Trump makes Flag burning or disgracing the Flag a crime...January 6!

[Smackdown2019]

Go after the MFers who turn the American US Flag as a weapon on the Capitol Police....!

[Irish_Dem]

1. What if you disgrace the entire United States and all Americans?

That should be a crime too.

[Klarkashton]

2. He's slinging more shit than ever to distract from the all the goddamn failures he's accumulating.

[WmChris]

3. So!

All this right wing bastardization of the flag being represented in the wrong colors or with blue stripes should be criminal as well, along with shirts and hats and other items of apparel. I can't help but think batshit crazy right wingers all decked out in their flag regalia are anything but a disgrace to this country and it's flag.

[MiHale]

4. Disgrace...on the back of a pickup...

On shirts with your name on them…tattoos on fat guy’s belly’s…A.I. pictures of the flag and you as Superman…modified flags with black stripes…??.??.

Where’s the disgrace start?

[Captain Zero]

5. Oh like his Chinese Merch has disgraced it

A prosecutor ought to file a charge against him.

[Biophilic]

6. Maybe perhaps you shouldn't use it to line your jacket like our sec of defense.

[Ms. Toad]

7. Trump has no authority to make anything a crime.

That is the role of Congress, or the state legislators. They may well go along with him, but making criminal laws is not within his abilities.

[hamsterjill]

9. Really?

Well, let's hope that holds. With all that asshole has gotten away with, I don't think anything would surprise me. If he asks the Republican Congress or Republican state legislators to do something, they will. Just like the Texas delegation with redistricting.

It's frightening.

[Ms. Toad]

10. It is frightening - but it is a two step process.

The executive branch has zero authority to make laws. That's the point of separation of powers. Congress (at all levels) gets to do that.

You are correct that the Republican Congress or Republican state legislators may well do his bidding. And then we have to hope the Supreme Court (which determines whether the laws Congress makes are constitutional) holds.

[hamsterjill]

11. I think it's a bit naive to believe that Trump still plays by the rules.

That's not directed to you, personally. Just a general statement.

First of all, I don't think he starts spouting something unless he's already pretty sure he can get away with it.

Second, I think he's starting to show his true colors and going after the bigger ticket items. He was even farting around today with the word "dictator". We all know where THAT is heading.

[onenote]

15. And the EO doesn't create any new crimes.

I think the EO is a pile of shit, but it doesn't purport to create a new crime. It directs law enforcement to aggressively pursue prosecutions, based on existing laws, related to flag burning.

This is what the EO says:

Sec. 2. Measures to Combat Desecration of the American Flag. (a) The Attorney General shall prioritize the enforcement to the fullest extent possible of our Nation’s criminal and civil laws against acts of American Flag desecration that violate applicable, content-neutral laws, while causing harm unrelated to expression, consistent with the First Amendment. This may include, but is not limited to, violent crimes; hate crimes, illegal discrimination against American citizens, or other violations of Americans’ civil rights; and crimes against property and the peace, as well as conspiracies and attempts to violate, and aiding and abetting others to violate, such laws.

(b) In cases where the Department of Justice or another executive department or agency (agency) determines that an instance of American Flag desecration may violate an applicable State or local law, such as open burning restrictions, disorderly conduct laws, or destruction of property laws, the agency shall refer the matter to the appropriate State or local authority for potential action.

(c) To the maximum extent permitted by the Constitution, the Attorney General shall vigorously prosecute those who violate our laws in ways that involve desecrating the American Flag, and may pursue litigation to clarify the scope of the First Amendment exceptions in this area.

[Ms. Toad]

19. Exactly. n/t

[MrWowWow]

8. A Variation of this UNCONSTITUTIONAL Nonsense

transpired during the ronOLD RapeNuns reign of error. Anybody remember that?


Is flag burning protected speech? What to know about Trump's order
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right of protesters to burn the American flag. Trump administration officials say they can prosecute flag burning without violating the First Amendment.

President Trump signed an executive order aimed at prosecuting flag burning, despite existing Supreme Court precedent protecting it as free speech.
The Supreme Court's 1989 ruling in Texas v. Johnson affirmed flag burning as protected speech under the First Amendment.
Attorney General Pam Bondi said the administration is looking to prosecute flag burning in a way that does not violate the First Amendment.
Trump's order directs the AG to prioritize enforcing laws against flag burning when connected to other crimes, and it allows for visa revocation or deportation of foreign nationals who burn flags.
Trump has consistently condemned flag burning and called for its criminalization, even suggesting jail time or loss of citizenship.
In a landmark 1989 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that burning the American flag in protest is protected speech under the First Amendment.

