Kerry, Edwards and Daschle May Face Vote on Flag

washington post ^ | 9/13/04

[knak]

For some Republicans it is the perfect political storm: a Senate vote on a constitutional amendment to protect the U.S. flag that would put Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry, running mate John Edwards and Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle on the spot just a few weeks before the Nov. 2 elections.

[longtermmemmory]

ba move right now.

[risk]

I happen to know one who doesn't, and I've discussed the issue with him at length. Just because people have emotional reasons for passing restrictive laws does not make them correct or justified. The Founding Fathers would have disapproved, of that you can be certain.

[familyop]

Our Founding Fathers were in favor of hanging sodomites by their necks until they were dead.

[freestyle]

C'mon people. It only takes about 3 seconds to figure this one out. Of course a FREE country allows you to burn it's flag.

See what happens when they start outlawing the burning of cigarettes? Slippery slope eh?

[Melas]

I think anyone convicted of beating a flag burner should have to pay a $2 fine for the first offence and $2.50 for each offence thereafter.

And if the flag burner turns out to be surprisingly competent and beats the holy crap out of the assailant?

[Tamzee]

Without reverence for America and her Flag, then the Constitution and Bill of Rights are just a bunch of words on paper. The Flag isn't just a chunk of material that falls within the First Amendment, it is inherent to what GIVES us the First Amendment.

I support an Amendment against Flag burning.

[familyop]

"The Founding Fathers would have disapproved, of that you can be certain."

They supported punishing any who desecrated the flag. Since then, our "constitutionalist" lawyer-judges have decided otherwise. So we who have a right to do so will define our Constitution now.

http://www.cfa-inc.org/about/flagamend4.htm
"Note: Thomas Jefferson, while serving as George Washington's Secretary of State, instructed American consuls to punish 'usurpation of our flag.' Moreover, James Madison pronounced a flag defacement in Philadelphia as actionable in court. As Judge Robert Bork described this historic announcement: 'The tearing down in Philadelphia in 1802 of the flag of the Spanish Minister 'with the most aggravating insults', was considered actionable in the Pennsylvania courts as a violation of the law of nations.'"

[risk]

The first amendment only describes limits on what the government can do, based on inherent rights of man. It in no way ascribes value or worthiness to the state or its symbols. In fact, the first amendment makes it clear that individual expression is far more valuable than the authority of the state. America is the fantastic entity it is precisely because we believe that the individual is more important than state power. No, the flag does not give us our freedom. It represents our freedom, but no man can destroy our freedom by burning its symbol. He only hurts himself when he does so. And I speak of the Palestinian or the Communist who burns the American flag overseas when I say that. The American flag has stood for their freedom as well as theirs, but you can't destroy something that comes from within the human being by burning a symbol of it! What comes from within is much more powerful and enduring than that.

[risk]

Of course, FO. That's a publicly-owned flag on state buildings. That is public property, owned by the people whose taxes paid for it. If one thing America has its respect for property and law. If you asked me for the death penalty for those who would destroy state owned flags, I would consider it.

[familyop]

And flag desecration isn't "speech." It's conduct: an action for the purpose of demoralizing our country. It's an attempt to motivate our enemies against us.

Most civilians do not understand the history of flags or what flags are for, although I would be more than happy if our History texts began to include something of the more relevant History of flags.

When a country's flag in its capital is on the ground long before daylight, the country that it represented is defeated.

[freestyle]

---

Tamsey (Free Republic .... Partisan Pajama People) :

Without reverence for America and her Flag, then the Constitution and Bill of Rights are just a bunch of words on paper. The Flag isn't just a chunk of material that falls within the First Amendment, it is inherent to what GIVES us the First Amendment. I support an Amendment against Flag burning.

---

Until the Executive Order of June 24, 1912, neither the order of the stars nor the proportions of the flag was prescribed.

So I guess, up until then, the first amendment wasn't applicable?!? I'm pretty sure the Declaration of Independence clearly states the source of our freedoms.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Self-evident. Don't you think?

[familyop]

"And I speak of the Palestinian or the Communist who burns the American flag overseas when I say that."

Thanks for that potent round of rhetorical ammo. If it is not illegal for anyone to desecrate our Flag in the USA, then terrorists will likely be buring our Flag in public in the USA, sooner or later. And by our activist judges, anyone who lays a hand on the terrorists will be imprisoned. That is...unless we have an Amendment against it.

[Tamzee]

It in no way ascribes value or worthiness to the state or its symbols.

The First Amendment is part of the Constitution which DOES ascribe value to the state... treason is mentioned specifically and one of the only crimes outlined by our Founders.

America IS the lifeboat that carries us. To burn the Flag is using the freedom and security the lifeboat gives us to shoot holes in the bottom of it.

[Tamzee]

Nope, I don't think so

You're quoting Jefferson who was quoting John Locke. Locke felt that it is the state that is formed to protect our liberty and in enjoying that necessary security we have to give up a small measure of our "perfect freedom". Per Locke, the state is needed to protect our "life, liberty and property" from the "corruption and viciousness of degenerate men". The state can't survive unless we give up some of our "perfect freedom" to give it power to do so.

I consider patriotism to be part of what the state needs to survive and a minimal respect for the Flag is inherent to that.

[risk]

I'm unimpressed by your authoritarian arguments. I will continue to lobby against your so-called "flag protection amendment," as it does nothing to defend American liberties, nor does it do anything to defend America itself. Private property is not yours, nor is it the state's. You don't have the power to decide what someone else can express under any circumstances. If you did, the meaning of protest and the meaning of resistance to tyranny could always be opposed on the grounds that it violated the state's own integrity. Your arguments for granting the state new powers to limit expression never before offered in the Constitution are hollow and weak, and are the gateway to further intrusion of the state into the minds of its citizens. Most thinking Americans will probably agree with me, so I welcome the chance to put your campaign to the American people for approval.

[freestyle]

So you believe that without the flag, we do not survive?

OK, but most would disagree.

[Graybeard58]

And if the flag burner turns out to be surprisingly competent and beats the holy crap out of the assailant?

Death by hanging.

[skr]

The sad thing is that the flag doesn't just symbolize the present government and whatever it's doing that some might disagree with; it symbolizes our ideals and those who have sacrificed for our ideals. It's an insult to those who have fought and died for it even before we had a Constitution.

The Constitution guarantees us the freedom of speech, but it's not an unlimited freedom. A ban on inappropriate flag-burning would not prevent someone from protesting against the government in a vast array of other ways.

[freestyle]

I would also add that I don't like the idea of limiting expression when no one is harmed.

What if I wanted to make a movie about how it is wrong to burn the flag? Could I not show "bad people" burning the flag to provoke that negative emotion in the viewer I desire?

At a certain point, the idea is absurd. What about plastic U.S. Flags made in China? Whose patriotism are they endowed with?

[risk]

This is all about fear. These people believe they can defend what seems to be under assault (the American way of life, our freedoms, and our culture) with such amendments. But fear is the motivation of the weak. Our Founding Fathers never tasted it. Reading their Bill of Rights shows only a wariness for government, not the people or their indiscretions. I refuse to let these people introduce fear into the Constitution.