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: 34
82
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: DAVID64

But,,, if our military members go to Saudi Arabia or Turkey or North Korea or Iran, and someone is being killed or jailed for burning that country's flag, or speaking against the govt there, we are more than wiling to defend their right to do so, even go to war to allow it, to promote and defend "Democracy". BUT,,, we wont defend a persons right to do the same here? Once its allowed to arrest a person or revoke citizenship for burning the flag, the next logical step will be to do the same to a person for not standing for the national anthem. After that, it will be for speaking out against the govt. All of the things that we go to other countries and claim to fight for the right of its people to be able to do. If we refuse to acknowledge those rights of a person in the U.S, then we have no right to defend it in other countries.




posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 07:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel
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.


So you've just admitted to this belief that every "person" in the known universe is in "jurisdiction of the US and the States" and is protected by it's Constitution.

And I thought I'd heard everything!

Dude, dudette, whatever, dig this: The US isn't the 'world'. Last I heard we only even make up like 4% of the entire global population.

This logic is is something akin to the Flat Earth, or Geocentric Model theories.
edit on 29-11-2016 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 07:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hazardous1408

originally posted by: rollanotherone

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: matafuchs
There is no 'right' to burn a flag. I mean, if it is covered under 'symbolic speech' what if I am pissed and my wife and light the car on fire? It is symbolic speech right? No but why not take that to the SCOTUS.


It is covered under political expression...As Justice Scalia points out, burning a flag is the near epitome of political expression.

No..Lighting a car on fire is not that.

Why would you abuse your own brain to defend nonsense...assuming you actually have an IQ over 40 and are just trying to be snarky.

So, am I cool burn boxes of the Koran and images of Mohammed in front of a mosque and expect no repercussions? Should not one Muslim be offended and want me to be punished for those actions?


You're all too stupid it seems to understand The 1st Amendment.

AAAAAAAAAND there's that Ad Hom. Thought we were supposed to debate the issue, not toss out personal insults? Glad to know I can just call you stupid and the mods are cool with that too.



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
thank you but we have concluded this carnival ride. I have laid out my very reasonable proposals to this issue. Assuming SCOTUS will revisit this matter, where will you see an acceptable compromise?? Some want deportations, some even want summary executions. i think I laid out a proposal that would benefit local government funds and not be too severe with several options available for guilty parties.



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

It's not my world view but America's.



Link



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 07:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: eNumbra


We retire flags by burning them do we not?


Are you serious?

That requires an entire ceremony that is intended to honor the flag.



In way too late but when I retired my flag (large American flag on a 40ft pole in yard) I was advised to take it to the local American Legion and they would ceremoniously burn it. I folded it up with respect and handed it off to them. How they did it, I don't know, I had to head to work.

That said, the flag means alot to me. I served. I salute it. I believe it represents the country I love. I don't equate burning it with free speech. I see it as vandalism. Just my .2 but loss of citizenship or jail time is ridiculous. 8 hours of community service would be great because the people marching would learn about work. Win/Win.



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: mbkennel
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.


So you've just admitted to this belief that every "person" in the known universe is in "jurisdiction of the US and the States" and is protected by it's Constitution.


No, not that at all. The jurisdiction of the US and States is well defined in domestic and international law. Foreigner physically present in US and states: subject to US jurisdiction. It may extend a little bit to foreign embassies and consulates, certain aircraft and ships.



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 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
Assuming SCOTUS will revisit this matter, where will you see an acceptable compromise??


Unlike you I do not compromise on the Constitution.



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: rollanotherone

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: matafuchs
There is no 'right' to burn a flag. I mean, if it is covered under 'symbolic speech' what if I am pissed and my wife and light the car on fire? It is symbolic speech right? No but why not take that to the SCOTUS.


It is covered under political expression...As Justice Scalia points out, burning a flag is the near epitome of political expression.

No..Lighting a car on fire is not that.

Why would you abuse your own brain to defend nonsense...assuming you actually have an IQ over 40 and are just trying to be snarky.

