If we ban flag burning we strip from the flag the very values it's supposed to represent. And so in the attempt to protect it, we imbue it with all the meaning of a bed sheet.

And frankly, I'm not interested in flying a bed sheet outside my house. Probably an HOA violation or something.

Ace:

Should we conclude that your mommy breastfeed you?

It's such a ridiculous concept. Here's the wording:

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

That's it. So what about napkins with the flag on them? Or t-shirts? Or shorts like the girl in that side-bar ad? (Mm) Note that burning isn't even mentioned. So in theory if you spill some ketchup on a flag t-shirt at a 4th of July barbecue, congress can act against you.

Nice sentiment, bad idea.

What they should do is remove the criminal penalty from beating the shit out of a flag burner, cause that's why we really want anyway.

So yeah you can burn the flag, but I got the right to kick your teeth in if you do it.

Let's not get all verklempt just yet. Even if, and that's a humongous if, it passes the Senate and if (an even bigger if) it is ratified by 3/4 of the states, all it does is ALLOW Congress to act.

a) Congress COULD choose not to act. (Unlikely, but possible.)

b) Congress if it chose to act would have to create a statute that specifically defines the crime and penalty. Including specifying what is a "flag" and what is "desecration" among other things, and anything else (exceptions, defenses, excuses) they want.

Without getting into a (probably) dreary constitutional law argument, I think that there are two questions at issue. Whether Congress (or a state, for that matter) *can* act to criminalize "flag burning" and whether they *should*.

There is a reasonable argument to be made for saying YES and NO, respectively. As in the medical marijuana area, I am not unduly distressed by allowing that perhaps Congress CAN prohibit marijuana use without a medical exception, but that they should NOT do so.

So yeah you can burn the flag, but I got the right to kick your teeth in if you do it.

Good call, I like that idea even better.

I can see both sides of this, I really can. Although I don't agree with an ammendment being passed for the sole purpose of outlawing flag-burning, I don't really see how burning the flag is representing free speech. With all of the anti-slander and anti-hate speech rules there are now, I see flag burning as being more offensive than any of those. Just a thought.

So let them pass it, the Supreme Court will just issue a retared idict stating that what the amendment means is that the government can come take your property, stifle your right to speak your mind on political matters, and deny your right to own weapons to defend yourself. Oops, all of that has already happened. Won't be long and we will be sharing our (the government's) homes with the garrison troops in your neigborhood.

So, we live in a fascist country? Is that right? And you're burning the flag to demonstrate that sad fact?

But, they lack the ability to see the irony in it. And while you write slippery slope arguments are usually dumb, you go on to pose a very dumb one. While flag burning is symbolic speech, your right to call or write that Olbermann a self-satisfied unfunny retard-twat is political speech and has always been -- and will always be -- afforded the highest protection. I look at it this way:

Pros:
Sponsored by some powerful democrats - drives moonbats crazy.
If passed -- drives moonbats crazy.
Can kick their teeth in while effecting a citizen arrest.

Cons:
Difficulty in enforcing.
Less of a chance seeing one of them setting themselves on fire.

Like most other non-nutty conservatives, I too think a ban on flag-burning is counterproductive. If some yo-yo wants to burn the flag of the country that shelters him, then so be it: I have the freedom to call him a backbiting cock-knocking compsymp marxist toejam fuckface. And if a cop isn't around, I might make free to lift a high-stepping kick into the flag-burner's tuchus.

Remember: the answer to free speech is even more free speech.

Since US Soldier brought it up, I feel compelled to throw in some constitutional points.

1. Prohibiting "fighting words" has a long pedigree in constitutional law.

2. In recent years, SCOTUS has permitted the state to criminalize cross-burning at least in part due to the intimidation & incitement to violence inherent in the act and overriding the free speech concerns.

3. One can make a reasonable argument that acts of physical desecration *that occur in circumstances that amount to "fighting words" (i.e. incitement to violence)* may be prohibited.

Given that the flag-burning cases that prompted this whole issue were closely divided, there are arguments on both sides that are worth considering. I still feel that the debate should be on SHOULD and not WHETHER.

