Thread: Donald Trump’s basic position on flag-burning isn’t really all that controversial

Donald Trump’s basic position on flag-burning isn’t really all that controversial

By Aaron Blake November 29 at 3:27 PM
Trump reignites debate over flag burning

Donald Trump would appear to have done something very controversial (again) on Twitter Tuesday morning, registering his support for making flag-burning a crime punishable by as much as a year in jail or even the revoking of one's citizenship.

As our Philip Bump notes, it's not the first time Trump has pitted himself against things that have been defined by the Supreme Court as First Amendment rights — nor will it likely be the last. And as Bump also notes, Trump's decision to stand against flag-burning is likely to pit defenders of the practice “against the patriotism of people who find flag-burning unacceptable.”

But the size of that latter group might be bigger than the coverage of this topic suggests. And Trump's position probably won't strike most Americans as being all that controversial.

In fact, making flag-burning illegal appears to have had overwhelming public support as recently as a decade ago. It's controversial to attach such harsh penalties to it, and the fact it would require a constitutional amendment makes it a steeper climb, yes. But Trump's basic position is one that appears to have base-level appeal to a huge cross-section of Americans — no matter what the Supreme Court ruled about flag-burning in 1989.

Polling on this issue is not at all recent and varies widely. But if we walk through it poll by poll, you get a sense for how broad the underlying support is for what Trump is advocating.

First, the most recent quality poll, from the 2011 State of the First Amendment survey, showed 56 percent opposed a constitutional amendment (which would be required) to outlaw flag-burning.

Five years prior, though, in 2006, Gallup and CNN polling both showed 56 percent favored such a constitutional amendment.

And finally, if you look at a Fox News poll also conducted in 2006, it showed 73 percent thought flag-burning should be illegal.

These are all very different results, with little reason to believe there was some massive shift in public opinion in the intervening months and years. So what's up?

Well, it appears that people broadly do think — or at least did think a decade ago — that flag-burning should be illegal. But if you layer on top of that the fact that it would require a constitutional amendment to make it so, support falls. And if you layer on top of that the idea that this is a free-speech issue — as the first pollster did — it falls so drastically that people suddenly agree with the Supreme Court's ruling and oppose an amendment.

Here's the straight-up Fox News poll question that drew 73 percent support for making flag-burning illegal: “Do you think burning the American flag should be legal or illegal?”

And here's the State of the First Amendment question, which reduced support for outlawing flag-burning by 35 points: “Some people feel that the U.S. Constitution should be amended to make it illegal to burn or desecrate the American flag as a form of political dissent. Others say that the U.S. Constitution should not be amended to specifically prohibit flag burning or desecration. Do you think the U.S. Constitution should or should not be amended to prohibit burning or desecrating the American flag?”

And that poll isn't the only one to suggest a fuller description of free-speech concerns depresses support for an amendment. The same Gallup poll from 2006 happened to use the same wording as the State of the First Amendment poll in a separate question, and support for the amendment dropped from 56 percent to 45 percent.

Trump unpacked all kinds of constitutional issues when he brought up the idea of making flag-burning illegal. And, revoking the citizenship of offenders triggers a whole other constitutional debate — all of which is completely valid to debate.

But his basic position on whether flag-burning should be illegal is really no more controversial than believing Roe v. Wade or Citizens United should be overturned — or that any other Supreme Court decision was wrongly decided and should be reversed or amended.

Scott Clement contributed to this post.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.08bedcd801a7

This is how you stop this bull. You make it illegal which I presume it already is to set a fire on public property, a fire of anything, flag, Bible, Koran or otherwise.

No one should be setting a fire of anything during a March or a Protest.

The national firefighter and police organizations need to call for this nationwide, lobby every state to pass such a law in their states, yes, enforce it.

Free speech in a free country does not include setting fires on sidewalks, in parks, on the Mall, in the streets, at the courthouse, or anywhere else. It's a form of hate speech, no different than burning crosses.

STOP THE FIRES!! If you want to stomp on it or pee on it (urinating in public is already illegal so forget that one) or pour beer on it (oh wait having open beer containers in the streets and on the sidewalks is already illegal in most states) or try to demean the flag in some other way that doesn't already involve something that is illegal, then you can still express our hatred of our country and citizens in your free speech, (oh wait, hate speech is already illegal in the United States), then have at it.

It's very simple to stop flag burning by simply stopping the obvious: stop the setting of fires of anything on public property. If you want to burn one in your yard and set your lawn on fire and burn down your house, have at it (insurance probably won't pay to fix it though, they'll call it arson).

