San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick knelt with his arms folded during the performance of the US national anthem during a pre-season game in San Diego on Thursday, continuing his protest against racial injustice and police brutality.
Kaepernick, 28, has pledged to continue sitting during the performance of “The Star Spangled Banner” before National Football League games, a move that has been both criticised and cheered by commentators.
He was met by heavy boos from the crowd during pre-game warm-ups at Qualcomm Stadium in San Diego, which is home to US Navy and Marine bases.
A banner in the crowd read: “You’re an American. Act like one.”
Is this all that important? The news is consumed with this story.
I don’t agree with the guy’s POV. However, it’s his right to protest. If his bosses fire him, they are on might shaky grounds constitutionally.
It seems to me that the people who are bellowing the loudest over his behavior are the very people who are flag-waving the hardest. There seems to be some sort of disconnect between the right to protest and all that flag waving.
I actually don’t care what he does. I don’t agree with him at all but I respect his right to protest and I respect him for standing up to all the guff he is taking.
Hats off to him for standing up for his beliefs. It’s easy to wave an American flag in a field full of American flag wavers. It’s not easy to take an unpopular position and stand up for that position (or in his case, kneel).
His bosses are private employers – they should be allowed to fire him per the terms of his contract, collective bargain, or if he’s at-will… at-will. There should be no constitutional issues between private parties, similar to the Huffington Post (which benefits from 1A) being able to fire a journalist who published a story questioning HRC’s health. Private employers can and do limit speech all the time.
Also, freedom of speech never meant or should mean freedom of consequences from that speech. Contesting what someone says – including very, very aggressively and vigorously – doesn’t take away that person’s right to protest. The flag – symbolically – protects both, from government, not from each other though (at least not verbally). He may feel uncomfortable. So be it. The public square can be a tough place.
All that said, I agree this is overblown (someone famous said something kind of stupid… happens a lot) as an issue.
Also, some of the issues he raises are important. The full transcript of his comments is worth reading.
http://www.espn.com/blog/san-francisco-49ers/post/_/id/18957/transcript-of-colin-kaepernicks-comments-about-sitting-during-national-anthem
He’s also bi-partisan. He lambasts Trump (which you’d expect), but he also obliquely criticizes Obama and directly nails HRC for email and corruption issues, and for calling blacks teens “super predators.” He’s not going easy on anyone.
What he nails that is 100% dead-on: “If that was any other person, you’d be in prison.” From Too Big to Jail, to Too Powerful to Remember, he’s frustrated with the bi-partisan two track system whereby the politically powerful and connected skate for behavior that would be punished with imprisonment for most Americans.
So we disregard the Constitution between private parties?
I think before he can be disciplined, there has to be some sort of rule or contractual establishment of the do’s and don’ts.
In most cases, yes, you can disregard the Constitution or Bill of Rights when you’re talking about private parties because it’s not material. The Bill of Rights was originally formulated as a limitation on federal power: “Congress shall make no law….”. When the Constitution was ratified, several states had religious tests for holding office. The 14th Amendment opened the door to incorporating those protections against the states as well (an ugly, piecemeal process). Some employment law echoes or partially protects similar things in employee/employer relationships, but it’s almost incidental.
His contract and the collective bargaining agreements in place for the NFL are the most material documents and spell out firing, what constitutes cause, etc, I expect.
Private parties contract all the time in ways that would be unconstitutional if it involved a state actor. HOA’s which limit property use or signs being displayed; employment agreements with non-disparagement clauses; personnel policies with random drug tests.
Then there are those rascally laws that private corporations cannot ignore like hiring based on race, ethnicity, religion, etc.
Even private entities cannot ignore the bedrock of our democracy.
