Flag-burning amendment advances in House

[uppityperson]

Please write or call your repesentative on this. Remind them of Mr.bush signing his name to a flag as an example of this. We need free speech much more than forced "patriotism". Do you know anyone who "stood on top of the WTC"? Would they say pass this amendment? Thank you.

WASHINGTON — The House moved Wednesday toward approval of a constitutional amendment that would give Congress the power to ban desecration of the American flag, a measure that for the first time stands a chance of passing the Senate as well.

Lawmakers in the House debated - as they have six times before - whether such a ban would uphold or run afoul of the Constitution's free-speech protections. Supporters said the measure reflected patriotism that deepened after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and they accused detractors of being out of touch with public sentiment.

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

But Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said, "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."

<MORE..>
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/APWires/headlines/D8ASPBH80.html

[shoelace414]

1. ..

whether such a ban would uphold or run afoul of the Constitution's free-speech protections.

duuuuuuuh... that's why they are trying to pass a constitutional admendment.

[sybylla]

16. Yeah, but constitutional amendments have been ruled unconstitutional

Just because they are trying to make it an amendment doesn't mean it will hold up to judicial review. The problem is that it may take longer to bring it down, especially after all the fundie flag fervor necessary to get it ratified.

[Q3JR4]

19. If you change the constitution,

the amendment in question (especially if it is ratified by the necessary number of states) becomes part of the constitution and, therefore, is not under judicial review.

No matter how much congress and the public bitches and moans about the court system, they always have the power to change the constitution putting their issue above and beyond judicial review.

[sybylla]

27. Yeah, never mind

I was thinking the repeal process took place in the courts. But I would have to wonder if Amendment XXVIII (or whatever) contradicted Amendment 1, which has precidence in the courts? Or does it become an arbitrary measure depending on how each court rules?

[Kipling]

23. Eurgh! Bleuch! Ewww...

I just clicked on that link in your signature, you bastard. It's going to take hours to get those digestive juices off my chinos.

[leveymg]

2. This is a bunt in the game of politics.

The repugs are really desperate if they have to fall back on this this old distraction.:7 Go home team!

[phantom power]

3. My yes. Not burning flags will keep us safe from terrorists.

We should let them pass it. Then they'd have to shut up about it. It would give them one less fake issue to demagogue with.

[stevedeshazer]

26. I got your flag descration right here

[VegasWolf]

88. Exactly, asshole Bush can still write on it. nt

[dubyaD40web]

4. Goodbye freedoms!

I, personally, would never burn our beautiful flag but it's still a freedom of expression.

What's that quote? Something like: "I may not agree with what you have to say but I will defend your right to say it."

[Occulus]

25. Actually, if it touches the ground, you're supposed to burn it

It's the only respectable method of disposal of an old or disrespected flag that I'm aware of.

Is burial okay as well?

Yeah, let's make unconstitutional the part of the flag code that provides for its respectable disposal :eyes:

[wellst0nev0ter]

28. IOKTBAFIYAR

They might just outlaw the INTENT of the burning of the flag, as in if you are some Bush-supporting warmongering moran burning the flag, it's A-OK. If you are some granola tree-hugging leftist Commie lib, then it's off the the brigs for tantamount treason.

[catzies]

119. Yes, let's...thus proving it's not the BURNING but the EXPRESSION

behind it...menaing this is all about negating the first amendment.

:mad:

[Carla in Ca]

99. Exactly!

The law takes away another freedom that the flag represents!!! DUH.
I WANT to know who the idiots are that would burn it, and it would be the patriotic duty of the rest of us to stop it.
Man, they just don't get it.

[carnie_sf]

5. Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel

[fryguy]

87. not to mention they use "patriotism" when they really mean "nationalism"

a patriot is not one who stands behind a flag, but one who defends the ideals of country. a nationalist is one who blindly supports a government because of allegiance to country even if it is at the expense of what the country stands for; i.e., stomp on the Constitution to salute Old Glory

[uppityperson]

6. Don't forget the picture of Mr.bush signing a flag.

This would be illegal, I wonder about all that flag clothing. Flaggie underwear and shoes? What a bunch of crock! I know everyone has been asked to contact their representitives on other important issues, please take a minute again. Chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip.

What freedoms?

[cascadiance]

20. More Grounds for impeachment!

[ldf]

105. AND don't forget the ever attractive g gordon liddy

in his flag bikini swim suit.

surely someone has that photo's web address.

if that is not true flag desecration........

:shrug:

[Lady Effingbroke]

110. WARNING!!!!! GRAPHIC IMAGE!!!!!!

10...



