It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Trump suggests jail, loss of citizenship for burning U.S. flag

page: 33
82
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 07:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arizonaguy
See what happens when you don't have strict Constitutionalists on the bench of the SCOTUS? You get discord sowed by issues such as this. The funny thing is, is that you get the crowd that stands behind Citizens United that can't stand the ruling that made flag burning legal. Numerically speaking, the preponderance of the group that hates Citizens United loves the flag burning as free speech ruling. Personally, I hate them both. Judges making up rules out of thin air in both instances. Flag burning should be a crime.


There is a very consistent pro-Constitution interpretation for them both: which is that natural human people have inalienable rights, but created legal entities like corporations do not have those same rights, and it is the right of people to legislatively control the activities of corporate entities acting as such.

Thomas Jefferson would certainly agree that the rights of people exceed those of corporate entities.

It is abundantly self-evident that corporations are not people. The unnatural death of a corporation is a civil, not a criminal matter. Corporations can own corporations, and can be owned. The 13th Amendment makes it illegal for anything to own people, or for a person to be owned.

If a corporation has inalienable 1st Amendment free speech rights, then it can be divorced from its shareholders without compensation by the 13th Amendment.

Only people have such full rights.

Now the question is whether the people's rights extend through the operation of the corporation. Here, it is reasonable to restrict the financial terms. Corporations exist to protect finances and liability---giving ADDITIONAL rights and abilities not shared by natural people. Can I offload my liability and taxation to my soul domiciled in the Cayman Islands, which my body subcontracts services from?

As a trade-off, corporations have to give up something and are required by public policy to do certain things and not do others.

It ought to be acceptable for the legislature to restrict the political activities of the money protected within corporate entities. The taxation and other financial activities of corporations are regulated according to law.

If the money is paid to personal shareholders in accordance with usual dividends, then it is the personal property of natural people who have the right to spend it as they desire.



edit on 29-11-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)




edit on 29-11-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-11-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 07:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Every person that manages to step onto US soil doesn't inherently and automatically get the same full sweeping protections as US citizens do. That must be some myth of multiculturalism.



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 07:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
Hey... I'm just recovering from baldness, no singeing!


Jesus. Now I cannot burn flags, Bibles or people. What's happening to my America!?!?



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 07:17 PM
link   
The flag is a symbol and I've always felt we are all better off leaving that to the symbol minded.



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
I would only be against that if the bra had a USA flag design on it. Even then I would probably look the other way ... at what would then be uncovered assets ...



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 07:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Kali74

Every person that manages to step onto US soil doesn't inherently and automatically get the same full sweeping protections as US citizens do. That must be some myth of multiculturalism.




nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Every person that manages to step onto US soil doesn't inherently get all the rights of US citizens, such as being able to vote and enjoying travel with a US passport, but every such person does enjoy many rights flowing from the above equal to that of citizens, which certainly includes procedures of criminal law under State and Federal jurisdiction.
edit on 29-11-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-11-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

We went full retard...



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 07:21 PM
link   
People don't mind losing some of the first amendment but leave the second alone? Don't count on amendment trimming to not being contagious.



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 07:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
I would only be against that if the bra had a USA flag design on it. Even then I would probably look the other way ... at what would then be uncovered assets ...


Well I guess you would have to retreat to your safe space as I burned Kali's flag bra to ashes.

I love the Constitution.



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 07:28 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I don't need a safe space and never claimed to need one. I'll just consider the free show the payment of your fine and be done with it.



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Teikiatsu

I'm not sure that's true. What happened to "We hold these rights to be self evident, that ALL men are created equal and are endowed with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..."?

ETA: Looked it up....


These words, from Section One of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution rank along with the Constitution's Bill of Rights as — in these precincts — the most important in world and American history:
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
thehill.com...


First off, it's "we hold these truths to be self-evident."

Next, check out the operative phrases:

without due process of law


within its jurisdiction


Illegal aliens have the right to due process. Words and context are pesky things.


Sorry, but The Supreme Court disagrees with you. That doesn't mean that the Constitution doesn't allow for deportation and/or imprisonment (of US citizens) for breaking the subjective "laws of the land".

Yes, illegal aliens have constitutional rights



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry

You want to lock up or deport people that offend you. It sure sounds like you want a safe space.



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

I already covered that above, as if that part is to be taken outside of the context of citizenry then it would apply to every "person" in the universe (literally). Which by the way, corporations are legally considered "persons" as well. From there, every AI bot agent that could actually argue its "real", that it is a "person" (from anywhere on earth or et al), would also be entitled to constitutional protections. So, following your logic, any and every entity no matter location or origins are effectively all protected by the by the Constitution of the United States.

I do believe the US Constitution begins with "We The People".



Yep, that's right, its talking about "American's" (a jingoist term that sort of annoys me btw). That is, of the people of the United States. Not any and all "persons" from the America's (Western Hemisphere). Yet you're sweepingly extending your loose definization to every "person"????

That image there is my citation. Unless you have some Supreme Court rulings to cite into here then I'd say this talking point is over.
edit on 29-11-2016 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

With few exceptions. They're entitled to free speech.



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 07:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
People don't mind losing some of the first amendment but leave the second alone? Don't count on amendment trimming to not being contagious.


By the way, the Ninth Amendment is telling "strict Constitutionalists" to generous and expansive when granting rights to people which are not explicitly enumerated---contrary to what people who typically like "strict Constitutionalism" usually seem to want.

