Mixing
How is Trumps actions against NFL protesters not a violation of Constitutional rights?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I've been casually following the NFL player protests against injustice in modern America. Often the controversy is centered around players like Colin Kaepernick, whose careers seems to be over even though he was a [valuable] franchise player and whose [performance] stats seemed to be increasing each season.
The press seems to regularly report in articles like Colin Kaepernick Is Not Going Away:
[Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones] Jones is the most outspoken owner
to oppose the protests, but he speaks for more than a few of his
colleagues. He has also donated to President Trump, who has frequently
attacked the owners for not firing players who protest and who
publicly praised Jones for his hard-line stance.
How can the president actively attack a person who is peaceably protesting and exercising their right to free speech; and encouraging (coercing?) others into abridging those rights?
I understand folks like Kaepernick have no protections from corporate America; but the rights and protections from government are guaranteed in the Constitution.
A related article that some may want to read is Kaepernick vs. the N.F.L.: A Primer on His Collusion Case. The article examines Kaepernick case against the NFL and the league "black-listing" him, and not the [seeming] transgressions of the government against him.
united-states us-constitution free-speech
asked 1 hour ago
jww
1367
New contributor
jww is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I've been casually following the NFL player protests against injustice in modern America. Often the controversy is centered around players like Colin Kaepernick, whose careers seems to be over even though he was a [valuable] franchise player and whose [performance] stats seemed to be increasing each season.
The press seems to regularly report in articles like Colin Kaepernick Is Not Going Away:
[Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones] Jones is the most outspoken owner
to oppose the protests, but he speaks for more than a few of his
colleagues. He has also donated to President Trump, who has frequently
attacked the owners for not firing players who protest and who
publicly praised Jones for his hard-line stance.
How can the president actively attack a person who is peaceably protesting and exercising their right to free speech; and encouraging (coercing?) others into abridging those rights?
I understand folks like Kaepernick have no protections from corporate America; but the rights and protections from government are guaranteed in the Constitution.
A related article that some may want to read is Kaepernick vs. the N.F.L.: A Primer on His Collusion Case. The article examines Kaepernick case against the NFL and the league "black-listing" him, and not the [seeming] transgressions of the government against him.
united-states us-constitution free-speech
asked 1 hour ago
jww
1367
New contributor
jww is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
2
The President has the same freedom of speech as the rest of America, it doesn't violate constitutional rights to "attack" a person for peaceful protest. Just like your "Uncle Bob" yelling at and berating players/coaches/owners doesn't violate constitutional rights. If the president were to make an order saying "any player who kneels for the national anthem shall be jailed", that would be a rights violation.
– Ron Beyer
1 hour ago
Thanks @Ron. Correct me if I am wrong, but Trump is is never "off the clock", he is the number one spokesperson of the US government, when he speaks he sets policies, and he has unconditional immunity when he is in office. You seem to be arguing he can use his position as both a sword and a shield. Are presidents protected that way?
– jww
1 hour ago
3
"when he speaks he sets policies" No, absolutely not. He does not set domestic policy by speaking but he may be influencing public opinion just because of being in a position of power... "and he has unconditional immunity when he is in office" Again, absolutely not. The president is (nearly) just as subject to civil/criminal penalties as the rest of us, and there are procedures for in place to enforce those against the president. Presidents are not given "unconditional immunity", this is called impeachment and is the start to a criminal or civil trial of a sitting president.
– Ron Beyer
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I've been casually following the NFL player protests against injustice in modern America. Often the controversy is centered around players like Colin Kaepernick, whose careers seems to be over even though he was a [valuable] franchise player and whose [performance] stats seemed to be increasing each season.
The press seems to regularly report in articles like Colin Kaepernick Is Not Going Away:
[Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones] Jones is the most outspoken owner
to oppose the protests, but he speaks for more than a few of his
colleagues. He has also donated to President Trump, who has frequently
attacked the owners for not firing players who protest and who
publicly praised Jones for his hard-line stance.