California is burning, Tennessee is burning, Ferguson burned, all the protest areas had businesses set on fire, STOP THE FIRES OF ANYTHING on public property or someone else's property not your own.

I can't believe law enforcement and firefighters don't already have state laws and city ordinances covering this already.

Trump denounces flag burning, Twitter points out it is constitutional

David M Jackson , USA TODAY 4:58 p.m. EST November 29, 2016

Although the Supreme Court has declared flag burning to be a constitutionally protected form of free speech, Donald Trump said Tuesday he still wants to make the practice illegal.

"Flag burning is completely ridiculous and I think you know that and I think the vast majority of Americans would agree," his spokesman Jason Miller said in contentious interview with CNN Tuesday when he was asked about Trump's tweet.

"But legal," host Chris Cuomo interjected.

"Flag burning should be illegal, it's completely despicable" Miller continued.

It's not known what inspired Trump's condemnation of flag burning, or whether he will call on Congress to attempt a new law banning it.

While the Supreme Court has upheld flag burning, Trump will have at least one appointment to that body and has a chance to alter the court's ideological direction.

Civil liberties groups denounced Trump's flag burning statement, especially his suggestion that offenders could lose citizenship.

“The idea that the government could not only censor someone for engaging in political speech, but actually revoke a protester’s U.S. citizenship as a punishment for political speech is unconstitutional and fundamentally un-American," said Lee Rowland, senior staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said there was a bipartisan consensus that flag burning was offensive, but also that it’s protected under the First Amendment. “This is not the first thing the president-elect has said or tweeted that President Obama disagrees with,” Earnest said.

Twitter had a range of views, many of them disagreeing with the president-elect

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...ourt/94593636/

_____________________________

I think it already is illegal because it requires setting a fire and burning something. In most communities you can't burn your leaves, you can't burn your trash, so there are probably laws already on the books about setting fires on public property. These are public safety and anti-arson laws. Setting a fire in a crowded public area, it's insane. People's clothes could catch on fire, sparks can fly, all types of bad things can happen from setting anything on fire in public on public property, it's also littering with the burned debris left behind.

Supreme Court Justice may have decided you can burn a flag, but they didn't say you could break state and local fire codes or threaten public safety to do it.

GET SMART AMERICANS! If you're tired of seeing illegal aliens burning our flag, cart their butts out of here for violating our fire codes when they burn our flag. They can go back to wherever they came from and burn it there, we don't care, just don't burn it here.

Another thing, I don't think these people burning the flags are burning their own flags. I think they've stolen the flags off flag poles. It's actually a big deal to buy a flag. Even at Walmart, you have to order them, so you don't one johnny on the spot to take to a protest. You put that with the probability that these anti-Trump pro-Hillary Shrill people are not flag type people to begin with and wouldn't have one at home they'd be willing to part with, it just seems to me that these flags are likely stolen property to begin with.

Just my two cents on THAT.

A friend of mine on FB mentioned that anyone caught burning our Flag should have to go to the VA Center or Walter Reed Hospital and meet with those Military members who are severely injured and talk with them and realize what sacrifice they have made for our Country and our Freedoms.

Meet with the families who have lost their loved ones.

Would be a big wake up call. We have lost so much personal responsibility, gratitude and respect in this Country. Sad day indeed.

Far-left activists burn American flags outside Trump Tower after The Donald said flag-burners should lose citizenship or even face jail

(videos at source link)

By David Martokso, Us Political Editor and Hannah Parry For Dailymail.com
PUBLISHED: 00:08 EST, 30 November 2016 | UPDATED: 06:27 EST, 30 November 2016

A group of far left activists set the American flag ablaze outside the Trump Tower after President-Elect's tweet saying flag-burners should lose citizenship or even face jail.

'Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!' Donald Trump said Tuesday morning on Twitter.

The tweet provoked a furious response on social media, while the far left NYC Revolution Club took it one step further and began burning several United States flags outside Trump's home, in Trump Tower, New York.


A group of far left activists set the American flag ablaze outside the Trump Tower after President-Elect's tweet saying flag-burners should lose citizenship or even face jail



NYC Revolution Club began burning several United States flags outside Trump's home, in Trump Tower, New York

Trump's comments suggest that he supports recent efforts to override a series of Supreme Court decisions with an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to make flag-burning illegal.

Hillary Clinton once co-sponsored a bill in the U.S. Senate that would have done much the same thing, making it a crime to burn the U.S. flag in order to 'incite or produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace.'

The law, which languished in Congress, would have provided for a 1-year jail term and a $100,000 fine as penalties.

