This idea to strip citizenship faded away due to the Supreme Courts ruling. President Donald J. Trump revived the idea to strip the citizenship of Americans accused of terrorism and took it much further than the extreme case of a suspected terrorist. He proposed that Americans who protest government policies by burning the flag could lose their citizenship - meaning, among other things, their right to vote - as punishment.andquot;Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jailandquot;, wrote the next President of the free world on a social media site.Trump wrote the post shortly after Fox News aired a segment about a dispute at Hampshire College in Massachusetts, which removed the American flag from its campus flagpole after protests over his election victory; during one demonstration, someone burned a flag.Even if Mr. Trump were to persuade Congress to enact a criminal statute, a dramatic shift in the balance between government power and individual freedom will occur; anyone convicted and sentenced could point to clear Supreme Court precedents to make the case for a constitutional violation.The obstacles include the precedent that the Constitution does not allow the government to expatriate Americans against their will, through a landmark 1967 case, Afroyim v. Rusk. They also include a 1989 decision, Texas v. Johnson, in which the court struck down criminal laws banning flag burning, ruling that the act was a form of political expression protected by the First Amendment.David D. Cole, a Georgetown University law professor who co-wrote the Supreme Court briefs in the flag-burning case and who is about to become national legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union, said he wondered if Mr. Trumps strategy was to goad people into burning flags in order to andquot;marginalizeandquot; the protests against him.But he also called Mr. Trumps proposal andquot;beyond the pale.andquot;andquot;To me it is deeply troubling that the person who is going to become the most powerful government official in the United States doesnt understand the first thing about the First Amendment - which is you cant punish people for expressing dissent - and also doesnt seem to understand that citizenship is a constitutional right that cannot be taken away, period, under any circumstances,andquot; he said.Q. Suppose in the US Congress a bill is introduced to expatriate Americans accused and suspected of terrorism as well as burning the flag. This bill was fiercely opposed by the house during its introduction.Based on the authors reasoning, what can be the justification for the oppositiona)The opposition is justified because of the nature of the American Judiciary.b)The opposition is justified because of the protests in the countryc)The opposition is justified because of the failure of the White house to persuade the Congress to pass such a billd)The opposition is justified because there exists a past ruling by the premier court of the country.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

Class 12 Exam > Class 12 Questions > This idea to strip citizenship faded away due...

Join the Discussion on the App

This idea to strip citizenship faded away due to the Supreme Court's ruling. President Donald J. Trump revived the idea to strip the citizenship of Americans accused of terrorism and took it much further than the extreme case of a suspected terrorist. He proposed that Americans who protest government policies by burning the flag could lose their citizenship - meaning, among other things, their right to vote - as punishment.

"Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail", wrote the next President of the free world on a social media site.

Trump wrote the post shortly after Fox News aired a segment about a dispute at Hampshire College in Massachusetts, which removed the American flag from its campus flagpole after protests over his election victory; during one demonstration, someone burned a flag.

Even if Mr. Trump were to persuade Congress to enact a criminal statute, a dramatic shift in the balance between government power and individual freedom will occur; anyone convicted and sentenced could point to clear Supreme Court precedents to make the case for a constitutional violation.

The obstacles include the precedent that the Constitution does not allow the government to expatriate Americans against their will, through a landmark 1967 case, Afroyim v. Rusk. They also include a 1989 decision, Texas v. Johnson, in which the court struck down criminal laws banning flag burning, ruling that the act was a form of political expression protected by the First Amendment.

David D. Cole, a Georgetown University law professor who co-wrote the Supreme Court briefs in the flag-burning case and who is about to become national legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union, said he wondered if Mr. Trump's strategy was to goad people into burning flags in order to "marginalize" the protests against him.

But he also called Mr. Trump's proposal "beyond the pale."

"To me it is deeply troubling that the person who is going to become the most powerful government official in the United States doesn't understand the first thing about the First Amendment - which is you can't punish people for expressing dissent - and also doesn't seem to understand that citizenship is a constitutional right that cannot be taken away, period, under any circumstances," he said.

Q. Suppose in the US Congress a bill is introduced to expatriate Americans accused and suspected of terrorism as well as burning the flag. This bill was fiercely opposed by the house during its introduction.Based on the author's reasoning, what can be the justification for the opposition

a)
The opposition is justified because of the nature of the American Judiciary.
b)
The opposition is justified because of the protests in the country
c)
The opposition is justified because of the failure of the White house to persuade the Congress to pass such a bill
d)
The opposition is justified because there exists a past ruling by the premier court of the country.

Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

FREE This question is part of

Languages: Mock Test - 9

Attempt Test

Attempt this Test

Most Upvoted Answer

This idea to strip citizenship faded away due to the Supreme Courts ru...

Refer to the first paragraph's first line. It clearly mentions option d as the reason.

View all answers Start learning for free

< Previous Question Next Question >

Explore Courses for Class 12 exam

Similar Class 12 Doubts

This idea to strip citizenship faded away due to the Supreme Courts ruling. President Donald J. Trump revived the idea to strip the citizenship of Americans accused of terrorism and took it much further than the extreme case of a suspected terrorist. He proposed that Americans who protest government policies by burning the flag could lose their citizenship - meaning, among other things, their right to vote - as punishment."Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail", wrote the next President of the free world on a social media site.Trump wrote the post shortly after Fox News aired a segment about a dispute at Hampshire College in Massachusetts, which removed the American flag from its campus flagpole after protests over his election victory; during one demonstration, someone burned a flag.Even if Mr. Trump were to persuade Congress to enact a criminal statute, a dramatic shift in the balance between government power and individual freedom will occur; anyone convicted and sentenced could point to clear Supreme Court precedents to make the case for a constitutional violation.The obstacles include the precedent that the Constitution does not allow the government to expatriate Americans against their will, through a landmark 1967 case, Afroyim v. Rusk. They also include a 1989 decision, Texas v. Johnson, in which the court struck down criminal laws banning flag burning, ruling that the act was a form of political expression protected by the First Amendment.David D. Cole, a Georgetown University law professor who co-wrote the Supreme Court briefs in the flag-burning case and who is about to become national legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union, said he wondered if Mr. Trumps strategy was to goad people into burning flags in order to "marginalize" the protests against him.But he also called Mr. Trumps proposal "beyond the pale.""To me it is deeply troubling that the person who is going to become the most powerful government official in the United States doesnt understand the first thing about the First Amendment - which is you cant punish people for expressing dissent - and also doesnt seem to understand that citizenship is a constitutional right that cannot be taken away, period, under any circumstances," he said.Q. Johnson, a member of the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade, participated in a political demonstration against the Administration and certain companies. Johnson marched through the streets, shouted chants, destroyed property, broke windows and threw trash, beer cans, soiled diapers and various other items, and held signs outside the offices of several companies. When Johnson reached the City Hall, he poured kerosene on the flag and set it on fire. Trump administration passed an order to strip his citizenship. Johnson challenged the order. In such a case, based on the authors reasoning, what is the most likely outcome of the case

View answer

This idea to strip citizenship faded away due to the Supreme Courts ruling. President Donald J. Trump revived the idea to strip the citizenship of Americans accused of terrorism and took it much further than the extreme case of a suspected terrorist. He proposed that Americans who protest government policies by burning the flag could lose their citizenship - meaning, among other things, their right to vote - as punishment."Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail", wrote the next President of the free world on a social media site.Trump wrote the post shortly after Fox News aired a segment about a dispute at Hampshire College in Massachusetts, which removed the American flag from its campus flagpole after protests over his election victory; during one demonstration, someone burned a flag.Even if Mr. Trump were to persuade Congress to enact a criminal statute, a dramatic shift in the balance between government power and individual freedom will occur; anyone convicted and sentenced could point to clear Supreme Court precedents to make the case for a constitutional violation.The obstacles include the precedent that the Constitution does not allow the government to expatriate Americans against their will, through a landmark 1967 case, Afroyim v. Rusk. They also include a 1989 decision, Texas v. Johnson, in which the court struck down criminal laws banning flag burning, ruling that the act was a form of political expression protected by the First Amendment.David D. Cole, a Georgetown University law professor who co-wrote the Supreme Court briefs in the flag-burning case and who is about to become national legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union, said he wondered if Mr. Trumps strategy was to goad people into burning flags in order to "marginalize" the protests against him.But he also called Mr. Trumps proposal "beyond the pale.""To me it is deeply troubling that the person who is going to become the most powerful government official in the United States doesnt understand the first thing about the First Amendment - which is you cant punish people for expressing dissent - and also doesnt seem to understand that citizenship is a constitutional right that cannot be taken away, period, under any circumstances," he said.Q. United States established a new vetting measure to keep radical Islamic terrorists out of the United States of America. In pursuance of the same an executive order is signed to remove Americans of Iranian, Syrian, Yemeni and Libyan Origin. If this is true, then, based on the authors reasoning and precedents cited in the passage above, will the order stand the scrutiny of law