9...



8...



7...



6...



5...



4...



3...



2...



1...

[Maat]

118. Okay ... at least you warned me (n/t).

[Lecky]

7. unfuckingbelievable

[aresef]

8. Ditto

Why don't they repeal the whole First Amendment while they're at it?

[PurityOfEssence]

9. Graven images are for primitives

Fine. So pass the damned thing. It's really not worth fighting, is it? It can be used as proof of treason to fight it, and with everything else that's really important, why fight it? Just ask them this: what's the penalty? Death? Death to you and your immediate relatives? Confiscation of all your property?

Wedge issues fuck us. Personally, I dislike and am scared of all sanctioned forms of religion because they make us non-believers inferiors deserving of nothing. Am I going to make a big stink about the Pledge of Allegiance (Idolatry if there ever was any) at a time like this? Hell no. Yes, I'd love to have "In God We Trust" taken off our money and invocations stricken along with latter-day "so help me god" crap in oaths of office. The Constitution specifically forbids this, and much as Abraham Lincoln was a great man, he is largely responsible for this creeping theocracy.

Should we fight this now? No.

What should be asked to the asshole fascists who demand unquestioned loyalty is this: how big a crime is it? Your precious little symbol is more important than the concepts upon which the Republic stands, so what do you propose? Castration? Death? Permanent second-class citizenship? What is it?

Once desecration is made a capital offense, what's next? Is ridiculing the president (as long as he's a Republican, the only true Americans) subject to death too? What's your plan?

I HATE THESE ABSTRACT ARGUMENTS. It's like Social Security: present a specific plan, and we'll argue its merits; when one wants to condemn actions without delineating the consequences, one is playing a shell game of domination.

[4_Legs_Good]

10. Yes, ask those conservative whack jobs who were standing on top of the WTC

You know, all those conservatives who value the flag more than what it represents. You know the ones who work in NYC.

I'm sure the House members from NYC voted for the measure, right? Right???

I love that all the victims of a horrible disaster have posthumously turned into rabid war mongering nationalists.

:eyes:

david

[radar]

11. Pull out the ol' faithful of diversions when

The $h!t hits the fan for them. Divert from actually doing work to help the majority of people in this country. Status quo is sooo much easier than doing actual work - that's too hard!

"When the polls are tanking, where does the GOP turn? To fags and flags...."
AmericaBlog
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/fags-and-flags.html

[evolved Anarchopunk]

12. People, People.. take a minute

and laugh with Rep. Taylor at the obsurdity of everything...


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1876604


Man I love DU

Man do I hate congressional talk...

[sniffa]

13. thank god we don't have more pressing issues

i may start burning fLags out of spite now. :mad:

what's the punishment for burning a fLag?
how about wearing it as a thong?
how about fLying it from your SUV untiL it's in tatters and bLack form smog?
how about making a fuLL suit out of it (incLuding fanny-pack)?

[VegasWolf]

92. Exactly, or wiping your nose or ass with it, or dragging it on the ground,

etc. Is the admendment just related to burning? In that case, I can
see about 30 more admendments coming just related to the flag.

[Kenneth ken]

120. no

it is simply 'desecration' Here is the actual text of the proposed amendment:

`The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.'.

That raises about a billion questions for Congress to determine what is and isn't desecration. Like, if one puts a flag decal on their bumper sticker and the decal gets faded, eroded and worn with time, can the owner of the vhicle be imprisoned for desecration? Or is that just a mandatory fine?

I was appalled that there was no more text to it than that, so I looked at another HJ Resolution (#11) just to make sure I hadn't overlooked all the detail.

HJ Res 11 (another proposed Constitutional amendment) reads:

`SECTION 1. No person who has been a Senator for two full consecutive terms shall again be a Senator until the date that is one year after the end of such second full consecutive term.

`SECTION 2. No person who has been a Representative for six full consecutive terms shall again be a Representative until the date that is one year after the end of the sixth full consecutive term.

`SECTION 3. For the purposes of this article, any term that began before the date of the ratification of this article shall not be included in determining the number of full consecutive terms that a person has been a Senator or Representative.'.

link: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/search.html

[Mz Pip]

14. Your tax dollars at work.

This is just silly.

Are they going to call for the arrest of Rob Cordray for his "accidental" flag burning on the Daily Show the other night?

Honestly, how often does this happen?

Duke Cunningham is an idiot. THe Republicans don't care what the people of NYC really think. 85% of them voted for Kerry and the ones who stood on the top of the WTC can't ANSWER DUMMY, BECAUSE THEY ARE DEAD. If Cunningham is getting an answer, he needs to be on some serious medication.

