marquee moon
Banhammer'd
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2011
- Messages
- 31,882
- Reaction score
- 2,091
Not particularly a fan of flag burning. In his tweets, in as much as I can determine, not being on twitter either, Trump overstates things quite regularly. I don't think he should be taken literally but rather his exaggerations simply reflect that he feels strongly about the issue, and that's probably the way his voters understand it. But I am just guessing here.
I might also add that the SC has permitted flag burning, so that is the law of the land until the decision is reversed. I think Trump probably knows that; on the other hand, someone, who approves the burning of the flag, probably should not try to be POTUS.
Question for you lawyers out there: couldn't flag burning be interpreted as hate speech, even a hate crime? Why, or why not?
This is what YOU said, " on the other hand, someone, who approves the burning of the flag, probably should not try to be POTUS."
That's what I responded to. You made an outrageous, irrational, dictatorial statement that spits in the face of the 1st Amendment.
Whom did you vote for RJ? Maybe you should check out this NYTimes article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/07/opinion/senator-clinton-in-pander-mode.html?mwrsm=Twitter&_r=1
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/s1370/text
"`(b) ACTIONS PROMOTING VIOLENCE- Any person who destroys or damages a flag of the United States with the primary purpose and intent to incite or produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace, and under circumstances in which the person knows that it is reasonably likely to produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace, shall be fined not more than $100,000, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both."
The bill doesn't mention anything about protesters or burning the flag. I have a feeling that whole "with the primary purpose and intent to incite or produce imminent violence" would be where they'd get ya. Language like that is usually what leads to false imprisonment. It's also what makes these types of issues "GOTCHA!" statements for candidates, and why they USUALLY try to avoid them...unlike Mr. Trump who tends to bring upon himself. It's just too easy to bait someone into a sound bite that makes them sound like they're about to burn a flag right then and there.
OOOPPPSSS
Even a cursory knowledge of US civics says that such consequences would have to be preceded by a Scotus decision that overturns their previous decision on the matter, then both the congress and President would have to act on what I suspect would be pretty low priority legislation, and then that legislation would have to survive Scotus scrutiny, which it wouldn't.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
She was wrong on that issue. I don't have to agree with everything any candidate says. Many, many times I stated she wasn't my first or even third or fourth choice, but as compared to Trump there was no comparison.
But YOUR position is anti-1st Amendment and anti-freedom.
Whom did you vote for RJ? Maybe you should check out this NYTimes article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/07/opinion/senator-clinton-in-pander-mode.html?mwrsm=Twitter&_r=1
No, I posted it because Hillary sponsored a bill calling for imprisonment of people who burned the flag with certain intent. Even RJ seems to understand that.
No, I posted it because Hillary sponsored a bill calling for imprisonment of people who burned the flag with certain intent. Even RJ seems to understand that.
And that's funny and/or relevant because...?
People were suggesting Trump was unfit to be president because he proposed punishing people for flag burning.
You're slipping.
I assume you posted that because BS4L's meme is a gross oversimplification of the proposed law, especially since it suggests the absolute maximum penalty is a standard penalty.
Even a cursory knowledge of US civics says that such consequences would have to be preceded by a Scotus decision that overturns their previous decision on the matter, then both the congress and President would have to act on what I suspect would be pretty low priority legislation, and then that legislation would have to survive Scotus scrutiny, which it wouldn't.