The POTUS is the Commander in Chief and head of the Executive branch. He is a government actor telling people to stand for an anthem in violation of their 1st Amendment right to do so.
What he said on the campaign, etc. is irrelevant because he wasn't a govt actor...he was a private citizen. And his statement definitely flirts with being unconstitutional as he's encouraging private actors (the leaue owners) to fire/cut players for refusing to stand for the anthem. If you can't understand that, I can't help you.
But have at it breh...
Commander in chief has nothing to do with this situation, since it isn't military related.
Executive branch has nothing to do with this because its private business, not a branch of the government, nor pertaining to executive regulation of an industry.
He is the president of the US, he is a US citizen, he has the same right as a US citizen to express his opinion.
You need a refresher in what the 1st amendment is. I'll give it to you.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
[1]
What government action is being taken against the people who are protesting, with regards to criminalizing their actions or speech? None. So we aren't talking about a 1st amendment issue.
He literally said they should be fired at a campaign rally for Luther strange in Huntsville, AL as sitting US President. What are you talking about?
There is no flirting with unconstitutionality at all. The only way you might make the claim he was acting illegally, is if he used his government power and authority to force something. He hasn't done that, just used his words.
This is what I'm talking about though, I don't know you or Brown, but there are legit areas where you can talk about legality and unconstitutionality and have a point, this isn't the case and it clearly isn't. So to see people try to argue it is, it shows you really don't have a grasp of the constitution when you use it to try to attack Trump for saying what he has said. This is why I stress the importance of understanding what you are saying and the concepts/principles you want to argue when going public, because if you aren't on it they will eat your ass alive and you'll be out here confused because you didn't put in the work.
The best thing you or Brown could say is you find his statements backwards and counter to progress. You can support those arguments, you can't support claiming what he is doing is unconstitutional because it isn't.
