Senate to Debate Flag-Burning Amendment This Week (Vanity)

[DaveLoneRanger]

The Senate is getting set to debate the flag-burning amendment this week. I'm of two minds on the subject.

On the one hand, I can see where we cannot let the First Amendment stand only until it includes something we are not comfortable with.

On the other hand, I believe it can be seen as an act of treason; of uttermost disrespect, of rejection of everything that this country is and stands for, to desecrate the flag that was hard-won and stained red by the blood of America's sons and daughters. Then again, if we let the NYTimes get away with the sedition that IT has going on, then what the heck.

I know we cannot operate on emotion when making important decisions regarding freedom of expression in America. But how can one who loves America not allow some anger to filter in, when long-haired dope-smoking hippies try to recreate their thirty-five year old heyday by flipping the bird to my country?

So, bottom line, I'm curious to get the reaction of Freepers on the flag-burning amendment. Fer it or agin it?

[smartymarty]

I'm agin it, Dave. I might not be up on the history of the first amendment, but I don't think flag burning was what the writers had in mind.

[muawiyah]

Here's a way to look at it ~ if the current government cannot deal with treason on the part of the owners, publishers, managers, editors, writers, reporters and pressmen at the New York Times, then the people's militia should withdraw both the fundamental rights with which that government was entrusted to protect along with the flag, and figure out how to come up with a new government.

In the meantime, acting under the authority assumed in the Declaration of Independence, it'd seem quite fair for a temporary Third Continental Congress to drown the NYT crowd in the East River while awaiting the outcome of yet another Constitutional Convention.

[Sacajaweau]

Hillary was a BIG supporter of the Flag Burning Amendment. Of course, looking at it as a free speech act, that means she is against free speech.

Any violence that would occur with a flag burning makes it another issue entirely.

And Hillary was the first to call for an amendment to get rid of the electoral college, too.

And abortion is some kind of "right", too.

I'll bet her College Thesis contains her version of what the Constitution should be.

[mgstarr]

I wish they'd spend their time addressing real issues, not phantom ones.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

No kiddin !

[ops33]

I agree with you. As much as I don't like to see the flag burned as a part of a protest, I love freedom of speech even more. In my opinion, Freedom of Speech means nothing if I am not allowed to go out and say something someone else doesn't like.

[freepy smurf]

Why don't we just call it Hate Speech. That IS why they do it.

[Question Liberal Authority]

I don't care about the issue one way or the other. If they made it a capital offense to burn the American flag, I'd be fine with it. If they guaranteed the right of any American to burn the American flag and get away scott free, I wouldn't mind either.

What bugs me is that that burning a flag is given a special, revered, almost holy status by the pro-burning crowd.

Burn a GAY flag, you'll go to jail. Burn a pile of leaves in your back yard, you'll pay a fine. Burn the end of a cigar and death's too good for you. And don't even THINK of touching one page of the Holy Koran.

But burn an AMERICAN FLAG and ONLY an AMERICAN FLAG, and it's not a "hate crime". It's not a "public nuisance". It isn't anything but "the most sacred and cherished expression of our political freedoms as guaranteed by our Founding Fathers in the First Amendment."

These same people will concede that government has the RIGHT and even the OBLIGATION to prevent you from burning things they don't want you to burn. Government can tell you what to burn, when to burn it and how to burn it. But AMERICAN FLAGS? NO Government ANYWHERE has the power to regulate or legislate the activity.

So the next time you want to burn something, whether it's a pile of leaves or even your warehouse for the insurance money, make sure you start the fire with an AMERICAN FLAG. There will be no consequences whatsoever, except that your name will be sung in glory for all time as a champion of liberty.

[smartymarty]

I'm agin flag burning, but I don't feel like the issue warrants muckin around with the constitution. Could it be something states decide like they do homo-marriage?

[NonValueAdded]

IMHO, the best way to deal with flag burning is with pity for the burner. I am a huge fan of irony and the fact that some hippy dippy freak is burning a flag, thereby exercising the fundamental rights symbolized by that very flag, immediately turns that act into one of affirmation of the underlying principle. To him I'd say, "Hey idiot, don't you know you are simply affirming the power of what you're burning? I'm not angry at you; I have nothing but pity for some misguided idiot so desperate for attention."

I don't believe our flag is so weak as to need any more protection than the love we hold for it in our hearts.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

I have nothing but contempt for those who desecrate the symbol of this nation. However, I also believe doing so is their right. I'm pretty sure the Senate can find more important things to debate.

[AbeKrieger]

[JRochelle]

The proper way to dispose of an old flag is to burn it. There are certain ways to do that but the bottom line is that they burn it.

So it comes down to whats in your head when you burn it.
I'm opposed to hate crime legislation and this is just another version of it.

