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. 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:a)Executive order will not stand the scrutiny of law as it is inconsistent with the US Constitution and its fundamental structure.b)Executive order will not stand the scrutiny of law due to opposition in the US Congress.c)Executive order will not stand the scrutiny of law as the Constitution does not allow the government to expatriate Americans against their will, through a landmark verdict.d)Executive order will stand the scrutiny of law as per the First Amendment to the US Constitution.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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. 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:a)Executive order will not stand the scrutiny of law as it is inconsistent with the US Constitution and its fundamental structure.b)Executive order will not stand the scrutiny of law due to opposition in the US Congress.c)Executive order will not stand the scrutiny of law as the Constitution does not allow the government to expatriate Americans against their will, through a landmark verdict.d)Executive order will stand the scrutiny of law as per the First Amendment to the US Constitution.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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. 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:a)Executive order will not stand the scrutiny of law as it is inconsistent with the US Constitution and its fundamental structure.b)Executive order will not stand the scrutiny of law due to opposition in the US Congress.c)Executive order will not stand the scrutiny of law as the Constitution does not allow the government to expatriate Americans against their will, through a landmark verdict.d)Executive order will stand the scrutiny of law as per the First Amendment to the US Constitution.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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. 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:a)Executive order will not stand the scrutiny of law as it is inconsistent with the US Constitution and its fundamental structure.b)Executive order will not stand the scrutiny of law due to opposition in the US Congress.c)Executive order will not stand the scrutiny of law as the Constitution does not allow the government to expatriate Americans against their will, through a landmark verdict.d)Executive order will stand the scrutiny of law as per the First Amendment to the US Constitution.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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. 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:a)Executive order will not stand the scrutiny of law as it is inconsistent with the US Constitution and its fundamental structure.b)Executive order will not stand the scrutiny of law due to opposition in the US Congress.c)Executive order will not stand the scrutiny of law as the Constitution does not allow the government to expatriate Americans against their will, through a landmark verdict.d)Executive order will stand the scrutiny of law as per the First Amendment to the US Constitution.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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. 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:a)Executive order will not stand the scrutiny of law as it is inconsistent with the US Constitution and its fundamental structure.b)Executive order will not stand the scrutiny of law due to opposition in the US Congress.c)Executive order will not stand the scrutiny of law as the Constitution does not allow the government to expatriate Americans against their will, through a landmark verdict.d)Executive order will stand the scrutiny of law as per the First Amendment to the US Constitution.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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. 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:a)Executive order will not stand the scrutiny of law as it is inconsistent with the US Constitution and its fundamental structure.b)Executive order will not stand the scrutiny of law due to opposition in the US Congress.c)Executive order will not stand the scrutiny of law as the Constitution does not allow the government to expatriate Americans against their will, through a landmark verdict.d)Executive order will stand the scrutiny of law as per the First Amendment to the US Constitution.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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. 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:a)Executive order will not stand the scrutiny of law as it is inconsistent with the US Constitution and its fundamental structure.b)Executive order will not stand the scrutiny of law due to opposition in the US Congress.c)Executive order will not stand the scrutiny of law as the Constitution does not allow the government to expatriate Americans against their will, through a landmark verdict.d)Executive order will stand the scrutiny of law as per the First Amendment to the US Constitution.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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. 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:a)Executive order will not stand the scrutiny of law as it is inconsistent with the US Constitution and its fundamental structure.b)Executive order will not stand the scrutiny of law due to opposition in the US Congress.c)Executive order will not stand the scrutiny of law as the Constitution does not allow the government to expatriate Americans against their will, through a landmark verdict.d)Executive order will stand the scrutiny of law as per the First Amendment to the US Constitution.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice Class 12 tests.