PDA

View Full Version : Bill to Make Flag Burning Illegal



USMCgrunt0331
06-22-05, 02:44 PM
Check out this article I found on Yahoo. Call, email or write your senators and let them know you support this bill!

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050622/ap_on_go_co/flag_burning

USMCgrunt0331
06-22-05, 02:49 PM
You know, you'd think this would be a pretty hot topic in the media, but I haven't heard a word about it. Maybe if the media would slack off a little on the Natalie girl and report some stuff that pertains to what goes on in this country, they could rally up some support for the bill and make it an issue. But I bet the majority of Americans don't even know about the bill.

thedrifter
06-22-05, 06:45 PM
House approves flag-burning amendment

Uphill battle seen in Senate
By Laurie Kellman
ASSOCIATED PRESS

3:14 p.m. June 22, 2005

WASHINGTON A constitutional amendment to outlaw flag burning cleared the House Wednesday but faced an uphill battle in the Senate. An informal survey by The Associated Press suggested the vote there could be close.
The 286-130 outcome was never in doubt in the House, which had passed the measure or one like it five times in recent years. The amendment's supporters expressed optimism that a Republican gain of four seats in last November's election could produce the two-thirds approval needed in the Senate as well after four failed attempts since 1989.

But an AP survey Wednesday found 34 senators on record as opposing the amendment the exact number needed to defeat it, barring a change in position. Democratic Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Ken Salazar of Colorado declined to state their positions Wednesday.

House debate fell along familiar lines over whether the amendment strengthened the Constitution or ran afoul of its free-speech protections.

Supporters said there was more public support than ever because of emotions following the 2001 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. They said detractors are out of touch with public sentiment.

"Ask the men and women who stood on top of the Trade Center," said Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-Calif. "Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment."

Critics accused the amendment's supporters of exploiting the attacks to trample the right to free speech.

"If the flag needs protection at all, it needs protection from members of Congress who value the symbol more than the freedoms that the flag represents." said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., whose district includes the site of the former World Trade Center.

The last time the Senate voted on the amendment the tally was 63 in favor and 37 against, four votes short of the two-thirds majority needed.

Now, with more than two dozen new members, a four-seat Republican gain in the last election and a public still stung by the terrorist attacks in 2001, activists on both sides say the Senate could be within a vote or two of passage.

But the amendment's prospects faded late Wednesday when Democratic Sens. Maria Cantwell of Washington and Mark Pryor of Arkansas revealed that they would oppose it.

Possible presidential contenders who have supported the amendment in the past include Evan Bayh, D-Ind., Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., and John McCain, R-Ariz.

Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., a likely presidential candidate, has said he would oppose the amendment.

The proposed one-line amendment to the Constitution reads, "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States." For the language to be added to the Constitution, it must be approved by two-thirds of those present in each chamber, then ratified within seven years by at least 38 state legislatures.

The amendment is designed to overturn a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling in 1989 that flag burning is a protected free-speech right. That ruling threw out a 1968 federal statute as well as flag-protection laws in 48 states. The law was a response to anti-Vietnam War protesters setting fire to American flags at demonstrations.

The Senate could consider the measure as soon as next month.



Associated Press Writer Jim Abrams contributed to this report.



The amendments are S.J. Res 12 and H.J. Res 10.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the Net:
House of Representatives: www.house.gov
Senate: www.senate.gov



Ellie

mrbsox
06-22-05, 09:30 PM
This burns my a$$, as well as breaks my heart, as I'm sure it does you. The hardest part of it is I fell we HAVE to let the burning happen.

It is part of the Constitution that we swore to support and defend. Part of that constirution is the freedom of speach, expression, and ALL that goes with it.

What kind of statement for democracy would it make, if we ban this 'expression'.

Is the first ammendment OK, only as long as we want it to be ??

With a tear in my eye, and aching in my heart, I have to say this resolution is WRONG, and UN-constitutional.

Semper Fi

Joseph P Carey
06-22-05, 10:04 PM
Ah! Yes! The lines are being drawn. The House of Representatives has passed the Flag bill. Now we will see:

"The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States." Supporters say the flag should be protected because it symbolizes the freedoms many have died to defend. Flag burning "is a challenge to the institution that defends liberty," Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga., said. "Our flag deserves to be respected and protected because it is more than just star-studded fabric."

Opponents warn the amendment would alter the Bill of Rights to exclude an expression of free speech. It "elevates a symbol of freedom over freedom itself," Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., said. "Once we decide to limit freedom of speech, limitations on freedom of the press and freedom of religion may not be far behind."

Yes! The Democrats are lining up in great numbers already to defend the burning of the Flag! I can see Kerry now, a zippo in one hand, and the Flag of the USA in the other. "Senator Kerry Reporting for duty Sir!" Flip! Zip!

