Flag burning amendment

[PhDP]

...and then Bill O'Reilly/John Gibson will say it's because of the evil France, it's always because of France...

[revprez]

(i)The claim made was not what you state above

 

The claim made is exactly as I stated above. "But it's easier to limit freedoms if you do it gradually, sneak in amendments and convince people there good."

 

but rather that restricting freedoms by passing certain amendments is easier once a precedent of this nature has been set.

 

There have been only 27 successful attempts out of over 10,000 to amend the Constitution. There is nothing easy about passing amendments of any kind.

 

Your statistic does not address this point in any way.

 

Sure it does, despite your handwaving.

 

Rev Prez

[revprez]

There's only so much obtuse behavior (deliberate or no, it matters not) I can subject myself to, so I'm outta here...

 

Stop it. You sound like that "space has no end" guy. You oppose an amendment to the Constitution to prohibit part of the expression the Courts have declared protected because you worry that the Courts will reverse itself on the whole issue entirely. I've asked you twice now to explain why the Court reversing itself amendment or no doesn't worry you.

 

I've never read anything you posted complaining about law pertaining to who can wear uniforms of the armed services and law enforcement and how they should go about it, or the distribution and use of government identification, or the handling of currency--with no decisions protecting expression that runs afoul of these laws.

 

Rev Prez

[Dak]

No-one has said what exactly is so bad about flag burning.

 

In a contry which dedicats police man-power and state money to protecting the rights of neo-nazis to publicly exercise their right to free speach, dispite the fact that what they are actually saying is unconstitutional (specifically going against the 'all men are equal' bit), i find it strange that a constitution amendment is being proposed that would prevent a person from publicly expressing their views in a particular manner.

 

What is it about making a statement by desecrating a flag which is so unnaceptable that it has to be banned, and that 'freedom of speach' has to be interpreted as 'freedom of speach: but not like this'?

[zyncod]

Actually, when I worked at an (ahem) Boy Scout camp, we burned a whole lot of flags that were around 80 years old - took about eight hours to do. You're supposed to burn the flag even if it just touches the ground. I, for one, applaud this amendment. We've allowed these hippy Boy Scouts to go around willy-nilly desecrating our flag and it's time for it to stop.

 

Actually, it's more the waste of time than the free speech issue that concerns me. Our legislators are only in Washington the minority of the time that they're not out raising more money for their campaigns. And we're in the middle of a war. Two wars actually. This is what we pay them for? And, yes, if it passes the senate, it will pass all the state legislatures. Most, if not nearly all, of the legislatures have passed resolutions asking Congress to pass this amendment so that they can vote it right into law.

[bascule]

The amendment empowers Congress to prohbit the physical desecration of the flag, not the proper procedures for the disposal of old, worn and torn emblems.

 

What happens when a developer wants to torch a forest and the Sierra Club shows up and paints flags on all the trees?

[In My Memory]

Dak,

 

No-one has said what exactly is so bad about flag burning.

 

In a contry which dedicats police man-power and state money to protecting the rights of neo-nazis to publicly exercise their right to free speach' date=' dispite the fact that what they are actually saying is unconstitutional (specifically going against the 'all men are equal' bit)[/quote']

[pedant]

 

The phrase "all men are created equal" doesnt appear in the Constitution, it appears in the Declaration of Independence. According to About.com - Declaration of Independence:

the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document for this nation. What this means is that it has no authority over our laws, our lawmakers, or ourselves. It cannot be cited as precedent or as being binding in a courtroom. The purpose of the Declaration of Independence was to make a moral case for dissolving the legal ties between the colonies and Great Britain; once that goal was achieved, the official role of the Declaration was finished.

[/pedant]

 

Here is the indepth annotation to the constitutional limits of free speech. It is only constitutional to limit speech and expression so long as there is a clear and present danger (this has an interesting interpretation in some cases, but basically it should be understood as any expression that lends to criminal activity). As long as the limits of clear and present danger can be respected, all speech (and that includes neo-nazis) is protected.

 

 

Zyncod,

 

We've allowed these hippy Boy Scouts to go around willy-nilly desecrating our flag and it's time for it to stop.

For what reason?

[YT2095]

make the TRUE flag fireproof!

 

no amendment need be made, only public awareness that the True American flag cannot be burned, maybe even TV comercials and stuff.

that way if you see some wise guy setting fire to a flag that Looks like the american one, you may laugh at him quietly whilst taking no offence at all

[Pangloss]

I don't understand flag-burning bans. This country is all about free speech, and it just seems to run contrary to that principle.

[YT2095]

free speech and free actions???

 

I dunno man.

[Pangloss]

Ok, this country is supposed to be about free speech.

[ecoli]

Ok, this country is supposed[/i'] to be about free speech.

 

Yeah, it wouldn't be the first time Freedom of Speech is waived in times of war. The case that comes to mind is in WWI, IIRC, when a man was arrested for handing out anti-War leaflets. He was tried in a military court and found guilty of treason, or something like that. Of course in military court, you're guilty until you prove yourself innocent.

