Tag Archives: First Amendment

Twitter tirade shows danger of Trump presidency

constitution-burningb

Donald J. Trump’s propensity for popping off on social media came into amazing, sharp focus with his latest rant about flag burning.

And it demonstrates why the president-elect’s on-the-job training for the office he is about to assume is so troubling to many of us … who didn’t vote for him.

Trump went on another Twitter tirade and said that those who burn the flag out of protest should spend time in the clink and possibly lose their citizenship.

Really, Mr. President-elect?

This goonish statement underscores as well as anything he’s muttered or sputtered during the course of his fledgling political career how — in a normal election year — he wouldn’t have won the presidency.

His ridiculous assertion ignores — willfully? — that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled time and again that flag-burning is a protected form of political speech. The First Amendment is pretty damn clear about it and anyone who has read that amendment ought to know it — and that makes me believe beyond a doubt that Trump has no clue as to what’s contained in the nation’s governing document.

And yet …

Donald Trump won enough electoral votes to defeat Hillary Rodham Clinton and become the 45th president of the United States.

It puzzles me to the max — even now, weeks after the election — just how this happened. Still, I accept the result, as distasteful as it is to my political palate.

I cannot help but wonder, though, how many more idiotic pronouncements the president-elect is going to make. How much more consternation is he going to cause with his utter ignorance of something so fundamental as freedom of speech and political expression?

I’ll repeat what I’ve said before and what others have said already: We have elected a dangerous man as our next president.

OK, so let’s just burn the Constitution, too

burning-flag

The fictional TV husband, Ricky Ricardo, once had the perfect answer to a ridiculous assertion that his wife, Lucy, had made.

“I have five words,” Ricky said. “Aye, aye, aye, aye, aye!”

That’s my response this morning to this latest gem from Twitter twit in chief Donald J. Trump, who writes: “Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag – if they do, there must be consequences – perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!”

What in the name of all this holy and sacred is this guy thinking? Or, better yet, is he thinking — at all?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/29/politics/donald-trump-flag-burning-penalty-proposal/index.html

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled twice in the past quarter century that burning Old Glory is a form of political expression. Thus, the high court said, it is protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

For those who buy into every ridiculous utterance that flows out of the president-elect’s mouth, here is what the First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Or “abridging the freedom of speech.” There it is, Mr. President-elect. It looks pretty clear to me.

This guy needs the mother of all reality checks.

He once told a TV interviewer that women should face punishment if they obtained an abortion. He backed off that nonsensical assertion not long afterward.

Now this? He wants to punish folks who burn the flag to protest government policy?

Before you accuse me of being soft on those who do such things, I feel the need to restate something I’ve said over many years. Those who seek to sway public opinion in favor of whatever point they make could not do anything more to turn that opinion against them than burning a flag.

Moreover, as one who once served in the Army and went into a war zone when ordered to do so, I take a back seat to no one in my love of country and its symbols. No one should burn a flag in my presence.

That said, it is a legal act that the Constitution protects under the very first amendment the founders wrote into our nation’s governing document.

It must stay that way.

Read the Constitution, Mr. President-elect. You’ll learn a thing or three about how this nation functions.

Enter the white nationalist in Aggieland

spencer

This is the kind of story that gives First Amendment purists — such as yours truly — a serious case of heartburn.

Richard Spencer is slated to deliver some remarks at Texas A&M University. Just who is this fellow? He’s the founder of a white nationalist group — the National Policy Institute — that’s been in the news lately.

I use the term “white nationalist” only because that’s what he calls himself. He’s actually a white supremacist. A flaming racist, if you will.

Spencer is a young man with an agenda that isn’t going over too well with a lot of us. I include myself in that category of Americans repulsed to the core by what this guy espouses. He recently exhorted a roomful of supporters with a salute hailing the election of Donald J. Trump as president that looked for all the world like something the Nazis used to do in Adolf Hitler’s presence.

Why the heartburn?

Spencer is entitled to speak his peace. He happens to be an American citizen. The First Amendment protects people’s right to express their political views freely.

Some students and I’ll presume faculty at Texas A&M don’t want Spencer to speak Dec. 6 at the student center. They’re planning a protest. Some are petitioning the school to disinvite him.

As much as it pains and aggravates me to say this, they are mistaken if they intend to ban this guy from having the floor for his scheduled 30 minutes in College Station.

A university is a place that is supposed to promote a wide range of ideas, ideologies, philosophies and theories. Yes, even those many of us find offensive.