It seems that the Democrats can not make a statement without destroying something of value that belongs to someone else. The democrates make such a big deal of crumbling a few pages of the Koran, but when it comes to something like the American Flag, that is just a expression of their anger to burn that 'dirty old rag'.

Screw you Democrats any way! I have been a registered Independent since 1978, shortly, I may change that. I was a registered Democrat until President Carter signed the Blanket Pardon, now, for the first time, I may become a Republican. You guys are too far off the deep Left end even for me.

CHOPPER7199
06-22-05, 11:02 PM
THIS IS BULL CRAP, THE BILL SHOULD BE PASTED THIS TIME AROUND AS IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALONG TIME AGO. FREEDOM YES, BUT TO BURN THE SYMBOL ON OUR OWN SOIL BY OUR OWN IDIOTS IS SENDING THE WRONG MESSAGE ACROSS THE WATERS AND SURE IS SENDING ME A BAD ONE ALSO. LETS JUST RIP DOWN THE MONUMENTS THEN, IF THATS THE WAY PEOPLE FEEL, LET THEM LEAVE AND FIND SOME PLACE ELSE. I WONDER HOW MANY SERVERED THERE COUNTRY THAT ARE DOING THIS? JUST AN OLD GRUNTS OPINION

USMCgrunt0331
06-23-05, 04:55 AM
You gotta be kidding me mrbsox.

Along with everything there must be limits, same reason just cause we have the 1st amendment you can't yell fire in a theater, tell someone your gonna kill someone, print libel and slander someone, can't burn animals or other crazy cult things just cause it's freedom of religion, can't curse in school, or on many beaches now, can't smoke pot just cause your expressing yourself, a military officer can't talk bad about the president, these are only a few examples of tons of how there are limitations to the 1st amendment. Why shouldn't burning the flag be a limitation?

What if some Muslims decide they want to come to Arlington cemetary and start spray-painting tombstones or ****ing on graves of heros? That's just freedom of expression right?

mrbsox
06-23-05, 07:01 AM
Rebuttal; of an obvious sensitive subject.

What is it that OUR flag represents ??

More than just the nation herself. More than the people that live in her, and have served her. More that the blood of the red, the purity of the white, and honor of the blue.

She represents, to me, everthing that I long to see in the world.
The ability to 'persue happiness', without intervention, without the fear of persecution, the police knocking down your door, haveing to have 'papers' just to walk the streets.
The right to protect your property, your family.
To own property.
Free enterprise.
Elected government.

All of the above.... AND MORE.

Of the people
by the people
and FOR the people

Passing a bill such as this, in my opinion, sets the 'symbol of America', above America herself, and her people.
I never said it wasn't desicration. I never said it was something I didn't mind watching. I said, that I swore an oath to support all that the constitution stands for. Not just 'the letter of the law', but also the SPIRIT of the law.

Laws are passed (or SHOULD be) to protect the common PEOPLE. Yelling fire in a theatre is detrimental to the COMMON GOOD of the people. Spray painting (and p!$$!n on) things is VANDELISIM, in the eyes of the law. Yes, I personally would consider it BLASHPHEMY, and take steps to stop it.

Lets not confuse RIGHT, with LEGAL. We as a nation, must not start legistating MORALITY (as we already do to much of). My soul cries every time I see our nations colors burning in protest. But that doesn't change the fact that our forefathers wanted the nation to enjoy the freedoms that we have. Not just the ones that are popular.

And, as was said in reply above
"Once we decide to limit freedom of speech, limitations on freedom of the press and freedom of religion may not be far behind."

What would be next ??
The RIGHT to keep and bear arms ??
The RIGHT against unlawfull entry ??
The RIGHT to be tried by a jury of your peers ??

Where would it end.

I pledege allegiance to the flag
of the United States of America
and to the Republic
for which it stands
One Nation
Under GOD
Indivisable
with liberty and justice
for ALL

... till death do us part :marine:

lucien2
06-23-05, 07:32 AM
They should make it legal to assault someone who is burning the American Flag, that would stop any public flag burning for sure!

