FLAG burning being challenged by Trump

[G26ster]

IMHO Trump was stating his "opinion," just as Hillary Clinton and Justice Scalia said the same. Free speech means they had a right to their opinion. Nothing more.

[Mxrdad]

Not sure how you got all of that out of my last post as I agree with what you just said. I was trying to say just because he tweets his opinion doesnt mean he will act on it.

ETA: In response to anygunanywhere from previous page.

[Mxrdad]

IMHO Trump was stating his "opinion," just as Hillary Clinton and Justice Scalia said the same. Free speech means they had a right to their opinion. Nothing more.

And thats what I was trying to say as well.

[Abraham]

Will you few leftists on this forum openly declare your sympathies for burning the flag?

Your willingness to do or see this done isn't as cloaked as you think...

[Abraham]

Trump didn't get elected so you could approve or disapprove his communication methods.

Don't like what he (I shudder using this word...) "tweets" then do your best to ignore it, don't read it, avoid it, but you're in for a long, frustrating time if you get your shorts twisted up because "you" don't like what he has to say in his (ugh) "tweets".

Try to be grateful he isn't like most politicians who tell you it's raining when they're urinating on your shoes.

He tells it like it is though I understand some don't like hearing it like it is preferring to be cosseted by bogus political mealy mouth garbage they're so used to hearing that it's comforting...

[Liberty]

Will you few leftists on this forum openly declare your sympathies for burning the flag?

Your willingness to do or see this done isn't as cloaked as you think...

I am certainly not a leftist. I am either a libertrarian leaning conservative, or a conservative leaning Libertarian, I am not sure which. The world isn't always so simple.

I am a Veteran, and I have had many friends who served In wars, some of them disabled, others killed. Most of them, if they answer honestly didn't fight for their flag. They fought for their country, but most of all for their unit and their brothers at arms. I and I dare say most take an offense to flag burning. but this doesn't compare to the way their own country disrespects them when it comes to the Veteran Administration where they are often treated like garbage.

As a conservative and constitutionalist, I firmly believe the intent of the 1st amendment was to allow each and every one of us to express discontent. I also believe that we have gone too far trying to protect people from being offended. A lot of conservatives complain about the Safe Zones, that protect precious snowflakes. Those of us who are offended by the flag burners have no more right to expect protection than the snowflakes.

Yeah, I am offended by many things Flagburners, Rainy days, lousy TexMex and Democrats. But I am a big boy and can handle it.

[parabelum]

But the issue some of us have is, since when is burning a flag or anything for that matter a form of speech?

Tired of excuses and perversion of English language. And I'm an immigrant and it irritates me...

[parabelum]

Thank you for your service, Liberty.

[Mxrdad]

Will you few leftists on this forum openly declare your sympathies for burning the flag?

Your willingness to do or see this done isn't as cloaked as you think...

Whoa, since you threw that out there, I dont know if you directed this from my recent posts, but I'll be very clear here.

I am certainly not a leftist.
I stated in earlier post I disagree with flag burning.
Trumps tweets do not offend me.
I do appreciate Trump's "frankness". And I really dont care what he Tweets. (I dont like saying that word either and will never have a Tweet account).

No need to convince me of Trump, I thank God every day he won and couldnt imagine the alternate candidate in there. I dont even like typing her name.

[Liberty]

But the issue some of us have is, since when is burning a flag or anything for that matter a form of speech?

Tired of excuses and perversion of English language. And I'm an immigrant and it irritates me...

The 1st amendment is about more than free speech, Although it doesn't mention flag burning in particular. It protects religion, Speech, the press, assembling a crowd and even complaining to the government. In other words, they were trying to cover all sorts of ways people might want to publicly complain about the government.

If we look at how all-encompassing it is, I don't think it's a far stretch that the founding fathers would have believed that even flag burning should be protected.

Personally, I think flag burning is pretty stupid. It doesn't make any points, it just offends people and doesn't convince anyone to look into their side. The people that do it just do it to offend people. Not to further their cause.