View answer

This idea to strip citizenship faded away due to the Supreme Courts ruling. President Donald J. Trump revived the idea to strip the citizenship of Americans accused of terrorism and took it much further than the extreme case of a suspected terrorist. He proposed that Americans who protest government policies by burning the flag could lose their citizenship - meaning, among other things, their right to vote - as punishment."Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail", wrote the next President of the free world on a social media site.Trump wrote the post shortly after Fox News aired a segment about a dispute at Hampshire College in Massachusetts, which removed the American flag from its campus flagpole after protests over his election victory; during one demonstration, someone burned a flag.Even if Mr. Trump were to persuade Congress to enact a criminal statute, a dramatic shift in the balance between government power and individual freedom will occur; anyone convicted and sentenced could point to clear Supreme Court precedents to make the case for a constitutional violation.The obstacles include the precedent that the Constitution does not allow the government to expatriate Americans against their will, through a landmark 1967 case, Afroyim v. Rusk. They also include a 1989 decision, Texas v. Johnson, in which the court struck down criminal laws banning flag burning, ruling that the act was a form of political expression protected by the First Amendment.David D. Cole, a Georgetown University law professor who co-wrote the Supreme Court briefs in the flag-burning case and who is about to become national legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union, said he wondered if Mr. Trumps strategy was to goad people into burning flags in order to "marginalize" the protests against him.But he also called Mr. Trumps proposal "beyond the pale.""To me it is deeply troubling that the person who is going to become the most powerful government official in the United States doesnt understand the first thing about the First Amendment - which is you cant punish people for expressing dissent - and also doesnt seem to understand that citizenship is a constitutional right that cannot be taken away, period, under any circumstances," he said.Q. Jinkal is a Joint Managing Director of a public limited company. He being in charge of the factory situated at USA was flying National Flag at the office premises of his factory. He was not allowed to do so by the Government officials on the ground that the same is impermissible under the Flag Code. Will the Right to fly the National Flag freely with respect and dignity saved within the meaning of First Amendment. Based on the authors interpretation which of the following is true.

View answer

This idea to strip citizenship faded away due to the Supreme Courts ruling. President Donald J. Trump revived the idea to strip the citizenship of Americans accused of terrorism and took it much further than the extreme case of a suspected terrorist. He proposed that Americans who protest government policies by burning the flag could lose their citizenship - meaning, among other things, their right to vote - as punishment."Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail", wrote the next President of the free world on a social media site.Trump wrote the post shortly after Fox News aired a segment about a dispute at Hampshire College in Massachusetts, which removed the American flag from its campus flagpole after protests over his election victory; during one demonstration, someone burned a flag.Even if Mr. Trump were to persuade Congress to enact a criminal statute, a dramatic shift in the balance between government power and individual freedom will occur; anyone convicted and sentenced could point to clear Supreme Court precedents to make the case for a constitutional violation.The obstacles include the precedent that the Constitution does not allow the government to expatriate Americans against their will, through a landmark 1967 case, Afroyim v. Rusk. They also include a 1989 decision, Texas v. Johnson, in which the court struck down criminal laws banning flag burning, ruling that the act was a form of political expression protected by the First Amendment.David D. Cole, a Georgetown University law professor who co-wrote the Supreme Court briefs in the flag-burning case and who is about to become national legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union, said he wondered if Mr. Trumps strategy was to goad people into burning flags in order to "marginalize" the protests against him.But he also called Mr. Trumps proposal "beyond the pale.""To me it is deeply troubling that the person who is going to become the most powerful government official in the United States doesnt understand the first thing about the First Amendment - which is you cant punish people for expressing dissent - and also doesnt seem to understand that citizenship is a constitutional right that cannot be taken away, period, under any circumstances," he said.Q. Which of the following views can be correctly attributed to the opinion of Mr. Trump regarding the flag burning