USMCgrunt0331
06-23-05, 07:47 AM
The American flag is something many have died defending. Your main point is it's unconstitutional, mine is that there always has to be limit's to things, even the constitution, which is why there are laws to limit parts of the 1st Amendment now. Yes we have the right to religion, but like I said, you can't burn animals for a sacrifice, it's illegal, yes we have the right to bear arms, but there are restrictions to concealed weapons, assault weapons and other laws pertaining to your right to bear arms. Yes, you've got freedom of press, but you can' t knowingly print libel and slander other people, it's illegal. Yes, there are laws against unlawful entry-unless your suspected of terrorism, then there's the Patriot Act. Freedom of assembly-yes, but there are restrictions to that also, you have to get permits and the type of demonstration has to be approved. You can find a restriction or limitation to almost if not every law and bill there is. Are you saying all the limitations to the amendment I mentioned above should be taken away? Cause you can't say you want a limitation on one thing or part of something, but then to do it on another is wrong and taking away from your bill of rights. The flag is the symbol of our country, why shouldn't it be vandalism to desecrate the symbol of our country? It could be rightfully considered as a hate crime to burn the flag, just as it's considerd a hate crime to burn a cross.

radio relay
06-23-05, 08:12 AM
...The leftwing traitors, judges, and democrats construe flag burning as "free speech". However, burning an Unholy Koran is somehow a "hate crime". http://www.humbleego.com/emoticons/shane_yell.gif
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Burned Korans Found at Va. Islamic Center

By Jerry Markon
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 17, 2005; Page B05

Members of an Islamic center in southwest Virginia returned from a prayer meeting Saturday and made a shocking discovery: partially burned copies of the Koran had been left in a shopping bag by the center's front door.

Police in Blacksburg said yesterday that they are investigating the incident and trying to determine whether it was a hate crime. "We are taking it very seriously and are looking at all possibilities," Lt. Joe Davis said.
etc, etc....
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

thedrifter
06-23-05, 08:14 AM
MIKE CHRISTAIN AND THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Wayne Leeper



From a speech made by Capt. John S. McCain, USN, (Ret) who represents Arizona in the U.S. Senate:

As you may know, I spent five and one half years as a prisoner of war during the Vietnam War. In the early years of our imprisonment, the NVA kept us in solitary confinement or two or three to a cell. In 1971 the NVA moved us from these conditions of isolation into large rooms with as many as 30 to 40 men to a room. This was, as you can imagine, a wonderful change and was a direct result of the efforts of millions of Americans on behalf of a few hundred POWs 10,000 miles from home.

One of the men who moved into my room was a young man named Mike Christian.

Mike came from a small town near Selma, Alabama. He didn't wear a pair of shoes until he was 13 years old. At 17, he enlisted in the US Navy. He later earned a commission by going to Officer Training School. Then he became a Naval Flight Officer and was shot down and captured in 1967.

Mike had a keen and deep appreciation of the opportunities this country-and our military-provide for people who want to work and want to succeed. As part of the change in treatment, the Vietnamese allowed some prisoners to receive packages from home. In some of these packages were handkerchiefs, scarves and other items of clothing. Mike got himself a bamboo needle. Over a period of a couple of months, he created an American flag and sewed on the inside of his shirt.

Every afternoon, before we had a bowl of soup, we would hang Mike's shirt on the wall of the cell and say the Pledge of Allegiance. I know the Pledge of Allegiance may not seem the most important part of our day now, but I can assure you that in that stark cell it was indeed the most important and meaningful event.

One day the Vietnamese searched our cell, as they did periodically, and discovered Mike's shirt with the flag sewn inside, and removed it. That evening they returned, opened the door of the cell, and for the benefit of all us, beat Mike Christian severely for the next couple of hours. Then, they opened the door of the cell and threw him in. We cleaned him up as well as we could.

The cell in which we lived had a concrete slab in the middle on which we slept. Four naked light bulbs hung in each corner of the room. As I said, we tried to clean up Mike as well as we could. After the excitement died down, I looked in the corner of the room, and sitting there beneath that dim light bulb with a piece of red cloth, another shirt and his bamboo needle, was my friend, Mike Christian. He was sitting there with his eyes almost shut from the beating he had received, making another American flag.

He was not making the flag because it made Mike Christian feel better. He was making that flag because he knew how important it was to us to be able to pledge allegiance to our flag and our country.

So the next time you say the Pledge of Allegiance, you must never forget the sacrifice and courage that thousands of Americans have made to build our nation and promote freedom around the world. You must remember our duty, our honor, and our country.



"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Ellie

OLE SARG
06-23-05, 08:16 AM
Well said USMCgrunt0331 - and I agree. They are making all the fuss about the koran or whatever the hell it is (it raised a fever with our bunch of dummies in Washington, D.C., when someone mentioned flushing the koran) and nothing has been said much about OLE GLORY.

It ain't law but someone burns OLE GLORY in front of me and they are going to get an ASS WHIPPING!!!!!!!!

SEMPER FI,
OLE SARG

Gunny McMillan
06-23-05, 08:19 AM
I'm kind of in the middle of this issue.

One on hand, seeing a burning flag would bring a tear to my eye. And make me want to stomp the guts out of whoever was burning it.

On the other, I do believe in freedom of expression, no matter how asinine that expression may be.

