Question about Me Burning a Flag in NYC this week 997

Protests draw media. That's why people hold them.

Says Tedy Brewski, who got his "law degree" from the bottle of Wild Turkey he emptied one night. SCOTUS thinks differently, as do other courts:

The Court of Criminal Appeals began by recognizing that Johnson's conduct was symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment: "Given the context of an organized demonstration, speeches, slogans, and the distribution of literature, anyone who observed appellant's act would have understood the message that appellant intended to convey. The act for which appellant was convicted was clearly 'speech' contemplated by the First Amendment." Id., at 95.

Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 400 (1989).

Not according to SCOTUS:

Nor does Johnson's expressive conduct fall within that small clbutt of "fighting words" that are "likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace." Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 574 (1942). No reasonable onlooker would have regarded Johnson's generalized expression of dissatisfac- tion with the policies of the Federal Government as a direct personal insult or an invitation to exchange fisticuffs. See id., at 572-573; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 309 (1940); FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, supra, at 745 (opinion of Stevens, J.).

Id. at 409.

Even a fool, when he keeps silent, is considered wise; When he closes his lips, he is {considered} prudent. -- Prov. 17:28

You claim to be a Christian, Teddums; why don't you learn the wisdom of the Proverbs, and not talk about things which you have absolutely no f***ing clue about?!? Law is *not* your area of expertise.

Damn straight it is!!! Every idea is an incitement!!! :)

Which describes you perfectly, Teddums. A troll who proves that while growing old is mandatory, growing up is not. Problem is, you're one big fat loudmouth who has never learned the wisdom of your own Scriptures.

BTW, the appropriate way to dispose of a worn-out flag is to burn it. 36 U.S.C. � 176(k).

But if there is no remedy for the violation, it can be taken away and, by necessity, it becomes a "liberty."

Any public servant -- from judges to janitors -- who believes that he is above the law. Unfortunately, there are *far* too many of them, and they are not confined to the bench. You know my thoughts on this, which are embellished by the thoughts of some of our greatest Americans:

Finally and ultimately, public officials are �creatures of the law,� thus accountable to the law and the people which give it force. For as the Supreme Court said over a century ago (and Alabama�s judicial discipline board recently said to its former Chief Justice Roy Moore):

No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey it.66

As Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist #78:

There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No leg- islative act, therefore, contrary to the Consbreastution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.83

Although our betters on the bench would prefer that we not know it, this is the law. It is not just the law as implicitly expressed in the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of our Consbreastution but also, part and parcel of a binding treaty113 ratified by our government, and jus cogens international law114 which all courts are bound to obey.115 And our courts must faithfully follow the law, or there is no law. Justice Brandeis minced no words:

Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the govern- ment becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself.116

Feel free to debate the merits of this position IF YOU CAN, instead of constantly stooping to the same tired old ad hominem. (If you prefer to talk about Patty Kaldis Brown THE toy QUEEN! and her jailbird hubby, that can be arranged.)