So, am I cool burn boxes of the Koran and images of Mohammed in front of a mosque and expect no repercussions? Should not one Muslim be offended and want me to be punished for those actions?


Wow...OK...

You are free to burn a Koran anyplace you like.
As far as "repercussions"..you might get those from civilians and some of them might get arrested if caught.

As far as your government though? No...Your government should not declare the burning of the Koran illegal nor strip you of your citizenship
You are suggesting that we institute something similar to Islamic Law here? Where it becomes illegal to express yourself in certain political or religious ways??????

BTW...Pastor Terry Jones announced he was going to do just that...Burn a pile of Korans in public protest..And General Patreus, Pres. Obama and a ton of other political figures spoke out against it fearing it would incite "repercussions"...but everyone acknowledged it was his right and no one for an instant suggested he should be arrested.
en.wikipedia.org...(pastor)

Cuz your post looks like you are arguing we adopt a legal structure similar to Islamic law???


No. my stance is, if you don't like the US, get the funk out. Leave. Go where you think you'll be happier. But we all know they won't. Easier to raise a ruckus here where our government allows people to cause a ruckus as opposed to say, Iran?



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

If we're to take this:
"In Yick Wo v. Hopkins, a case involving the rights of Chinese immigrants, the Court ruled that the 14th Amendment's statement, "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," applied to all persons "without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality," "
literally then that would mean that they couldn't be arrested to be deported for being here illegally, as that would be depriving them of their liberty.



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 07:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

It's not my world view but America's.

Link


No, not America's. Judicial activists.


Often described as a "living document," the Constitution has repeatedly been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, federal appeals courts and Congress in order to address the ever-changing needs and demands of the people.


Anyone who calls the Constitution a living document is ignorant (willfully or otherwise) of the original intent of the document.



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 07:49 PM
link   
The amount of crazy in this thread scares the ever loving poop out of me.



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

I misread that quote I used, sweepingly. Apologies.

Yet the logic doesn't seem too far off with you guys.
edit on 29-11-2016 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 07:50 PM
link   
No one had a problem when Hillary Rodham Clinton wanted
to ban burning the flag? Why is that?

She introduced a bill to ban flag burning.



In 2005, Clinton co-sponsored the Flag Protection Act which, while it did not call for the stripping of citizenship, made flag burning with the intent to incite violence or disturb the peace punishable by a year in jail and a $100,000 fine.
www.foxnews.com...


But I suppose Queenie got a pass from her ardent admirers
or something equivalent, such as keeping their whine
down to a low hum.


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



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry

No. It doesn't matter how severe or how lenient the punishment. The government is forbidden by the Constitution to punish speech. If you advocate laws that punish flag burners, you're advocating for breaking the 1st Amendment.



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 07:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Kali74

If we're to take this:
"In Yick Wo v. Hopkins, a case involving the rights of Chinese immigrants, the Court ruled that the 14th Amendment's statement, "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," applied to all persons "without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality," "
literally then that would mean that they couldn't be arrested to be deported for being here illegally, as that would be depriving them of their liberty.


They can be deprived of their liberty with due process of law. Which means that the law has to be uniformly and fairly applied, and it is legal to regulate the residence status of non-citizens, but that is a narrow differentiation. It means that they have a right to trial and evidentiary proceedings.

The differences in rights between citizens and non-citizens are small: residence and voting. If not related to those, then it is not legal to apply laws unequally on citizenship.


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



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

Unfortunately for you — the 10th person to try to make this "point" — there's not a lot of love for HRC really. Certainly no cult of hat wearing apologists who would eagerly contort themselves to explain away anything he tweeted.



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Maybe all 10 of us have a point then?

Lighting things on fire in public should be against the law,
other wise known as arson.



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

So because you don't like it, you're saying that the Supreme Court has been dominated by judicial activists since the 1860's?



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Except the media....they are all for her....



new topics

top topics



 
82
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join