View answer

The Writ Jurisdiction of Supreme Court can be invoked under Article 32 of the Constitution for the violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Part – III of the Constitution. Any provision in any Constitution for Fundamental Rights is meaningless unless there are adequate safeguards to ensure enforcement of such provisions. Since the reality of such rights is tested only through the judiciary, the safeguards assume even more importance. In addition, enforcement also depends upon the degree of independence of the Judiciary and the availability of relevant instruments with the executive authority. Indian Constitution, like most of Western Constitutions, lays down certain provisions to ensure the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.However, Article 32 is referred to as the “Constitutional Remedy” for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. This provision itself has been included in the Fundamental Rights and hence it cannot be denied to any person. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar described Article 32 as the most important one, without which the Constitution would be reduced to nullity. It is also referred to as the heart and soul of the Constitution. By including Article 32 in the Fundamental Rights, the Supreme Court has been made the protector and guarantor of these Rights. An application made under Article 32 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court, cannot be refused on technical grounds. In addition to the prescribed five types of writs, the Supreme Court may pass any other appropriate order. Moreover, only the questions pertaining to the Fundamental Rights can be determined in proceedings against Article 32. Under Article 32, the Supreme Court may issue a Writ against any person or government within the territory of India. Where the infringement of a Fundamental Right has been established, the Supreme Court cannot refuse relief on the ground that the aggrieved person may have remedy before some other court or under the ordinary law.The relief can also not be denied on the ground that the disputed facts have to be investigated or some evidence has to be collected. Even if an aggrieved person has not asked for a particular Writ, the Supreme Court, after considering the facts and circumstances, may grant the appropriate Writ and may even modify it to suit the exigencies of the case. Normally, only the aggrieved person is allowed to move the Court. But it has been held by the Supreme Court that in social or public interest matters, any one may move the Court. A Public Interest Litigation can be filed before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution or before the High Court of a State under Article 226 of the Constitution under their respective Writ Jurisdictions.Q. The main purpose of the passage is to