To me, the pride I have resides in what the flag stands for, and what it represents...Not the cloth material it's made of. All of the hippies in the world burning all of the American flags in the world is not going to change what the flag means and represents to me.

radio relay
06-23-05, 08:30 AM
"So the next time you say the Pledge of Allegiance, you must never forget the sacrifice and courage that thousands of Americans have made to build our nation and promote freedom around the world. You must remember our duty, our honor, and our country."
http://www.msnemoticons4u.com/countries/United_States.gif

dgallagher
06-23-05, 08:56 AM
8 - 10 years ago, there was an article in the Legion Magazine by a professor (somewhere in FL) arguing the burning of the Flag is not Free Speech! He was a Naturalized citizen from some middle Europe country, like Hungry or Czechoslovakia. His arguments were interesting and said many of our free speech issues are not that at all.

He sites the difference is in Free Speech you can say what you want but when you punctuate it with some action you have crossed the line!

Does anyone remember this (dont hold me to the place or time). Im pretty much brain dead.

dg

USMC-FO
06-23-05, 09:26 AM
Well this is always a hot issue...will be again. Regardless of what the House of Rep has done this resolution will have a difficult time in the Senate--it needs 66 votes and right now some 35 Senators are on record as opposing the passage of this bill.

Here is my take: Free speech is just that free....I have held personally, for as long as I can remember believing, that burning the flag is a permissable excersize of free speech. Burn a draft card, a bible, a koran or melt a buda....all OK in my mind. Also OK is some PO'd individual deciding to bounce a brick off a flag burners skull too ! You want to have free speech ? You gonna walk that walk, then you can expect someone will take offense on your skull...Freedom ain't free .... But you either have it--freedom--or you don't and having it means it is vital to let others express their freedoms too. EVEN IF WE DON'T LIKE WHAT THEY DO....I believe is is just plain wrong to curtail certain basic rights just because we might find certain excersizes of these rights offensive.

Congress got into this--yet again--becasue it is a good 'red meat' issue with most people and deflects attention away from the multitude of real issues they should be focusing on.

That is my nickle....

USMCgrunt0331
06-23-05, 09:33 AM
Who knows how to make one of them polls on here like they did with troops guarding the border? I'd like to see an actual poll on here to see if the majority on this site would approve or dissaprove of a bill banning the desecration of the American Flag.

Joseph P Carey
06-23-05, 01:57 PM
With all due respect MrBsox,

Is there not laws against open fires, and these people do not apply for fire permits when they decide to burn a flag? You say, "Laws are passed (or SHOULD be) to protect the common PEOPLE. Yelling fire in a theatre is detrimental to the COMMON GOOD of the people. Spray painting (and p!$$!n on) things is VANDELISIM, in the eyes of the law. Yes, I personally would consider it BLASHPHEMY, and take steps to stop it."

If it were written that a permit has to be purchased before an American Flag be burnt, would that satisfy your appitite for a free speech? I think not! You would then complain that the poor does not have the opportunity to express themselves and are priced out of the Flag Burning Market. What next?

Let us say that, like shouting 'Fire in a crowded movie theater" the burning of the American Flag inflames deep felt feelings that incite domestic disturbances causing injury to innocent and combatant alike. This was the feeling of the no "fire" in the theater laws, and it well stands here.

There should be a law to protect the American Flag, and to protect lives of individuals that may take offese to such actions, or innocents that may fall victim to such a pursuit. The law of the 'Fire' in the Theater calls, was enacted to save lives from the actions of fools. Why not a law to protect the flag for the same reason?

It is not a question of Free Speech, but a question of inflamed desires, and public attitudes toward the common man, and the harmful effects of such actions on the innocent. and the protections thereof.

Fire is not a safe and uninjurous substance. Free Speech can be maintained by the burning of a picture of the flag in a fire protected container, but it does not violate Free Speech to protect the actual property of the symbol of the American Flag, but the American flag proper is different, and without proper safety procedures can cause injury and death to the fools that do so. I would hate to see that happen!

mrbsox
06-23-05, 03:49 PM
We should agree to disagree.

ivalis
06-23-05, 06:43 PM
i find the wearing of "flag" clothing more offensive than the purposeful burning of the flag for political protest reasons.

remember the uproar when abbie hoffman wore a flag shirt on TV during the late 60s.

i guess both are protected expressions.

i guess ya have to keep in mind that unpopular expression needs protecting, popular expression doesn't.

Joseph P Carey
06-23-05, 09:27 PM
Originally posted by ivalis
i find the wearing of "flag" clothing more offensive than the purposeful burning of the flag for political protest reasons.

remember the uproar when abbie hoffman wore a flag shirt on TV during the late 60s.

i guess both are protected expressions.

i guess ya have to keep in mind that unpopular expression needs protecting, popular expression doesn't.

Are you telling me that pyromania is now a protected designation?

Are you telling me that Fireworks, a popular use of individual expression, is not legal in many states?

