I’m not ignoring it. I was offended when Colin wore socks with pigs wearing police hats on them. To me that discredits much of the message he’s trying to put out. I also think at least some of the extrajudicial killings he’s protesting were cops defending themselves (Michael Brown in particular should never be brought up by anyone who wants to advance Black Lives Matter) and I don’t support his message without reservations (though of course I hate the idea of racially-motivated killing like any decent person). But I’m okay with him or others kneeling and not okay with suggestions that people should be forced to pretend to express sentiments they don’t have.
So yes I’m fine with your distaste for his protests, I get where you’re coming from, and of course you have as much right to protest his protest as he does to protest in the first place. Any suggestion that the government should act to stop these protests directly or indirectly (as the president suggested) are unconstitutional. The whole reason I brought up the Constitution were just as a reminder that this country was founded on the idea that it’s okay to protest what bothers you, even if (especially if!) it’s the country itself. I don’t really get the heated response to anyone who has a problem with things the US does or has done (either the federal government or citizens of the country). That was my objection; I love my country but it’s okay if other citizens don’t.
Hear, hear–I just made this point in another thread. It drives me nuts that with all the other more fitting poster boys for the cause they could focus on instead, they stubbornly stick with “Maniac Mike” Brown.
I hate to start a sentence “In fairness to Trump…” but:
In fairness to Trump, he said the owners should fire the players who refuse to stand, and suggested to his fans that they boycott the NFL if the protests continue. Neither of those involve governmental interference (unlike his threats to NBC and CNN, for instance, or firing Bob Mueller…etc.).
Incorrect. He stated that the government should stop giving the NFL tax breaks if they continued to let players disrespect the country.
Direct link to his tweet.
So yes, he suggested that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT should intervene directly if players continued to protest. That’s authoritarianism and I’m not okay with that.
That’s one interpretation. Another is that NFL should not be getting tax breaks, period. I don’t think it should. No matter what they do about the kneeling stupidity.
That interpretation requires you to ignore half of the tweet. That’s not what he said and clearly not what he meant when taken in context with his repeated criticism of the NFL allowing players to protest. You can brush it off as “stupid things Trump says that won’t happen” and I do, but that doesn’t change the fact that he said it.
Stadiums aren’t purchased by the NFL, they’re purchased by teams which are separate entities. The NFL used to be a non-profit but aren’t anymore.
Maybe Trump isn’t aware that the NFL is no longer tax-exempt, or maybe he meant he wants to go after the teams, who knows? I don’t know what tax breaks the teams get.
I disagree. It’s something that has heretofore been considered something that is not done, but I don’t believe there’s any fundamental reason a president can’t urge the public to boycott a company, unless perhaps there is some issue of potential emoluments to foreign powers or something like that. But to urge a boycott simply because the president doesn’t like the company? I think that should be allowed, even if frowned upon.
It’s not a question of whether or not it’s allowed. It’s a question of “Is the government acting to stop these protests?” in which case the answer is yes.
The closest this would come to violating the law would be 18 U.S. Code § 227 but I think you’d have a hard time proving the solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation clause. And I can’t see any penalties for the offense, but that could be captured elsewhere.
Technically it’s even narrower than that, as written it specifically says they will “make no law”. But it’s understood that “making laws” is how Congress does anything, so there’s no real difference in reality.
After the 14th Amendment, the “due process” clause added the protections of the Constitution to the states. Basically, the federal government wanted to force states (mainly southern) to comply with equal rights put into federal law after the Civil War. So this amendment prevented state governments from violating the Constitution.
Then in 1952 there was the Youngstown case that established what is known as the Justice Jackson Test which says that the President can’t act against the “expressed or implied will of Congress”. Since Congress is restrained by the First Amendment, any action that violates that amendment is opposed to Congress’s implied will, and therefore the President can’t take action in violation of the First Amendment. That is the precedent used now to prevent the President from issuing executive orders that infringe upon citizens’ rights.