[Vision2020] Trump ignores First Amendment, suggests jail time for flag-burning

[Tom Hansen]

What should President-elect Trump's punishment be for those cowards who rode bogus medical deferments during the Vietnam War while others committed themselves to their patriotic duty . . . of which 58,191 never returned and are memorialized on the Vietnam Memorial Wall.

Cowards, such as himself . . .
http://www.snopes.com/2016/08/02/donald-trumps-draft-deferments/

Seeya 'round town, Moscow, because . . .

"Moscow Cares" (the most fun you can have with your pants on)
http://www.MoscowCares.com
  
Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho

> On Nov 29, 2016, at 1:05 PM, Linda Pall <lpall at moscow.com> wrote:
> 
> We should send Mr. Trump an authentic replica of one of the jackets worn by the protester who was jailed for wearing a rude comment on a flag motif jacket during the Viet Nam War...which took him to vindication by the U.S. Supreme Court! The ‘president select’ needs a class in basic constitutional law...
>  
> It’s already a bumpy ride,
>  
> Linda Pall
>  
> From: Tom Hansen
> Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 6:03 AM
> To: Moscow Vision 2020
> Subject: [Vision2020] Trump ignores First Amendment,suggests jail time for flag-burning
>  
> Courtesy of CNN at:
>  
> http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/29/politics/donald-trump-flag-burning-penalty-proposal/index.html?sr=fbCNN112916donald-trump-flag-burning-penalty-proposal0104PMVODtopLink&linkId=31691676
>  
> --------------------------------
>  
> Trump ignores First Amendment, suggests jail time for flag-burning
> (CNN) - President-elect Donald Trump proposed on Tuesday a penalty -- including possible jail time or loss of citizenship -- for burning the American flag, in spite of two US Supreme Court rulings that protect the act under the First Amendment as a form of free speech.
> 
> "Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag -- if they do, there must be consequences -- perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!," Trump tweeted.
> The Supreme Court twice affirmed the right to desecrate the American flag as a form of free speech -- a historically contentious issue -- in cases before the high court in 1989 and 1990.
> In the 1989 case "Texas v. Johnson," the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that flag burning was a form of "symbolic speech" that was protected by the First Amendment. The ruling was granted after an appeal from Gregory Johnson, who had been convicted by a Texas court of violating a state law that prohibited the "desecration of a venerated object" such as the US flag.
> The following year, in "United states v. Eichman," the Supreme Court again affirmed the right to burn the flag when it ruled 7-3 that the Flag Protection Act of 1989 -- passed by Congress in response to the Johnson decision -- was unconstitutional.
> When asked about the Supreme Court rulings on CNN's "New Day," Trump transition spokesman Jason Miller did not respond to questions about the constitutional protections of flag burning.
> "Flag burning should be illegal," Miller repeatedly told CNN's Chris Cuomo.
> --------------------------------
> 
> Seeya 'round town, Moscow, because . . .
> 
> "Moscow Cares" (the most fun you can have with your pants on)
> http://www.MoscowCares.com
>  
> Tom Hansen
> Moscow, Idaho
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20161129/c8f33538/attachment.html>