Posted on 06/23/2006 9:03:33 AM PDT by presidio9
Nearly 30 years after Chicago Cubs outfielder Rick Monday snatched an American flag from two idiots at Dodger Stadium who had doused it in lighter fluid and were trying to light it with a match, we still applaud him for his exemplary act of patriotism — for acting on our behalf. As devoted as we are to free speech, we would have been hard-pressed to bottle our anger over the desecration of the Stars and Stripes before tens of thousand of spectators.
Our appreciation of Monday was not diminished by his appearance last week at a rally for a proposed flag desecration amendment — an event at which he exhibited the rescued flag, which was presented to him by the Dodgers.
But however heartfelt this gesture was, it was wrong-headed in lending support to a manufactured cause with no real value except a political one.
You would think, from the emotional momentum this issue has gained in recent times, there is a pressing need for an anti-flag-burning amendment. Most Americans are in favor of it. The House has backed the amendment, and the Senate may well follow suit next week, when it is scheduled to decide on the constitutional ban. Reportedly, it is within a vote or two of the two-thirds majority it needs. In 2000, it fell four votes short.
But, in fact, this is a classic example of a solution in search of a problem. Flag burnings, which most of us associate with Vietnam-era protests, have all but disappeared from the American landscape. No protests of the war in Iraq (which have been relatively few) have featured flag desecrations. The closest anyone has come to publicly mistreating the flag, arguably, was a case of two of athletes wrapping themselves in it at the Olympics.
You would also think this is an issue in need of legal clarification. But the Supreme Court ruled in 1989 that as distasteful or offensive as this kind of protest is, it is protected by the
First Amendment. A year later, the high court overturned the federal Flag Protection Act.
The fact that yet another effort is being mounted tells you not that the principles have changed, but the political climate has. Sorry, but that's not a good enough reason to alter the constitution.
— This represents the consensus of the Sun-Times News Group of 100 newspapers in the Chicago area.
While anyone who burns the US flag should immediately be deported (obviously they hate America), this is not the issue for our Congress to be wasting time on. The right is pandering to us for failing to do anything else substantial, particularly with immigration.
I don't think we need a flag burning amendment. We should have an ammendment that allows someone to kick the ass of a flag burner without being prosecuted for assault. That way everybody wins.
It is a smoke screen to obscure the federal marriage amendment.
This author is an idiot. It is PRECISELY BECAUSE of the SCOTUS' ruling that a constitutional amendment is required to overturn their retarded decision. the SCOTUS is NOT the law of the land, the people are.
The 89 Supreme Court ruling would make that illegal. They forced the need for an Amendment.
There is no need for this amendment. Not because the Supremes did something wrong, but because they were right. If someone wants to buy an American flag and burn it on their own property, I can see no reason on Earth why I should have any say in the matter. Now, if it's not their flag, or if it's done in such a fashion as to be a public hazard due to fire, that can be handled by existing laws.
We don't need a flag-burning amendment.
I like to know who the idiots and a-holes are. They like to advertize their presence and I like to avoid them at all cost. It's a good arrangement. Let's not mess with it.
While the Republican Congress fiddles with amendments that make nothing but statements, they cannot even try and pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill. It's unfortunate they won't have time to deal with judicial nominations, budget deficits, 13 annual appropriations to keep the government running, and a few other items that will go unattended this year.
But we'll spend a week or more arguing about banning flag burning, while ignoring the millions who routinely abuse the flag by wearing it, miscarrying it, flying it dirty and in inclement weather, and improperly storing it. Nor do we mind shoving our flag in peoples' faces if we don't like them much. Does all of that go into the amendment? I think I've seen one domestic flag burning this year in the news. And as disgusting as it was to me, it hardly rose to the level of a constitutional amendment.
I wonder if this is all the Republicans have to bring to the voters this Fall? I certainly hope not.
Don't blame Republicans in general. Blame the defectors.
My thoughts exactly!
That dog won't hunt in November and more than it did in 1994 when Dems controlled. People only see that a party in total control can't legislate.
It's time to sh!t or get off the pot. There was a time when I was opposed to such an amendment. I've changed my mind in the past few years. This isn't going to cost us anything and it shows the SCOTUS that they DON'T have the final say, we do. Passing this amendment will please a large majority of Americans and the ones who don't like it can just suck it up and move on, just like so many of us have had to do since Roe v. Wade.
This is a way to see everyone's true colors.
I'm guessing the Olympia Snowe types who vote against Immigration reform will also vote against this amendment, which means more ammunition for the next Conservative who challenges her.
You assume that if they weren't doing this, they would actually be doing something important. Not likely.
Well said!
It's entirely possible that the voters in November will vote only for those candidates who wasted their time on these amdndments, but I'm having a lot of trouble seeing that. Many conservatives wouldn't touch either of those efforts.
Then of course, they have no business holding the gavel.
You're confused. Most conservatives support the flag burning amendment. Libertarians (who are often aligned with conservatives) are the ones who are rejecting it.
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.