@MoonHowler
Yes, those laws exist and bind private corporations, but it comes primarily from state and federal civil rights laws (CRA of ’64 is the key legislation, and that matters, it’s not a constitutional issue per se). In general, the private sector is not constrained directly by the Constitution (its limits are about limiting government, and originally only the federal government). And some discrimination is allowed in the private sector that would never be allowed when government is the actor – for example, a private Christian school requiring a teacher to sign a statement of faith. Employers also have options the state does not, for example, weighing whether or not an employee’s observance of religion imposes too high a cost for the employer (example: the unlikely case of an observant Jew not being able to work Sabbath hours at a nightclub open only Friday and Saturday). And some employers are more extreme – the HuffPo example is pretty stark, since they operate under 1A freedom of press/speech but obviously don’t extend that in blanket fashion to employees. In similar fashion, the Constitution does not (currently, supposed could change) protect businesses that run afoul of local or state regulation in their exercise of free speech or religion (for example, the bakery fined out of existence in Oregon for refusing to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding).
The Constitution is also silent on many matters or categories dealt with by employment law (age being one example).
Bottom line is, Kap’s employers may have an issue, but if anything it will be contractual, not constitutional.
If you don’t have a restriction clause in your contract, then your employer can’t just pull a fine out of his ear. Now next year, at renewal time, he sure can have a restriction.
@MoonHowler
The 49ers and NFL already addressed the matter.
http://www.unionleader.com/NFL-49ers-QB-Kaepernick-did-not-violate-policy-in-refusal-to-stand-for-national-anthem-08282016
Apparently no contract issue. Certainly no constitutional issue.
We have bigger things to worry about. People did worse (burning flags and draft cards) to protest the Vietnam war and we’re still here.
@Robin Hood
Agree, RH. This is not an existential threat to the country, and toleration of dissent is usually a sign of strength, not weakness. Some of our local leaders can take the hint.
It’s good to keep up with current events at all levels.
We agree that Prince William County certainly has a problem with people in politics who think of it as a bloodsport rather than a civil discussion about public policy. This has infected both political parties, so it is up to citizens to put an end to it..
@NorthofNokesville
@Robin Hood
It is bi-partisan (and sometimes, like now, intra-partisan).
@Robin Hood
I am a veteran and a patriot. I could care less what someone who is paid to play what essentially is a youth sport thinks about politics. Really. If he wants to sit, kneel, or do a handstand, I couldn’t give a rat’s furry fannie. Same applies to those who are paid to speak words written by someone else, and act out fictional situations. Right or left, just shut up and make entertaining movies or shows.
I quit watching most professional sports years ago (although I do enjoy an evening at “the Pfitz” now and again with my daughter (We do like baseball), and I’ll check the mlb standings a couple times a week (Go BoSox!), but when players are taking the field displaying “Hands Up Don’t Shoot”, or wearing some special uniform adornment to “support” this or that cause, I’m not missing anything by not watching them play on TV. Haven’t watched the Superbowl in 4 years, and that includes the last time the Pats played.
So this player is a Christian…good for him or her. This one refuses to stand…and it’s his right to do so. That one is mad because he can’t show his support for police…(hey, they’re called uniforms for a reason).
It’s a game people.
Panem et Circenses…bread and circuses. This is what the “powers that be” use to keep society compliant, through ignorance, distraction, and guilt.
When are we going to talk about Trump illegally giving $25,000 to Florida’s Attorney General who subsequently decided not to get involved in the Trump University case? Then there was the $2500 fine he had to pay for using his foundation to make a political contribution. No wonder he hides his tax returns!
I said it before and I am saying it again. People burned flags and draft cards fifty years ago and we’re still here. There are more serious matters to discuss.
@Steve Thomas
@Robin Hood
“When are we going to talk about Trump illegally giving $25,000 to Florida’s Attorney General who subsequently decided not to get involved in the Trump University case? Then there was the $2500 fine he had to pay for using his foundation to make a political contribution. No wonder he hides his tax returns!”
About the same time Hillary gets indicted for violations of the espionage statutes, and obstruction of justice for destroying evidence post-subponea.
How can you claim that you are not for Trump and only concern yourself with one candidate’s ethics?
There is plenty of blame for both, but now we learn that Trump sponsored a fundraiser for Florida AG Pam Bondi after she dropped the investigation of Trump University and we are reminded that he bragged at a debate in August of 2015 that he had used pay for play himself.
If you are truly concerned about ethics your outrage should be bipartisan.
@Steve Thomas
@Robin Hood
Is that an accusation? I harbor no illusions regarding Trump and his ethics, nor am I single-minded with regards to whom I criticize. However, the distinction I make between Clinton and Trump is that the former used her government office to enrich herself, sold influence, broke federal laws, destroyed evidence, lied about it, and continues to lie about lying about it.