Here’s what the Houston Chronicle reported: “The university issued a statement Wednesday denouncing Spencer’s rhetoric and sought to distance itself from the event. The university had no immediate comment on whether it would try to cancel the speech.

“‘To be clear, Texas A&M University – including faculty, staff, students and/or student groups – did not invite this speaker to our campus nor do we endorse his rhetoric in any way,’ Amy Smith, a university spokeswoman, said in the statement.”

The Chronicle continued: “Private citizens can reserve space on campus for private functions, Smith said. The event organizer will pay all rental expenses, including security costs, she said.”

Here’s the whole story:

http://www.chron.com/local/education/campus-chronicles/article/White-nationalist-to-speak-at-Texas-A-M-10632460.php?cmpid=fb-desktop

Even though the university didn’t “invite” this fellow, his presence on the campus ought to some credence to the notion that all ideas should be heard within that environment, even if they aren’t welcome.

Conservative speakers have been shunned before on university campuses. I dislike that notion, even as someone who identifies more with progressive than with conservative causes.

However, if we believe in the constitutional protection of free speech and expression, then we need to adhere wholly to it.

Richard Spencer’s message no doubt will disgust and enrage many who hear it. Let the young man speak … then show him the door.

This is how you treat political protest

President Barack Obama has given us all a lesson on how you treat political protesters.

Watch the video and you see the president of the United States — speaking at a rally on behalf of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton — defend a gentleman who was waving a Donald J. Trump banner.

The crowd booed. It jeered the fellow. The president sought to get the audience’s attention.

Then he said, “We live in a country that honors free speech.”

The video is worth your time. It’s not long.

Once you watch it, think for a moment how Trump has handled similar incidents in which protesters raised a ruckus at his rallies. I believe he said he wished his fans would “knock the crap” out of protesters. He also said something about paying the “legal fees” for anyone sued if they reacted violently to protests.

You’ve got someone who understands the Constitution.

You also have someone who, well, doesn’t seem to understand the liberties the nation’s governing document guarantees to all citizens.

No yard signs for this voter

p71_political_yard_sign_poster_design_with_stakes

I actually considered putting a yard sign in front of my house this year.

Then I thought better of it.

The last yard sign I put out on my property was for U.S. Sen. Frank Church, the Idaho Democrat who ran for president … in 1976! That was four decades ago, you know? I was living in Oregon, the state of my birth and where I lived until 1984.

It also was the year before I became a full-time journalist, which — believe this or not — usually does compel one to surrender a semblance of First Amendment guarantees of free speech and political expression. Why is that? The newspapers where I worked frowned on employees wearing their partisan leanings on their sleeves. We need to at least present the veneer of objectivity while covering political issues.

Well, I no longer am practicing journalism on a full-time basis. My career ended in August 2012, but I’ve been involved in various aspects of journalism on a part-time basis on and off ever since.

Still, I toyed with the idea of displaying a yard sign this year. Then I kept reading social media posts from friends and acquaintances about the signs that had been stolen and/or vandalized.

What’s the point? I suppose it’s because this year’s presidential campaign has been so intensely personal — on both sides of the political divide.

Given also that I live in Texas, where folks are allowed to carry guns in the open as well as concealed under their clothing, I shudder to think what might happen were I to confront a vandal or thief seeking to rip off or damage my yard sign.

I’d like to reveal my political choice for president with a sign proclaiming my preference. I’ll just have to settle for doing so with this blog.

Government has no say over media ‘power structure’

aajgybt

Donald J. Trump has made yet another — can you believe it? — dubious and dangerous proposal that threatens to undermine one of the foundations of our free society.

The Republican presidential nominee says he will seek to weaken the media “power structure” if he’s elected president of the United States.

Ponder that for a moment. That’s all it’ll take.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says — among other things — that government must not interfere in the functions of a “free press.”

I interpret that to mean that the government should not exert any influence on how the media conduct themselves. Trump, though, in his on-going — and ridiculous — campaign asserting a widespread media conspiracy to prevent his election, is declaring his intention to “weaken” the media’s influence.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-vows-to-weaken-us-media-power-structure-if-elected/ar-AAjharJ?li=BBnb7Kz

I do believe that Trump’s notion would violate the Constitution.

Government shouldn’t throw its massive weight around to control the media’s message, which sounds for all the world to me as being Trump’s intent. He vows to block media companies from merging with other media companies, complaining about the concentration of power.

Is that his real concern, or is he seeking to use the federal government’s immense power to weaken the media — and to exert control over the message?

Journalists actually surrender some civil liberties

freedom-of-speech-2cd4b4

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of the speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

First Amendment, to the U.S. Constitution

Here’s something you might not ever have considered when you think of journalists.