How can the president actively attack a person who is peaceably protesting and exercising their right to free speech; and encouraging (coercing?) others into abridging those rights?
I understand folks like Kaepernick have no protections from corporate America; but the rights and protections from government are guaranteed in the Constitution.
A related article that some may want to read is Kaepernick vs. the N.F.L.: A Primer on His Collusion Case. The article examines Kaepernick case against the NFL and the league "black-listing" him, and not the [seeming] transgressions of the government against him.
united-states us-constitution free-speech
asked 1 hour ago
jww
1367
New contributor
jww is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I've been casually following the NFL player protests against injustice in modern America. Often the controversy is centered around players like Colin Kaepernick, whose careers seems to be over even though he was a [valuable] franchise player and whose [performance] stats seemed to be increasing each season.
The press seems to regularly report in articles like Colin Kaepernick Is Not Going Away:
[Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones] Jones is the most outspoken owner
to oppose the protests, but he speaks for more than a few of his
colleagues. He has also donated to President Trump, who has frequently
attacked the owners for not firing players who protest and who
publicly praised Jones for his hard-line stance.
How can the president actively attack a person who is peaceably protesting and exercising their right to free speech; and encouraging (coercing?) others into abridging those rights?
I understand folks like Kaepernick have no protections from corporate America; but the rights and protections from government are guaranteed in the Constitution.
A related article that some may want to read is Kaepernick vs. the N.F.L.: A Primer on His Collusion Case. The article examines Kaepernick case against the NFL and the league "black-listing" him, and not the [seeming] transgressions of the government against him.
united-states us-constitution free-speech
united-states us-constitution free-speech
asked 1 hour ago
jww
1367
New contributor
jww is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 1 hour ago
jww
1367
New contributor
jww is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 1 hour ago
asked 1 hour ago
jww
1367
New contributor
jww is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 1 hour ago
jww
1367
asked 1 hour ago
jww
1367
1367
New contributor
jww is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
jww is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
jww is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
2
The President has the same freedom of speech as the rest of America, it doesn't violate constitutional rights to "attack" a person for peaceful protest. Just like your "Uncle Bob" yelling at and berating players/coaches/owners doesn't violate constitutional rights. If the president were to make an order saying "any player who kneels for the national anthem shall be jailed", that would be a rights violation.
– Ron Beyer
1 hour ago
Thanks @Ron. Correct me if I am wrong, but Trump is is never "off the clock", he is the number one spokesperson of the US government, when he speaks he sets policies, and he has unconditional immunity when he is in office. You seem to be arguing he can use his position as both a sword and a shield. Are presidents protected that way?
– jww
1 hour ago
3
"when he speaks he sets policies" No, absolutely not. He does not set domestic policy by speaking but he may be influencing public opinion just because of being in a position of power... "and he has unconditional immunity when he is in office" Again, absolutely not. The president is (nearly) just as subject to civil/criminal penalties as the rest of us, and there are procedures for in place to enforce those against the president. Presidents are not given "unconditional immunity", this is called impeachment and is the start to a criminal or civil trial of a sitting president.
– Ron Beyer
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
2
The President has the same freedom of speech as the rest of America, it doesn't violate constitutional rights to "attack" a person for peaceful protest. Just like your "Uncle Bob" yelling at and berating players/coaches/owners doesn't violate constitutional rights. If the president were to make an order saying "any player who kneels for the national anthem shall be jailed", that would be a rights violation.
– Ron Beyer
1 hour ago
Thanks @Ron. Correct me if I am wrong, but Trump is is never "off the clock", he is the number one spokesperson of the US government, when he speaks he sets policies, and he has unconditional immunity when he is in office. You seem to be arguing he can use his position as both a sword and a shield. Are presidents protected that way?
