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: 35
82
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 07:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships
...other wise known as arson.


Arson is when you burn someone else's property.




posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships


Maybe all 10 of us have a point then?


Or maybe you all share the same brain?



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Have you considered that all American flags are owned by baby Jesus?



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 07:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
Have you considered that all American flags are owned by baby Jesus?


Is that Allah's son?



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 07:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Anyone who calls the Constitution a living document is ignorant (willfully or otherwise) of the original intent of the document.


The Constitution doesn't change, but the implication of its application can, and ought to change. The Ninth Amendment motivates it and in favor of extending rights to people, instead of government.



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 08:00 PM
link   
Sorry I'm REALLY late to the party but what part of flag burning is actual speech. As in spoken or written?



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 08:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

just so u know hillary supported the same thing



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 08:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: theantediluvian

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


And possibly the White House. Unless its the Koran, then
its a problem, and they will apologize for it.
link to story
edit on 29-11-2016 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I'm pretty sure he was one of the Founding Fathers who climbed Mount Rushmore and brought down the Constitution.



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 08:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI

Sorry I'm REALLY late to the party but what part of flag burning is actual speech. As in spoken or written?


The same part that is on display when you march in silent protest.



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 08:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian

I'm pretty sure he was one of the Founding Fathers who climbed Mount Rushmore and brought down the Constitution.


He sounds dreamy. WWAD in this situation?



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Except that is lighting fire in public, which can bring harm
to another person, which has actually happened.

Fortunately, the good police put the fire out, and saved
everyone. So why should lighting fires in public be legal?



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 08:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheScale
just so u know hillary supported the same thing


We know, and she is a jackass too.



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 08:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Profusion
The following is the text of the relevant tweet from Trump.


Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!

LINK


While I would never burn a flag myself, I don't see how it's not speech protected by the First Amendment. These kinds of statements by Trump are baffling to me. They make Trump sound like a tyrant, and I believe they can only hurt him.

If his position on the issue of flag burning is the statement above, how does it help him to say it? A POTUS cannot make laws alone. Even if a new law were passed concerning this issue, it would almost certainly have to be decided by the Supreme Court. A POTUS' opinions concerning issues such as the statement above are basically irrelevant in the big picture.

My point is that a POTUS can only lose by making a statement such as the one above. Trump is giving his critics ammunition to easily criticize him, and I believe he's tarnishing his image more than his critics ever could.


You forget Trump's mastery of winning. Not only has a single tweet got the country and media buzzing again, but it's provocatively worded to bring us right back to... the Flag Protection Act 2005.

The Flag Protection Act 2005 would have implemented fines and/or up to one year in jail, just as Trump suggests.

Who was the co-sponsor of the Flag Protection Act 2005?

Senator Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y)

So, in order to criticise Trump for making an off-hand tweet about a possible law, you have to criticise Hillary who actually tried to get that very same law passed in her official capacity.

Donald Trump, sweeping the leg and snatching even more winning from the jaws of already winning bigly.

Edited to add: And no, I didn't read all bazillion pages in this thread, so sue me if this has already been mentioned

edit on Ev05TuesdayTuesdayAmerica/ChicagoTue, 29 Nov 2016 20:05:26 -06001282016b by EvillerBob because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 08:04 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I don't see the connection.



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 08:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: burntheships


Maybe all 10 of us have a point then?


Or maybe you all share the same brain?


Yeah, a logical brain that thinks harming other people
with fire is a mental disorder. Which it is. Pyromanic type of mental.



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 08:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships
Except that is lighting fire in public, which can bring harm
to another person, which has actually happened.

Fortunately, the good police put the fire out, and saved
everyone. So why should lighting fires in public be legal?


If you light a fire in public and injure someone you should be charged with a crime.

I light fires in public all the time, it helps to get my cigars going and even though I would like to put them out on someone I am a responsible smoker and protester.



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 08:06 PM
link   
a reply to: EvillerBob

I don't agree with Clinton's position, but that law clearly was restricted to require an intent to intimidate or induce criminal activity, similar to other seeming restrictions on speech which are legal.



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 08:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
I don't see the connection.


Oh well. Not my problem you think that free speech applies only to oral or written actions.



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 08:06 PM
link   
How about a new law, under the first amendment you have the right to the burn to the flag in public, but American citizens now have the right to stop you, using all necessary force, and if you injury them you go to jail, and they can't be charged with assault either.
edit on 29-11-2016 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
82
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join