Now, the Trump administration aims to test that. President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Aug. 25 directing his administration to prosecute people who burn American flags.

The order describes the flag as the country's "most sacred and cherished symbol" and said its desecration is "uniquely offensive and provocative."

Attorney General Pam Bondi said during a signing ceremony that the administration could prosecute flag burnings "without running afoul of the First Amendment."

Here’s what to know about the order and how the First Amendment applies:

What does the executive order say about flag burning?
The order directed the attorney general to prioritize enforcing laws against flag-burning incidents that "violate applicable, content-neutral laws, while causing harm unrelated to expression, consistent with the First Amendment."

Examples of such acts include violent crimes, hate crimes and property crimes.

It goes on to say that the administration can deny or revoke visas or other immigration benefits as well as pursue deportation "whenever there has been an appropriate determination that foreign nationals have engaged in American Flag-desecration activity under circumstances that permit the exercise of such remedies pursuant to Federal law."The order asserts that such action is constitutional.

"Notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s rulings on First Amendment protections, the Court has never held that American Flag desecration conducted in a manner that is likely to incite imminent lawless action or that is an action amounting to 'fighting words' is constitutionally protected," it said.

What has Trump said about flag burning?
Trump has long condemned flag burnings.

Following protests after his first presidential election win in 2016, Trump said on social media that those who burn the American flag should face consequences of “perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!”

He made similar statements following protests over the murder of George Floyd in 2020, and criticized demonstrators who burned an American flag while protesting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Congress in July 2024.

The following month, Trump reiterated that flag burning should be criminalized in a speech at the National Guard Association in Detroit.

“I want to get a law passed,” he said. “Everyone tells me, ‘Oh, sir, it’s very hard.’ You burn an American flag, you go to jail for one year. Gotta do it, we gotta do it.”

“They say, ‘Sir, that’s unconstitutional,’ ” he said. “Well make it constitutional. We’re gonna make it constitution(al).”

He further touted his proposal for a one-year jail sentence for flag burners following immigration raid protests in Los Angeles in June.

Is flag burning currently protected by the First Amendment?
Yes. In Texas v. Johnson, a landmark First Amendment case in 1989, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of a man who burned the flag while protesting then-President Ronald Reagan’s administration.

The decision upheld a Texas Court of Appeals ruling that reversed Gregory Lee Johnson’s conviction under a Texas law banning flag desecration.

The court found that the conviction violated Johnson’s First Amendment rights, which it said are not limited to verbal or written speech. While the ruling said states may seek to prevent “imminent lawless action,” it added that actions such as Johnson’s are and should be a protected right.


“We are tempted to say, in fact, that the flag’s deservedly cherished place in our community will be strengthened, not weakened, by our holding today,” Chief Justice William Brennan wrote in the majority opinion. “Our decision is a reaffirmation of the principles of freedom and inclusiveness that the flag best reflects, and of the conviction that our toleration of criticism such as Johnson’s is a sign and source of our strength.”

://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/08/25/trump-flag-burning-first-amendment/85814151007

[struggle4progress]

12. He has so many new ideas!

[mopinko]

13. no he didnt. he signed a meaningless proclamation.

i’ll grant u that too many times his bullshit eo’s have been obeyed. but he has no power to make laws, and even congress cant make a law that violates the constitution.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

14. 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.

[bdamomma]

16. The felon is

no American if he continues to kiss up to Putin his handler.

[Torchlight]

17. GOP's enforcement arm will have fun grabbing people off the streets with this one

I'm guessing the arrests will be eventually voided after defense lawyers are hired, but in the meantime a lot of people are going to get hurt by Mr. trump's newest decision tantrum. Six of one really is half a dozen of the other, regardless of the shiny packaging it's wrapped in...

[ProudMNDemocrat]

18. I will NEVER disgrace the Flag.

My husband's is in its case on a shelf above the TV. His service to this country is symbolized as well as the meaning behind the Flag in general.

We shall see how violating the US Constitution goes as TACO Don disgraces the Flag each and every day with his DICTATORIAL moves. He may not be burning it, but he is pissing on it and all that it holds dear.

[Initech]

20. He won't. They're his people.

But yeah throw those assholes in prison where they belong!