Sort of like asking the "snowflake babies" when life begins. :crazy:

Mz Pip
:dem:

[SaveElmer]

15. So what is a flag ?

If I burn a piece of cloth with 45 stars and 12 red and white stripes am I in violation

How absolutely stupid!!!!!!

[pinkpops]

17. Anybody know the text of the amendment?

[onenote]

29. here you go...

`The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.'.


That's it. Congress shall have the power. So if the amendment ultimately is ratified, and Congress decides to pass a flag protection law, how will it work? It will have to define what a flag is; it will have to indicate what constitutes physical desecration. IF it wants to permit burning the flag for the purpose of disposing of it, but to prohibit burning the flag as symbolic speech, its going to raise one heck of an interesting first amendment and equal protection set of issues.

onenote

[markam]

100. Real simple to get around this

If this passes, I forsee a lot of 49 star flags being burned. At that point, the Repubs will have accomplished nothing, and they will look really silly.

[cascadiance]

18. FINE! Then I'll burn one of these instead!

Just as soon as I can find a place to get them that won't reward the designer of this piece of crap! At least the symbolism of burning it is more appropriately directed at the pukes in charge now anyway!

Hall us off for burning this, and we definitely have a freedom of speech challenge in the supreme court!

[OneBlueSky]

21. if memory serves, the House has passed this several times . . .

but it's always died in the Senate . . . and even if it passes the Senate this time around, it still has to be approved by the legislatures of 3/4 of the states . . . not impossible, I suppose, but highly unlikely . . . imo . . .

[donkeyotay]

22. I apologize in advance: Dear House of Lying 'Ho-bag Pretzels

It's not the flag that needs protecting, it's the ideas it represents - you know, the ones you promise to protect.

I apologize in advance, for saying this. Really. I'm sorry.

[maxrandb]

24. While We're At It

Could I have a Constitutional Amendment Forbidding the Desecration of the Purple Heart Medal, and all the recepients (both those that were killed in battle, as well as those that were only scarred) that wear it?

:grr:

[MaineDem]

30. My Democratic Congressman, Mike Michaud, voted for it...ugh

However, and this is not in his defense, even if all the Democrats voting yes voted against it, it still would have passed.

[onenote]

31. here's what a flag "protection" law might look like

In recent years, bills have regularly been introduced to "protect" the flag. These almost certainly would be struck down as unconstitutional. HOwever, if the flag amendment to the constitution passes, the case against such laws changes. Nonetheless, they raise interesting questions. Here's typical language:

a) Actions Promoting Violence- Any person who destroys or damages a flag of the United States with intent to provoke imminent violence or a breach of the peace, and in circumstances reasonably likely to produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

SNIP

(e) Definition- As used in this section, the term `flag of the United States' means any flag of the United States, or any part thereof, made of any substance, of any size, in a form that is commonly displayed as a flag and would be taken to be a flag by the reasonable observer.'.


So basically, if you burn something that looks like a flag in front of someone and they punch you out, you're guilty.

onenote

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

32. HR10, Flag Burning Amendment, Passes in House

286-130

http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp?year=2005&rollnumber=296

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

33. How embaressing.

[madeline_con]

34. Geez...

another blow to free speech. Thanks, you RW morons!

[ClintonTyree]

35. Now if we can just get the anti-gay ammendment....

passed we'll succeed in becoming the most backward country on the planet. :eyes:
It's a piece of CLOTH, people! Blind, rabid nationalism is SO unbecoming of a nation.

[meganmonkey]

36. Let's hope the Senate uses it's brains

if it has any...

:puke:

[kwolf68]

37. By the way

Have we had a rash of flag-burning events lately? What a complete stupid non-issue....forget the lies, the DSM, the coffins no one sees... the real issue is burning the flag...Bin Laden is probably shaking in his boots right now.

[mchill]

38. Do you think this bill will include

those people who hang flags off their car attenae and let them get all tattered from speeding down the interstates?

[handywork]

44. Haha it should...

[WillyT]

51. Or How 'Bout Honest Joe's Used Car Lot Which Flies Hundreds Of 'Em...

while ripping off little old ladies in the neighborhood by selling them total lemons???

Ain't THAT desecration???

:mad::nuke::grr:

[KittyWampus]

54. Or How About Bush SIGNING A Flag At A Rally & Defacing It

[handywork]

39. what is it with these amendments restricting freedoms...

