Fernando

I agree with the Dissenting Opinions. I wonder if they bring it up now with a larger conservative judges if they would change it. I'm in favor of changing this.

United States v. Eichman (1990) was a Supreme Court case that struck down the Flag Protection Act of 1989, a federal law that criminalized flag desecration. The Court ruled 5-4 that the Act violated the First Amendment's guarantee of free expression, finding that the government's interest in protecting the flag was related to the suppression of free expression and the content of that expression. This decision reaffirmed the Court's earlier ruling in Texas v. Johnson (1989), which also found flag burning to be a protected form of symbolic speech. Background The Flag Protection Act of 1989: In response to the Texas v. Johnson decision, Congress passed the Flag Protection Act, which made it illegal to destroy or deface an American flag. The Protests: The case involved individuals who burned U.S. flags on the steps of the U.S. Capitol to protest government policies. The Supreme Court's Decision First Amendment Violation: The Court found that the Flag Protection Act was unconstitutional because it infringed on the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. Content-Based Regulation: The Court determined that the government's interest in protecting the flag was directly related to the suppression of expression and the content of that expression. Strict Scrutiny: Because the law was a content-based restriction on speech, it had to be subjected to strict scrutiny, a high legal standard that the government could not meet. Reaffirmation of Texas v. Johnson: The Court's decision in Eichman essentially reaffirmed its holding in Texas v. Johnson, confirming that flag burning is a form of symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment. Dissenting Opinions Justices William H. Rehnquist, Byron R. White, John Paul Stevens, and Sandra Day O'Connor dissented, arguing that the law did not truly infringe on First Amendment rights and that there were many other ways for demonstrators to exercise their rights.

Not sure. He did good but I thought he was a bit bad when coming to the press and help with defense. Some he help at other he was a bit of a worry for me. I don't think he is ready for the league yet and we should use him as a sub for now.

Well we will have to wait and see if the supreme court ever decides to take up that matter with the input of Trump and company because as you alluded they make the law.

Nope I gave my opinion of why it should be illegal to burn the flag. But if the supreme court has a ruling then there's nothing we can do, and if Trump does it now he is breaking the law. I agree with what he said but he would need it to bring to the court to me modified. Just like they did with abortion.

Well I gave you my opinion. Now as you stated the law says your allowed to do it so I will agree with you then that it's unlawful to arrest someone right now because of this. You can't do it because we have a ruling against it. If trump and company wants to be serious then they should push it to the Supreme Court to consider this, in which I'm in favor of.

So basically what I'm saying, the law it's the law and there's nothing I can do at this moment but I can voice my opinion on not agreeing with it. As people do with this recent ruling: The most significant recent Supreme Court ruling on abortion was the June 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade and determined that the U.S. Constitution does not protect a right to abortion. This decision eliminated the federal constitutional standard for abortion access, allowing individual states to set their own abortion policies, which has resulted in some states banning or severely restricting abortion.

So your in favor to use the Supreme Court ruling when it's in your favor? But when they strike down abortion it's wrong? Consistency is the issue here. Hence the people have the right to question that, because that is freedom of speech. Just like I'm questioning this law and if it should be changed. I'm giving my opinion and why I'm in favor of this being reformed like they just did with me abortion. And Trump is not king for me, I don't agree with many things he does i have said it here. But in this matter I agree and I give my opinion why I believe like that.

Using the Supreme Court does not win your argument as I can still not agree with them. Example the supreme court rule against the abortion and many people don't agree and voice their opinion. Burning a flag is a political speech I agree but not in the country your in. Example I'm against Maduro and I live in Venezuela. This doesn't give me the right to burn the flag in the country of Venezuela. I'm outside sure whatever. But in your country no I don't agree.

Because you say so? In not country that is giving you the freedom does it equate the right to burn the flag in its own country.

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with burning a USA flag. In no right mind you should do that in USA. Go to another country and do it. Hence in favor of that.

He was actually very good when he first came here and then he suffered the injury. He has been woeful since then, but yes best game since that time.

I'm okay with that. Your in USA, you don't do that. Go to another country if you want to burn the flag.

Yes but it took time, which many people don't want to do with the rest of the players.

Probably, but I prefer to watch a full un edited video from Tucker about what he was talking as that girl just put a couple of minutes from him and spend the majority of the the show talking....

Israel intercepted a Gaza-bound flotilla carrying aid in international waters. Can it do that? https://apnews.com/article/gaza-flotilla-international-maritime-law-7c0b4c31e46e17119accb62d7b6933f3 I think this is messed up from Israel military. They are people who are wanting to help not bringing weapons to Hamas.

Yes I know, but I thought that line was good for your argument. Of bringing blames from past crimes to justify current crimes.

Going back in time and pointing the blame does not make two wrongs rights. As Col. Tigh from Battlestar Galactica said: Yeah, you point finger back far enough and some germ gets blamed for splitting in two.

But what does that has to do with what I'm saying? If those are true then that's wrong. I'm arguing for what is going on right now a war that was started by Hamas. If you want to bring stuff up from the past as justified excuse then your the one taking the high morale ground. Those things in the past where wrong and no wrong justify doing another wrong.

I started to look but I'm not sure if you have. Seems like you have an agenda and you hate Israel, just like your hatred for musk blinded you to the reality. But as I searched the first one this came up: The Haifa Oil Refinery massacre took place on 30 December 1947 in Mandatory Palestine, when 39 Jewish refinery workers were killed by their Arab coworkers in a mass lynching. And a reaction? So terrorism is okay to do because of reaction? Yeah you lost me.

Hmmmm interesting but wouldn't that be you? Not the first that your wrong. I remember when I was telling you about buying the market and tesla and all you did was let your emotions get in the way. In the end my call on the market and tesla was right.

Thats up to those countries if they want to attack Israel. But the problem here was that Hamas started this and since then all they do is hide in tunnels while their people suffer outside....

No it would as hamas attack first. Any country that gets attack like that has the right to defend itself. And still Hamas continues.

What that has to do with anything? If Hamas wanted this war would have ended long ago. No one who loves their people will allow them to suffer like this.

No it's the truth. Hamas are the one that are evil. And if they really cared fighting for their people they will accept.