Should flag burning be illegal

Answer 1

Yes, because flag burning is quite a big action to express their opinions. The First Amendment did supported the freedom of speech for the people of United states America, but before you talk about the right to speak, freedom of expression, you should think the pride of our nation.

Acts such as flag burning should be looked upon as deplorable and intolerable. The American flag is a matter of respect, for such a symbolic entity, which made freedom of speech permissible. The protesters should know the American flag is not a representation of the government, yet a representation of themselves.

Answer

No. It is legal to burn the US flag because of the clause in the First Amendment about freedom of speech. This is not restricted to simple verbal speech, but to any action that may be construed as expression.

In addition to burning the flag being allowed as symbolic free speech, the Federal law governing the flag, its composition, display and handling provides that if a flag become too worn to be a fitting emblem for display it should be destroyed with dignity, preferably by burning.

Answer

No. As Supreme Court Justice William Brennan stated, in the flag burning case United States v. Eichman, 496 US 310 (1990), "Punishing desecration of the flag dilutes the very freedom that makes this emblem so revered, and worth revering."

Although many people find flag burning offensive, it is considered a form of political expression protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Answer 2

Answer

At the moment, no, it is not unconstitutional. And given the current make up of the court, and the current President, is likely to be regarded as constitutional for some decades to come.

Answer

The first author is absolutely correct that the Supreme Court can and does overturn established precedents, but the outcome of (another) US Supreme Court flag desecration case may be unrelated to a justice's record of jurisprudence as a conservative or progressive ideologue. While conservatives are generally thought to favor laws against flag burning, and progressives to favor overturning those laws, the Supreme Court justices are a bit unpredictable.

For example, in two fairly recent landmark flag desecration cases, Texas v. Johnson, (1989) and US v. Eichman,(1990), Justices Scalia and Kennedy, who are part of the current conservative bloc (particularly Scalia) both voted to overturn laws prohibiting flag burning, preferring to uphold their interpretation of First Amendment protection of free speech, while Justice Stevens, who has long been considered leader of the progressive bloc, voted in favor of upholding laws against flag burning. Both decisions were split 5-4, but not entirely along standard ideological lines. Both of these cases were heard by the Rehnquist Court, which was undeniably conservative.

As far as Obama's appointments go, unless one of the conservative justices dies (unlikely any will retire on a Democrat's watch), he is only replacing liberals with liberals, thus not changing the balance of the Court at all. The current court seats 5 conservative justices to four liberals and is likely to remain that way for a number of years.

There really should be no anticipation of a shift in the Court's ideology until Justices Scalia (who will become Senior Associate on Justice Stevens' retirement) and Thomas are replaced, and we have no way of knowing what the political environment will be at that time - whether there's a Republican or Democratic President, and which party holds a majority in the Senate.

We agree that flag burning is unlikely to be declared unconstitutional in the foreseeable future.

For more information, see Related Questions, below.

Answer 3

well yes because it represents our country so it technicially means you are disrespecting our country....

____

This applies to all countries and their flags, not just the US