To me it says that if the SCOTUS believes it should be a right, the Ninth gives them (or the States) the power.

For example, the supposed strict Constitutionalist Scalia couldn't grok it---because the logical interpretation was directly contradictory to his philosophy.

Scalia on the 9th:


The Court didn’t use it for 200 years. If I’d been required to identify the Ninth Amendment when I was in law school or in the early years of my practice, and if my life depended on it, I couldn’t tell you what the Ninth Amendment was.


www.patheos.com...

The Ninth is telling us how to interpret the Constitution.


edit on 29-11-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-11-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-11-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-11-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 07:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

So, in your world view, people can truck themselves into the US by whatever means, illegal or legal, citizens or non-citizens, and join in in protests and burn US flags with impunity??? (which nevermind that too many of the protests that such a lot would be joining in these days turn violent, destructive and even deadly)

If you have some citations that prove this idea that everybody has Bill of Rights protections, I'd love to see it.



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 07:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: mbkennel

I already covered that above, as if that part is to be taken outside of the context of citizenry then it would apply to every "person" in the universe (literally). Which by the way, corporations are considered "persons" as well.


It's self-evident they are not persons.




I do believe the US Constitution begins with "We The People".

Yep, that's right, its talking about "American's" (a jingoist term that sort of annoys me btw). That is, of the people of the United States. Not any and all "persons" from the America's (Western Hemisphere). Yet you're sweepingly extending your loose definization to every "person"????


Every person under the jurisdiction of the US and the States. That's what the 14th Amendment means. It was intentional not to restrict it to US Citizens.

The Constitution starts with "We The People" meaning that it is citizens of the United States who wrote the Constitution, not that its rights and responsibilities end with US Citizens. If it had meant to say that, it would. There were foreign citizens living in the US in 1791.


edit on 29-11-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-11-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-11-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-11-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-11-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

I only want them to pay a fine, like when you throw trash out your window. I even offered a non-monetary, non-jail solution too. Only the guilty party would choose jail time out of stubbornness.

I never said deport anyone btw. And ten days in county jail is a cake walk. Practically a vacation in some cases. The same sentence is handed out for driving on suspended licenses or even a DUI without any harm.

I think desecrating a national symbol of our country is about on par with molesting a corpse. Both misdemeanors. Maybe I should reduce the ten days jail to 200 hours of community service? Would that help out??



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
I'll just consider the free show the payment of your fine and be done with it.


What fine would that be? I must have missed where there are fines for free speech. Linky for us?



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 07:40 PM
link   
The burning of the flag, many people have opinions on this one topic, even the act, yet here is the reality of such:

In 1989, there was a court case, Texas V. Johnson, was brought up and discussed in the US Supreme Court.

Gregory Johnson, a member of the communist party, participated in a political demonstration during the 1984 Republican national convention in Dallas, Texas. The demonstrators were protesting the policies of the Reagan administration and certain companies based in Dallas. While the protestors marched, shouted, and did more riot like activities, they ended up at the Dallas City Hall. There Johnson poured kerosene on the flag and set it on fire. During the burning of the flag, demonstrators shouted disrespectful phrases. While no one was hurt, some witnesses to the flag burning said that they were extremely offended. Johnson was arrested, fined and sentenced, and appealed the decision.

In the appeal the court stated: "Recognizing that the right to differ is the centerpiece of our First Amendment freedoms, a government cannot mandate by fiat a feeling of unity in its citizens. Therefore that very same government cannot carve out a symbol of unity and prescribe a set of approved messages to be associated with that symbol." The court also concluded that the flag burning in this case did not cause or threaten to cause a breach of the peace.

The State of Texas appealed to the US Supreme Court and in a 5 to 4 ruling in favor of Johnson, overturned the Texas state law. A point of Interest, Antonin Scalia ruled in favor of Johnson.
In that ruling the majority found that actions, be it wearing an article of clothing, or flying a color of flag or even burning the US Flag was protected by the first amendment. In the opinion of the court it was summarized as:
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.


Now to the present and this is something that we should consider and think carefully of, and why it is important that we allow even flag burning even though some find it offensive. If we allow the government to open a door, even a small bit, that should not be, will in turn create the groundwork to be abused and will be in the future by an overzealous government at the local and federal levels. To curtail the freedom of speech is bad, but think about it, you take away the right to make a political statement, even if it is distasteful, how long till the federal government turns its eyes to other venues? Never give the government an opening, no matter how it appeals, for they will abuse it and then go beyond its original intention to where now all are suffering from such.

Then there is the punishment, does the punishment fit the crime? Is it worthy to revoke citizenship of a person who does such? What if the person was born here and is a natural born citizen, do we now say they lose their country cause of political speech? That kind of sounds like the 1950’s and the red scare, where being merely friends with a person on the black list, or suspected as being a communist, where thousands if not more were affected, losing their ability to have employment, a place to live, or even do business, to the point of where many had to leave the country. How many were jailed for refusing to answer any questions or were innocent of all charges or all because they were just passing acquaintances with someone who was accused or refused to sign a loyalty oath?

So there is your choice, you allow and support, even though you do not like the act, thus showing that the law works and protects all, or do we ban one and take a risk that it will lead to far greater abuses, by the government, where one cannot openly speak on topics for fear of being imprisoned for such? The founding fathers understood and faced that, when working to get a new country going, and perhaps we should look to them as the symbols and not allow for such.




top topics



 
82
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join