Trump wants to violate the First Amendment But will the First Amendment allow it because he's rich and famous?
The Flag Protection Act of 2005 fell squarely within the scope of prohibitive actions that are NOT protected by the first amendment. I repeat, the bill sponsored by Hillary DID NOT violate the first amendment. It called for prohibition of flag-burning used for the purpose of inciditing imminent violence. This is not protected speech. One burning a flag to express their discomfort/disapproval/hatred toward American policy or any other reason they can dream of for burning said flag, IS protected speech and represents a bedrock of our constitutional values. This is important and those in the thread should feel free to challenge me on this. I'm a third year law student and took a specialized course titled "First Amendment" last year. I've read countless case law on the matter. Competence matters. Donald Trump does not think before he tweets. Donald Trump does not consult advisors (if he does, he doesn't do so at a competent rate). The president-elect has me deeply concerned. Sure, nothing will come of this particular tweet because his proposal is unconstitutional. But his lack of knowledge is alarming.
The clearest response in this thread. Stop comparing what Trump is saying to the 2005 flag protection act, folks. They aren't the same. Under the 2005 act folks were still free to burn the U.S. flag in protest.
Good info on the 2005 act. I didn't know much about it, but I did assume it's likely constitutional based on the simple fact that Clinton isn't an idiot. However, I didn't care about it at all since the focus is on Trump's tweet. His lack of knowledge isn't alarming anymore in that it is well known that he lack much of any knowledge, or if he does have it, he doesn't care about the rule of laws. That's who America elected. The question isn't how many crazy things he said - he will continue to said these crazy things, but how many of them his administration will actually push for. You said nothing will come to it, but if he pushed for it and the court and congress went 'stupid', something could come from it. Like I said earlier, the circumstances is a bit ripe for that possibility especially if he get to put in 2 "trump" (meaning, disregard for laws) like SC Justices. No, I'm not ruling out that the GOP congress would not do the right thing and reject crazy Justices.
He doesn't want to violate the 1st Amendment... he just wants to grab it by the kitty like all rich people are allowed to do.
