Clark supporters - care to explain this

[Hawkeye-X]

Clark favors flag-burning amendment:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=692936

Don't get me wrong, Clark is my second choice next to Dean, but he has to explain why he's supporting this. I oppose all flag-burning amendments, because it's an exercise of free speech.

Hawkeye-X

[metisnation]

1. this is a play

how can you disagree with not being able to burn flags...this is a good move if you think about it because what GOP person in their right mind would challenge such an issue. This guy is a lot sharper than anyone is giving credit. Freep moderates might just bite.

[Egnever]

6. I would vote against him based on this alone

I am tired of fre speech zones I am tired of being banned from protesting in front of the white house. I am tired of our freedom of expression being whittled away slowly because some people are offended.

Thats what free speech is about!

Its not there to protect the people that agree with you.

Sure all the kneejerk patriots will jump for joy over something like this.

Is it worth it?

[KittyWampus]

15. Two Words- WEDGE ISSUE

Clark has said repeatedly that he supported the protestors rights to speak out when he went over to Vietnam.

It is part of his stump speech. He means what he says.

I disagree with him on this one issue and since he's not running for Congress and since this is a WEDGE ISSUE... it doesn't bother me.

[Tom Rinaldo]

41. On Wedge issue

Agree with all you said. Becasue Clark is so strong on the right to dissent I can live with this, though I don't like it. He comes down wrong in my opinion on the amendment, but he will appoint judges who respect the first amendment. I understand that his back ground colors him on this one. So, this is not a specific reason to support Clark in my book, but his stand on the bigger related issues is. And yes, it will make him more electable, which is a good thing.

[SahaleArm]

35. *NM*

*NM*

[xultar]

2. Think about 9/11

When they showed the folks in Palestine burining the flag and celebrating. That made me sad.

I think the General is speaking from a Military point of view. I guess I couldn't blame him if I'd been shot defending the flag or lost a family member in the armed forces and received one at their funeral and came home and people were burning it.

I don't however think we need an admendment(Edit) to ban flag burning.

It is a minor issue to me. I wouldn't quit supporting the General just on this alone. He'd have to be against AA, pro choice, the environment, and a whole bunch of other stuff.

[jono]

7. Not talking about a law.

The talk is about an amendment to the Constitution. It's a nit-pick, but IMHO an important distinction.

[pinkpops]

3. I'm leaning toward Clark

but I can't explain it. It seems like a pretty trivial thing to ammend the constitution for, cheapening the process.

[Scott Lee]

4. It puts Clark in the Orrin Hatch Camp

Is that where you want him....next to a guy who ritually wants to wipe his ass with the Constitution?

What a stupid move for Clark. He should never have even brought it up.

[ResistTheCoup]

12. Along with Kucinich and Gephardt?

And he didn't bring it up, someone asked him today about it.

See link below for Kucinich's vote.

[KittyWampus]

25. And Here Is Dean's Quote About "Protecting" The Flag

Gov. Howard Dean said he doesn’t support a constitutional amendment banning flag desecration, but is
comfortable with suggesting it to Congress as the Vermont Legislature did last week.

“I favor protection of the flag, but I do not favor a constitutional amendment,” Dean said Monday. “A
constitutional amendment should be passed only in very rare circumstances.”

He said that he supported the resolution that passed both the House and Senate last week by wide
margins. It voiced support for protecting the flag and suggested a constitutional amendment as one possible
option, but stopped short of calling on Congress to take that step.

[xultar]

5. OK it is an exercise in free speech what does burning the flag say?

I'm not being a smart ass but I just wanna know what burning the flag says that you can't write on a poster, call, write, emil or yell about?

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

16. It says:

"I have the right to free speech."

That's pretty important to me. Part of allowing free speech means accepting that not all of what you will hear is what you want to hear. If you want to have free speech, you have to let everyone else have it too.

[SahaleArm]

32. No your right to free speech is both...

guaranteed by the constitution and restricted by the courts. I also disagree with Clark on the flag burning amendment or any other law prohibiting the act as it does not infringe on the rights of others:).

[Bread and Circus]

8. I can't explain it....

I disagree with Clark...

But I have to take the bad with the good...

