Trump administration takes action to challenge Supreme Court protection of flag protection

president Donald Trump His administration is likely to challenge the Supreme Court ruling that passed a new executive order to protect the U.S. flag by passing the First Amendment that requires those who declare the U.S. flag when inciting violence or violating other laws.

The executive order signed by Trump on Monday morning directed the Attorney General to “people who violate the law in ways that involve blasphemy flags and file a lawsuit to clarify the scope of the First Amendment related to blasphemy.

However, burning the U.S. flag has been sued, and the Supreme Court ruled in 1989 that burning the flag was a form of symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment.

“I think what the president is talking about is he ordered Justice Department attorney Pam Bondi to sue those who maliciously burn the American flag,” the Heritage Foundation senior legal researcher Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Justice Studies told Fox News Digital. “Essentially, this is the ultimate challenge to the Supreme Court re-examine and potentially overturning its previous precedent, saying that burning the American flag is protected.”

Trump strikes burning flag, blaspheming executive order

The 1989 case centered on political protester Gregory Lee Johnson, who burned the American flag outside the Republican National Convention in Dallas in 1984 to protest President Ronald Reagan’s re-election.

“America, red, white and blue, we spit on you,” protesters chanted as Johnson burned the flag on the fire, called the Texas v. Johnson case, according to the details of the case.

Johnson was charged with Texas’ respected object regulations that prevent individuals from destroying respected objects such as the American flag. Johnson was found guilty in 1985 and sentenced to one year in prison and fined $2,000, but appealed the ruling.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in 1989, and the country’s Supreme Court ruled that burning the U.S. flag was protected in a 5-4 decision. First Amendment. At that time, the Supreme Court had a conservative majority.

Trump’s renewed call for imprisonment of U.S. flag burners clash with court precedent

William J. Brennan, a Democratic Judge nominated by former President Dwight Eisenhower, made the majority, arguing: “The government can not only ban the expression of an idea, but simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or annoying.”

“We cannot imagine that there is no more appropriate response than waving our own flag than waving the flag, there is no better message to counter the flagbearer than saluting the burning flag, nor a more reliable means to maintain the dignity of the flag, even the flag burning here is more than a witness does – according to its respect, it is a burial of respect.” “We will not consecrate the flag by punishing its blasphemy, because doing so dilutes the freedom represented by this precious sign.”

President Trump’s executive order for the U.S. flag calls on the attorney general to use “the maximum extent allowed by the Constitution” to “strengthly prosecute those who violate our laws in ways that blaspheme the U.S. flag.” (Spxchrome)

Judge Thurgood Marshall, Harry A. Blackmun, Antonin Scalia and Anthony M. Kennedy joined Brennan, joining Brennan with a majority opinion. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote the court’s objection that the U.S. flag has a unique position in the United States and should be protected from acts such as burning.

In 1990, the Supreme Court reiterated its ruling a year ago while invalidating Congress’s Flag Protection Act of 1989, which lawmakers passed in response to the Supreme Court’s Texas v. Johnson ruling.

Trump’s executive order on Monday called on the attorney general to launch a special legal effort to clarify the “scope of the First Amendment.”

Trump vowed to the consequences of ‘animals’ burning of the US flag in Los Angeles, slamming those who wave flags of other countries

“To the maximum extent permitted by the Constitution, the Attorney General should vigorously prosecute those who violate our laws in a manner involving blasphemy of the United States flag and may file a lawsuit to clarify the scope of First Amendment exceptions in the field,” the Executive Order said.

Back in 2003, current Justice Clarence Thomas offered some insight into the position of burning respected objects, opposing the burning of the cross in Virginia v. Black.

Thomas in his 2003 opinion on hybridization cited Rehnquist’s objection in the Texas case.

“In every culture, something acquires meaning beyond what outsiders can understand. It is both divine and Texas v. Johnson491 US 397, 422-429 (1989) (Rehnquist, CJ, objection) (describes the unique position of the American flag in our country’s 200 years of history) and profane. I believe that cross burning is a paradigm example of the latter. ” he wrote in 2003.

President Trump’s executive order on flag blasphemy calls on Attorney General Pam Bondi to launch legal efforts to articulate the “scope of the First Amendment.” (Francis Chung/Politico/Bloomberg by Getty Image)

Smith notes two dynamics about the future Supreme Court case landing in potential banner cases: some justices said “somewhat feared, extensive reading of potential expressive behaviors” and how the justices would apply the Decisis of the eyes, which is legal doctrine, which outlines established precedents, such as the ruler of 1989.

“I think a few things are happening here,” he said. “I think some justices read too extensively about potential expression behaviors.

Trump signs execution order to cancel cashless bail for suspects in Washington, D.C. and nationwide

“I think another interesting dynamic that you should be aware of is how some judges will apply the so-called gaze decision, which, in essence, is the Latin of fantasy. It means ‘they decide’.” “Latest times, Chief Justice Roberts, in particular, has joined the majority even if he disagrees with the Supreme Court’s ruling, because he believes that gaze decisions should apply and that the court should not overturn or revisit previous decisions in the field, even if he may then agree to it.”

Trump celebrated the executive order at the Oval Office signing Monday, saying the 1989 Supreme Court ruling to protect the flag burning was brought by a “very sad court.”

“The flags are burning. Flags are burning all over the country. All over the world, they burn the American flag.” “As you know, through a very sad court, I want to have a decision of 5 to 4. They call it freedom of speech.”

President Donald Trump lamented how the American flag was burned by protests in the United States and abroad. (Mark Schiefelbein/AP)

“But there’s another reason, and it’s probably more important,” he said. “That’s death. Because what happens when you burn the flag is crazy. If you have hundreds of people, they’re going crazy.”

“You can do other things. You can burn this piece of paper,” he said. “But when you burn the American flag, it inspires riots at levels we’ve never seen before.”

First Amendment, such as the Foundation for Personal Rights and Expression, slammed Fox News’s comment order, saying Trump did not have the “power to modify the First Amendment with the strokes of the pen.”

“The burning of flags as a form of political protest is protected by the First Amendment,” Bob Corn-Revere, chief adviser for individual rights and expressions, said in a comment Monday. “It’s not new. Although people can be prosecuted for burning anything where fires are not allowed, the government cannot prosecute protected expression activities – even if many Americans, including the president, find it “unique offensive and provocative.”

Click here to get the Fox News app

“You don’t have to like burning the flag,” he added. “You can condemn it, debate or raise your own flag. The beauty of free speech is that you can express your opinions even if others don’t like what you want to say.”