NO TO THE FLAG BURNING AMENDMENT!

Nealz Nuze ^ | 6/15/2006 | Neal Boortz

[steve-b]

It comes at little surprise that the House, again, passed the amendment to outlaw the burning of the American flag. But yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, among other Senate colleagues, announced their support for the June 26th Senate vote on the Flag Desecration Amendment. The announcement came on non-other than Flag Day. How quaint. But don't be too alarmed, it seems a 2/3 majority is still lacking in the Senate. The House has passed a similar amendment half a dozen times in the past few years. While it has never gained enough votes in the Senate, it gets closer every time. The concept itself is ridiculous. Since when does the government have the right to tell people what they can and cannot do in regards to their freedom of expression? Ever heard of a little something called John Stuart Mill's harm principle? It goes a little something like this: you do whatever the hell you want, so long as it doesn't hurt me. Fine. If you want to burn American flags, be my guest. Would I burn it? No. But our Constitution explicitly gives us the right to freedom of expression. It is just a symbol for goodness sake. I don't want the government to force me to sing or pledge to it, so why the hell can't I burn it? This is not just about a flag folks. In the bigger picture, this is just another step toward a fascist society where the government slowly chips away at every right, freedom and individualistic expression you have. Also, take a look at the language of the amendment. One line: "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States." How vague can we get? Just how does the government "prohibit?" Does this mean the government can roll the tanks into Union Square and shoot Americans (paid for by YOUR tax dollars), just because protestors decided to get a little crazy with the matchbook? I would hope not. But who's to stop the government if it did? The answer: NO ONE, if the amendment actually passes. If I go out and buy an American Flag at Flags-r-Us, and then decide to burn it, bury it, stomp it, shred it ....whatever ... it's my choice. It's my property, and I can do what I damned well want to do with it. If I burn your flag, that's another matter. Swear out a warrant and have me arrested for destroying your property.

I want you to consider one very important point here. If this flag-burning amendment were to pass, it would be the first constitutional amendment since prohibition to tell you what you cannot do. The entire Bill of Rights to our Constitution sets forth a list of prohibitions for government. Now we have a sizeable portion of the so-called "citizens" who want an amendment telling US what we cannot do; limiting OUR power. Where does this stop?

It's a hideously bad idea, and what we see in Washington is politicians simply pandering to the base emotions, if not the outright ignorance, of the American people. Instead of making the tough choices on items such as government spending, immigration, tax reform and returning our economic liberties, these political hacks are spending time on this nonsense. What's next? An amendment banning speech that others may find offensive? That's where we're headed if this nonsense isn't nipped in the bud.

[FerdieMurphy]

That last paragraph says it all.

Our Elite Political Class has flipped us a fish.

Of course it's inedible.

[Dane]

Neal who?

And why should I care.

[driftdiver]

This one will be popular here. After all its only a "symbol".

Idiot

[steve-b]

Our Elite Political Class has flipped us a fish.

No -- a bird.

[pissant]

Your anti-dote to my thread? I don't wish you any luck. ;o)

[PeterPrinciple]

My first reaction when reading the headline was why bother. There is such little integrity in Washington if if they won't follow legal laws and high standards, why should I follow any laws.

Sorry, I have a bad case of DRA (dirty rotten attitude) this morning...........might be terminal.

[dmz]

And why should I care.
___________

Your comment is a perfect bookend to this story ... the political class counts on the apathy of the large majority of Americans.

Fire up the base, but without actually having to do anything substantial or meaningful, given that most don't seem to care one way or another.

[Talking_Mouse]

If we do not burn our flags how are we supposed to disposed of them honorably?

I realize my question has nothing to do with the issues of the article, that congress is not taking up the real issues of the day. However is is my question, the day after flag day.

[SmoothTalker]

"It's a hideously bad idea, and what we see in Washington is politicians simply pandering to the base emotions, if not the outright ignorance, of the American people. Instead of making the tough choices on items such as government spending, immigration, tax reform and returning our economic liberties, these political hacks are spending time on this nonsense. What's next? An amendment banning speech that others may find offensive? That's where we're headed if this nonsense isn't nipped in the bud."

