Day -51: Trump Tries to Rewrite SCOTUS Jurisprudence

We have a system of checks and balances in the United States. Most middle school students that have taken Civics know this. Donald Trump doesn’t seem to, though.

Yesterday, he banged his thumbs into his phone and produced this tweet.

This isn’t complicated. The Supreme Court in Texas v. Johnson found anti-flag burning statutes were unconstitutional. The Court held that flag burning was protected speech under the First Amendment.

Trump wants to strip citizenship for individuals who commit speech that SCOTUS has determined to be one’s first amendment rights. First of all, there exists no precedent or mechanism for this at all. Second, why not target those who commitr heinous crimes if you’re going to argue this silly point? And third, why juxtapose a loss of citizenship with a one year incarceration sentence — the maximum for most misdemeanors?

Either way, the thought is beyond dangerous. Flag burning, while most find abhorrent, is protected speech. If the government can strip citizenship or otherwise punish for speech that they find objectionable, that’s a very slippery slope to tread. Today flag burning, tomorrow protesting the President’s Cabinet appointees? Maybe Vice President-elect Mike Pence wants to crack down on marching for gay rights?

Of particular irony for Trump? The Johnson opinion was delivered mostly by the conservative-leaning faction of the Court including William Brennan.

Post-Johnson, Congress tried to pass an act making it a federal crime to burn the flag. In United States v. Eichman, the same majority as that in Johnson invalidated that act as well.

Oh, by the way, also on the majority finding that flag burning was protected speech in both Johnson and Eichman? Trump’s favorite Justice: Antonin Scalia.

-51 days in, 1512 to go.