[nightmare69]

...

it's not a LEO's job to defy the orders of a Federal court, by enforcing a law that is ruled unconstitutional, whether the Legislature gets around to repealing it or not. This has been clear precedent for over 200 years. Do you still arrest homosexuals for sodomy, or did the legislature get rid of that one after Lawrence?

Should local LEOs arrest anyone using marijuana in states that legalized it since it's still illegal under federal law? We let the Feds handle their vast matrix of laws they created and only a team of lawyers can interpret. My license says Texas, not US.

If I see a couple having sex in public yes I will arrest for lewd conduct.

You're missing my point here. Earlier you stated that you would arrest someone engaging in Constitutionally protected speech, because there remains a Texas law against flag burning. This in defiance of a Federal court (SCOTUS) ruling that flag burning is protected speech. This is a good way to lose a Federal lawsuit as well as (possibly) end up in federal prison on a civil rights conviction. Is it the policy of your department to defy Federal court rulings that you don't like, or was this you speaking as an individual?

In Lawrence vs. Texas (2003) LEO's in Texas served a warrant on the wrong location (imagine that...), in the process of serving the (illegal?) warrant, they observed two men privately engaged in an "act" prohibited by Texas law. They arrested the men for violation of the Texas sodomy statute. SCOTUS ruled (wrongly, in my opinion) that the Texas statute was unconstitutional and that like abortion, the conduct was protected by the men's right to privacy. Assuming that this statute is still on the books, is it the policy of your department to arrest people for this private conduct? Even in defiance of the SCOTUS ruling that the statute is invalid?

Finally, there is a Texas law against possessing marijuana, so you can arrest someone for that. There's a federal law even in Colorado against marijuana...depending on state law LEO's in CO may still arrest someone for violating Federal law, but they then have to turn them over to the US Attorney to prosecute. Feds cannot force state LEO's to enforce Federal law, but they CAN prohibit them from violating Federal law by enforcing an illegal State statute.

PS:
Trump has some autocratic tendencies. I voted for him anyway because he's way better than Hillary. However, it's disturbing to see him state that he would make flag burning illegal, even though it has already been ruled protected speech. Now if he said he was going to appoint judges and justices that would apply the Constitution, and he believes that the Constitution doesn't protect flag burning...well that might be better, though I still disagree. Maybe he said that, I didn't hear his remarks on the issue.

Our dept policy is, if it's in the Penal Code then we can enforce it. Until the FBI comes to our Dept and says we can't I'll continue to follow the current dept policy.

[Abraham]

nightmare69,

Keep up the good work.

On a side note: Many of us here are vets, including me. Though I don't trumpet (a wee bit of Trump humor of sorts) the fact. MOS 11C10.

And as far as ye ole "I may not agree with you, but I'll defend your right to..." Really? And if the left (or another anti-American group like isis) is saying and being treasonous or traitorous, if you still stand by them - all I can say is, I don't agree with your stance...you are waaaaaaay out there. Or, perhaps having concrete values isn't for you... And no, that stance isn't nationalist. It's being patriotic. Something sneered at by leftists and other anti-America types.

I won't be one to defend your hate filled, anti-American blather...

[bigtek]

It's a class A in Texas and as long as the law exists LEOs will enforce it.

I wonder if any of them will arrest a NFL players for disorderly conduct if they refuse to stand during the national anthem.

That's a good question. It's easy work rousting scrawny kids and geriatric flag burners. When Colin Kaepernick "intentionally" takes a knee during the national anthem, he knows full well it's "an offensive gesture or display in a public place, and the gesture or display tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace" in America, especially in Texas.

[ScottDLS]

...
Our dept policy is, if it's in the Penal Code then we can enforce it. Until the FBI comes to our Dept and says we can't I'll continue to follow the current dept policy.

Interesting policy that presumably allows you to ignore Federal and State court injunctions against enforcing a law "as long as it's still in the Penal Code". Especially since the Legislature meets only every two years.

[Liberty]

Our dept policy is, if it's in the Penal Code then we can enforce it. Until the FBI comes to our Dept and says we can't I'll continue to follow the current dept policy.

Positively, frightening if the department won't respect the courts.