Are you telling me that arson is not a crime? That arson is an expression of free speech?

You want to fight legal, let's fight legal! How is a pyromaniac, using fire to ignite a cloth in the middle of a public setting, not anything but a crime? If I were to ignite a trash can as an act of free expression in the center of a City, I would be arrested for Arson, but to ignite the Flag of the USA is not such a crime? According to you Liberals, trash is worth more than the Flag!

I can see why you guys clam up when someone brings up a case against your Free Expression argument, because you hve none, other than 'Let us agree to disagree'. (Limp wrist salute) That is Toro Caga! You just don't have an argument! Arson is a crime! The burning of trash is a crime! Why is not the burning of the American Flag a crime also?

LivinSoFree
06-23-05, 11:00 PM
This one really has me set on edge. I do my best to stay out of the frenzy that usually pops up around these kinds of things until everyone else has said their piece... <br />
<br />
1) The idea that the...

Joseph P Carey
06-24-05, 12:44 AM
For Thirty-five years, I have worked in defense oif the Constitution of the United States of America against the Government Agencies of all the different Alphabetical listings. <br />
<br />
I do not know that...

LivinSoFree
06-24-05, 02:34 AM
Again, you overlook the problem of jurisdictional authority. The Congress certainly does not have the power to impose regulations on the ignition of trash or any other item within a certain state or municipality, not as a direct action anyway. The same problem was faced when the insurance lobby convinced the Congress that 21 should be the drinking age on a national scale: Congress simply could not impose such a law on the states. Thus, the solution was implemented whereby states that did not enact a legal age of 21 would lose federal highway funding. I'm as interested in the separation of powers here as I am in the particular target of the legislation.

While I understand and agree with your objection to the unequal application of the law at the Republican convention (assuming that neither of the individuals in question had permits... had the flag burner secured a permit, obviously, he would have been protected), this is hardly sufficient impetus to enact a Constitutional amendment that has the potential to set a VERY dangerous precedent.

Personally, I find the President's approach to Social Security foolhardy at best- the investment of SS funds into a stock market subject to collapse, manipulation, and rapid change is hardly the kind of stability required for a program such as Social Security, which is, for some, the only retirement planning option available.

On the subject of health care, I find it repeatedly amusing that individuals on the Right enjoy so much placing the blame for its decline on Hillary Clinton. Do these individuals fail to realize that it was in such a poor state because of policies of the Reagan and Bush the Elder administrations? And do they also fail to recognize that one of the reasons it was not revitalized was because of legislative blocking maneuvers led by Republican forces that opposed greater government support of health care, in favor of increased privitization and HMOs?

Certainly, homelessness seems like less of a problem when reduced to a per capita issue, but tell that to the guy out on the street because his social security fell through.

It's easy to get emotional about this issue. What is difficult is a dispassionate analysis of the legal and social implications of the legislation in question. Whether or not you find flag burning offensive is irrelevant. The questions that should be asked are "does the act we are attempting to legislate against do any real harm?" and "will enacting this law improve the situation?" The answer to both those questions is "no." Flag burning, while possibly offensive, fits neither the legal definitions of a hate crime or of obscenity, and thus cannot be prohibited under those auspices. It causes no actual harm to a human being, assuming no one is lit afire by the object in question, in which case, another set of laws would cover the resulting damages.

Your comparison of an constructed effigy (commonly of paper-mache or wood/cloth, generally man-sized or smaller, though occasionally larger ones exist) as symbols to buildings and national parks as symbols is weak. It simply doesn't hold water. Of course one does not burn national parks or federal buildings, they are not constructed to be destroyed. An effigy is constructed for the sole purpose of being destroyed in lieu of the thing it represents, be it a person, place, or idea.

So far as the "Democrat blocking force" is concerned, perhaps it is so adamant for a reason... these kinds of things expend political capital, and they are not taken lightly. Perhaps the persistance of these particular campaigns should tell you something.

You just can't make a case for this one.

thedrifter
06-24-05, 05:56 AM
Waving the Burning Flag
By John Tabin
Published 6/24/2005 12:07:39 AM


The First Amendment to the United States Constitution decrees that "Congress shall make no law...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." Does this guarantee a right to burn a flag?

When the Supreme Court took the question up in 1989's Texas v. Johnson and 1990's United States v. Eichman, the justices split 5-4 in favor of free expression, and both the liberals and conservatives were divided (in both cases, Harry Blackmun and Antonin Scalia joined the majority while John Paul Stevens and William Rehnquist dissented). Frankly, I doubt even the framers would have agreed on the answer.

This week the House of Representatives voted, as it has several times before, for a constitutional amendment granting Congress the power to ban flag-desecration. The amendment is closer than ever to passing the Senate (it's only two votes away, by most accounts) and if it did it would almost certainly make it through 38 state legislatures and become a part of the Constitution. So: Whether or not laws against flag-burning are unconstitutional, should they be?