It is rediculous...

[PinkTiger]

42. The SCOTUS will throw it out

It is unconstitutional; we've been down this road before.

What a waste of time.

[Inland]

45. It's an amendment.

Prior decisions on the old first amendment won't count for the new, improved, limited right of free speech.

[fryguy]

63. not necessarily

lets assume for argument's sake it passes the senate and is ratified by the necessary number of states, it would then depend on how the statutes passed pursuant to the amendment would be worded. if they rely on the language of the amendment then the court would likely strike it down since "physical desecration of the flag" is too overbroad for even the most conservative court to swallow; it would result in an inability for people to know what uses that may result in the "physical descration of the flag", e.g. magnets on cars that fade, lapel pins that fall off into soup, or cutting up old glory to make a "patriotic" jacket, as much as "physical descration of the flag" such as burning it.

this sort of ambiguity and overbreath of the law is something the court seeks to avoid at all costs.

[DS9Voy]

80. I don't think you understand

The SCOTUS can NOT strike down ANY section of the constitution. This is a *constitutional amendment* that passed today.

It doesn't matter if it's overbroad. It doesn't matter if it says bush is president for life. Any section of the constitution is the supreme law of the land no matter WHAT it says.

THAT is why this a big deal.

on edit: I see that you actually said statues passed after the amendment. While that's slightly different it would be *highly* unlikely any statue meant to enforce an amendment (that says essentially the same thing the amendment does) would be unconstitutional.

[fryguy]

85. actually I do understand quite well

i see you noted I was referring to statutes that would be passed pursuant to the amendment and not the amendment itself. i didn't need to got to law school (which i did) to understand what an amendment to the constitutions means - got that from my political science degree....

my point, as you mentioned as being "highly unlikely", is that the supreme court DOES strike down laws and statutes passed to enforce an amendment or the constitution itself. in fact, that is precisely what judicial review is about. EVERY law that is passed by congress is done so based on its constitutional authority, whether explicit or implicit, and it is the purview of the courts to determine whether they have gone beyond the scope of power afforded it, conflicts with other enumerated rights within the constitution, or is constructed in a way as to make it unconstitutionally vague or over broad. so if congress goes ahead a passes a law saying that it is illegal to "physically desecrate" the flag, as the language of the amendment reads, then i can say it is highly likely that the Court would strike that down as over-broad because it is almost impossible to know would constitute "physical desecration." don't forget, even an amendment must be read in context of the rest of the Constitution.

that said, were the amendment to pass - and clear the other hurdles in order to be enacted - and the Congress were to pass a law saying a flag couldn't be burned in protest, etc. etc., and spell out narrowly how it could be enforced, then yes, that law would likely be upheld....so i know *perfectly* well what this means......

but also keep in mind that the house, if i'm not mistaken, has passed such a bill almost every session since the GOP has taken power. it still needs to pass the senate AND be ratified by two-thirds of the states. it is a big deal but keep it in perspective with the other evils they're inflicting upon the nation with greater rapidity and effect on our day-to-day lives.....

[Inland]

89. The amendment is going to be empowering.

It's going to say a state can pass its own statutes.

You are confusing the need for a criminal statute to be reasonably clear with constitutional language. Constitutional language doesn't have to be clear, or not overbroad. Constitutional language as a rule is neither clear nor tailored.

So the congress passes a constitutional amendmnet the intent of whcih is clear enough---"states may prohibit physcial desecration of the flag notwithstanding the first amendment" is more clear than the second amendment, for example---and states will pass laws defining precisely what is forbidden.

It's not going to be a constitutional problem.

[fryguy]

114. where does it say that in the language of the proposed amendment?

The text of the bill, in total, states:

"The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."

Explain to me where the parade of horribles allotting the power to regulate to the states is included in it? To be clear, I'm 100% against this silly, display of nationalism by the GOP, but lets understand the issue before letting loose with rhetoric.

As for my "confusion" I have not said that the language of the Amendment needs to be clear. One of the wonders of our Constitution is its brevity and how it has been interpreted by courts throughout the years. My comment is that any resulting statute(s) passed pursuant to the Amendment (assuming, as I do not, that the Amendment will ever be enacted) will have to be very narrowly tailored lest the Court will very likely strike it(them) down.

