Flag burning amendment

[revprez]

Explain. Here's the text of HJ Res 10 if you need it.

[swansont]

Explain. Here's the text[/url'] of HJ Res 10 if you need it.

 

"Please resubmit your search

 

Search results are only retained for a limited amount of time.Your search results have either been deleted, or the file has been updated with new information."

 

From another article:

 

Cunningham's 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."

 

Pretty vague.

[swansont]

I can't think of anything that's more un-American than restricting speech, so it's so ironic that these cowardly congresspersons would vote for such an amendment in the guise of patriotism.

 

"If the amendment passes, the terrorists win!"

[ecoli]

Never heard of a worse idea...

 

I never thought I'd see the day when we hold a piece of fabric over the ideals of freedom of expression. Our founding fathers and mothers are turning over in their graves.

[Mokele]

My question is "how much do we really even need this ammendment, and how much is just a political ploy?"

 

I mean, I've seen news clips of the US flag being burned, and now that I think of it, I can't recall any clips that were not 30 years ago (the bellbottoms give it away) or in another country. Granted this might not be reflective of actual frequency, but *still*, I'd expect if they had more recent and local file footage, they'd use it.

 

To me, it seems like a useless and unconstitutional ammendment which solves no real problems except "How to I make myself look good for my next re-election campagin?"

 

Mokele

[swansont]

To me' date=' it seems like a useless and unconstitutional ammendment which solves no real problems except "How to I make myself look good for my next re-election campagin?"

[/quote']

 

Me, too. Which is why I characterize those voting for it as cowardly.

[ecoli]

Above all, they shouldn't be able to take away our right to deface our flag if we choose. It still is a pretty powerful political statement.

[bascule]

Amendments banning flag burning have passed the House three times since SCOTUS ruled it constitutionally protected free speech. They've always been shot down in the Senate. Stupid as this is, there's really nothing to worry about. Even if it somehow miraculously passes the Senate and is signed by bush, there's no way it will pass the 3/4ths of state legislatures required to become part of the Constitution.

[ecoli]

just a question... if they ban flag burning as an amendment, will they have to define an American flag in the amendment? What constitutes an americal flag, anyway? Are there specific cloth requirements, etc?

[Dak]

the correct way to dispose of the american flag is to burn it.

 

google

 

note the inurl:gov part of the above search: most of the many sites which reccomend conflagoration as an honorable means of disposal of a worn US flag are govournment sites (ie, .gov).

 

This site sums up the general advice from the US govournmental institutes found in the above search, for both US and state flags.

 

So how is that going to work? how is the law going to distinguish between respectful patriotic flag-burning and 'hippy' flag-burning?

[swansont]

Amendments banning flag burning have passed the House three times since SCOTUS ruled it constitutionally protected free speech. They've always been shot down in the Senate. Stupid as this is, there's really nothing to worry about. Even if it somehow miraculously passes the Senate and is signed by bush, there's no way it will pass the 3/4ths of state legislatures required to become part of the Constitution.

 

I imagine people said similar things about prohibition, too.

[swansont]

the correct way to dispose of the american flag is to burn it.

 

google

 

note the inurl:gov part of the above search: most of the many sites which reccomend conflagoration as an honorable means of disposal of a worn US flag are govournment sites (ie' date=' .gov).

 

This site sums up the general advice from the US govournmental institutes found in the above search, for both US and state flags.

 

So how is that going to work? how is the law going to distinguish between respectful patriotic flag-burning and 'hippy' flag-burning?

 

The law will need to be written more specifically. The amendment just makes the law constitutional. But it's too vague - what constitutes desecration? Is not saluting it desecration? Folding it wrong? Displaying it improperly? Not displaying it at all? If you draw a picture of the flag and then do something to the paper, is that desecration? Seems to me all of those things could be made into law and be within the bounds of the amendment.

[revprez]

The law will need to be written more specifically. The amendment just makes the law constitutional. But it's too vague - what constitutes desecration?

 

"The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States." The Courts have already ruled that flag desecration in general is protected speech; what makes you think they'll read this amendment more broadly than necessary?

 

Rev Prez

[Douglas]

I think the proposed amendment is ridiculous. If they start with flag burning amendments, it'll progress to hate banner amendments, then offensive language amendments.

[revprez]

I think the proposed amendment is ridiculous. If they start with flag burning amendments, it'll progress to hate banner amendments, then offensive language amendments.

 

Do any of those other initiatives have a constituency comparable to that behind the flag amendment?

 

Rev Prez

[ecoli]

Do any of those other initiatives have a constituency comparable to that behind the flag amendment?

 

Rev Prez

 

Probably not... but it's easier to limit freedoms if you do it gradually, sneak in amendments and convince people there good. Before you know it you don't have any rights left. (Think of Animal Farm, by George Orwell)

[Pangloss]

"I will work harder!"

 

Oh, sorry. I'm channeling Horse again.

[revprez]

But it's easier to limit freedoms if you do it gradually, sneak in amendments and convince people there good.

 

There have been over ten thousand attempts to amend the Constitution. Less than thirty have succeeded. So what do you have besides rationalization?

 

Rev Prez

[lethalfang]

Probably not... but it's easier to limit freedoms if you do it gradually, sneak in amendments and convince people there good. Before you know it you don't have any rights left. (Think of Animal Farm, by George Orwell)

Exactly.

There is a saying, "if you drop a frog into hot water, it will jump out. But if you slowly warm up the water, then the frog will stay there until it boils to death."

It's a slippery slope.

[husmusen]

If one only protects speech and demonstrations that one likes, how is that any good?

Even dictators protect speech and demonstrations they approve of.

 

Cheers

[YT2095]

wouldn`t passing such an act actualy Incite people to burn flags just out of defiance?

 

a bit like all the alcohol related deaths during prohibition, tell folks that CAN`T do something and that`s exactly what some folks will want to do, even if they never considered before!

 

maybe the .Gov should reissue new flags to folks that want them, but not tell them it`s been made of a fireproof material

[atinymonkey]

There have been over ten thousand attempts to amend the Constitution. Less than thirty have succeeded. So what do you have besides rationalization?

Appeals to history are logical fallacys. Besides which, your counterpoint is nothing but rationalisation.

 

I honestly don't see the point in amending the constitution for flag burning. It seems like nothing but publicity for a cause, and that cause currently seems to be the creation of a legacy for Randy "Duke" Cunningham. The restriction of civil liberties in relation of burning certain fabrics serves no tangible purpose other than the restriction of political ideas. I understand it will be passed anyway, based on the political commentary, regardless of the impacts on freedom of speech.

 

Pah, a more interesting debate would be what people would like to see in the constitution.

[revprez]

Appeals to history are logical fallacys.

 

Show us the fallacy.

 

Rev Prez

[atinymonkey]

Show us the fallacy.

 

Sure. An appeal to history is where an argument is based on precedent rather than logic. If you have rolled dice and come up with 5 four times in a row, that is no indication that the next roll will be a 5. In historical terms past performance is an indicator of future performance, but it's a fallacy to use that as refutation of future events. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

[YT2095]

yeah, that kinda stuff only really works with Science and testability/predictions.

 

not where people are involved in emotive matters/concerns, history CAN repeat itself, but a curve ball is often the case too!

 

you really can`t apply it here.