I have a preference for approving the amendment, but I'm not militant on the point.

I knew someone (someman) was going to bring up "desecrating" that sidebar model's "flag." Bunch of pigs. :rolleyes:

June, I hate to break it to you, but the Supreme Court has already screwed over political speech - does anyone remember McCain Feingold campaign finance reform?

They've screwed over the 5th amendment now and just gave local governments a free for all with your private property.

We don't need any more limitations on our freedoms. As vile as I think the flag burners are, the way to protect free speech is to protect the most disgusting uses of it, after all those are the kinds that need protecting.

Ace: Should we conclude that your mommy breastfeed you?

Tinkerbelle: Ace is a life long member of LeLeche. :p

Aaron, I hate to break it to you, but different types of speech are afforded different levels of protection. Written political speech is the most protected.

I am conflicted because I do not like expanding the Constitution as it now stands. That said, if you are opposing the admendment because it limits free speech then there are a multitude of free speech limitations we should be yelling about. The right of the majority to have prayer in school, the FCC and sexual or racial speech enforced by the EEOC. If cross burning can be banned because it reflects terror speech then it should not be out of the question that burning the flag can be banned as an incitement to riot. I see the objection to the admendment similar to ignoring the daily villification of Christianity or white anglo males in that the general perception is they are strong enough or already in control and do not to need specific protection.

Nick S:

Thank you for a more well written version of what I was trying to say.

Even being in the military, I'm not militant about the flag desecration issue, either. I just find it odd that people who use the "free speech" defense would most likely be the same people to get upset if someone were inciting hate-speech directed at gays or someone else.

I guess it's ok to burn the flag, but not a cross.

I agree the proposed amendment is dumb on general prinicples, but the worst aspect of the proposal is that it trivializes the Constitution by using it to address an issue that is insignificant. Flag-burners are, at worst, annoying to the vast majority of Americans. I think it is demeaning to the Constitution if we allow it to be used for a political stunt like this.

I understand that different speech is given different levels of protection, my contention is why can't they change that?

If they can outlaw certain types of political speech why can't they outlaw others?

Giving money to the politician of your choice is political speech and the Supreme Court decided that the Constitution allowed the limiting of that speech, why not written speech or oral speech?

I am just not sure where the Constitution/1st Amendment gives levels of protection for different types of free speech. If Congress and Supreme Court can go in and make up whatever limitations and levels they want, what is to prevent them from deciding against something that we support?

Thanks, US Soldier, and thanks for BEING a US Soldier.

I'm *far* more angry about the decision today about eminent domain. Private property rights have been a core American value since we dumped tea in Boston Harbor, and this decision gives that economic freedom a black eye.

It is okay to burn a cross -- even in the middle of the night while wearing a sheet. What you can't do is burn it with the intent to intimidate someone, i.e., on their front lawn.

Michael:
How do you know it is only annoying to the majority of Americans? Anything to back that up? Feinstein says otherwise and has chosen to sponsor it.

Aaron:
Take Con. Law 1 & 2. There is even a LLM program in constitutional law.

You can burn a flag, but you can't burn the flag.

It made perfect sense when my Dad said it.

It is okay to burn a cross -- even in the middle of the night while wearing a sheet. What you can't do is burn it with the intent to intimidate someone, i.e., on their front lawn.

It is not necessary to burn it on someone's yard to qualify as intimidation. A conviction was upheld in a 1998 case in which a cross was burned on private property.

I am opposed to this proposed amendment simply on the grounds that outlawing the desecration of our national symbol makes us look weak. This sort of thing is what the Islamists do (outlaw desecration fo the Koran), not what a strong, self-confident nation does.

Unless they changed the 1st Amendment it says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or 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.

Again show me where it says we can have levels and in the future Congress can say this type of speech is okay and protected, but this type is fair game to screw over.

I would call campaign finance reform and banning flag burning "abridging the freedom of speech."

I'm not interested in what "Constitutional experts" of today think about what it may say. I want to know the Constitution itself and it seems pretty clear to me.

Would flushing it down a toilet count?

Seriously, although I love our flag, this is not a good idea. Get back to work on other things Congress.