[Pangloss]

Constitutional amendments aren't normally bound to wartime. Was this one supposed to be just in times of war?

[In My Memory]

Pangloss,

 

I don't understand flag-burning bans. This country is all about free speech, and it just seems to run contrary to that principle.

The purpose of these flag-burning bans isnt to protect the flag, its to rouse patriotism when politicians are in a perpetual state of campaign mode. These flag-burning bans come along everytime the Republican party begins to lose popularity, it gives a really easy opportunity for politicians to say "I love the flag more than anyone else, vote for me". Besides, its virtually tradition every year for the House to pass this amendment and the Senate to vote it down.

 

By the way, I found an excellent commentary on flag burning, from the Chicago Suntimes - Don't worry, Old Glory can take the heat:

The House of Representatives passed a constitutional amendment on flag burning last week, in the course of which Rep. Randy ''Duke'' Cunningham (Republican of California) made the following argument:

 

''Ask the men and women who stood on top of the Trade Center. Ask them and they will tell you: Pass this amendment."

 

Unlike Congressman Cunningham, I wouldn't presume to speak for those who died atop the World Trade Center. For one thing, citizens of more than 50 foreign countries, from Argentina to Zimbabwe, were killed on 9/11. Of the remainder, maybe some would be in favor of a flag-burning amendment; and maybe some would think that criminalizing disrespect for national symbols is unworthy of a free society. And maybe others would roll their eyes and say that, granted it's been clear since about October 2001 that the federal legislature has nothing useful to contribute to the war on terror, and its hacks and poseurs prefer to busy themselves with a lot of irrelevant grandstanding with a side order of fries, but they could at least quit dragging us into it.

 

...

 

Banning flag desecration flatters the desecrators and suggests that the flag of this great republic is a wee delicate bloom that has to be protected. It's not. It gets burned because it's strong. I'm a Canadian and one day, during the Kosovo war, I switched on the TV and there were some fellows jumping up and down in Belgrade burning the Stars and Stripes and the Union Jack. Big deal, seen it a million times. But then to my astonishment, some of those excitable Serbs produced a Maple Leaf from somewhere and started torching that. Don't ask me why -- we had a small contribution to the Kosovo bombing campaign but evidently it was enough to arouse the ire of Slobo's boys. I've never been so proud to be Canadian in years. I turned the sound up to see if they were yelling ''Death to the Little Satan!'' But you can't have everything.

 

That's the point: A flag has to be worth torching. When a flag gets burned, that's not a sign of its weakness but of its strength. If you can't stand the heat of your burning flag, get out of the superpower business. It's the left that believes the state can regulate everyone into thought-compliance. The right should understand that the battle of ideas is won out in the open.

I like that

[Phi for All]

That expresses my feelings exactly, In My Memory. Thanks very much for that.

 

When someone finds a button to push to get a reaction, they'll just keep pushing it. Pass this ammendment and you'll see more flags burned than ever before, and more people needlessly in prison.

[ecoli]

Very appropriate, In My Memory. good job finding that one.

 

Constitutional amendments aren't normally bound to wartime. Was this one supposed to be just in times of war?

 

no, not at all. This incidint didn't even have anything to do with a consitutional amendment. I just thought it was a relevant precident.

[atinymonkey]

The case that comes to mind is in WWI, IIRC, when a man was arrested for handing out anti-War leaflets. He was tried in a military court and found guilty of treason, or something like that.

 

Really? Was this in the US? Why would the US be concerned over WWI?

[Pangloss]

Why wouldn't it be?

[atinymonkey]

Why wouldn't it be?

Because US was primarily isolationist regarding the affairs in Europe during WWI. Woodrow Wilson refused to be drawn into anything but mediation, until in the final year of the War. I don't see how that policy would result in a random war protestor being courtmarshalled by a military power who's official stance on the war was 'it's none of our business'.

 

It all sounds a little apocryphal, for a story half remembered.

[Pangloss]

Oh I see. Well that's a reasonable assumption, given the historical context of isolationism, which was predominent in American politics at the time. That's the funny thing about the logical fallacy of "hasty generalizations", though -- they ignore minority opinions and specific events. Just because America is involved in a war in Iraq, for example, doesn't mean it's not a controversial issue here. Make sense?

 

I'm not familiar with the incident ecoli is referring to, but in answer to your question "Why would the US be concerned over WWI?", the answer is that the war in Europe was extremely controversial and hotly debated in American politics -- that's well documented. We were loaning money to both sides of the conflict, and the conflict-of-interest issues were very serious. There is also the issue of the Lusitania, which directly impacted on American opinion about the war.

 

Prior to 1917, it's a bit analogous to the situation of Britain and France during the American Civil War. They were indirectly involved, and had a huge stake in the outcome. It wouldn't surprise me if there were demonstrations in Britain and France for or against involvement in the US civil war at that time.

[Mokele]

Ok, this is from my poor memory of US history class, but I seem to recally that, until recently, the US would institute "Sedition Acts", which made it illegal to publicly criticise the government. Googling that term might turn up more info, and *definitely* will turn up more than my memory.

 

Mokele