[mgstarr]

But it's a non-issue to start with. There is virtually nothing out there requiring "new" laws that isn't already covered by one of the other million laws we have. This is a straw man issue they bring out when trying to divert us from their inaction and gross incompetence.

[HaveHadEnough]

So it comes down to whats in your head when you burn it.

I hadn't looked at it that way. The same action can be either reverence or desecration, depending upon the intent of the actor. I think you're right. This would amount to a hate crime and is a good reason to be against it.

[DaveLoneRanger]

Well-spoken.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

It is undeniable that burning a flag in a public demonstration sends a message and is therefore in some sense "speech."

However, IMHO Congress has the right to define what that gesture means. I do not advocate a constitutional amendment for this, because it would be unwarranted to hold the law I propose to be unconstitutional. Congress should simply declare that you as a native-born citizen have a right to sell your citizenship. And that you apply for the exercise of that right when you publicly burn or otherwise heap scorn on the flag to which we have pledged allegiance.

If you burn the flag as a show of disrespect to the republic for which it stands, you will be deported unless you appear in court and disavow your intention to sell your citizenship. And any TV or movie outlet which showed images of your original act must show the entire proceedings of the retraction.

[engine_co292]

GOD HELP US!!!when we have reached the point when it is a close call for congress to agree that burning the American flag should be a crime. That in its self is a crime!!!!!!
This is a slap in the face to every American and pre American to give there life for the freedoms we can injoy. For that is what the flag represents,Remember Mr. Congressman. So sleep tight knowing that people are still willing to fight to there death to keep Capital Hill a safe place.

[Wiz]

Flag burning is not the only way of expression. There are many other alternatives that will do the job. Meanwhile, free speech is not unlimited. There are limits on free speech, such as fraud, vandalization, child pornography, sharing classified information of the government to enemy, and threats (i.e. threat to kill some one). There are also unethical manners that is not accepted by the public and has chance to become law if not yet, such as violation of privacy, anti-semitism, and racism. Free expression should not be misintrepeted as unlimited expression, which is anarchy. The flag represents the country and a symbol, but not a symbol of unlimited freedom of speech. Laws exist to maintain order of the society. Burning our flag is a threat to maintaining order, and promoting violence against our country and the destruction of the country. We have seen this happen in Germany, which free expression for Jew hating leading the country into the wrong direction. Once again, there are alternatives of burning flag, and banning just this will not be such a great disadvantage for freedom of speech and expression. Burning flags may also damage property, and lives nearby, which is vandalization and such acts that could lead to murder for the bystanders to catch the fire. Our flag represents freedom, but within that freedom, there are limitations. Banning flag burning will not conflict with the meaning and spirit of the flag, and banning only flag burning will not do any great damage to the freedom of expression.

[Wiz]

It is a shame to see many unpatriotic posts over here. Where is the patriotism? It should be natural to support banning flag burning if you had patriotism.

[at bay]

It is a shame to see many unpatriotic posts over here

The Bill of Rights has never been amended to restrict rights, indeed it's never been amended ever. A lot of "unpatriotic" people made sure that people like you that are not commited to defending the constitution never suceeded in tampering with the Bill of Rights.

Go elsewhere to bait.

[at bay]

close call for congress to agree that burning the American flag should be a crime

It's never been a close call, newbie. The question is whether you tamper with the Bill of Rights of the Constitution when you don't like a court decision. I am singularly unimpressed with the few posts in favor of restricting the Bill of Rights on this thread. They are uniformly inarticulate (like yours) or illogical, or baiting, attacking the patriotism of those not wanting to tamper with the Bill of Rights.

That covers all 3 of'em.

Today Hatch (etman) decried the fact that "all of this" was just because the court decisions were one vote short of what he wanted.

Count'em pal. You're still one vote short.

.The real desecration of the flag comes when a person wraps themselves up in it.

Go get your bullhorn and have at the traitors who defile our beloved flag. Find a tattered fllag and compel the owner to buy a new one. Find a flag at night that flies without illumination and hammer on the owners to take it down at sunset or you will. Save 911 for emergencies.

[at bay]

We have seen this happen in Germany

So you want to join Cuba, Iran, and Iraq under Saddam as the only countries in the world that would lock you up for disrespecting their flags?

[steve-b]

The question is whether you tamper with the Bill of Rights of the Constitution when you don't like a court decision.

That should only be considered when a court decision actively subverts the Constitution. For instance, not a month should have been permitted to go by this past year without the introduction of an amendment to clarify that, yes, the property-rights guarantees of the Constitution mean what they say and that eminent domain is limited to cases where it is genuninely necessary for property to be operated by the state for use by the public.

Of course, that would require Congressional leaders to do without five-star developer-paid junkets.