Trump 'authorizing Full Force, if necessary' as military deploys to another US city

[UltraBudgie]

Ive never burned on, don’t believe I ever would, and don’t think I’d like most people who have… just not his place. And SCOTUS has decided that act is freedom of speech/expession.

The case that you're referencing is Texas v. Johnson. In that, the Court's decision contained a predicate that the record did not "reflect that the situation was potentially explosive":


https://dn790008.ca.archive.org/0/items/...cision.pdf

I believe Trump suspects that may no longer be the case in today's climate, and that the Court should revisit that opinion. The way he's phrasing things suggests that his lawyers have advised him that the Court may be convinced to reconsider. And that won't happen unless there's a case for them to hear.

They didn't have TikTok and YouTube in those days, acting as political amplifiers. Rallies then were more isolated events. Burn a flag now, and it is immediately recorded, broadcast and amplified nationwide, clipped and touted: a clear incitement. To not realize that such actions now constitute widespread provocation is naive.

[putnam6]

Thanks for the kind words!

Even if there ever is tone that I perceive, it’s not ever taken personally. People are allowed to be passionate and convicted. Ive had heated discussions with anyone worth conversing with. Hell, sometimes at work there are uncomfortable conversations. All good.

That said, the tweet in question in question was about the flag burning. Though, it was an executive order before the tweet I believe.

Ive never burned on, don’t believe I ever would, and don’t think I’d like most people who have… just not his place. And SCOTUS has decided that act is freedom of speech/expession.

Here's where I mostly agree with "freedom of speech" angle. 

But it can and will no doubt be challenged sooner or later,
likely funded by foreign monies... I digress,
eventually SCOTUS rules on its free speech.
Trump is rebuked, but in the interim, the next 6 months to 18 months ...

We turn down the heat and perhaps prevent some flag-burning-inspired ultra extreme right-wing nutter from taking out an ultra extreme left-wing purple-haired commie pinko bed-wetting flag-burning nutter, potentially sparking a larger and more damaging conflict.

That's my concern ask yourself honestly which scenario is more likely and more likely to occur earlier than the other.

Its sounds like you are already giving the Presidency to Vance...not guaranteed at all, especially if Trump is seen as too authoritarian 

Certainly Gavin and Democrats wouldn't use such authoritarian powers, wouldn't they likely repeal everyone of Trump's laws just like before

2 years of federally banned flag burning/over free speech
vs
less risk of the left and right taking pot shots at each other.

How many real American flags are you gonna want to burn in 6-18 months? 

You know you can still burn the flag's picture or burn Trump in effigy? 

AI assisted

I see merit in the "freedom of speech" perspective.

However, I believe this issue may face challenges in the near future, potentially influenced by external funding sources.

While I don’t want to stray too far from the point, eventually, the Supreme Court will address concerns surrounding free speech.

In the interim, it's important to acknowledge that Trump is experiencing some criticism. In the next six to eighteen months, we might benefit from lowering the temperature of political discourse to help prevent any extreme individuals from resorting to violence.

This could help us avoid unnecessary conflicts that may arise from heightened tensions.

It’s worth reflecting on which scenario seems more likely to unfold in the near future.

Additionally, I sense that there are assumptions about Vance's prospects for the presidency.

However, that outcome is not guaranteed, especially if Trump is viewed as overly authoritarian.

 

Can the Order Be Challenged?
Yes, the executive order can—and likely will—be challenged in court on multiple grounds. Free speech advocates, including the ACLU and Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), have already condemned it as an unconstitutional end-run around Supreme Court precedent. Here's a breakdown of potential challenges:


Path to Challenge:

• Immediate Actions: Injunctive relief via federal district courts (e.g., ACLU lawsuits). A recent example: An Army veteran was arrested for flag burning near the White House on signing day (August 25, 2025) under D.C. fire rules; his case could test selective enforcement.
  