It is not necessary to burn it on someone's yard to qualify as intimidation. A conviction was upheld in a 1998 case in which a cross was burned on private property.

Possibly. Since, the element of intent will be dependent on the particular facts. What the USSC case I quoted from did is uphold the law but strike down the part that said the burning of the cross was prima facie evidence of intent to intimidate. Do you have a case cite to what you are referring to?

I generally like the idea of allowing the States or Congress to define if flag-burning should be legal or illegal, rather than construing it as a "sacred right" of free speech. We bound free speech as not being an absolute individual right in many, many cases. This is just another prudent limit that serves society's rights to domestic tranquility and prevent public disturbance by those whose basic intent is to generate public disturbance - not articulate a public grievance for redress by the act of flag-burning.

As an Amendment, has it's uses. If it is bound as a misdemeanor - like "creating a public disturbance to show contempt for the nation of America" then those America-haters face just consequences. Like the foreign Muslim students that burned the flag in NY - it would be easier justify to not renewing their visas with a flag-burning conviction. And anarchists may find their employability desirability may be affected by employers noting they have an arrest record for burning the American Flag..

I want to know the Constitution itself and it seems pretty clear to me.

Yeah, well, you're wrong. I have no interest in attempting to condense a long and complicated subject into a post that you will undoubtedly dismiss. If you are so curious about First Amendment law, do your own work. Start by researching and reading opposing views to your own.

As they say in ConLaw classes: time, place and manner.

What the USSC case I quoted from did is uphold the law but strike down the part that said the burning of the cross was prima facie evidence of intent to intimidate. Do you have a case cite to what you are referring to?

Virginia v Black 01-1107 which is the USSC I assume you are referring. This case reviewed two cases of which one was the 1998 conviction of a klan cross burning on private property.

Set a precedent? It was banned for 200 years.

Compare to campaign finance "reform", which has gutted the key parts of the First Amendment.

After a brief Google I found a text description of the Far Side cartoon that usually comes to mind when I think of the flag-burning debate:

I love all of Gary Larson's cartoons, but if I were to have to choose
which one I liked the most, it would have to be the one which has a
rattlesnake in the top left hand corner, a puffed-up puffer fish in
the top right hand corner, a mad cat in the bottom left hand corner,
and a man wearing a trench coat, with a boot on his head, a child's
pool floaty around his middle and carrying a bazooka. The caption reads:
"How Nature Says, "Don't Touch"" Humour in its purest state! (ento-
mology student, Australia)

> when I think of the flag-burning debate

...er, more precisely, when I think of flag-burners.

I don't like the amendment, but the blinking Supreme Court shouldn't have overturned the previous flag burning statutes in the first place.

After all Yaron, there wasn't a lot of prosecutions of people who spilled barbecue sauce on their flag-emblazoned t-shirts during the 50+ years the states had their anti-flag burning laws on the books.

There weren't a lot of prosecutions even for real flag burners. Someone had to be a real jackass in order to get arrested for that offense.

It says something about the state of the legal mind that a majority of the Supreme Court can believe that the First Amendment prohibits government regulation of acts of "speech" such as:

1) pictures of people in various states of undress engaged in sexual congress with each other and other things;

2) digitally created pictures of naked children;

3) people dancing around and waving their naked parts in your face; and

4) setting fire to or otherwise desecrating the flag of the nation.

But somehow, banding together in a group to advocate the election or defeat of a candidate for public office can be regulated by office holders however they darn well please.

I think I have a compromise that, as is the case of all classic compromises, gives something to everyone:

1. Don't ban flag burning. This will make liberals and libertarians happy. Also hippies and America-haters.

2. Pass a Constitutional Amendment making it legal for people to beat the living hell out of flag burners.

Everyone wins! Well, the flag burners only win temporarily, until the angry mob sets upon them. But everyone wins for a while!

Bob

People who have real faith and confidence in America and in the power of its fundamental principles have no reason to place importance on talismans like the flag.

Only people who doubt the power of American ideals and institutions in a free marketplace of ideas would seek to outlaw flag burning.