If Trump made some payoffs to make a problem go away, I ask how much Bill/Hill offered Bill’s Bimbo’s to go away?
No…they’re all dirty to a greater or lesser degree. What is sad is we must choose between the least dirty. Election day this cycle is like a college kid having to go through his or her clothes, and decide which pair of underwear stink the least…but nothing is clean.
Why so personal? My point is that if anyone is outraged by these shady practices then the outrage has to be bipartisan to be considered sincere.
I have trouble taking someone seriously who always brings it back to the Clintons when the other guy does the same thing and blows so much smoke to divert attention. Trump is paying office rent to himself, he hasn’t disclosed his tax returns, he pays to play and shills for the Russians. Put that together with your recitations about the Clintons and we have a more balanced perspective.
@Steve Thomas
@Robin Hood
Wait…how is it that being anti-Clinton automatically obligates me to be equally anti-Trump? It doesn’t. Your premise is false.
Clinton is dirty. Trump is dirty. I said it before. I just happen to believe (and the public record would support) that Hillary is the dirtiest of them all. 30 years of dirty, much of it while holding public positions, either elected, appointed, or station-of-marriage.
Unlike you, I am not trying to excuse the actions of one, by pointing at the actions of another. Hillary is an un-indicted criminal. Any reasonable and intellectually honest person can see this. Perhaps Trump is as well. Maybe Pam Bondi should be investigated. Let the FBI director do that one too.
Here’s where your main assumptions fail: You assume that I am a Trump supporter, and a Trump voter. Maybe I am, maybe I’m not. There’s nothing on my car or my yard that would confirm this. There’s no reportable donations that would indicate this. You just assume, because I am 100% anti-Hillary. I could be planning to vote for Gary Johnson (but you can safely assume that there is about as much chance of me voting for loony Stein as there is of me voting for Hillary…ZERO).
Some of us go with what we have seen and hear with our own two senses vs. rumor and innuendo. Reminder–Bill isn’t running for office.
The bottom line is that you are going to go with your issue, even if you have to hold your nose and I will do the same.
@Steve,
Do you even think that Trump is a Republican? I am curious.
@Robin Hood
Wait…how is it that being anti-Clinton automatically obligates me to be equally anti-Trump? It doesn’t. Your premise is false.
Clinton is dirty. Trump is dirty. I said it before. I just happen to believe (and the public record would support) that Hillary is the dirtiest of them all. 30 years of dirty, much of it while holding public positions, either elected, appointed, or station-of-marriage.
Unlike you, I am not trying to excuse the actions of one, by pointing at the actions of another. Hillary is an un-indicted criminal. Any reasonable and intellectually honest person can see this. Perhaps Trump is as well. Maybe Pam Bondi should be investigated. Let the FBI director do that one too.
Here’s where your main assumptions fail: You assume that I am a Trump supporter, and a Trump voter. Maybe I am, maybe I’m not. There’s nothing on my car or my yard that would confirm this. There’s no reportable donations that would indicate this. You just assume, because I am 100% anti-Hillary. I could be planning to vote for Gary Johnson (but you can safely assume that there is about as much chance of me voting for loony Stein as there is of me voting for Hillary…ZERO).
@MoonHowler
@MoonHowler
Eh…who knows? After watching how my party has conducted itself since Bush’s 2nd Term, I’m not 100% convinced that I am a Republican (at least what passes for one these days), so who am I to go about judging whether or not someone else is. Bernie Sanders wasn’t a Democrat, until he was, and now he’s not. Trump, for better or worse, is who the party chose…so obviously, the party decides who is, and who isn’t a Republican.
@Steve,
So maybe you are an independent. I decided about 15 years ago that is what I was. I think we probably need a huge shake up with all the parties. I have gotten to the point if I have to hear much more about the election I am going to off myself.
Right now I am fighting back the urge to choke someone like a chicken over Gary Johnson going blank over Aleppo. You know, sometimes things just don’t register instantly. I do that all the time. It doesn’t mean he is ill-informed. It doesn’t mean he is stupid. It might even mean that he is a visual rather than auditory learner. No, we haven’t been inundated via the news about Aleppo. Most of us have read about it. Hearing and seeing are 2 different things.