View answer

This idea to strip citizenship faded away due to the Supreme Courts ruling. President Donald J. Trump revived the idea to strip the citizenship of Americans accused of terrorism and took it much further than the extreme case of a suspected terrorist. He proposed that Americans who protest government policies by burning the flag could lose their citizenship - meaning, among other things, their right to vote - as punishment."Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail", wrote the next President of the free world on a social media site.Trump wrote the post shortly after Fox News aired a segment about a dispute at Hampshire College in Massachusetts, which removed the American flag from its campus flagpole after protests over his election victory; during one demonstration, someone burned a flag.Even if Mr. Trump were to persuade Congress to enact a criminal statute, a dramatic shift in the balance between government power and individual freedom will occur; anyone convicted and sentenced could point to clear Supreme Court precedents to make the case for a constitutional violation.The obstacles include the precedent that the Constitution does not allow the government to expatriate Americans against their will, through a landmark 1967 case, Afroyim v. Rusk. They also include a 1989 decision, Texas v. Johnson, in which the court struck down criminal laws banning flag burning, ruling that the act was a form of political expression protected by the First Amendment.David D. Cole, a Georgetown University law professor who co-wrote the Supreme Court briefs in the flag-burning case and who is about to become national legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union, said he wondered if Mr. Trumps strategy was to goad people into burning flags in order to "marginalize" the protests against him.But he also called Mr. Trumps proposal "beyond the pale.""To me it is deeply troubling that the person who is going to become the most powerful government official in the United States doesnt understand the first thing about the First Amendment - which is you cant punish people for expressing dissent - and also doesnt seem to understand that citizenship is a constitutional right that cannot be taken away, period, under any circumstances," he said.Q. Suppose in the US Congress a bill is introduced to expatriate Americans accused and suspected of terrorism as well as burning the flag. This bill was fiercely opposed by the house during its introduction.Based on the authors reasoning, what can be the justification for the oppositiona)The opposition is justified because of the nature of the American Judiciary.b)The opposition is justified because of the protests in the countryc)The opposition is justified because of the failure of the White house to persuade the Congress to pass such a billd)The opposition is justified because there exists a past ruling by the premier court of the country.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
This idea to strip citizenship faded away due to the Supreme Courts ruling. President Donald J. Trump revived the idea to strip the citizenship of Americans accused of terrorism and took it much further than the extreme case of a suspected terrorist. He proposed that Americans who protest government policies by burning the flag could lose their citizenship - meaning, among other things, their right to vote - as punishment."Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail", wrote the next President of the free world on a social media site.Trump wrote the post shortly after Fox News aired a segment about a dispute at Hampshire College in Massachusetts, which removed the American flag from its campus flagpole after protests over his election victory; during one demonstration, someone burned a flag.Even if Mr. Trump were to persuade Congress to enact a criminal statute, a dramatic shift in the balance between government power and individual freedom will occur; anyone convicted and sentenced could point to clear Supreme Court precedents to make the case for a constitutional violation.The obstacles include the precedent that the Constitution does not allow the government to expatriate Americans against their will, through a landmark 1967 case, Afroyim v. Rusk. They also include a 1989 decision, Texas v. Johnson, in which the court struck down criminal laws banning flag burning, ruling that the act was a form of political expression protected by the First Amendment.David D. Cole, a Georgetown University law professor who co-wrote the Supreme Court briefs in the flag-burning case and who is about to become national legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union, said he wondered if Mr. Trumps strategy was to goad people into burning flags in order to "marginalize" the protests against him.But he also called Mr. Trumps proposal "beyond the pale.""To me it is deeply troubling that the person who is going to become the most powerful government official in the United States doesnt understand the first thing about the First Amendment - which is you cant punish people for expressing dissent - and also doesnt seem to understand that citizenship is a constitutional right that cannot be taken away, period, under any circumstances," he said.Q. Suppose in the US Congress a bill is introduced to expatriate Americans accused and suspected of terrorism as well as burning the flag. This bill was fiercely opposed by the house during its introduction.Based on the authors reasoning, what can be the justification for the oppositiona)The opposition is justified because of the nature of the American Judiciary.b)The opposition is justified because of the protests in the countryc)The opposition is justified because of the failure of the White house to persuade the Congress to pass such a billd)The opposition is justified because there exists a past ruling by the premier court of the country.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for Class 12 2024 is part of Class 12 preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the Class 12 exam syllabus. Information about This idea to strip citizenship faded away due to the Supreme Courts ruling. President Donald J. Trump revived the idea to strip the citizenship of Americans accused of terrorism and took it much further than the extreme case of a suspected terrorist. He proposed that Americans who protest government policies by burning the flag could lose their citizenship - meaning, among other things, their right to vote - as punishment."Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail", wrote the next President of the free world on a social media site.Trump wrote the post shortly after Fox News aired a segment about a dispute at Hampshire College in Massachusetts, which removed the American flag from its campus flagpole after protests over his election victory; during one demonstration, someone burned a flag.Even if Mr. Trump were to persuade Congress to enact a criminal statute, a dramatic shift in the balance between government power and individual freedom will occur; anyone convicted and sentenced could point to clear Supreme Court precedents to make the case for a constitutional violation.The obstacles include the precedent that the Constitution does not allow the government to expatriate Americans against their will, through a landmark 1967 case, Afroyim v. Rusk. They also include a 1989 decision, Texas v. Johnson, in which the court struck down criminal laws banning flag burning, ruling that the act was a form of political expression protected by the First Amendment.David D. Cole, a Georgetown University law professor who co-wrote the Supreme Court briefs in the flag-burning case and who is about to become national legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union, said he wondered if Mr. Trumps strategy was to goad people into burning flags in order to "marginalize" the protests against him.But he also called Mr. Trumps proposal "beyond the pale.""To me it is deeply troubling that the person who is going to become the most powerful government official in the United States doesnt understand the first thing about the First Amendment - which is you cant punish people for expressing dissent - and also doesnt seem to understand that citizenship is a constitutional right that cannot be taken away, period, under any circumstances," he said.Q. Suppose in the US Congress a bill is introduced to expatriate Americans accused and suspected of terrorism as well as burning the flag. This bill was fiercely opposed by the house during its introduction.Based on the authors reasoning, what can be the justification for the oppositiona)The opposition is justified because of the nature of the American Judiciary.b)The opposition is justified because of the protests in the countryc)The opposition is justified because of the failure of the White house to persuade the Congress to pass such a billd)The opposition is justified because there exists a past ruling by the premier court of the country.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for Class 12 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for This idea to strip citizenship faded away due to the Supreme Courts ruling. President Donald J. Trump revived the idea to strip the citizenship of Americans accused of terrorism and took it much further than the extreme case of a suspected terrorist. He proposed that Americans who protest government policies by burning the flag could lose their citizenship - meaning, among other things, their right to vote - as punishment."Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail", wrote the next President of the free world on a social media site.Trump wrote the post shortly after Fox News aired a segment about a dispute at Hampshire College in Massachusetts, which removed the American flag from its campus flagpole after protests over his election victory; during one demonstration, someone burned a flag.Even if Mr. Trump were to persuade Congress to enact a criminal statute, a dramatic shift in the balance between government power and individual freedom will occur; anyone convicted and sentenced could point to clear Supreme Court precedents to make the case for a constitutional violation.The obstacles include the precedent that the Constitution does not allow the government to expatriate Americans against their will, through a landmark 1967 case, Afroyim v. Rusk. They also include a 1989 decision, Texas v. Johnson, in which the court struck down criminal laws banning flag burning, ruling that the act was a form of political expression protected by the First Amendment.David D. Cole, a Georgetown University law professor who co-wrote the Supreme Court briefs in the flag-burning case and who is about to become national legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union, said he wondered if Mr. Trumps strategy was to goad people into burning flags in order to "marginalize" the protests against him.But he also called Mr. Trumps proposal "beyond the pale.""To me it is deeply troubling that the person who is going to become the most powerful government official in the United States doesnt understand the first thing about the First Amendment - which is you cant punish people for expressing dissent - and also doesnt seem to understand that citizenship is a constitutional right that cannot be taken away, period, under any circumstances," he said.Q. Suppose in the US Congress a bill is introduced to expatriate Americans accused and suspected of terrorism as well as burning the flag. This bill was fiercely opposed by the house during its introduction.Based on the authors reasoning, what can be the justification for the oppositiona)The opposition is justified because of the nature of the American Judiciary.b)The opposition is justified because of the protests in the countryc)The opposition is justified because of the failure of the White house to persuade the Congress to pass such a billd)The opposition is justified because there exists a past ruling by the premier court of the country.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for This idea to strip citizenship faded away due to the Supreme Courts ruling. President Donald J. Trump revived the idea to strip the citizenship of Americans accused of terrorism and took it much further than the extreme case of a suspected terrorist. He proposed that Americans who protest government policies by burning the flag could lose their citizenship - meaning, among other things, their right to vote - as punishment."Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail", wrote the next President of the free world on a social media site.Trump wrote the post shortly after Fox News aired a segment about a dispute at Hampshire College in Massachusetts, which removed the American flag from its campus flagpole after protests over his election victory; during one demonstration, someone burned a flag.Even if Mr. Trump were to persuade Congress to enact a criminal statute, a dramatic shift in the balance between government power and individual freedom will occur; anyone convicted and sentenced could point to clear Supreme Court precedents to make the case for a constitutional violation.The obstacles include the precedent that the Constitution does not allow the government to expatriate Americans against their will, through a landmark 1967 case, Afroyim v. Rusk. They also include a 1989 decision, Texas v. Johnson, in which the court struck down criminal laws banning flag burning, ruling that the act was a form of political expression protected by the First Amendment.David D. Cole, a Georgetown University law professor who co-wrote the Supreme Court briefs in the flag-burning case and who is about to become national legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union, said he wondered if Mr. Trumps strategy was to goad people into burning flags in order to "marginalize" the protests against him.But he also called Mr. Trumps proposal "beyond the pale.""To me it is deeply troubling that the person who is going to become the most powerful government official in the United States doesnt understand the first thing about the First Amendment - which is you cant punish people for expressing dissent - and also doesnt seem to understand that citizenship is a constitutional right that cannot be taken away, period, under any circumstances," he said.Q. Suppose in the US Congress a bill is introduced to expatriate Americans accused and suspected of terrorism as well as burning the flag. This bill was fiercely opposed by the house during its introduction.Based on the authors reasoning, what can be the justification for the oppositiona)The opposition is justified because of the nature of the American Judiciary.b)The opposition is justified because of the protests in the countryc)The opposition is justified because of the failure of the White house to persuade the Congress to pass such a billd)The opposition is justified because there exists a past ruling by the premier court of the country.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for Class 12. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for Class 12 Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of This idea to strip citizenship faded away due to the Supreme Courts ruling. President Donald J. Trump revived the idea to strip the citizenship of Americans accused of terrorism and took it much further than the extreme case of a suspected terrorist. He proposed that Americans who protest government policies by burning the flag could lose their citizenship - meaning, among other things, their right to vote - as punishment."Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail", wrote the next President of the free world on a social media site.Trump wrote the post shortly after Fox News aired a segment about a dispute at Hampshire College in Massachusetts, which removed the American flag from its campus flagpole after protests over his election victory; during one demonstration, someone burned a flag.Even if Mr. Trump were to persuade Congress to enact a criminal statute, a dramatic shift in the balance between government power and individual freedom will occur; anyone convicted and sentenced could point to clear Supreme Court precedents to make the case for a constitutional violation.The obstacles include the precedent that the Constitution does not allow the government to expatriate Americans against their will, through a landmark 1967 case, Afroyim v. Rusk. They also include a 1989 decision, Texas v. Johnson, in which the court struck down criminal laws banning flag burning, ruling that the act was a form of political expression protected by the First Amendment.David D. Cole, a Georgetown University law professor who co-wrote the Supreme Court briefs in the flag-burning case and who is about to become national legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union, said he wondered if Mr. Trumps strategy was to goad people into burning flags in order to "marginalize" the protests against him.But he also called Mr. Trumps proposal "beyond the pale.""To me it is deeply troubling that the person who is going to become the most powerful government official in the United States doesnt understand the first thing about the First Amendment - which is you cant punish people for expressing dissent - and also doesnt seem to understand that citizenship is a constitutional right that cannot be taken away, period, under any circumstances," he said.Q. Suppose in the US Congress a bill is introduced to expatriate Americans accused and suspected of terrorism as well as burning the flag. This bill was fiercely opposed by the house during its introduction.Based on the authors reasoning, what can be the justification for the oppositiona)The opposition is justified because of the nature of the American Judiciary.b)The opposition is justified because of the protests in the countryc)The opposition is justified because of the failure of the White house to persuade the Congress to pass such a billd)The opposition is justified because there exists a past ruling by the premier court of the country.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of This idea to strip citizenship faded away due to the Supreme Courts ruling. President Donald J. Trump revived the idea to strip the citizenship of Americans accused of terrorism and took it much further than the extreme case of a suspected terrorist. He proposed that Americans who protest government policies by burning the flag could lose their citizenship - meaning, among other things, their right to vote - as punishment."Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail", wrote the next President of the free world on a social media site.Trump wrote the post shortly after Fox News aired a segment about a dispute at Hampshire College in Massachusetts, which removed the American flag from its campus flagpole after protests over his election victory; during one demonstration, someone burned a flag.Even if Mr. Trump were to persuade Congress to enact a criminal statute, a dramatic shift in the balance between government power and individual freedom will occur; anyone convicted and sentenced could point to clear Supreme Court precedents to make the case for a constitutional violation.The obstacles include the precedent that the Constitution does not allow the government to expatriate Americans against their will, through a landmark 1967 case, Afroyim v. Rusk. They also include a 1989 decision, Texas v. Johnson, in which the court struck down criminal laws banning flag burning, ruling that the act was a form of political expression protected by the First Amendment.David D. Cole, a Georgetown University law professor who co-wrote the Supreme Court briefs in the flag-burning case and who is about to become national legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union, said he wondered if Mr. Trumps strategy was to goad people into burning flags in order to "marginalize" the protests against him.But he also called Mr. Trumps proposal "beyond the pale.""To me it is deeply troubling that the person who is going to become the most powerful government official in the United States doesnt understand the first thing about the First Amendment - which is you cant punish people for expressing dissent - and also doesnt seem to understand that citizenship is a constitutional right that cannot be taken away, period, under any circumstances," he said.Q. Suppose in the US Congress a bill is introduced to expatriate Americans accused and suspected of terrorism as well as burning the flag. This bill was fiercely opposed by the house during its introduction.Based on the authors reasoning, what can be the justification for the oppositiona)The opposition is justified because of the nature of the American Judiciary.b)The opposition is justified because of the protests in the countryc)The opposition is justified because of the failure of the White house to persuade the Congress to pass such a billd)The opposition is justified because there exists a past ruling by the premier court of the country.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for This idea to strip citizenship faded away due to the Supreme Courts ruling. President Donald J. Trump revived the idea to strip the citizenship of Americans accused of terrorism and took it much further than the extreme case of a suspected terrorist. He proposed that Americans who protest government policies by burning the flag could lose their citizenship - meaning, among other things, their right to vote - as punishment."Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail", wrote the next President of the free world on a social media site.Trump wrote the post shortly after Fox News aired a segment about a dispute at Hampshire College in Massachusetts, which removed the American flag from its campus flagpole after protests over his election victory; during one demonstration, someone burned a flag.Even if Mr. Trump were to persuade Congress to enact a criminal statute, a dramatic shift in the balance between government power and individual freedom will occur; anyone convicted and sentenced could point to clear Supreme Court precedents to make the case for a constitutional violation.The obstacles include the precedent that the Constitution does not allow the government to expatriate Americans against their will, through a landmark 1967 case, Afroyim v. Rusk. They also include a 1989 decision, Texas v. Johnson, in which the court struck down criminal laws banning flag burning, ruling that the act was a form of political expression protected by the First Amendment.David D. Cole, a Georgetown University law professor who co-wrote the Supreme Court briefs in the flag-burning case and who is about to become national legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union, said he wondered if Mr. Trumps strategy was to goad people into burning flags in order to "marginalize" the protests against him.But he also called Mr. Trumps proposal "beyond the pale.""To me it is deeply troubling that the person who is going to become the most powerful government official in the United States doesnt understand the first thing about the First Amendment - which is you cant punish people for expressing dissent - and also doesnt seem to understand that citizenship is a constitutional right that cannot be taken away, period, under any circumstances," he said.Q. Suppose in the US Congress a bill is introduced to expatriate Americans accused and suspected of terrorism as well as burning the flag. This bill was fiercely opposed by the house during its introduction.Based on the authors reasoning, what can be the justification for the oppositiona)The opposition is justified because of the nature of the American Judiciary.b)The opposition is justified because of the protests in the countryc)The opposition is justified because of the failure of the White house to persuade the Congress to pass such a billd)The opposition is justified because there exists a past ruling by the premier court of the country.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of This idea to strip citizenship faded away due to the Supreme Courts ruling. President Donald J. Trump revived the idea to strip the citizenship of Americans accused of terrorism and took it much further than the extreme case of a suspected terrorist. He proposed that Americans who protest government policies by burning the flag could lose their citizenship - meaning, among other things, their right to vote - as punishment."Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail", wrote the next President of the free world on a social media site.Trump wrote the post shortly after Fox News aired a segment about a dispute at Hampshire College in Massachusetts, which removed the American flag from its campus flagpole after protests over his election victory; during one demonstration, someone burned a flag.Even if Mr. Trump were to persuade Congress to enact a criminal statute, a dramatic shift in the balance between government power and individual freedom will occur; anyone convicted and sentenced could point to clear Supreme Court precedents to make the case for a constitutional violation.The obstacles include the precedent that the Constitution does not allow the government to expatriate Americans against their will, through a landmark 1967 case, Afroyim v. Rusk. They also include a 1989 decision, Texas v. Johnson, in which the court struck down criminal laws banning flag burning, ruling that the act was a form of political expression protected by the First Amendment.David D. Cole, a Georgetown University law professor who co-wrote the Supreme Court briefs in the flag-burning case and who is about to become national legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union, said he wondered if Mr. Trumps strategy was to goad people into burning flags in order to "marginalize" the protests against him.But he also called Mr. Trumps proposal "beyond the pale.""To me it is deeply troubling that the person who is going to become the most powerful government official in the United States doesnt understand the first thing about the First Amendment - which is you cant punish people for expressing dissent - and also doesnt seem to understand that citizenship is a constitutional right that cannot be taken away, period, under any circumstances," he said.Q. Suppose in the US Congress a bill is introduced to expatriate Americans accused and suspected of terrorism as well as burning the flag. This bill was fiercely opposed by the house during its introduction.Based on the authors reasoning, what can be the justification for the oppositiona)The opposition is justified because of the nature of the American Judiciary.b)The opposition is justified because of the protests in the countryc)The opposition is justified because of the failure of the White house to persuade the Congress to pass such a billd)The opposition is justified because there exists a past ruling by the premier court of the country.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice This idea to strip citizenship faded away due to the Supreme Courts ruling. President Donald J. Trump revived the idea to strip the citizenship of Americans accused of terrorism and took it much further than the extreme case of a suspected terrorist. He proposed that Americans who protest government policies by burning the flag could lose their citizenship - meaning, among other things, their right to vote - as punishment."Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail", wrote the next President of the free world on a social media site.Trump wrote the post shortly after Fox News aired a segment about a dispute at Hampshire College in Massachusetts, which removed the American flag from its campus flagpole after protests over his election victory; during one demonstration, someone burned a flag.Even if Mr. Trump were to persuade Congress to enact a criminal statute, a dramatic shift in the balance between government power and individual freedom will occur; anyone convicted and sentenced could point to clear Supreme Court precedents to make the case for a constitutional violation.The obstacles include the precedent that the Constitution does not allow the government to expatriate Americans against their will, through a landmark 1967 case, Afroyim v. Rusk. They also include a 1989 decision, Texas v. Johnson, in which the court struck down criminal laws banning flag burning, ruling that the act was a form of political expression protected by the First Amendment.David D. Cole, a Georgetown University law professor who co-wrote the Supreme Court briefs in the flag-burning case and who is about to become national legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union, said he wondered if Mr. Trumps strategy was to goad people into burning flags in order to "marginalize" the protests against him.But he also called Mr. Trumps proposal "beyond the pale.""To me it is deeply troubling that the person who is going to become the most powerful government official in the United States doesnt understand the first thing about the First Amendment - which is you cant punish people for expressing dissent - and also doesnt seem to understand that citizenship is a constitutional right that cannot be taken away, period, under any circumstances," he said.Q. Suppose in the US Congress a bill is introduced to expatriate Americans accused and suspected of terrorism as well as burning the flag. This bill was fiercely opposed by the house during its introduction.Based on the authors reasoning, what can be the justification for the oppositiona)The opposition is justified because of the nature of the American Judiciary.b)The opposition is justified because of the protests in the countryc)The opposition is justified because of the failure of the White house to persuade the Congress to pass such a billd)The opposition is justified because there exists a past ruling by the premier court of the country.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice Class 12 tests.

Explore Courses for Class 12 exam