People who are confident in America and optimistic about prospects for freedom and absolute freedom of political speech have nothing to fear from flag burning.

Oops...I see my idea isn't as original as I thought. Or you guys all stole it from me years ago. Or great minds think alike.

Just imagine the fun. You could go to some anti-war rally and when a flag make an appearance you'd be thinking, "Come on...come on...light it already...come on..."

This stupid thing seems to crop up every few years. And I seem to recall, from back in the sixties, that burning is actually the proper way to dispose of a US flag.

Sheesh.

Newsflash - Senate Reaches Compromise on Gay Flag Burning Ban Amendment

http://armedvictim.blogspot.com/

John Anderson -

This stupid thing seems to crop up every few years. And I seem to recall, from back in the sixties, that burning is actually the proper way to dispose of a US flag.

And if you can't tell the difference between Saudi Students chanting "Death to America! Allah-u-Akbar" and burning the flag in NYC in a public square in 2005 and Boy Scouts properly "retiring" tattered or old flags in a patriotic campfire ceremony ..

Then you are just another "moral equivalency" saphead that doesn't know shit from shinola...

Sheesh.

No, fuck you, asshole.

I agree with the Paleotroll. I feel dirty.

I thought Bush the elder said it best: "The right TO burn the flag is perhaps the best reason to not do so."

I also agree with Bob about kicking the shit out of them. Maybe they could just create a class of hate speech for which you are legally taking your life in your hands and let society regulate itself.

On Tuesday, one of my regular customers came into my shop. He is an old-timer Marine and we often chat about current events.
Tuesday was no different and while we were laughing about Dickie Turban, the whole anti-American thing came up in conversation. Well he had an anecdote to share with me from back in the day.

He was sent home from Vietnam with a head injury. He was standing in the airport in his greens, waiting for his family. He wasn't wearing his cap because his head was all bandages. Some dude with muttonchop sideburns passing by spat on him.

He grabbed the guy and beat the shit out of him right there where he was standing. Really F'd him up a bloody mess. There were two cops standing nearby, and he said they just stood there and watched the whole thing until it was over.

When he was done, his bandages had come loose and his stitches were bleeding. The cops left the hippy on the ground and took my Marine friend to the hospital to get freshened up.

I just thought that was a good story to share with you people this fine day.

lauraw, I love stories about Marines beating the crap out of dumb ass hippies who are suck retards they would actually spit on a wounded serviceman.

Interestingly, guidelines for treatment and display of the flag are found in US Code Title 36. They are guidelines though, there is no provision for enforcement nor any penalties.

Sue, one of these provisions (176 d) says the flag should never be worn as clothing. I respectfully demand conservative t-shirt girl remove the flag shorts immediately!

Codifying respect and treatment of the flag, without making disrespect a criminal act - that's good enough for me.

D'oh! I meant "such retards".

But "suck retards" has a certain flair, doesn't it?

Yep.

When they come for your house, at least you're able to burn a flag

Thing about Cedarbigot is he's so right sometimes I wonder if I'm not missing out on some fun with the anti-Semitism thing. Since I married a Jew, I'm going to try it at home first, of course.

I think I could laugh at hippies burning a flag, but if I saw some Saudi students doing it, I'm pretty sure I would have to kick their asses. And they know this, too. Really, that would take some serious balls, wouldn't it? I'd almost have to admire them before jamming their Manolos up their ass.

brak, don't get me started. I have been fuming about that all morning.

And I am POSITIVE that town council members are rubbing their hands together and calling their land developer friends RIGHT FUCKING NOW.

And by the way, this ruling can apply to intellectual property too, if you think about it.
For the public good, of course.

IT IS INFURIATING, UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND THIS IS A SLIPPERY SLOPE THAT WE HAVE ALREADY SLID DOWN. Once your right to property is endangered, all your other rights are gone too.

That ruling just legitimized what these guys have been doing for years.
Its up to Congress (Ahh shit) to do something now.

You know what gets me, we are so concerned about the federal government- but if you want to look at the true face of tyranny and wastefulness, look at your local town council.

Flag Bill = red herring/shiny distraction object