Posted on 06/12/2006 3:25:06 PM PDT by SJackson
"Things aren't always as they seem" is an old saying with common sense. Wednesday is Flag Day. A week later the U.S. Senate will debate a proposed constitutional amendment that reads, "The Congress shall have the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."
The vote is expected to be close. The House of Representatives has already passed this amendment. The next step would be ratification by two-thirds of the states. All 50 state legislatures have indicated they would support the amendment.
Our society has accepted 30-second sound bites for news. On the surface, the amendment sounds good and it stirs our patriotic juices. Most Americans find flag burning offensive and dislike the idea that it is considered free expression. It is understandable on the surface.
But we must pay attention to what is underneath the surface. There is a difference between not liking the speech or expression of another and giving up the right to our own free speech. Our forefathers created the Bill of Rights to prevent the will of the majority from trampling on the rights of the minority. Those who think this amendment is only about the flag are seriously mistaken.
As First Amendment expert Paul McMasters says, "The amendment will set in motion a dramatic and lasting change in the way we view and treat political dissent. If the flag desecration amendment is ratified, for the first time in this nation's history we will have materially changed the Bill of Rights, which affirms and secures the fundamental rights of all Americans against the power and reach of the government."
Why is this an issue now? The American Civil Liberties Union reports that flag burning or desecration is a rare occurrence. "Very few incidents of flag burning have been reported in the entire history of the United States. A person is more likely to be struck by lightning or win the lottery than to be exposed to a political flag burning," the ACLU says.
There was only one reported flag burning incident last year. While most people are uncomfortable with this behavior, criminalizing the people who do such acts is not more important than keeping our right to freedom of expression and hence our liberty.
Plus, this is taking attention away from the pressing issues Congress should be addressing. The war in Iraq is still going on, with resistance growing every day. It is costly in precious life and resources. According to the government accounting office, we are spending $200 million a day in Iraq alone.
In addition, many of our citizens are without adequate health insurance, gas prices are high, and the pressures on two-income households are shrinking our middle class. We're becoming have-nots.
Congress can no longer ignore the threats to our environment from global warming, the pollution that is finding its way into our food and water supply, and the lack of adequate funding for public education. This is not to mention the situations in the world where our help could truly make a difference, such as in Africa, where children are dying from preventable causes.
Our priorities need to be elsewhere than tampering with the guarantees of our freedom. The Constitution is the "living" document of our liberty, the flag is the symbol. The power and majesty we give the flag is not found in the ability to restrict by force those who may use the flag to make their political views known. Instead, it is in holding the Bill of Rights as precious and sacred. The right of everyone to have free speech, whether we agree with what they have to say or how they say it, is our true power and freedom.
Using this amendment as some sort of patriotic text of loyalty to our country undermines the sacrifices of our military men and women. They paid the supreme price to keep our freedoms. According to columnist Nat Hentoff, the only countries that punish desecration of their flags are China, Iran and Cuba. Is this who we want to emulate?
This amendment is not "saving" America as the proponents preach. To think that allowing freedom of expression will bring on terrorism is akin to thinking that carrying an umbrella will bring on a storm.
There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting words" those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.
— Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942
Just make it legal to beat the crap out of someone burning the flag, and the problem will go away.
Most importantly from a practical point of view:
1) Everyone who has seen a flag burned IN PERSON IN THIS COUNTRY raise your hand...right, nobody. It's a solution in search of a problem....
2) It will actually INCREASE the number of flag burnings..
3) Somehow you've got to dance around determining the difference between "approved" flag burnings for old and damaged flags and "bad" flag burnings.
ping
I saw a few flag burnings in the early 70's by some dirtbag hippies.
But the number you've personally seen in the last 30 years, I trust, is zero :-)
Problem was solved by society without the legal intervention of the government.
This is one stupid amendment proposal.
Its like the hate crime laws.
Congress is full of idiots.
She brings in many other matters our lawmakers should be spending their time on. They should just pass it and go on to the other matters, that's not a genuine argument against passing it.
Since I would never think of burning the flag I have no problem with this law.
Including the Second Amendment, I'm sure, right Ms Everson? Right. I'm sure that one's near and dear to her heart. Liberal ****!
There will be more such issues as anti flag burning law, designed to distract the conservative electorate away from the RINO press for amnesty by any other name.
We need to burn the RINO flag, and if it resembles old glory, so be it.
I cannot buy and ad and be critical of the Royal Senators when they run for office but I can burn the flag that is a bunch of crap.
You are wise beyond your years, grasshopper.
I'm no spring chicken, but I'll take that as a compliment!
Anyone who burns a flag in protest clearly hates everything (hate crime! hate crime!) and might be better served burning his or her own house down, except they probably don't and won't ever own a house.
like pissant said.. just make it legal to protect the flag the moment it is seen set ablaze within the vicinty of a Patriotic Citizen.. empower Patriots to protect it from harm
Modern Government - Men and women who invent problems then wring their hands, frantically searching for a solution to the purely mythical problems while ignoring actual, existing problems.
A few points to remember:
1) Burning a flag harms no one (unless you inhale the second hand smoke).