There are times when journalists at least one of the freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. It’s in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the clause contained in that amendment to which I refer speaks to the right to express your political views publicly.

I’ve known journalists over the years who’ve said they never vote because they feel this need to remain “neutral” as it regards political campaigns. Voting, they say, removes the veneer of neutrality and impartiality. I’ve heard of many prominent journalists who’ve said the same thing.

I didn’t adhere to that strange doctrine during the nearly 37 years I was a practicing full-time journalist. I always have voted, understanding that my vote is my business and that since it’s done in secret I was never obligated to reveal who received my ballot-box endorsement.

Lawn signs are another matter. The last sign I ever planted in my yard was in 1976, before I was finished with college and before I became a full-time journalist. It was during the Oregon primary that year and I displayed a sign supporting the late U.S. Sen. Frank Church of Idaho in that year’s Democratic presidential primary.

Bumper stickers, too, are forbidden — in my view — for those of us who have toiled in the media.

The last paper where I worked, the Amarillo Globe-News, did not have a policy banning bumper stickers on employees’ motor vehicles. I saw the occasional vehicle in the company parking lot with a sticker on a rear bumper.

On one occasion, I asked the owner of the vehicle about it and asked him if he thought it was appropriate for him to display that political preference while working for an organization that is supposed to present the news fairly and without bias. This individual sold advertisements for the paper and, thus, he didn’t feel compelled to remove the sticker from his vehicle. We agreed to disagree on that and we remain friends to this day.

Why mention this?

The media get hammered pretty hard by those who think reporters and editors are somehow privileged to say what they want without being held accountable. Actually, they are held accountable by their employers and, yes, by the public they seek to serve.

Their craft, though, occasionally prevents those in the media from responding as freely and forcefully as they wish.

Some media employers demand that their representatives keep their bias hidden; they prohibit bumper stickers on vehicles and signs in employees’ yards. Others don’t, preferring to leave it to the employees’ own good judgment to do the right thing.

On occasion, though, doing the right thing requires those in the media to surrender certain rights of citizenship — even as they advocate for the rights of others to never be “abridged.”

Ironic, yes?

Trump now pitches ‘extreme vetting’ of Muslims

0622trumpmuslim01

Donald J. Trump’s proposal to ban Muslims from entering the United States has morphed into something he calls “extreme vetting.”

Is that any more acceptable?

That depends, I suppose.

If you’re frightened beyond all reason over allowing any Muslims into the country, then the presumptive Republican presidential nominee’s apparent change in policy is a “weakening” of his get-tough stance.

On the other hand, if you wonder just how U.S. immigration and customs officials are going to conduct this so-called “extreme vetting” — as I do — then this plan is just another goofy notion that well might change in the next day or two.

Oh, and there’s also that constitutional issue. The First Amendment lists three basic liberties, the first one of which just happens to be the freedom to worship whichever faith you choose.

Trump is going to accept the GOP presidential nomination this week in Cleveland. He’s selected Indiana Gov. Mike Pence as his running mate. Pence, interestingly, has declared Trump’s anti-Muslim rhetoric to be antithetical to American values.

Aw, but what the heck? What’s wrong with a few disagreements among political allies? That sounded like Trump’s rationale for selecting someone with whom he has some serious policy disagreements.

Does the “extreme vetting” bring the two GOP candidates closer on this particular difference of opinion? Time will tell, I suppose.

Whether it’s an outright ban or a regimen of “extreme vetting” of people based on their religious faith, the GOP nominee’s precept is built out of fear and panic. It also ignores the reality that federal security forces are intercepting and detaining suspected bad guys every single day.

Trump keeps insisting that we need to be more vigilant, more alert, more resolute in defending ourselves against terrorists.

The 9/11 attacks nearly 15 years ago — Can you believe that? — exposed the nation to the harshest reality imaginable, which is that we were vulnerable to that kind of horror. We were vulnerable to such evil for a long time before it actually happened.

I believe we are a lot less vulnerable to it today, based on the terrible lessons learned from that horrifying event.

What’s more, defending ourselves against a lone-wolf attacker is difficult in the extreme, as Secretary of State John Kerry noted over the weekend.

He made a fascinating point Sunday morning, which is that U.S. national security forces have to be on guard and totally alert every minute of every single day of the year. Meanwhile, a terrorist has to be sharp for just a few minutes in order to conduct a successful strike against us.

“Extreme vetting” or an outright ban of Muslims will not protect us totally and fully against the evil that lurks out there.

Such language, though, does create a catchy political sound bite.

