By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Monday prohibiting the burning of the American flag, despite the Supreme Court’s precedent in Texas v. Johnson that deems it protected symbolic speech. While acknowledging the court’s ruling, Trump asserted that flag burning incites violence and riots. The order would impose a one-year jail sentence for those who violate the ban. Newsweek reached out to the Supreme Court for comment.
Read the original article here
Donald Trump Issues Order Defying Supreme Court Precedent: Here’s What We’re Talking About
Let’s dive right in. It appears Donald Trump has issued another executive order, and this one, as we’ve gathered from the discussion, seems to be directly challenging a Supreme Court precedent. That precedent, established in the landmark case *Texas v. Johnson* (1989), protects flag burning as a form of symbolic speech under the First Amendment. This means, in basic terms, that the government can’t punish you for burning the American flag.
Now, the response to this executive order has been, shall we say, energetic. A common sentiment, and it’s understandable, is that Trump is trying to stir up trouble. The order is viewed by some as a deliberate provocation, designed to provoke a reaction and potentially create a situation where he can then take further action. The fear is that this could be a step towards limiting free speech, a core tenet of American democracy.
Of course, the legality of this order is immediately brought into question. As many have pointed out, an executive order doesn’t automatically change the law. The Supreme Court has already ruled on the matter, and that ruling stands unless it’s overturned by the Court itself or by a constitutional amendment. So, the immediate effect of Trump’s order is likely symbolic – a statement, a challenge, but not necessarily a legal change.
The implications, however, are where things get interesting. The concern is around enforcement. If those under Trump’s influence, his supporters, or even law enforcement, choose to act based on this order, then it could lead to arrests and legal challenges. This, in turn, would force the courts to address the situation, potentially leading to further legal battles and possibly even an eventual Supreme Court review. The potential for chaos and legal wrangling is very real.
The reactions also bring up the issue of hypocrisy, with many people highlighting that Trump has often been accused of behavior that is far more damaging than flag burning. There are concerns about Trump’s actions and behavior, and the order is therefore seen as a deflection, a way to distract from other, more serious issues.
The conversations also bring up the topic of flag burning itself. Some suggest that this is a very minor issue compared to other threats to the Constitution and human rights, with many even suggesting it as a way to “troll” Trump and his supporters. The act of burning the flag, it’s argued, doesn’t incite riots, it is the reaction by Trump that is the catalyst to incite riots.
The situation then also touches upon the politicization of the Supreme Court. There is a clear feeling, again, that the Court is perceived as leaning a particular way. This adds another layer of complexity because the Court’s decisions are supposed to be based on law, not politics.
The general consensus seems to be that Trump’s order is a way to provoke, to test the limits of the law, and to create division. Whether it will ultimately succeed in achieving any of those goals remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: it has sparked a lively debate and highlighted the ongoing tension between individual freedoms and the power of the government. It’s a situation that will undoubtedly keep people talking, debating, and, perhaps, even burning flags, at least until the legalities are made clear.