Posted on 06/12/2006 3:25:06 PM PDT by SJackson
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
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.