Cut the guy a break. I wanted to punch Joe Scarborough in the face this morning!
@MoonHowler
If anything, I’d say I’ve become much more Libertarian these last several years.
What do you think of the libertarian candidates? I always liked Gov. Weld.
@MoonHowler
I agree with their positions on what really matters to me, but their policies lack complexity and come off as naive, especially foreign policy. Still, perhaps that’s what we need; simple policies with straight lines tied back to the Constitution. Tough for someone like me, whose world view formed during the Cold War, schooled in Real Politik…but, I have been warming to the Libertarian argument for some time, and this continues. Apparently, I am not alone.
@Steve Thomas
And one more thought: one reason I haven’t jumped ship on the GOP is I see the next battle for the soul of the party being between Libertarians and populists. I reject populism because it involves/depends on government. Traditional conservatism has been largely abandoned in favor of populism, as the primary would indicate. Those joining the party now seem to fall into two camps: older populists and younger libertarians. I’m picking a side now.
Do you think Johnson’s “gaffe” was all that serious? I do not nor do I think the gaffe implies he is not qualified.
Well at least you’re not inviting me to the playground to duke it out.
You need to understand that I simply insisted on fairness. I get that you are a Hilary hater but I’ve also insisted that Trump be held equally accountable. We can appreciate your embarrassment over the Republicans’ conduct but I’d take it back to 2002 when they politicized 9-11 so shamelessly.
@Steve Thomas
@Robin Hood
What could we possibly solve by dueling, Noogies, or some other such mano y mano contest? Won’t make you love Trump. Won’t make me love Hillary.
The best analogy I’ve read or heard thus far goes something like this:
You are on a doomed ship in the middle of a storm. It’s sinking. No doubt about it. You have to abandon the ship. One lifeboat has visible holes in it (Hillary). You know from the start it will leak, and you will be bailing from the moment you launch. One is covered with a tarp (Trump). Could be a solid boat. Could be a leaky one. You could throw on a life-jacket (Johnson) and jump in, but you will be right there in the water, with little protection from the waves or the sharks. Or, you could grab the anchor (Stein) and just accept your fate. Which one do you choose?
You didn’t ask me but…when has that ever stopped me. I would not vote for Trump under any circumstances. The skill set just isn’t there. The personality isn’t there. The compass isn’t there. The even pretend honesty isn’t there.
Trump is a stooge for the Russians. His man crush for Putin comes from a botched translation. Putin didn’t call him brilliant. He called him flamboyant. The KGB used to have an expression for their dupes. They called them useful idiots. For Americans Trump is a useless one.
Your analogy is all wrong because it assumes Trump may be safe. I recall that we had peace and prosperity in the 90s after Papa Bush left town and I’ll put up with manufactured scandals to get that again. In fact, this last recession started before Obama was elected.
Finally I must explain my schoolyard taunt metaphor for anyone who didn’t get it. It was a comment on the silly and aggressive tone of what I was reading.
@Steve Thomas
@Robin Hood
” I recall that we had peace and prosperity in the 90s after Papa Bush left town and I’ll put up with manufactured scandals to get that again. In fact, this last recession started before Obama was elected.”
I think you might be suffering from some kind of nostalgic filter. As I recall, each and every time Bill was embroiled in a scandal, some country got bombed. Maybe I just remember a bit more accurately, because I was serving on active duty at the time. Under Bill, we bombed Sarajevo and Belgrade, we got caught up in Somalia (remember Blackhawk down?), Cruise-missiled an aspirin factory…
Oh, and we managed to surround a remote cabin and shoot an unarmed woman, holding her child through the head, and burned a bunch of religious separatists to death, many of them children….and these were American citizens.
Manufactured scandals? So Bill didn’t lie under oath or suborn perjury, which cost him his law license? Hillary didn’t store classified documents on a private email server, lie about it, then lied about lying about it? These are figments of my imagination?
