Hillary Clinton co-sponsors anti-flag burning law

[Emsworth]

The Supreme Court has already ruled flag-burning laws unconstitutional on two separate occasions. The attempt to pass a flag-burning law yet again shows disrespect not only for the Court, but also for the freedom of speech and the First Amendment.

[Emsworth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So yes, I think it would survive a constitutional test.

Except that there is no enumerated power to forbid flag burning, even when it is intimidating or involves another person's flag. As far as federal property or D.C. is concerned, the law is constitutional; everywhere else, however, it is not.

[Emsworth]

A state law banning "intimidating" flag burning would be constitutional, but a federal law would not be.

Correct.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Constitution does not recognize anything special about the flag. The mere fact that the flag is involved does not expand the federal government's powers. Banning "intimidation," whether by burning a flag or by doing anything else, is still subject only to state regulation.