One might offer that it doesn't matter much. The flag went unprotected by law until the late 19th century; the Republic survived. By 1932 every state had a flag-desecration law, and in 1968, in response to Vietnam protesters burning the flag, Congress passed a federal flag-desecration law that stood for two decades before it was revised in the wake of Johnson and overturned in Eichman. It would be hard to argue that the 20th century was a dark age for free speech. Nor has there, in the past 15 years, been an epidemic of desecration; according to the Citizen Flag Alliance (which supports the amendment), last year there was only one reported incident of flag-burning.

But what about the symbolism of the amendment? I know how supporters mean it: as a patriotic, almost chivalric defense against those, aided and abetted by egg-headed jurists, who would use the flag to dishonor a great nation. But that's not the only way it might look. Rather, it might seem of a piece with the pernicious policies of leftish nannyism -- overbroad sexual harassment laws, college campus speech codes -- designed to establish a right not to be offended. It seems almost neurotic: Do we really feel threatened by those so moronic that they burn the American flag, call ours a fascist state, face no consequences, and completely miss the irony?

The effort to protect the flag by constitutional amendment ought to be ended. Not because our federal courts have better things to do than prosecute flag-burners. Not because our cherished liberties ought to be kept as absolute as possible. Not even because constitutional amendments ought to restrict the power of Congress rather than expand it. Rather, the flag-protection effort ought to be scotched for the simple reason that America doesn't get rattled by some stupid little punk with a Che Guevara T-shirt and a Zippo. We are, or ought to be, far too thick-skinned a nation for that.


Ellie

Joseph P Carey
06-24-05, 06:39 AM
Living so Free says: Again, you overlook the problem of jurisdictional authority. The Congress certainly does not have the power to impose regulations on the ignition of trash or any other item within a certain state or municipality, not as a direct action anyway. The same problem was faced when the insurance lobby convinced the Congress that 21 should be the drinking age on a national scale: Congress simply could not impose such a law on the states. Thus, the solution was implemented whereby states that did not enact a legal age of 21 would lose federal highway funding. I'm as interested in the separation of powers here as I am in the particular target of the legislation.

**I say: If I remember correctly, any change to the Constitution would need radification by 38 states, and may I remind you, it was a Democrat Congress that bowed to the Insurance Companies on the 21 years of age issue, not a Republican Congress.

Living Free says: While I understand and agree with your objection to the unequal application of the law at the Republican convention (assuming that neither of the individuals in question had permits... had the flag burner secured a permit, obviously, he would have been protected), this is hardly sufficient impetus to enact a Constitutional amendment that has the potential to set a VERY dangerous precedent.

**I say: What is so dangerous about having a Constitutional Amendment to protect the Flag? Many European Countries have just such conditions written into their Constitutions, as well as countries around the world. I have never seen a where anyone has questioned the rules about the care and the keeping of the American Flag, and when it can be flown, and how it must be flown. Now, you tell me that because we chose to defend the flag it will lead to total anarchy? Freedom of religion will fall by the wayside? Freedom of speech will be trounced upon? Maybe even the freedom of the press will be taken away? All because someone that has no real jepardy in the matter shall not be allowed to burn the 'Old Rag'? I say let there be a price to pay for burning the flag, and then I will take some merit in what they have to say, but not before.

My GGG Grandfather was a Color Sergeant with the 13th NJ Volunteer Infantry during the Civil War, Daniel Lynch. It was his job in battle to defend that rag with his life and the life of his men. The highest precentage of men lost in any Regiment during the Civil War were those that protected the flag with their lives. General McArthur's father was one oif those men that won the Congressional Medal of Honor defending the flag with great personal lost to his own person, he was wounded mpst derverely, but it allowed his son to go to West Point.

The flag is steeped in tradition that would have men die rather than allow the flag to be trampled in the mud of battle. Now it is that some people, without any trial or punishment, should be allowed to burn that rag for any purpose?

If they so want to make a statement then let it be in a court of law. Let them suffer some pain of their actions as the men that carried that rag in the Civil War did, and the men that raised that rag over Mount Suribachi, as the men at Fort McHenry did, and as the prisoner in Terane did during the Embassy Hostage ordeal, and the men of the Hanoi Hilton did that risked death to salute a home made version of their flag.

Living Free says: Personally, I find the President's approach to Social Security foolhardy at best- the investment of SS funds into a stock market subject to collapse, manipulation, and rapid change is hardly the kind of stability required for a program such as Social Security, which is, for some, the only retirement planning option available.

** I say: That is your opinion! What offers have come from the opposite party to impove the situation? We are only talking about a small percentage of the monies taken by the government belonging to the people of the United States. Not every penny they have had taken from them! So the people can make a dertermination on what should be done with their money.