• Appellate Route: Likely escalates to the Supreme Court, where the Trump administration hopes a conservative majority (including Trump appointees) might narrow Johnson or carve out exceptions for "incitement." However, even Scalia-era precedents make reversal unlikely without a constitutional amendment.
  
• Political Backlash: Polls show ~50% public support for banning flag burning, but legal experts across the spectrum (e.g., Cornell's G.S. Hans) dismiss it as a "non-problem" unlikely to withstand scrutiny.
  

In summary, while the order exploits legal loopholes to impose consequences indirectly, it is highly vulnerable to First Amendment challenges. It may deter some acts but could ultimately expand protections by highlighting enforcement abuses. If litigated, expect a swift Supreme Court review—potentially by mid-2026.

[CriticalStinker]

Here's where I mostly agree with "freedom of speech" angle. 

But it can and will no doubt be challenged sooner or later,
likely funded by foreign monies... I digress,
eventually SCOTUS rules on its free speech.
Trump is rebuked, but in the interim, the next 6 months to 18 months ...

We turn down the heat and perhaps prevent some flag-burning-inspired ultra extreme right-wing nutter from taking out an ultra extreme left-wing purple-haired commie pinko bed-wetting flag-burning nutter, potentially sparking a larger and more damaging conflict.

That's my concern ask yourself honestly which scenario is more likely and more likely to occur earlier than the other.

Its sounds like you are already giving the Presidency to Vance...not guaranteed at all, especially if Trump is seen as too authoritarian 

Certainly Gavin and Democrats wouldn't use such authoritarian powers, wouldn't they likely repeal everyone of Trump's laws just like before

2 years of federally banned flag burning/over free speech
vs
less risk of the left and right taking pot shots at each other.

How many real American flags are you gonna want to burn in 6-18 months? 

You know you can still burn the flag's picture or burn Trump in effigy? 

AI assisted
 

I understand the argument that it could prevent violence. But that would be a slippery slope.

A president could say the N word incites violence, and ban it. Then we could move to things that many people just agree is “disgusting” speech and ban that.

We understand and accept that with our rights to guns, there will be gun violence. 

So with speech, some speech will have people come to blows.

I don’t burn flags, I don’t say the N word. I will defend the right for people to do both. Having an amendment for free speech isn’t to protect speech we all like, it’s to protect the speech we dislike. No one will get mad if I say “I love food, food is so good”. But if I start talking about the societal impact of certain groups of people joining our society, things can get a little more dicey.

That said, there are ways to enact new laws. Way one is congress to pass a new law or amend an amendment (a few have been added over the years).

legislative power is held in that branch of the government. A president can’t make new laws, so the fact it was an executive order in itself is overreach on two counts against the constitution, both in that executive doesn’t have that constitutional power, and that it went against a SCOTUS ruled decision.

More troubling, this isn’t my interpretation that he’s going after freedom of speech. 
https://x.com/newshour/status/1976051368...zLwcRvUqtg

“We took the freedom of speech away, because that’s been through the courts, and the courts said you have freedom of speech but what has happened is when they burn the flag, it agitates and irritates crowds,” the president said during a White House roundtable discussion on antifa, the term used to describe the decentralized movement that includes far-left-leaning militant groups. “I’ve never seen anything like it, on both sides, and you end up with riots.”

So to your question, yes, he is an authoritarian president. He’s knowingly overstepping his powers, claiming to be above the constitution. That doesn’t mean he’s Hitler or Fascist. But I don’t think we can deny he is authoritarian anymore .

[putnam6]

I understand the argument that it could prevent violence. But that would be a slippery slope.

A president could say the N word incites violence, and ban it. Then we could move to things that many people just agree is “disgusting” speech and ban that.

We understand and accept that with our rights to guns, there will be gun violence. 

So with speech, some speech will have people come to blows.