Like I said in another post here, this whole discussion is beginning to cause flash-backs to my first year of law school and my Constitutional Law professor. So if you wish to continue, please do. As for me, I am comfortable in saying this is a silly, ineffective puff-piece bill which the House GOPs has introduced (and if I'm not mistaken passed) in one form or another in every Congress for the last decade - at least - will have little to no effect. The chances that it will actually pass the Senate and then be ratified by the necessary number of states is so remote as to not cause me very much concern. Scream that the sky is now falling, but honestly there are plenty of things the GOP is doing NOW, that are going into effect NOW, to keep me busy fighting against.

Good night, and have a pleasant tomorrow.....

[No Michael Savage]

78. They can't

It's a constitutional amendment, the supreme court can't do anything about it.

[killbotfactory]

40. Republicans are desperate for a distraction issue

What a bunch of assholes.

[NYdemocrat089]

41. I just read about this on yahoo.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20050622/ap_on_go_co/flag_burning

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

Way to use one of the most tragic days in American history for politics you ass.


As for the flag burning Amendment...I think there are more important things to worry about right now.

[brainshrub]

48. Puke!

:puke:

Why do Republicans love to speak for the dead so much?

[dchill]

64. Because ...

only the dead would not disagree with the stupid shit that comes out of their mouths.

[eauclaireliberal]

52. I can;t find this asshole's web page

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

What I wold like to send to him:

1. The men and women who stood on top of the WTC are DEAD.

2. Dead people don't speak, much less endorse a partisan cause.

3. You are a fucking idiot, milking the rhetoric of other idiots.

[leveymg]

71. Here's his webpage

Go to US House finder page: http://www.house.gov/writerep/

At find your Representative, you'll need to enter 1) California, and 2) the full zip code: 92025-2613
3) hit Contact your representative

That brings you to Cunningham's page

You'll need to enter a name and address - I used his local office

Randy
West Valley Parkway
Escondito, CA 92025-2613

That'll bring you to page where you can send him your message.

:kick:

[leveymg]

60. Duke- the WTC roof doors were locked.

They had security concerns.

You should be busy worrying about something more substantial than the safety of some pieces of colored cloth. :nuke: :grr: :patriot:

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

73. Isn't Duke Cunningham the guy who's having a problem

in San Diego right now? Something about a fishy real estate transaction where he came out on the good end of the stick of a deal put together by a political supporter.

I agree. I am sick and tired of these Republican assholes using 9-11 to justify every stupid and evil thing they want to do.

No universal healthcare, no living wage, unemployment soaring, gas and house prices sky-high -- and these guys put their time and energy into a Flag-burning Amendment???

BTW, does 'physical desecration' include the local car dealer who has surrounded his lot with 100+ American flags? Or * signing his autograph on one?

[Lecky]

94. 911 was the best thing that ever happened to the Republican party

They exploit it daily.

[Inland]

43. I feel safer already. nt

[KoKo]

57. Next on the agenda: Restoring Mandatory Prayer in Schools...

They just are ticking off their 40 year old "Wish List" as fast as they can before his polls get into the 30's. Sheesh.....

[GHOSTDANCER]

109. Would your upside down flag icon also be covered under this bill?

"Land of the free? Who ever told you that is your enemy!!!" -RATM

[UrbScotty]

65. So do I

:sarcasm:

[DuaneBidoux]

46. One sole reason it surfaces: low congressional and presidential polls

[Behind the Aegis]

47. Foul!

We can't burn them and we can't see them draped over the coffins of those who defended our rights to burn them! Of all the stupid POS legislation, this takes the cake!

[sybylla]

49. Wow, my entire state's contingent of Dems voted against

Even my very own rep who is a DLCer. I'm shocked. I figured he go for it.

Plus one of the 4 pukes voted against.

Color me surprised!

[KamaAina]

50. But how are we supposed to dispose of our used flags?

and believe me, there are a lot of them out there, put up on 9/12/01 and not replaced since. Hooray for the, um, pink, cream and turquoise?

It is considered undignified to throw a used American flag in the trash. The recommended method of disposal is...

...wait for it...

...burning.

[ClintonTyree]

67. But ONLY....

under strict supervision of a bunch of drunken Vets with a charcoal grill. I kid you not, that's how old flags are disposed of in my town. The Vets get drunk, (that's always their first step for ANY ceremony) fire up the charcoal grill, THEN burn them in a solemn and dignified ceremony. :eyes:

These people have lost their minds. :banghead:

[kysrsoze]

79. Rob Corddry (Daily Show) will probably be locked up

He did a piece on anti-American sentiment and "accidentally" burned a small flag. It was hilarious, but it's on tape.

[grumpy old fart]

53. Harold Ford, Jr., squarely against freedom of expression.....

If he would only get over his delusions of being elected to the Senate, and get back to a his lock box House seat from which he can speak truth to power for years to come......If he remembers what truth is...

