Trump is catching flack for tweeting that flag burning should be against the law and that those who do should suffer a penalty, for example a year in jail or loss of citizenship. Of course the idea that those who burn the flag should be subject to severe criminal penalties would have been non-controversial throughout the vast majority of the history of the Republic. It was not until Texas v. Johnson (1989), in a 5-4 decision that crossed ideological lines, that the Supreme Court found unconstitutional all anti-flag desecration laws. The decision was a particularly silly example of a trend in the Court of confusing conduct and speech, and thus finding an action worthy of first amendment protection. The lunacy of this, is that almost all conduct carries a speech component. The Court picks and chooses the conduct it wishes to enshroud in constitutional protection. Walking nude in public for example can be a form of protest. Indeed, a group of Quaker women in colonial Boston engaged in a naked promenade to protest Puritan persecution of the Society of Friends. Yet, the Supreme Court has declined to strike down laws that ban public nudity. The Court thus designates itself the arbiter of what conduct should have legal protection. I prefer that such a role be granted to legislatures. Legislators can be voted out. Supreme Court justices are frequently with us for generations as they grow old handing down the law to we lesser breeds. Besides, it is easy to change the law, and hard to amend the Constitution, unless one happens to be one of our nine Platonic Guardians. The Supreme Court, in effect, swiftly amends the Constitution each year by majority vote of the Court and the rest of us are left to deal with freedoms often infringed as a result, especially our most important freedom: the right to rule ourselves.