I don’t burn flags, I don’t say the N word. I will defend the right for people to do both. Having an amendment for free speech isn’t to protect speech we all like, it’s to protect the speech we dislike. No one will get mad if I say “I love food, food is so good”. But if I start talking about the societal impact of certain groups of people joining our society, things can get a little more dicey.

That said, there are ways to enact new laws. Way one is congress to pass a new law or amend an amendment (a few have been added over the years).

legislative power is held in that branch of the government. A president can’t make new laws, so the fact it was an executive order in itself is overreach on two counts against the constitution, both in that executive doesn’t have that constitutional power, and that it went against a SCOTUS ruled decision.

More troubling, this isn’t my interpretation that he’s going after freedom of speech. 
https://x.com/newshour/status/1976051368...zLwcRvUqtg

“We took the freedom of speech away, because that’s been through the courts, and the courts said you have freedom of speech but what has happened is when they burn the flag, it agitates and irritates crowds,” the president said during a White House roundtable discussion on antifa, the term used to describe the decentralized movement that includes far-left-leaning militant groups. “I’ve never seen anything like it, on both sides, and you end up with riots.”

So to your question, yes, he is an authoritarian president. He’s knowingly overstepping his powers, claiming to be above the constitution. That doesn’t mean he’s Hitler or Fascist. But I don’t think we can deny he is authoritarian anymore .

FFS CS 

How many authoritarian presidents worldwide get slapped down by a district court judge's rulings...

roughly 1 injunction every 5.7 days 

AI assisted...

 
Make it friendly
 
Isn't it interesting how often district court judges stand up to authoritarian presidents around the world?

It turns out there’s roughly an injunction issued every 5.7 days!


 

Overview of Court Injunctions Against Trump's Second Term
As of October 9, 2025—approximately 262 days into Donald Trump's second term (inaugurated January 20, 2025)—federal district courts have issued at least 46 injunctions blocking or limiting executive actions by the Trump administration. This figure is drawn from litigation trackers and analyses by organizations like Just Security, the ACLU, and the Congressional Research Service (CRS), which monitor challenges to executive orders and policies. These injunctions primarily target high-profile initiatives such as ending birthright citizenship, curtailing sanctuary city funding, restricting transgender military service, freezing federal spending on diversity programs, and overhauling agencies like USAID via the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

[CriticalStinker]

FFS CS 

How many authoritarian presidents worldwide get slapped down by a district court judge's rulings...
 This means roughly 1 injunction every 5.7 days 

AI assisted...

 
Make it friendly
 
Isn't it interesting how often district court judges stand up to authoritarian presidents around the world?

It turns out there’s roughly an injunction issued every 5.7 days!
 

Authoritarian in this context is Authority vs Liberty. It’s why the compass has left, right, authoritarian, libertarian.

Using authority that isn’t yours fits that definition. The constitution says legislative can make laws, justice can interpret laws. He just did both. He even said in no uncertainty terms he knows ifs going after freedom of speech, and against a Supreme Court constitutional ruling.

For the record, all the presidents in my lifetime have been authoritarian as they’ve all clawed more federal and executive power for their seat. But he is proving to be the most brazen.

[UltraBudgie]

This is what I mean about the so-called right-wing being almost Democrats. You're both right. He's an authoritarian, albeit aspineless and weak ego-driven one. And you can't even admit that's a good thing! Do you even have any trust in this country? You're acting like you don't. The Constitution allow a lot of leeway. Use it!

Scared of being called Nazis. Bah! Hitler turned Germany into a powerful machine. He got things done. Truth. Ultimately he was horrible for Germany, because he was too ambitious and driven by a stupid idea of racial purity that always needed an ethnic scapegoat. So, suddenly any political government must spinelessly bow to the left because they're afraid of being called Hitler? Learn some history. You're being used.