[NYdemocrat089]

55. Soldiers are dying everyday in Iraq

and we are sitting here worried about a piece of fabric?!

:wtf:

[genius]

56. NOTE: Kucinich OPPOSED the Amendment

This guy aways votes the correct way.

[OzarkDem]

61. And he always gets re-elected

in his heavily Republican district.

Should be a lesson to other Dems in how to stand on principle and serve your constituents.

[dansolo]

101. Kucinich is a fraud

He has voted FOR the flag burning amendment in the past. And he can't use the same excuse that he used to explain his change from being anti-abortion to pro-choice.

[fryguy]

58. not "flag burning".....its more expansive than that

the bill authorizes "the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."

[ClintonTyree]

69. Would the old Grannies wearing a flag sweater....

be exempt? All of the flag based clothing being worn these days by nationalistic nincompoops would be outlawed as well, correct? :shrug:
Or is it OK to use the flag for wearing apparel? They'd better refine this bill, pronto!

[fryguy]

76. that's my point

if the amendment as worded were to pass it would be so over-broad even the most conservative court would have a hard time not tossing out any statute passed pursuant to it....

[ovidsen]

82. You're missing the point

A constitutional amendment can be as broad or as narrow as humans can imagine it. It's not subject to any prior amendment.

If local or state lawmakers pass a law which defines "physical desecration of the flag" as exposing it to sunlight, well, that's what it is. And it's not, by definition, unconstitutional.

By the way, has anyone here ever personally seen a flag burning? Nope? Me neither. Do we really need a law against something that almost never happens?

[northzax]

83. congress, not state and local governments

the amendment specifically authorises congress to prohibit physical desecration of the flag. it's a stupid bill, one that has little chance of getting out of the senate, and no chance at all of getting 2/3rds of states on board within 7 years. Sure, there may be states that want it, but the bill doesn't give the power to the states, it gives it to congress, therefore any state laws more restrictive than the federal one remain unconstitutional. So it will cost a lot of money, and make a lot of noise, but it won't be passed by more than 20 states.

[fryguy]

86. excuse me, but you are the one missing the point

first off, its a federal law. providing the authority to Congress, not local or state governments. the only way they can do anything is if Congress cedes the power to them. and then that would raise a whole new series of constitutional issues.

as for the difference between the amendment and the law, well you hit on it anyway - by accident perhaps. the amendment is worded broadly, but the amendment is not what is enforced since all it does it give congress the authority to pass laws about it. its like saying that congress has the authority to regulate interstate commerce. it is a very broad proposition, and then it is up to the court to determine the constitutionality of the laws congress passes using that power. that is what judicial review is about.

so if congress were to pass a law, pursuant to the amendment, saying it was "physical desecration of the flag by exposing it to sunlight" then that would (perhaps) not be unconstitutionally over-broad or vague. because in that case, congress would have limited and defined what it means by physical desecration.

i know what you're going to say/think next, then congress could write a law detailing exactly what it means by desecration. again, that may be constitutional, but there are still reviews for the court to make of it. (puts the issue of Court make-up even more to the fore, doesn't it?)

but your last point is 100% dead on.....what the fuck are they doing wasting time and money with this. i think the house has passed something like this each time since they took over, it tends to be a publicity stunt more than anything else, and still has a long way to becoming an amendment......

[ovidsen]

112. It's not a federal law

It's a constitutional amendment. That's a rather big difference, isn't it? And if Congress passes it by a 2/3rd majority (and 3/4 of state legislatures pass it), it's a safe bet Congress will come up with the simple majorities needed to cede authority to state and local governments, allowing them to define what flag desecration is.

There would almost certainly be constitutional challenges to these state and local laws, but I wouldn't count on their success, especially if laws are specific (flag burning, blowing your nose in, or washing your car with the flag is forbidden, but the proposed ban on using a flag as a diaper is still in committee, and is therefore legal). When the 18th Amendment prohibiting alcohol went into effect in 1919, folks tried all sorts of courtroom tactics to get around it. They couldn't. In this case, I don't think 1st Amendment free speech arguments would work. Sure, it says that Congress shall pass no law abridging speech. But if this idiocy goes through, Congress wouldn't have passed a law, it would have passed an amendment! As distasteful as I think this would be, I fear that courts would rule that the flag desecration amendment would be a legal exception to the free speech amendment, because it is enumerated in the Constitution.

Then again, maybe I'm just a paranoid pessimest.