– jww
1 hour ago
3
"when he speaks he sets policies" No, absolutely not. He does not set domestic policy by speaking but he may be influencing public opinion just because of being in a position of power... "and he has unconditional immunity when he is in office" Again, absolutely not. The president is (nearly) just as subject to civil/criminal penalties as the rest of us, and there are procedures for in place to enforce those against the president. Presidents are not given "unconditional immunity", this is called impeachment and is the start to a criminal or civil trial of a sitting president.
– Ron Beyer
1 hour ago
2
2
The President has the same freedom of speech as the rest of America, it doesn't violate constitutional rights to "attack" a person for peaceful protest. Just like your "Uncle Bob" yelling at and berating players/coaches/owners doesn't violate constitutional rights. If the president were to make an order saying "any player who kneels for the national anthem shall be jailed", that would be a rights violation.
– Ron Beyer
1 hour ago
The President has the same freedom of speech as the rest of America, it doesn't violate constitutional rights to "attack" a person for peaceful protest. Just like your "Uncle Bob" yelling at and berating players/coaches/owners doesn't violate constitutional rights. If the president were to make an order saying "any player who kneels for the national anthem shall be jailed", that would be a rights violation.
– Ron Beyer
1 hour ago
Thanks @Ron. Correct me if I am wrong, but Trump is is never "off the clock", he is the number one spokesperson of the US government, when he speaks he sets policies, and he has unconditional immunity when he is in office. You seem to be arguing he can use his position as both a sword and a shield. Are presidents protected that way?
– jww
1 hour ago
Thanks @Ron. Correct me if I am wrong, but Trump is is never "off the clock", he is the number one spokesperson of the US government, when he speaks he sets policies, and he has unconditional immunity when he is in office. You seem to be arguing he can use his position as both a sword and a shield. Are presidents protected that way?
– jww
1 hour ago
3
3
"when he speaks he sets policies" No, absolutely not. He does not set domestic policy by speaking but he may be influencing public opinion just because of being in a position of power... "and he has unconditional immunity when he is in office" Again, absolutely not. The president is (nearly) just as subject to civil/criminal penalties as the rest of us, and there are procedures for in place to enforce those against the president. Presidents are not given "unconditional immunity", this is called impeachment and is the start to a criminal or civil trial of a sitting president.
– Ron Beyer
1 hour ago
"when he speaks he sets policies" No, absolutely not. He does not set domestic policy by speaking but he may be influencing public opinion just because of being in a position of power... "and he has unconditional immunity when he is in office" Again, absolutely not. The president is (nearly) just as subject to civil/criminal penalties as the rest of us, and there are procedures for in place to enforce those against the president. Presidents are not given "unconditional immunity", this is called impeachment and is the start to a criminal or civil trial of a sitting president.
– Ron Beyer
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
The comments have already pointed out that the President of the United States is still a citizen, and all of the rights of a citizen are still protected for them. Additionally, the Administration is allowed to take policy positions which are antagonistic to a person or group practicing their rights legally. To give a different example, the President and his administration may denounce the position of a group of Neo-Nazis marching legally. So, any argument that the President is acting in an official capacity while making antagonistic comments also probably fails, as the Administration is allowed to take a position on any issue they deem worth taking a stand on.
answered 1 hour ago
IllusiveBrian
27217
Thanks @Brian .
– jww
1 hour ago
1
More succinctly, the President's actions so far are just talk.
– ohwilleke
53 mins ago
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
The comments have already pointed out that the President of the United States is still a citizen, and all of the rights of a citizen are still protected for them. Additionally, the Administration is allowed to take policy positions which are antagonistic to a person or group practicing their rights legally. To give a different example, the President and his administration may denounce the position of a group of Neo-Nazis marching legally. So, any argument that the President is acting in an official capacity while making antagonistic comments also probably fails, as the Administration is allowed to take a position on any issue they deem worth taking a stand on.
answered 1 hour ago
IllusiveBrian
27217
Thanks @Brian .