I agree. This is nothing but cynical election year politics. They know it has no chance of passing. They know that flag burning is a tiny, tiny, tiny problem at best in this country. But they think this red meat issue could help steer ignorant people into the voting booth come November. It really is insulting how little the party elites think of the base and our intelligence.

Beyond that the whole amendment is pointless. For one thing flag burning is not a problem in this country. Can anyone recall the last time he was walking down the street and ran into someone burning a flag? Can anyone recall the last time you heard about this happening in your town? I am a libertarian and an opponent of unnecessary government encroachment on freedom of any type and of the growth of the nanny state. Flag burning is offensive to me but I don't have a right to avoid being offended. I believe in a pretty high threshold that any government imposed reduction in rights of expression or speech must reach and this doesn't come close to reaching it. Being able to tolerate all kinds of expression and all kinds of offensive expression is one of the things that proves the strength of our system and makes it the best in the world. When I think of countries that would pass a measure such as this flag burning amendment I think of insecure dictatorial states like Red China and Saddam's Iraq, not a strong democratic state like ours.

[Vaquero]

I agree with Neal as well as with Justice Scalia, who knows the value of protecting free speech.

On the other hand if I saw someone defiling the flag...I would risk arrest for battery and attempt to knock the offender senseless.

[FreePaul]

An amendment banning speech that others may find offensive?

We don't need an amendment for that. It's already in force.

[steve-b]

On the other hand if I saw someone defiling the flag...I would risk arrest for battery and attempt to knock the offender senseless.

That's another reason this whole "amendment" foolishness is without merit. We already have the necessary legal doctrine for the problem -- jury nullification.

[DCPatriot]

To burn the American flag in an act of anger or protest is despicable.

But hundreds of thousands of Americans died to ensure your right to do just that.

Don't forget that.

[Vaquero]

I agree.....

[Diggler]

Banning flag burning will do far more damage to the flag than any flame could ever do.

[MACVSOG68]

Indeed! Senate, please get back to work and forget these inane election year ploys.

[steve-b]

Indeed. These guys are like professional wrestlers, only more lowbrow.

[LDO4CNO]

And I believe that using the flag in a purely political tug-o-war is no different than spitting on it or burning it.

[Badray]

Who's Dane and why should we care?

Is your hatred so visceral that you can't even read the article and understand the point that he makes?

[timm22]

On the other hand if I saw someone defiling the flag...I would risk arrest for battery and attempt to knock the offender senseless...

We already have the necessary legal doctrine for the problem -- jury nullification.

Are either of you suggesting that violence is an appropriate response to flag burning?

[Vaquero]

I take things one case at a time.....

....I take it as a personal affront if someone burns a flag to purposely show their hatred for America.

[chesty_puller]

But hundreds of thousands of Americans died to ensure your right to do just that.

Correct!

[DCPatriot]

Therefore...WE DON'T NEED NO STEEENKIN'AMENDMENT! ;^)

[bigdcaldavis]

What's next? An amendment banning speech that others may find offensive?

Won't be a need for another amendment banning speech that others may find offensive, because chances are likely that the flag amendment, if fully ratified, would be used as legal precedent to "ban offensive speech" such as anti-gay speech. Just think if the flag amendment was used to criminalize the following biblical passage : "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." - Leviticus 20:13 Would all Bible makers be forced to omit that passage? Better to make no Bible at all than to omit a passage. “For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” - Revelation 22:18-19

[bigdcaldavis]

In a dictatorship, you have no rights...other than kissing the dictator's ass.

[churchillbuff]

When was the last time somebody burned a flag?

[billbears]

This one will be popular here. After all its only a "symbol".

Well of course!! Why it would fly in the face of the pledge the Framers would have us say and the little singsong they all joined in practically every day. Hold what's that? The pledge was written by a Socialist in the 1890s and the national anthem wasn't designated as such until 1931? Good to see 'conservatives' adamantly defending 20th century inventions the Framers never would have envisioned over the protection of a piece of cloth

Idiot

I like it. Succint, to the point, and totally void of an argument. That's the 'conservative' spirit!!

[TET1968]

If you want to protest by burning something, this is how you should do it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1525000/images/_1527055_protest1963_150ap.jpg