But in any case, I believe this amendment may never be ratified. (OMG! A flash of optimism!) And it is SUCH a waste of time. Like proposed amendments on prayer in school, gay marriage, and abortion, it's being used by shallow, venal lawmakers to distract the public from all the real problems affecting the US.

[fryguy]

113. not to split hairs

but considering a constitution is the supreme law of the land, and we are speaking about the federal Constitution, that would make the US Constitution the supreme federal law of the land. therefore, any amendment to the constitution, but their nature, becomes a part of the federal Constitution and, thus, federal law.

true, an amendment is not a federal law in the sense that it has been enacted by Congress and is located within either the US Code or the Code of Federal Regulations (which are, colloquially, referred to as "federal law"), but it is federal law in all sense of the term - it is indeed the federal law. so, to be pedantic, perhaps i was in error by saying the amendment is "a" federal law, to which i say "mea culpa"

by the way, i like your optimism and share in it. this whole conversation, while entertaining, is beginning to cause flash backs to my first year of law school and my constitutional law professor. to which i say, get me a god dam drink!

[ovidsen]

116. I think we agree

far more than we disagree! If, heaven forbid, this proposed amendment is ratified, it will be (almost) fun to see just how specific flag desecration laws have to be to withstand court scrutiny.

I noticed that last Memorial Day weekend, General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff led a motorcycle rally in DC wearing an "Old Glory" shirt remarkably similar to the one that put radical Abbie Hoffman in jail in 1968. Just what the hell IS desecration anyway?

I know, it's probably like porn: "I know it when I see it."

[dchill]

59. It's no problem, though,

to burn the Bill of Rights. These are the same people who make me WANT to burn the flag. And all their little magneto-ribbons, too.

[matcom]

62. well, are they gonna tell me how to discard my FLAG?

because the ONLY proper way to do it IS to BURN IT!

i'm so confused :cry:

[cmd]

72. Silly. Put it on a stick and hang it on your car.

Let the wind whip it to shreds. That's the new way to do it.

[0rganism]

66. No problem. Just start burning Confederate and Nazi flags instead

They're the true symbols of our country under neo-con dictatorship.

[Generator]

68. No worries from me

I don't plan on ever having anything to do with an American flag in any forseeable future. I won't be burning one but I don't know what it stands for anymore.

Except lies about wars, unanswered questions about attacks on it's own citizens that were not protected and those killers are still not caught.

Oh and does it stand for torture too now? I guess it does. Or appologists for torture.

The flag is just a symbol, if the symbol represents something good then burning it or destroying it has no meaning.

That's precisely why it's so important to pass this law NOW. The less the flag actually stands for: freedom, truth, a decent country,
the more they must protect the hollow symbol.

It's like advertisement for how worthless the symbol is.

Thanks again "leaders".

[SlipperySlope]

70. Don't they have better things to do with their time?

I really don't think this is going to get past the Senate and the States.

[Solly Mack]

74. The slaves to a symbol are comfortable with the illusion of freedom

It's not as scary as actual freedom.

FUCK the fascists and FUCK those too afraid to be free.



With all the problems in America, her government crawls around like the craven pieces of shit they are to rally the country to a symbol ...but a symbol of what? liberty? justice? ...rally 'round the flag, rally 'round the war




It's been stripped of meaning by the erosion of civil rights and liberty. By the lack of justice and equality. By corrupt politicians who give voice to the highest bidders, and who send men and women off to die in illegal wars.By a government that supports torture and the murder of civilians.




Destroy the social contract but protect the flag?

Americans give up their rights...and call that freedom.

Pathetic.

[realFedUp]

75. What a bogus and divisive issue

Political cover...that's it for the ayes.

[uppityperson]

77. Flag underwear and shoes are ok for us AmeriKans!!!!

bunch of time wasting idiot business.

[chelsea0011]

81. Anything to point the finger at "un-Americans" in 2006

And they used 9-11 to sell it. what a shock.

[Megahurtz]

102. I guess we're all supposed to be scared

into submission now!!! :scared:

Heil Bushitler of the United States of Arrestia!
Do not dare disagree with him,
and do not dare look at him,
just go about your business.......

:sarcasm:

[IndianaGreen]

84. Who cares about the napalm we are using in Iraq to fry people...

let's protect a piece of cloth while the Constitution burns and the war casualties continue to rise.

[slackmaster]

90. Waste of Congressional time and IMO unconstitutional in concept

Although if somehow they did get an amendment to the Constitution passed it would no longer be an unconstitutional restriction.

