James Sample Slams Trump Over Flag Burning Ban: ‘It’s Unconstitutional,’ the Court Left Zero Ambiguity in 1989

RUSH EXCERPT:
SAMPLE: "The court left zero ambiguity in 1989. They left zero ambiguity. Again the following year, in 1990. And Chris, I think the quote that we just put up on the screen with the highlighted portion, you talk about the highlighted portion speaking to the moment in time where we find ourselves. When you start with the you start an executive order, a paragraph in an executive order drafted presumably by members of olc in the White House with notwithstanding Lawyers Right lawyers notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s rulings on First Amendment protections, is your introductory clause. We’ve lost the plot. We have lost the plot. And the way that I would phrase this in the most simple terms, not to be condescending or anything like that to viewers, but think about schoolhouse rock civics, right? So how does a bill become a law? Bicameral passage plus presentment and signature by the president. Right. An executive order. There’s a place for executive orders. But on the food chain of law, executive orders are underneath statutes. Statutes have been tried multiple times, including you referenced 1989, in Texas v Johnson, which which is one of the cases that struck down a flag burning anti flag burning statute. The the the apex predator on the food chain of law is the Constitution. So if statutes which are above the executive orders on the food chain are being struck down as unconstitutional by the apex predator, the Constitution, an executive order trying to do the very thing that the statute could not do is unconstitutional."