Recall effort, over this?

garagesale

Many communities in America have them.

They’re gadflies. Blowhards. People who raise a ruckus just to be heard. Maybe they like the sound of their own voices. I don’t know.

An individual has surfaced over yonder, in Tucumcari, N.M., who I guess qualifies as a gadfly. She doesn’t like a proposed new city ordinance that puts some restrictions on garage, rummage or estate sales in the city.

She’s threatening to recall Tucumcari city commissioners over their insistence on approving the city ordinance.

But here’s the ridiculous aspect of it.

The gadfly, Dena Mericle, doesn’t like in Tucumcari. She lives in rural Quay County. She doesn’t have any proverbial skin in the game. The ordinance doesn’t affect her. Her garage sale restrictions are set by the county commission.

According to my colleague Thomas Garcia, writing for the Quay County Sun, Mericle said this during a public hearing: “The commissioners are elected by us, the public, to serve our best interest and the interest of the city.”

She then used the R-word — “recall” — to make her point. “If the commission passes this ordinance, then I hate to resort to this, but I’ve collected well over 300 signatures … for a recall of the commissioners.”

Tucumcari Mayor Ruth Ann Litchfield told Garcia that commissioners “often make decisions that are unpopular. If we give in to the threat of recall, then anytime there is an item or ordinance that someone doesn’t like, they will resort to that tactic.”

Earth to Dena: You are entitled to express your opinion, but you are not entitled — as a practical matter — to spearhead a recall drive in a community in which you have no vested interest.

Geez, I hate recalls. They should be done only in the case of malfeasance. Tucumcari commissioners are acting totally within their purview by regulating a legal activity inside the city’s corporate boundaries.

As such, commissioners are answerable only to those who pay the bills, the residents of the city — who also would be financially liable for the cost of a recall election.

This kind of outside intrusion isn’t unique, of course, to Tucumcari.

Do you recall the Amarillo municipal referendum this past November in which residents were asked whether to approve construction of a multipurpose event venue in its downtown district? The referendum passed in a close vote.

One of the main foes of the MPEV was a guy who lived in Canyon, about 15 miles south of Amarillo. But there he was, raising Cain at City Council meetings objecting to the MPEV.

I get that he — as is Mericle — is entitled to speak his mind. If he didn’t like the MPEV, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution grants him the right to speak out against it.

However, these local issues ought to be decided and argued publicly by those who have a tangible stake in their outcome. That’s not a legal requirement, of course. It just makes sense.

The rest of us are perched in the proverbial peanut gallery, where our arguments and objections will get all the attention they deserve … which isn’t much.

Rewrite the 2nd Amendment? Just try it

The Orlando, Fla., massacre has ignited yet again — for the zillionth time — the debate over whether to enact tighter controls on the purchase of guns such as the weapon used by the monster who mowed down those innocent victims.

I don’t intend to enter that debate here. I do, though, want to introduce you to an idea that’s being kicked around: rewriting the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

I’ve long believed that of all the first 10 amendments, those that guarantee our civil liberties, the Second is the most horribly written of them.

It seems to contain two distinct references that appear to be at odds with each other.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Are clear on that? Now? Forever?

Hardly.

Gun-control advocates glom onto the first part, the reference to the well-regulated militia; gun-owner advocates cling to the second part that refers to “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The founders inserted a couple of commas in the middle of the text that seem — to my eyes, at least — to add to the confusion.

Mac McCann, a blogger for the Dallas Morning News, has posited the notion that the Second Amendment needs to be modernized. Will it happen? Sure, it’ll happen about the time both sides of the gun violence divide come together, lock arms and sing in perfect harmony.

http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2016/06/maybe-the-only-solution-is-to-rewrite-the-second-amendment.html/

McCann writes: “I hold the Constitution in the highest regard, and I’m naturally skeptical of government power. But I’m moved by Obama’s words: ‘to actively do nothing is a decision, as well’ — and clearly not a good decision.

“We need a text that reflects the will of the American people in today’s world — which, of course, is far different from the world the Constitution was written in.”

Of course, any effort to amend an amendment is going to be interpreted as repealing the original text. We’ve had discussion in the past about amending the First Amendment, too. Free-speech/freedom-of-religion/free-press purists such as myself, quite naturally, have opposed such a thing on its face. That puts us in a bind when discussions come up regarding the Second Amendment, which is held in equally high regard by purists interested in gun-related issues.

This notion of modernizing the Second Amendment, though, is a discussion worth having.

If only we can have it intelligently and without the demonization that is guaranteed to erupt.

Your thoughts? Talk to me.