:crazy:

[Danieljay]

91. I can't remember the last time I heard of someone burning one..why bother?

What the hell is this about, we have a war in Iraq, deficit spending, Downing Street Minutes, and we are worried about a flag burning amendment? Give me a flippin break already.

[American Tragedy]

108. There will be PLENTY of people burning flags if it passes into law.

Trust me.

[fryguy]

115. agreed

tell someone they can't do something and they'll do it all the more....classic school-yard mentality

[BrightKnight]

93. Didn't Bush Sr. speak out aginst this?

I think I remember that Bush Sr. said that this was a bad idea the last time they tried to do this.

[BrightKnight]

96. self delete - n/t

duplicate

[BrightKnight]

122. Jasper Johns: Three Flags & Hendrix: Star Spangled Banner

Is Jasper Johns' Pop Art painting "Three Flags" desecration? Will we be required to burn this painting?



http://artwork.barewalls.com/product/framer.exe?ArtworkID=13136&thumbs=1&productid=13616

Why stop there. Perhaps we should arrest people for playing Jimmy Hendrix's Star Spangled Banner. Many people would have been in favor of that at the time it was produced.

--------

Freedom has always been the fundamental American value.

Neither Stalin nor Mao permitted flag desecration.

[Catchawave]

95. Can I still use my 4th of July *flag* paper plates....

..wipe my mouth on the *flag* paper napkin, drink my wine in a *flag* plastic cup? And, can I throw them in the trash when I'm done?

:silly:

[Megahurtz]

103. Hahahahaha!!!

:rofl: I've got my 4th of July flag plates, cups, and napkins too!

If I throw them out (or into the fire pit)
am I going to be getting a knock at the door or something?:rofl:

[BrightKnight]

97. self deleted - n/t

self deleted

[symbolman]

98. I guees I'll have to have all those

people arrested that run around with those tattered flags flapping on their cars..

if anything is desecration THAT IS..

I HATE seeing my flag tattered and covered in bug shit..

OF course these guys can't have a hearing on the Downing Street Minutes.. whenever REAL NEWS shows up, it all Flag Desecrations, Ten Commandments, living wills, missing brides, gay marraige..

gets old, OUT with the lot of them..

[teryang]

104. The same old tired political stunts

Give me an f'ing break.

[Raiden]

106. Why don't the Repigs just have flags made

with non-flammable material? Simple solution to a non-existant problem... :banghead:

[American Tragedy]

107. So, what would be the operational definition of an American flag?

Is it an American flag if there are forty-nine stars?

Is it an American flag if there are twelve stripes?

Is it an American flag if the order of the colors of the stripes are inverted, rendering seven white and six red stripes rather than seven red and six white?



Do not ignore or minimize this, guys. This is an outrageous and wholly unjustifiable case of the government imposing upon individual rights and property. They are essentially claiming ownership of objects that are privately created and owned because they happen to bear a particular image.

I personally detest flag-burning as a protest tactic. But punitive legal measures against people who express themselves in that manner is not going to somehow erase the hatred and anger that made them do it in the first place! Any moron with a dash of common sense knows that this can only generate more resentment at the American establishment, and it will continue to manifest itself.

This has no practical benefits whatsoever. It is merely meant to target the demographic of individuals who oppose their agenda.

Hell, even my Senator openly opposes it, and he's the fucking Republican Majority Whip.

[trogdor]

111. He opposes it until it comes up for a vote.

Believe me, his paper "opposition" don't mean shit.

[Thor_MN]

117. What year is it again? Late 60's early 70's???

I better buy some of that Microsoft and Apple stock. Medtronic would be good too.

[cshldoc]

121. Flag-B-Que Time

It's not entirely en vogue these days to say this in liberal America, but I am a patriot. I get chills down my spine sometimes when hearing a nice version of the Star Spangled Banner performed before a sporting event. I love to see my Flag waving proudly on a glorious summer day, reminding me of the promise and the dream of the United States of America. But if this proposal reaches even the point of being a potential amendment, I'm going to go stock up on American flags... and, as much as it pains this Eagle Scout, this patriot, this disenchanted dreamer, I'm going to burn them. Publicly. I'm going to stamp on their charred bodies with heavy boots and grind mud into their stripes. I'm going rip off the stars and throw them into the wind. And I'm going to discard their tattered remains in the garbage. And I'll take pictures my escapades and post them, along with my name and address, on the internet. I'll send them to my Congressmen and Congresswoman and the President of the United States. I'll send them to local law enforcement. Hopefully, I'll see some of you out in the streets. Maybe you can borrow my lighter.