Scared about free speech? Racial hate-baiting is stupid; virtue exists in all colours. Leave the dividing to the left. But you can't even say ****, even to mention to say how stupid banning "trigger words" is, a concept pushed by the very people who use race to divide all the time? The right has already lost free speech, they did as soon as they accepted the vapid idea of "hate speech" that the censorious left used to shut them up and cow them into silence.

So afraid of the label "Nationlism" that the idea of America First has to be something that seems to entirely focus on trade and the benefits of corporations—corporations that don't give a damn about America and happily shift labor and profits to any market that will give them a financial advantage. America first? Okay, how about stopping Google from laundering all their profits in Ireland? Or Apple from making all their shiny liberal-tech in Chinese sweatshops? Actually stop them, not just pay lip service to America and actually offer them bribes to deign to make things here! Yeah, some "Nationalism".

So yes Trump is an authoritarian. He's a preening, weak-kneed Democrat-turned-populist hypocrite of an authoritarian, but it's a start.

[putnam6]

Authoritarian in this context is Authority vs Liberty. It’s why the compass has left, right, authoritarian, libertarian.

Using authority that isn’t yours fits that definition. The constitution says legislative can make laws, justice can interpret laws. He just did both. He even said in no uncertainty terms he knows ifs going after freedom of speech, and against a Supreme Court constitutional ruling.

For the record, all the presidents in my lifetime have been authoritarian as they’ve all clawed more federal and executive power for their seat. But he is proving to be the most brazen.

My point it's ok to be concerned about the Constitutional ramifications down the road, I get it really I do



 For me personally, Im not likely to have a constitutional crisis in my personal life before I croak...hopefully 10 good years minimum 

However, immediately next week in Chicago real world tangible ramifications, we have the last and largest market of the year.

Pretty sure my family attending will be fine constitutionally, but physically, mentally, and financially, the Chicago protests have already haveslashed our confirmed appointments.

Few retailers want to fly into O'Hare or Midway and potentially get caught in protest BS, they just don't, especially our clientele, hell, we have to find them discounts in the best of times

The protests the other night marched right by the market center and hotel, so did the ones previously

But we have to go and pay for the trip regardless of a substantial amount, flights to and from Chicago, 3 hotel rooms, 5 days, 4 nights misc expenses... 

So, with a poorly attended market, we are screwed financially and lose money attending, and we will be spending more money chasing that lost business, so while being stressed financially and mentally already, and if the protests escalate and get violent, it could actually close the market altogether, which would be disastrous for our whole industry.

We will be fighting for every order till the end of the year.

It's why I groaned when I saw troops coming to the Windy City. Hopefully, it's peaceful for a few days beforehand. If it goes hot and business crashes, we are in a 10 grand hole, expenses paid, and if we get lousy traffic. 

  



At least during COVID, we didn't have to attend and pay for it.

[DBCowboy]

Why does anyone here who is anti-ICE want to have illegal criminals continue to rape and murder?

That's the point here, isn't it?

We know why the leftists want to abolish ICE.

We know that the Marxist commies was criminals to run free.

But every sane and normal person would like to see criminals locked up.

[UltraBudgie]

Wait, I thought you were a Marxist?

[putnam6]

Why does anyone here who is anti-ICE want to have illegal criminals continue to rape and murder?

That's the point here, isn't it?

We know why the leftists want to abolish ICE.

We know that the Marxist commies was criminals to run free.

But every sane and normal person would like to see criminals locked up.

Because apparently, that harsh reality is better to them than being on a POTENTIAL  constitutional slippery slope with an authoritarian orange Presidential boogeyman, because a few hundred National Guard are being deployed in criminal and protest hot spots. 

Oh that and burning the flag is a federal crime till it's overturned. We all know thats a major issue with citizens on the southside of the Windy City, they don't care about their crime-ridden streets as long as they can burn a flag in protest  

 Mind you, this is from one of the most intelligent and rational viewpoints from ATS.

Being able to protect the right to burn the flag is more important than getting dozens of illegal TD13 members off the streets of Chicago.