– jww
1 hour ago
1
More succinctly, the President's actions so far are just talk.
– ohwilleke
53 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
The comments have already pointed out that the President of the United States is still a citizen, and all of the rights of a citizen are still protected for them. Additionally, the Administration is allowed to take policy positions which are antagonistic to a person or group practicing their rights legally. To give a different example, the President and his administration may denounce the position of a group of Neo-Nazis marching legally. So, any argument that the President is acting in an official capacity while making antagonistic comments also probably fails, as the Administration is allowed to take a position on any issue they deem worth taking a stand on.
answered 1 hour ago
IllusiveBrian
27217
Thanks @Brian .
– jww
1 hour ago
1
More succinctly, the President's actions so far are just talk.
– ohwilleke
53 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
The comments have already pointed out that the President of the United States is still a citizen, and all of the rights of a citizen are still protected for them. Additionally, the Administration is allowed to take policy positions which are antagonistic to a person or group practicing their rights legally. To give a different example, the President and his administration may denounce the position of a group of Neo-Nazis marching legally. So, any argument that the President is acting in an official capacity while making antagonistic comments also probably fails, as the Administration is allowed to take a position on any issue they deem worth taking a stand on.
answered 1 hour ago
IllusiveBrian
27217
The comments have already pointed out that the President of the United States is still a citizen, and all of the rights of a citizen are still protected for them. Additionally, the Administration is allowed to take policy positions which are antagonistic to a person or group practicing their rights legally. To give a different example, the President and his administration may denounce the position of a group of Neo-Nazis marching legally. So, any argument that the President is acting in an official capacity while making antagonistic comments also probably fails, as the Administration is allowed to take a position on any issue they deem worth taking a stand on.
answered 1 hour ago
IllusiveBrian
27217
edited 1 hour ago
answered 1 hour ago
IllusiveBrian
27217
answered 1 hour ago
IllusiveBrian
27217
answered 1 hour ago
IllusiveBrian
27217
27217
Thanks @Brian .
– jww
1 hour ago
1
More succinctly, the President's actions so far are just talk.
– ohwilleke
53 mins ago
add a comment |Â
Thanks @Brian .
– jww
1 hour ago
1
More succinctly, the President's actions so far are just talk.
– ohwilleke
53 mins ago
Thanks @Brian .
– jww
1 hour ago
Thanks @Brian .
– jww
1 hour ago
1
1
More succinctly, the President's actions so far are just talk.
– ohwilleke
53 mins ago
More succinctly, the President's actions so far are just talk.
– ohwilleke
53 mins ago
add a comment |Â
jww is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
jww is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
jww is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
jww is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f31873%2fhow-is-trumps-actions-against-nfl-protesters-not-a-violation-of-constitutional-r%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
2
The President has the same freedom of speech as the rest of America, it doesn't violate constitutional rights to "attack" a person for peaceful protest. Just like your "Uncle Bob" yelling at and berating players/coaches/owners doesn't violate constitutional rights. If the president were to make an order saying "any player who kneels for the national anthem shall be jailed", that would be a rights violation.
– Ron Beyer
1 hour ago
Thanks @Ron. Correct me if I am wrong, but Trump is is never "off the clock", he is the number one spokesperson of the US government, when he speaks he sets policies, and he has unconditional immunity when he is in office. You seem to be arguing he can use his position as both a sword and a shield. Are presidents protected that way?
– jww
1 hour ago
3
"when he speaks he sets policies" No, absolutely not. He does not set domestic policy by speaking but he may be influencing public opinion just because of being in a position of power... "and he has unconditional immunity when he is in office" Again, absolutely not. The president is (nearly) just as subject to civil/criminal penalties as the rest of us, and there are procedures for in place to enforce those against the president. Presidents are not given "unconditional immunity", this is called impeachment and is the start to a criminal or civil trial of a sitting president.
– Ron Beyer
1 hour ago