose what has been gained. For others, it is a reminder of the undeniable amount of carnage our country has inflicted upon the world. I believe both worldviews to be based in truth. Is there any common ground with both views? A respect for the rule of law would be a good place to start. As Bastiat wrote:
                  “No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law. These two evils are of equal consequence, and it would be difficult for a person to choose between them.”

                  1. Olly, thanks for the thoughtful post. I agree that many people essentially conflate the flag with patriotism. My idea of patriotism doesn’t fit into such a small and convenient package that everybody with a lapel pin can call himself a patriot. It takes more than that, and we’re psychologically stronger than that.

                    I know you see the irony in supporting criminal flag burning while simultaneously opposing limitations on hate speech. One can’t have it both ways. We’re either an authoritarian state or we’re a libertarian state in terms of speech, which in this case would generally be political speech that even Judge Bork (who thought only political speech protected under the First Amendment) might very well have found complied with it.

                2. You raise excellent points and Olly gives a marvelous reply, but something is still missing. Perhaps Olly addresses it and I just don’t see it, but what I’m trying to get at is that your examples are too far down into the soil of misuse. Just because exploitation exists, doesn’t mean all symbols are intrinsically exploitative..

                  The sun never shone on a cause of greater worth was pure propaganda – possibly even meeting your criteria of the wealthy getting the little guy to fight his wars – but it was also so much more that. Call it positive reinforcement, an affirmation in one line that became a verbal symbol, or whatever, it inspired because it pointed to substance. I have read that most people’s involvement in the Revolution was based purely on self interest, but that never seems to quite fit the facts either, and Paine’s success as a pamphleteer and voice of the revolution seems to bear out that something extra that beats in human hearts.

                  I’m not sure there has to be a distinction between the flag and a statement of solidarity with freedom of speech. I certainly see our flag as representing our freedom, including freedom of speech. Getting me to fight someone else’s unjust war by manipulation of that symbol is a gross misuse of my respect, not necessarily an inseparable part of it.

                  1. “Just because exploitation exists, doesn’t mean all symbols are intrinsically exploitative..” True, but criminalizing speech because of a symbol is exploitative per se. No?

        3. You are comparing laws punishing public nudity to laws restricting free speech? That is one whopper of a false equivalency. It is one thing to expect respect from your fellow citizens. It is an act of tyranny to legislate that respect by criminalizing speech/dissent simply because you feel offended or disrespected. You are arguing for a tyrannical position Squeaky.

          1. Not really. The Republic would not fall if flag burning was a minor crime. History shows no nation that survived without respecting its institutions. Law as minder of respect for national symbols is as old as humankind. Imwoukdntvadvicatecsuchba law, but I wouldn’t march against it either.

            2. Forced respect is not respect. Each instance is an installment of resentment

              History has shown that no nation survives period..

  10. S.1911 – Flag Protection Act of 2005 would have made it a crime to burn the flag. It was cosponsored by then Senator Clinton. 🙂

  11. My thoughts on the Flag: This is the American Flag, a symbol of unity in which our American protectors take a Pledge of Allegiance to protect with their lives. It should not be desecrated. Free speech has been manipulated by foreign interests, burning the American Flag at a protest is not free speech – it is a disrespect of the American people. These disrespectful protesters should not even be in America if this is how they feel. Honor the Flag of America that your ancestors died to protect! Stand up and be a true American, not a puppet of political correctness(?).

    1. Flags are private property. And all speech is protected, whether you agree with what’s expressed or not.

      Political correctness by the way would be not to burn the flag.

    2. LC, you are correct that burning the flag is an act of disrespect. But apparently you don’t fully understand that expressing one’s disrespect for another or for the nation is constitutionally protected free speech. I have a right to verbalize my views, even if you think them disrespectful. You likewise have the same right. The moment we march down the road of criminalizing disrespectful speech and expression, you will find yourself on the path that leads almost inevitably to a loss of your free speech rights altogether.

      1. dogfightwithdogma – evidently you cannot call out “Hillary bitch!” on a Delta airliners anymore.

  13. Burning that flag has never accomplished a thing other then “I’m in your face and there’s nothing you can do to stop me”. There’s no respect for anyone or anything in this nation anymore. We are a nation of takers and freeloaders. We envy those who have grabbed the brass ring and demand our fare share from their efforts, sacrifice and the chance they were willing to take. Maybe there should be a law protecting that piece of cloth at least for respect for those who have sacrificed so much for so many?

    Whatever happened to “Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country”?

    1. VietVet – Kennedy’s statement is usually misquoted, it is actually “Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for the Kennedys”

      1. @PS, I like my country. If you feel that way Paul that’s OK with me but I’m asking you respectfully “dont you agree we should all be doing things for our country”?

          1. Doing things for our country? How about the damn country doing something for me? The ONLY thing that any country is legitimately chartered to do. That is to protect my rights! And instead “my country” is the major violator of my rights!!! You really need to address your brainwashing it reeks of Stockholm syndrome.

            1. If you feel that strongly go to a country that best serves your feelings. OK I’m brainwashed I love it here and I guarantee I should be more angry then you. The best to you pal😢

              1. So the love it or leave it insanity?
                You are extremely brainwashed.
                If you had a clue you would understand that what you
                said is the antithesis of what this country was founded upon.