Living Free says: On the subject of health care, I find it repeatedly amusing that individuals on the Right enjoy so much placing the blame for its decline on Hillary Clinton. Do these individuals fail to realize that it was in such a poor state because of policies of the Reagan and Bush the Elder administrations? And do they also fail to recognize that one of the reasons it was not revitalized was because of legislative blocking maneuvers led by Republican forces that opposed greater government support of health care, in favor of increased privitization and HMOs?

** I say: A democrat President, and a Democrat Congress, and they could not get the job done. It was the hallmark of the Democrats, not the Republicans to have a Universal Health Care, and they could not make it work. Talk, talk, talk, but that was all that you ever received from them.

Living Free: Certainly, homelessness seems like less of a problem when reduced to a per capita issue, but tell that to the guy out on the street because his social security fell through.

** I Say: It was many a time when I too thought I would become homeless over the years, but I made it through hard work. But, than again, I was not an uneducated Druggie (You name the drug); I was not an uneducated woman that spent her way into the situation that she was in, marrying some Jail Prospect, or loony tunes radical. I was also not the type to not work for my family's benefit, and for my own self satisfaction, and I did not waste money I did not have on alcohol and other things that took the money out of the mouths of my children. This may sound cold and heartless, but many of the homeless belong just where they are, because of their stupidity. Ther will always be the poor, and those that are even poorer. For the precentages we speak of, it is a amall number.

Living Free says: It's easy to get emotional about this issue. What is difficult is a dispassionate analysis of the legal and social implications of the legislation in question. Whether or not you find flag burning offensive is irrelevant. The questions that should be asked are "does the act we are attempting to legislate against do any real harm?" and "will enacting this law improve the situation?" The answer to both those questions is "no." Flag burning, while possibly offensive, fits neither the legal definitions of a hate crime or of obscenity, and thus cannot be prohibited under those auspices. It causes no actual harm to a human being, assuming no one is lit afire by the object in question, in which case, another set of laws would cover the resulting damages.

** I say: Yes! It will provide a pealty for their actions. If they believe so much in what they stand for, let them pay a penalty for it, the same as we did.

Living Free says: Your comparison of an constructed effigy (commonly of paper-mache or wood/cloth, generally man-sized or smaller, though occasionally larger ones exist) as symbols to buildings and national parks as symbols is weak. It simply doesn't hold water. Of course one does not burn national parks or federal buildings, they are not constructed to be destroyed. An effigy is constructed for the sole purpose of being destroyed in lieu of the thing it represents, be it a person, place, or idea.

** I say: Neither was the American flag constructed to be destroyed.

Living Free says: So far as the "Democrat blocking force" is concerned, perhaps it is so adamant for a reason... these kinds of things expend political capital, and they are not taken lightly. Perhaps the persistance of these particular campaigns should tell you something.

** I say: Yes! It says plenty! It says that the people that are against everything that this country stands for (Boxer, Kennedy, Kerry, Reid, Dean, Biden, Durbin, Edwards, Clinton, etc) are using the tactics that they accuse so strongly that others are using. There only concern is not what is good for the country, but only what is good for their party, and they call good Americans Nasis, and KGB Officers and the likes. Name calling and assisting the enemies of this country is the best they can do.

hrscowboy
06-24-05, 09:04 AM
well my 2 cents on the social security is that if people would quit robbing the surplus from it that it generates to pay other bills there would be money in the fund.

LivinSoFree
06-24-05, 10:53 AM
**I say: If I remember correctly, any change to the Constitution would need radification by 38 states, and may I remind you, it was a Democrat Congress that bowed to the Insurance Companies on the 21 years of age issue, not a Republican Congress.

Certainly, ratification would be necessary as part of the amendment process. This is entirely irrelevant, since the amendment itself completely oversteps the separation of powers, as has been ruled by the Supreme Court on no less that FIVE separate occasions. I also fail to see what difference it make that it was a "Democrat Congress" that pushed the legal age limit of 21. I simply chose the example to illustrate a means whereby Congressmen in favor of outlawing the destruction of the flag could achieve their objective while remaining within their own jurisdiction.


**I say: What is so dangerous about having a Constitutional Amendment to protect the Flag? Many European Countries have just such conditions written into their Constitutions, as well as countries around the world. I have never seen a where anyone has questioned the rules about the care and the keeping of the American Flag, and when it can be flown, and how it must be flown. Now, you tell me that because we chose to defend the flag it will lead to total anarchy? Freedom of religion will fall by the wayside? Freedom of speech will be trounced upon? Maybe even the freedom of the press will be taken away? All because someone that has no real jepardy in the matter shall not be allowed to burn the 'Old Rag'? I say let there be a price to pay for burning the flag, and then I will take some merit in what they have to say, but not before.

