BURNING a flag versus having an adjudicated rapist & convicted felon "autograph" a flag.

[Miles Archer]

Trump signs order aiming for one-year jail terms for flag burning
Attorney General Pam Bondi said the goal of prosecuting people for flag burning could be accomplished without violating the First Amendment.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/08/25/trump-order-flag-burning/85814959007

[Irish_Dem]

1. Go to prison for burning a flag. Become president for being a rapist, traitor, career criminal.

The US has sick values.

[Walleye]

3. It's been a long time since I've seen any flagburning in this country

[Irish_Dem]

8. Exactly, it is just another BS stunt to intimidate and control.

[Walleye]

2. They love to violate the first amendment.

So I guess they’re saying Congress doesn’t make the laws anymore. I don’t know why they bother to show up, oh wait they don’t. Maya’s know they own the Supreme Court. It’s infuriating and nauseating.

[underpants]

4. My God! It worked. I just looked out the window and I don't see anyone burning a flag

"If you burn a flag, you get one year in jail," Trump said. "You will see flag burning stop immediately."

🙄

Really Pamela Jo, how are you going to get around the First Amendment?

[johnnyfins]

5. Is there a similar punishment for beating the

Shit out of cops with a flag(on a pole)?

[underpants]

6. Or a hockey stick.

Who brings a hockey stick to a “peaceful protest”?

[Torchlight]

7. I suppose we'll hear a lot of assertions this week about burning flags

He's got his people on a shirt leash and instructs them as to whom their weekly Rage should be directed at time around., They'll make up stories about "my neighbor/coworker/sisterinlaw" did that very thing just last week.

Price of beef goes up, and his idiots immediately assert they're paying less.

[Traildogbob]

9. Worse than burning the flag

Is putting it on that damn treasonous Red Hat.
Completely disgracing what used to be a symbol of democracy, a nation of Laws and Immigrants. (in the making at least)
How about all those desecrated flags with his mug superimposed over the Stars and Strips.
When this asshole is gone (my thought and prayer) will we be held liable for burning those fucking hats with OUR flag on it?

[LetMyPeopleVote]

10. SCOTUS has ruled that flag burning is protected by the First Amendment twice

So, like, even if there hadn't been two Supreme Court decisons in living memory directly holding that flag burning is protected under the First Amendment, *new criminal laws cannot be created by executive order.*

— Jacob T. Levy (@jacobtlevy.bsky.social) 2025-08-25T15:25:49.191Z

[LetMyPeopleVote]

11. MaddowBlog-The problem(s) with Trump's radical new executive order on flag burning

In this country, a presidential executive order cannot override a Supreme Court ruling. On flag burning, Trump doesn't appear to care.

Link to tweet

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/problems-trumps-radical-new-executive-order-flag-burning-rcna227025

A few weeks after winning the 2016 presidential election, Donald Trump said he was prepared to take American citizenship away from those who burn the American flag, insisting there had to be meaningful “consequences” for such protests, even if the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that this is protected speech under the First Amendment.....

In his second term, however, he has apparently decided to take action — or something resembling action. NBC News reported:

Trump signed [an] executive order on Monday aimed at prosecuting people who ‘desecrate’ the American flag, a third fact sheet said. That order, first reported by Fox News, directs Bondi to ‘vigorously prosecute those who violate our laws in ways that involve desecrating the flag, and to pursue litigation to clarify the scope of First Amendment in this area.’

“What the penalty is going to be, if you burn a flag, you get one year in jail — no early exits, no nothing,” the president said, adding: “You will see flag burning stop immediately.”

Trump signs an executive order: "If you burn a flag, you get one year in jail."

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2025-08-25T15:11:52.954Z

......In this country, whether Trump likes it or not, a presidential executive order cannot override a Supreme Court ruling. In this country, whether Trump likes it or not, a president cannot create new criminal statutes — measures that would literally imprison Americans — without Congress.

As The New York Times’ Jamelle Bouie wrote in response to the Republican’s new order, “He literally thinks he is a king. ... This entire media blitz for when he signs executive orders is meant to create the impression that they are royal decrees.”

To the extent that the administration tries to implement this policy, litigation would be inevitable. Whether Trump assumes that the far-right high court would rule differently on the underlying issue than it did 35 years ago is unclear. Watch this space.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

12. Deadline: Legal Blog--Trump wants to prosecute flag burners. The Supreme Court has already said that's illegal

The president said it was a “very sad court” that previously rejected flag-burning prosecutions on First Amendment grounds.

Link to tweet

https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/trump-flag-burning-prosecute-executive-order-supreme-court-rcna227012

During the Oval Office ceremony, the president lamented that a “very sad court” — “I guess it was a 5-4 decision,” he said — “they called it freedom of speech.”

He appeared to be referring to long-standing Supreme Court precedent on the subject. In a 5-4 decision joined by Scalia, the court said in 1989’s Texas v. Johnson: “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”

The court sided with Gregory Lee Johnson, who burned the flag in 1984 in Dallas during the Republican National Convention. The majority recounted that Johnson participated in a political protest called the “Republican War Chest Tour” against the Reagan administration and “certain Dallas-based corporations.” The majority said Johnson was convicted for “expressive conduct” and that he “did not threaten to disturb the peace.” It said the state’s interest in “preserving the flag as a symbol of nationhood and national unity” couldn’t justify his prosecution......

With that background in mind, let’s take a closer look at the new executive order.

While its performative political aspect is clear, a notable legal aspect is the degree to which it acknowledges the limits of Trump’s power in this area. Though the order instructs the attorney general to prioritize law enforcement actions against flag-burning, it caveats these instructions by saying to do so in ways “consistent with the First Amendment” and “to the maximum extent permitted by the Constitution.”

In other words: Do everything you can, except where you can’t. It’s unclear where that leaves any enforcement actions in reality.

So, the order’s legal effect is fairly limited by its own terms, putting aside whatever chilling practical effect it might have on people’s conduct — something that can’t be ignored these days.

By its own terms, trump's latest executive order is subject to the First Amendment. This is simply a stunt by trump that has no real legal effect.