2) When a person burns an American flag they're saying, "Hey look at me, not only do I have a brain the size of a walnut, but I'm also so full of hate and paranoia that I believe the United States is the focus of evil in the world." Truth in advertising is a good thing.
3) While Congress is busy jerking themselves off with this flag burning issue, they'll be too occupied to pass more dangerous legislation, such as updating CFR to include the Internet.
maybe it should be legal only if burned while a Congresscritter is wrapping his/herself in it.
That is the saddest observation of it all.
That means that many, if not most, of our elected representatives do not understand the vision of the Constitution. That is a sad sad commentary on those who sought and achieved elected office. It is more that sad, it is disgusting.
Uh, no. That happened the first time somebody decided that the Second Amendment could be ignored and limitless gun control laws passed anyway. It continued when somebody else decided that you don't really need a search warrant to conduct a search and that you don't really need due process in order to confiscate somebody's private property. Nearly every one of the amendments in the Bill of Rights has been ignored by some well-meaning social reformer bent on doing what he or she wants to do anyway.
That said, it might be a little difficult for those of us who have flags that are too worn or dirty to fly anymore. At the moment the correct way of disposing of them is...yep, burning.
It turned out the little shit was the offspring of a professor at the college. He was caught and showed up in court with a crew-cut and no facial hair.
I still think they should have strung him up on the flag pole by his neck.
That being said, as long as we have open season on American Flag burners...
I'm torn between beating the cr@p out of anyone that burns my flag and letting them do it so they can show their own true colors.
Flag Day. Wednesday. Get 'em out there, Patriots! I'll have my big flag flying and smaller ones lining my drive.
And, of course, no one in the local area will notice or remember that it's even Flag Day.
Wonder how the Madistan papers and TV outlets will celebrate? Bet they ignore it completely...
I am strongly AGAINST a flag-burning amendment.
If some scumbag piece of #### wants to burn a US flag, I want to let him do it so I know who he/she is. Keep the roaches in the light -- it makes them easier to stomp economically, politically, or otherwise!
You do understand that the number of flag burnings in the US will drastically INCREASE if it's banned, do you not?
It's going to encourage people to burn flags to become political martyrs. Either the penalties will be so light that people will do it and be paying small fines or happily spending a couple days in jail (and receiving massive amounts of publicity) or you'd have harsh penalties (unlikely) and you'd see an obsessive and 24/7 media focus on some guy languishing in jail for burning a flag that stays there longer than a guy that molests children or severely beats his wife or something.
And do you really want a guy to be in jail longer for burning a flag than for some sort of physical assault on another human being?
I'd go with the former, but you can't do that anymore.
I don't see your point.
The only way to do this is to punish physical desecration of the flag with the intent of making a political statement. This clearly violates the First Amendment.
Good point. A flag-burner's picture on the front of the local newspaper will do more harm to him (finding a job, walking the streets, etc.) than a night in jail.
You would be describing a liberal...to a tee.....
*** DING DING DING *** No more calls; we have a winner!
They DID? Wasn't the defendant's conviction of malicious mischief upheld? I cannot find the court's exclusion of "fighting words" - can you help?
STREET v. NEW YORK, 394 U.S. 576 (1969)
Nor could such a conviction be justified on the second ground mentioned above: the possible tendency of appellant's words to provoke violent retaliation. Though it is conceivable that some listeners might have been moved to retaliate upon hearing appellant's disrespectful words, we cannot say that appellant's remarks were so inherently inflammatory as to come within that small class of "fighting words" which are "likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace." Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 574 (1942). And even if appellant's words might be found within that category, 1425, subd. 16, par. d, is not narrowly drawn to punish only words of that character, and there is no indication that it was so interpreted by the state courts. Hence, this case is again distinguishable from Chaplinsky, supra, in which the Court emphasized that the statute was "carefully drawn so as not unduly to impair liberty of expression . . . ." Id., at 574. See also Terminiello v. Chicago, supra.
Does this include a proper disposal of the flag?
"The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning."
http://www.ushistory.org/betsy/flagetiq.html
If this amendment is fully ratified, activist courts will use this amendment as LEGAL PRECEDENT to criminalize "hate speech". Burning the UN flag could then be interpreted as "illegal hate speech". Burning a rainbow flag could also be interpreted as "illegal hate speech against LGBTs".
Bottom line : The flag-burning amendment basically repeals the "freedom of speech" clause in the First Amendment.
Ask yourself a question. What do you cherish more? The flag, or freedom? I cherish the flag, but I cherish freedom more.
IMHO, this flag amendment will actually CODIFY hate crimes laws into federal law.
Would you have a problem if you say something anti-homosexual and then some activist judge uses this amendment as legal precedent to put you in prison for hate speech?
Bingo. Think of what Hillary would do with this as a precedent.
We already have hate laws on the books. Your point is moot.
Hate laws already punish crimes motivated by hate, but the courts have constantly ruled that punishing people for merely using hate speech violates the First Amendment. This flag amendment basically nullifies the First Amendment's protection of freedom of speech. So really, my point is not moot.
Like it or not, this flag amendment will be used to criminalize the mere use of hate speech.
There won't be enough votes for a constitutional amendment. I wouldn't worry about it too much.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.