Yeah…the economy was roaring under Bill…thanks to the dotcom boom. Happened on his watch…he can take the credit for it. And yes, the economy started to tank at the end of W’s watch. He gets the hit. So…what’s the excuse for <2% growth these last 7.5 years, or the fact that Libya, Syria, Turkey, Somalia, Yemen etc. etc. have become completely destabilized, and now Iran has "the bomb" (got news for you…if N. Korea has nukes, Iran has nukes).
The Clinton's are dirty. If we as a country let them back into the Whitehouse, we deserve every bit of what we get.
Bill Clinton very much inherited Somalia.
As for the religious separatists, that’s what happens when you molest children. I absolutely support that action under Janet Reno.
The Ruby Ridge freedom fighters? Oh PUH-LEEZ.
Bill should develop better aim, darn those aspirin factories. You would think he had his finger on the button himself.
I’ll take his peace and prosperity also, along with the economy.
Libya, Somalia, and Yemen were already destabilized, long before Obama came to the presidency. Maybe the Bush administration shouldn’t have destabilized the area.
Go ahead and cling to your Clinton and Obama-hating litany. Your imagination is overactive in the cause and effect department. The Republicans even tried to blame Roosevelt for the Depression in the middle of World War Two. You left that out.
Meanwhile Trump stiffs his workers, denies Putin invaded Crimea, pays to play with the AG in Florida and discusses a national security briefing on national television. That’s just a sampling.
Republicans have been digging up dirt on the Clintons for decades and Trump has been up to no good for just as long. We can do this until November because nobody’s perfect and anything you dig up on her I can find worse about him.
Where’s the documentation of Melania’s immigration process that we were promised?
@Steve Thomas
Much of the dirt has been imaginary.
Melania has pretty much disappeared off the radar. Hmmmm…I wonder why?
Maybe she heard there was a line forming for photos for “deplorable” IDs.
@MoonHowler
Snicker.
A friend mentioned tonight that there is so much organized crime associated with casinos. Has anyone investigated this situation as it relates to Trump?
Hillary should apologize AFTER Trump apologizes for saying Mexicans are rapists.
Here’s another interesting intersection of constitutional protection (or not) and employment law, but to the flip side.
Longish piece, and definitely has a POV, but worth reading. Came across my stream this AM more or less randomly.
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/08/17733/
I am just going to cave on this one. If they want to fire him, they can. I doubt if they really want to take that risk though.
Just to tie all of this back to the Top Post: this is much about nothing. If some employee of a business want to kneel or sit during a portion of the opening program, in order to make some political statement, that is between he or she, and the employer. If the employer decides to sanction or terminate, that is a matter of private contract law.
There is no Constitutional argument here. The Constitution is a compact/framework for how we are to be governed and what powers and authority is to be vested in the government. The 1st amendment protection against infringement or sanction only prohibit the Federal Government from taking any action. The NFL can do what it wishes, within the bounds of the contract with the player or the team’s franchise agreement.
What I find ironic is the perpetually offended groups, who want “safe spaces” are leaping to this players defense and arguing (incorrectly) 1st amendment protections, while other groups who espouse the virtues of individual liberty and patriotism are claiming offense.
Both groups display Constitutional ignorance. When we’ve reached the point where we cannot understand what the purpose of the Bill of Rights is, (protect individual liberties from government infringement, as well as the tyranny of the majority) we’ve got some fundamental problems here.
I misspoke because I am used to those kinds of protection in my former career. On the other hand, he probably does have contract protections.
I firmly believe that our first amendment “rights” are part of our culture. They extend beyond the Constitution. That isn’t a bad thing.
Truly sad is watching another Khazarian pied-piper propaganda scheme cast its spell and march more Americans into chaos’ forest, never to be seen again.
Protocols 5:11 “The second secret requisite for the success of our government is comprised in the following: To multiply to such an extent national failings, habits, passions, conditions of civil life, that it will be impossible for anyone to know where he is in the resulting chaos, so that the people in consequence will fail to understand one another. This measure will also serve us in another way, namely, to sow discord in all parties, to dislocate all collective forces which are still unwilling to submit to us, and to discourage any kind of personal initiative which might in any degree hinder our affair. There is nothing more dangerous than personal initiative.”
An American citizen, not US subject.