            2. InalienableWrights – I am no fan of the government and its over-reach. However, I am hoping there is some corrective action coming.

              1. The only long term solution is to educate the citizens. At best that will take a few generations. You can not even find a person in this country that has a kindergarten understanding of their rights and the legitimate purpose of government. It’s beyond sad.

                We have a “vet” in this thread that despite the Constitution clearly saying that congress must declare war , pissed on the Constitution and went anyhow. I don’t understand that how 30 years later that they still don’t understand that they were duped, and that there was no honor in what they did. Some of the smarter ones are teaching this lesson to the upcoming generations, but most of them still don’t have a clue.

          2. Paul, you need a nobody like me to tell you? I’m afraid that answer has to come from you.

            1. VietVet – First, I don’t think anybody on here is a nobody. However, you made the complaint. Be the solution.

        2. This country has done nothing but demand I do something for it, starting with being drafted by their army and go to Viet Nam and get killed or disabled when I was just 18 years old. I never believed that war was justified to “protect our freedoms”, and the historians of today have backed me up. I couldn’t even vote against the chief criminal named Johnson who wanted me to do this. And ever since then, they have stolen from me, lied to me, and required me to do things I was never inclined to do voluntarily. Never once did I get something from the government when I wanted or needed it. I’m not rich (or poor), so The System doesn’t work that way. Yeah, yeah, I’ve heard of the so-called “Social Contract”, but I never signed it. And the political games never gave me a chance to be represented by someone who agreed with my values. It’s all a fraud, controlled by the extremely wealthy.

          1. Tyger Gilbert – studies have shown that if you had enlisted rather than waited to be drafted you probably would have ended up in Europe.

  14. Does it matter to the Trump haters here that Senator Hillary Clinton co-sponsored a bill in 2005 that would impose a one-year sentence and up to $100,000 fine for burning the U.S. flag?
    Look it up.

  16. Some person or persons who burn a flag are making a statement. Like someone mentioned above, they are burning something made in China which should be made in America. So. Trump followers should stand behind those who burn flags made in China– no matter what the depiction on the flag. Make America great again. Open up the Ford plants and if Ford takes that plant to Mexico that Trump is arguing about then the rest of us can burn our Fords, collect the insurance, and buy a Toyota.

  17. GAME. Sorry missed that but war and sacrifice for this wonderful and great flag is no game.

    1. Service members differ on this opinion. Many feel as you do but others think differently.

      One of the stated missions of the military is to protect the Constitution and our democracy. Free speech, even speech we may disagree with, is essential to the Constitution. Many military members feel they served to protect our freedoms and would consider the abrogation of free speech an anathema.

      1. Not many service members feel that way! Come with me to the VA and ask the guys. Burning the flag somehow has been interpreted as freedom of speech by one vote, that could change if revisited.

        1. I have been to the VA many times and cannot confirm your experience. It differs from my own.

          A group of vets is going to DAPL to protest the govt.’s stripping away of the people’s rights. These are men and women who do not want the govt. abridging the rights of the people, nor do they want a militarized response to citizens.

          As Gleen Greenwald and others are writing: “The 👏 story 👏 isn’t 👏 flag 👏 burning 👏 it 👏 is 👏 Trump 👏 wanting 👏 to 👏 strip 👏 citizenship 👏 and 👏 voting 👏 rights 👏 from 👏 dissidents.–tweet by Ian Millhiser

    1. It may be interesting to hear what they say, but when it comes to constitutional rights what any of these individuals might have to say carries no more weight than what anyone else has to say. Having served in the military — wartime or peacetime — doesn’t carry any special privilege in the debate over my rights, your rights, or the rights of anyone else. I say this having served in the Navy (peacetime). I did not serve so that free speech could be restricted because one or another person does not like or is offended by another person’s words or acts of political expression that serve as a form of free speech.

    2. Sadly, all the men pictured in this photo are dead. Three of the marines who raised the flag on Mount Suribachi were killed in action over the course of several says after the photograph was taken. They were Sargeant Michael Strank, Corporal Harlon Block, and Private First Class Franklin Sousley. The others involved were Harold Schultz, Rene Gagnon and Ira Hayes. Schultz died in 1995, Gagnon in 1979 and Hayes in 1955. The photographer who took the picture — Joe Rosenthal — died in 2006. I could not find how many veterans of the Battle of Iwo Jima are still alive. But according to information at the website of the National WWII Museum, only about 620,000 of the 16 million veterans of WWII are still alive. Their numbers are decreasing at a rate of about 372 per day.

      1. dogfightwithdogma – Ira Hayes was a Pima Indian and died from alcohol consumption and exposure out in the cotton field on the reservation. He had been working picking cotton.

      1. I am impressed that you know the word, “ukase”! For the non legal types, “ukase” is French for, “U case is thrown out of court!” Also known as a “beau rea gestae.”

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

    2. Agree, but you have to admit that it’s a good wedge issue to deflect attention from all of things he said was going to do.

Comments are closed.