America's highest court ruled in 1969 that denigrating the U.S. flag with words is protected by the First Amendment, and in 1989 – by a slim 5-4 majority – that desecrating it is also a form of free speech.

But the Clinton-sponsored bill argued that 'destruction of the flag of the United States can be intended to incite a violent response rather than make a political statement and such conduct is outside the protections afforded by the first amendment.'


Donald Trump said Tuesday on Twitter that burning the U.S. flag should be a crime



Giving Congress the power to outlaw burning Old Glory would require a Constitutional amendment since the Supreme Court said in 1989 that torching it is protected by the First Amendment – and Trump's tweet hints that he would back such a move



Burning the flag has increasingly become a form of protest by liberal activists, including this instance outside the Republican national Convention in July by members and supporters of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA

A long-stalled movement among congressional Republicans to trump the Supreme Court could gather new steam with Trump's support.

The 'Flag Desecration Amendment' has passed several times in the House of Representatives, but has stalled in the Senate, most recently failing to pass in 2006 by a single vote.

Both chambers in the U.S. Capitol are required to pass Constitutional amendments by two-thirds majorities.
The proposed amendment reads simply: 'The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.'

Republicans will have new hope of amending the Constitution in 2017 – something that is typically seen as a pipe dream – since a larger majority of state legislatures are now controlled by Republicans.

Constitutional amendments can only be adopted with the support of three-quarters of those lawmaking bodies.

The GOP has outright majorities in 37 state capitols. If a flag-burning amendment were to pass in both houses of Congress and the 2018 elections produced just one more Republican-controlled state legislature, it could become the 34th Amendment.


Hillary Clinton, Trump's Democratic rival in the Nov. 8 presidential election, sponsored a U.S. Senate bill that would have criminalized flag burning when the action was intended to intimidate people, cause a riot or harm someone



Trump himself has entered flag-burners' crosshairs in protests like this one in new York City the day after his election

Republicans could also try to pass amendments requiring the federal government to balance its budget every year, and establishing term limits for members of Congress.

Less than an hour after Trump posted his tweet about flag-burning, presidential transition spokesman Jason Miller defended his position on CNN.

He said Trump is a strong First Amendment advocate, but burning Old Glory goes too far.

'Flag burning is completely ridiculous ... and I think the vast majority of Americans would agree,' he said.

'It's completely ridiculous, and I don't think there's a big universe of people out there who support flag-burning. It's terrible and it's despicable.'


Trump transition spokesman Jason Miller defended the president-elect's position on flag-burning Tuesday on CNN, and gamely tried to change to subject to the appointment of a new secretary of Health and Human Services

Miller did his best to change the subject to the president-elect's appointment of Rep. Tom Price to lead the Department of Health and Human Services.

But CNN kept the pressure on.

'We've got to listen when he says something should be illegal that's a protected constitutional right. I'm not saying I like it, but that's a big part of the First Amendment in this country,' he said.

'A frustrating, maddening part of it is that you've got to respect people's ability to say what you don't like to hear. The president just said burning the flag is illegal. It's a protected constitutional right. Can we agree on that?'
'No, we would completely disagree on this issue,' Miller replied.

'The president-elect is a very strong supporter of the First Amendment,' he added later, 'but I also think there's a very big difference between that and burning the American flag, which has absolutely no place in our society.'

A co-host of MSNBC's 'Morning Joe' put House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy on the spot an hour later. McCarthy said that in Trump's America, people who burn the U.S. flag could be in danger themselves – but they still have the legal right to do it.

'In my neck of the woods, people don't burn their flags. They actually honor their flags. I don't see why they would want to burn it,' McCarthy said.

'But we have a First Amendment right. ... If someone wanted to show their First Amendment right, I'd be afraid for their own safety.'
'But we'll protect our First Amendment. ... That's what the court upheld,' he said.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters on Tuesday that 'this is not the first thing that he president-elect has said or tweeteed that President Obama disagrees with.'

'So I will let the president-elect and his team discuss the words that populate his Twitter feed. They can explain or defend those positions or those views.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...face-jail.html

It seems a little extreme to make it a crime to burn a flag, but I concur that it is enough that setting fires is, or ought to be, a simple crime itself, especially in public gatherings not specifically oriented around a fire of some kind.

But why stop at burning and just generally make it a crime to deface the flag -- and this would have to be an actual flag, not just the image of a flag. So if you wanted to wear clothing or paint your car in stars and stripes, this would not qualify.

If this seems extreme, consider that it is a crime to deface money. If that works, and there are people out there who like to scribble on money, this should work too.

Setting fires on public property should be illegal, whether it's to burn a flag, a book, trash, leaves or a forest.