It's weird that Kucinich is kind of in line with this
as well...

[ResistTheCoup]

11. Kucinich voted YES on amendment prohibiting flag desecration

So he isn't just 'kinda of in line with it' it seems.

http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Dennis_Kucinich_Civil_Rights.htm

Voted YES on Constitutional amendment prohibiting Flag Desecration.

Proposing a Constitutional amendment to state that Congress shall have the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.
Bill HJRES 36 ; vote number 2001-232 on Jul 17, 2001

[SahaleArm]

33. Clark said we should dissent.

Well I'm dissenting on this one:D.

[Demobrat]

9. Oh great.

Lets throw people in prison for burning the flag. But why stop there? Why not throw me in jail for using my old flag tee shirt to wipe the floor? Or better yet, let throw the numbskulls in prison who stick them on their SUVs and leave them to disintigrate there. Why discriminate against people who like fire?

[xultar]

10. OK don't you think you're overreacting just a bit?

[Demobrat]

13. Nope.

A flag is a piece of cloth. It means what you want it to mean. If it's legal to burn leaves on my front lawn, it should be legal to burn a piece of cloth, even if the piece of cloth has a flag printed on it.

[xultar]

20. BTW Dean also upports protecting the flag...

so does Dennis, and Dick.

Which candidate will u support now?

[Demobrat]

22. The jury's out until

I know exactly what he means by "protecting". Not being for a constitutional amendment is a good start.

[Democrats unite]

14. I am a Clark supporter

Nobody is perfect. Just look at Dean & the Rebel Flag.

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

17. Misspeaking is a world different than

wanting to change our Constitution because you disagree with it. All Dean did was goof up something he's been (rightly) saying for months. His statement still stands true, and Dean stands by it 100%.

[xultar]

19. Dean also supports protecting the flag...

He has the same stance. Now who are you going to support,
Dick and Dennis also favor an amendment?

[Demobrat]

23. Clark and Dean do not have the same stance.

Clark wants a constitutional amendment. Dean does not. Dean may not be on the same page as me on this, but Clark is not even on the same chapter.

[KittyWampus]

26. What About Affirmative Action Based On Class Not Race?

Matching Funds
Cuba Embargo
DeRegulating Energy
Guns as State Issue

All part of the creature that is Howard Dean. And yet you can overlook these things....

Well, I may not agree with Clark... and I admit that... but since he won't be voting on the issue and since it's a WEDGE ISSUE that the Right uses to bludgeon us... I can overlook this ONE THING.

[Demobrat]

28. Actually, I happen to agree

that class should be part of AA and can't wait to vote for somebody who feels that way too. I'm thrilled that he's not taking matching funds. And I feel strongly that gun control should be a local issue. The south side of Chicago has different needs than the Arizona desert. I haven't heard him say anything I'd have to "overlook" on the other two items you mentioned either. But you go ahead and overlook whatever you want. Clark looks so good in his uniform, and all.

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

30. What does any of that

have to do with the issue at hand?

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

29. True, but the difference is

that dean doesn't support a constitutional amendment banning flag burning.

While I don't agree with any form of stifling free speech, I can live with dean not trying to take away our constitutional rights.

[thebgrkng]

18. I don't think it's a trick or some clever ploy...

I think the flag represents everything this country is about. Freedom, justice, peace, equality, opportunity, and yes, free speech. Americans live and die to protect those ideals.

People don't burn the flag because they think those are the wrong ideals. They do it because somebody is doing something they don't agree with. That is misguided protest, and its insulting. I think Clark takes his patriotism very seriously, and fought for those ideals. He wants people to challenge the abusers of America, not the idea of America.

-tbk

[metisnation]

24. good post

welcome to DU.

[lastliberalintexas]

39. The symbol is much different than the ideal

it represents. While I don't like to see someone burning a US flag, I'd much rather them to do that than have our country amend our Constitution to restrict freedom. The flag is merely a symbol of what this country stands for, but the Constitution is the actual framework of our rights.

Another problem with the FBA from a Constitutional/legal standpoint is that it only targets one form/manner of speech, ie burning, and therefore regulates the content of the intended speech. Why discriminate? Desecration is desecration, whether an individual burns the flag or writes on it. Why not go after Shrub for "autographing" American flags and throw him in jail for that offense? It was, after all, desecration of a US flag by the legal definition of same.