If history tells us one thing, it's that the populace usually doesn't become fully aware of its oppression until it's too late to do anything about it. Consider the Alien and Sedition acts, or the Japanese Internment Campaign. Both of these dark spots in American history came during a time of war, when the American people were most likely to be swayed by emotional appeals, to the exclusion of logic and the big picture. So we ban destruction of the flag. What's next? Do we start to blacklist people who might have destroyed a flag in the past? Do we go door to do and ask them why they've burned a flag, and whether or not they'd like to do it again? We're already aboard a slippery slope in America, and what scares ME is that very few individual seem to even notice, and even less seem to care. It's not much to make the leap to enacting The Holy Bible as the new constitution of the United States, and I'm sure there are more than a few individuals who'd like to see it happen.

While of course I find the flag to be an object of reverence that stands for the nation I love, I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC. NOWHERE in that oath did it specify particular parts of the Constitution to be defended or abridged, nor did it specify that any one set of opinions was subject to less protection than the other. What I find offensive is the idea that we as a nation would have the audacity to enact a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT to prohibit a form of speech and expression, just because we didn't like it! We let the KKK march in Skokie, IL, not because we thought they were a good idea, but because it was the RIGHT THING TO DO. True freedom requires the submission to the ideal , exclusive of any specifics, whether you like it or not. Sure, other nations have laws prohibiting the desecration of the flag. So what? Since when has the United States (ESPECIALLY in recent years), taken the actions of recent nations as precedent for OUR conduct? (The Kyoto Accords and the Invasion of Iraq come to mind as a couple examples).


** I say: Neither was the American flag constructed to be destroyed.

Perhaps not, but then again, neither are mannequins commonly used as effigy materials, but they are purchased with the intent of destruction. If someone wants to buy a flag and burn it, it's their own damn business, period, no matter how much it p*sses me off.


I leave you with this, which has been my philosophy for many years now:

"The truest patriot is the man who can proudly fly his flag while is neighbor burns his."

It's easy to get emotionally worked up over Old Glory. What's truly difficult is separating yourself from your personal feelings and looking at the bigger picture. Now that takes real guts.

Joseph P Carey
06-24-05, 02:40 PM
Living so Free says: Certainly, ratification would be necessary as part of the amendment process. This is entirely irrelevant, since the amendment itself completely oversteps the separation of...

USMCgrunt0331
06-25-05, 01:33 PM
Well, whether you agree with it or not, if it passes in the senate and becomes part of the constitution, you'll be defending an amendment that prohibits flag desecration. It seems like the people I've heard from that are against this bill are the ones that didn't join the Marine Corps for reasons of patriotism, defending their country and to serve America, it's reservists and Marines who joined for college money or b/c they didn't have anything else to do. There's lot's of things about this country I don't support that I have to put up with, that goes against every thing I believe in, but I still defend people's right to do it, even if I don't think it should be their right to do it, for one-abortion, among many others.

Joseph P Carey
06-25-05, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by USMCgrunt0331
Well, whether you agree with it or not, if it passes in the senate and becomes part of the constitution, you'll be defending an amendment that prohibits flag desecration. It seems like the people I've heard from that are against this bill are the ones that didn't join the Marine Corps for reasons of patriotism, defending their country and to serve America, it's reservists and Marines who joined for college money or b/c they didn't have anything else to do. There's lot's of things about this country I don't support that I have to put up with, that goes against every thing I believe in, but I still defend people's right to do it, even if I don't think it should be their right to do it, for one-abortion, among many others.

Truthfully, Grunt, As much as I would like to see the amendment pass, and as hard as I would fight for it to pass, there are 45 Democrats in the Senate. The vote that is needed is 68 Senators, and 35 of those Senators are Democrats who have already come out and said they would not vote for the Amendment. That only leaves 65 Senators for the Bill, if all would vote for it.

Unfortunately, it is pretty much a dead issue. Anything that the President wants, whether good for the country or not, is voted against by the Democrats. It is all politics as usual in the Democrat Party. Another vote against America.

It was the Soviet leader Kruschiev that said, "We will bury you from within! Your grand children will growup under Communism!" He told us the strategy of the Old Communist Party: "We will put the leaders of your universities and your educational systems, in our camp, and without a shot fired, we will have the USA!"

And, while we were away fighting the wars for America, the 4-Fs, and the Draft Dodgers, and the Communists/Socialists went to work in the school systems and the universities, and the elected government. What did you expect to happen? We even elected one to the Presidency over and above real decorated war heroes (Bush [41] and Dole), and 48% of the American populus voted for one of them in the last election.

Welcome to the USSRA, Grunt! Their plan lasted longer, and worked better for them, then did Communism.