The president said it was a “very sad court” that previously rejected flag-burning prosecutions on First Amendment grounds.
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.
This Veteran could NOT be prosecuted for this public exercise of his First Amendment Rights
= new reply since forum marked as read