The physical act of desecrating is the same, but the intent is different. That is where you get into trouble legally, since you are then saying that Shrub's physical act of desecration is ok because no ill will was intended towards the gov't, while the flag burner goes to jail because s/he was actually criticizing the gov't and/or its policies. That's illegal content regulation, all other things being equal.

While I appreciate the sentiment you've expressed, I have a big problem with it on Constitutional/legal grounds. The gov't has the authority to regulate speech based on certain restrictions outlined by the courts. This means that a student can not stand up in the middle of class, interrupting the teacher's lesson, and say "America is bad", SO LONG AS another student can not stand up and say "America is good." The school has an interest in teaching a subject during that time, so the time and manner restrictions allow for regulation. But the regulation MUST be applied equally, otherwise the gov't (ie, school) is discriminating against the speaker based on the CONTENT only.

You give the gov't far too much power in regulating the content of speech if you allow it to start making distinctions based on the message intended. While I won't vote for or against a particular candidate based solely on this issue, it does raise serious questions for me about that candidate.

And welcome to DU! :hi:

[Meshuga]

21. I'm not a Clark supporter...

I personally think it's a terrible disrespect to burn any national flag (including the US flag). I would never do it myself.

I don't agree with Clark, Kucinich and Gephardt on this and I don't think this should be amended to the US constitution.

But this is not the type of thing that would make me think less of these candidates. I will not condemn them for having a different opinion than mine.

What's so great about burning the flag? Why do it? But still, why ban it?

[tedoll78]

27. It's a purely political move.

If he gets the nomination, this plays well with moderates. It means next to nothing to me, since he won't be the one actually voting for or signing such an amendment. And I can't imagine him (or any other president) devoting much bully pulpit time to this issue.

[SahaleArm]

31. I wouldn't burn the flag but...

the question remains: 'Does burning the flag infringe on anyones civil rights?' To me the answer is no, so it should remain legal.

[Jack_Dawson]

34. Get Over It, Lamers

Look...Clark served 35 years in the military, which is, I'm guessing, about 35 years longer than any of you. He has taken bullets defending our country, and you haven't. In other words, the flag means more to him than to you or me. That said, let's look at the big picture. Clark is the only democrat with the credibility, charisma and character to whup George W. Bush. You know it, I know it, and all people who are being intellectually honest know it. I disagree with Clark over flag burning amendments but WHO CARES??? I agree with him on everything else and he's our best hope to oust Bush. A vote for Dean is a vote for Bush.

If you want to vote for Dean, fine. But just remember who you're making happy with that vote: Hannity, Kristol, Rove, Limbaugh, Coulter and the Dicks on Fox (Bennet and Morris). Think long and hard about that vote.

[OhioStateProgressive]

37. how silly

flags are just pieces of cloth

are we as americans going to allow symbolism to replace validity?

we do not need led by the Military Industrial Complex any more...a vote for Clark is a vote for further militarization of thought in america

[Meshuga]

38. Then why burn it?

If it's just a piece of cloth? It sounds like a waste of $20 bucks and time to burn a piece of cloth that doesn't mean anything.

[lastliberalintexas]

40. So wrong there

"In other words, the flag means more to him than to you or me."

You have no idea what the flag means to me or anyone else. You are correct, however, in that I do not place the flag above the Constitution. If it comes down to protecting only one of those things, it is an easy choice for me. As it should be for any American.

[SahaleArm]

36. 2003 Flag Burning Ammendment Vote

BILL TITLE: Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States Authorizing the Congress to Prohibit the Physical Desecration of the Flag of the United States.

Text: http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:H.J.Res.4:

Vote: http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2003&rollnumber=234

[a_lil_wall_fly]

42. Clark's flag burning statement & Dean's Rebel flag owner statement

Get to Love the Democratic Party.... For each follower of each should just let go of the disapproval of other candidates in the race and vote for who your heart follows.

Yes both of them have stated asinine statements, both candidates followers can state freedom of speech and trying to gather citizens to vote based on the "class" that their are in.

But who is better than the other based on each statement?

Neither!!!!