Kerry, Edwards and Daschle May Face Vote on Flag

washington post ^ | 9/13/04

[Tamzee]

Yes, I know it is a matter with valid arguments on both sides. I tend to support this one, though, regarding Freedom of Speech. I believe there should be few limits on speech, but some are necessary (treason, for example).



Terminiello v. Chicago

Said Justice Jackson in a dissent joined by Justices Frankfurter and Burton:

"The choice is not between liberty and order. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."

[familyop]

Madison's and Jefferson's concern for our flag was not about material property issues.

They both believed that the physical integrity of the flag was necessary to the sovereignty of our country. And although both were involved in international legal actions regarding the flag, neither expressed any belief that physical insults to any nation's flag could be construed as freedom of expression.

To begin research into the truth about what our forefathers thought of flag desecration, start with Endecott's Case in Massachusetts.

Go from there, then find the case of the first US flag burning that the hippified (during that time) members of the Supreme Court supported.

It's a study in the very recent degradation and weakening of our country by people who think only of themselves against what our soldiers and other defenders have given for them.

[risk]

I continue to disagree with you. Even if a founding father here or there said that a particular flag ought to be protected, I have my own reasons for opposing this amendment. I respect the military's own esprit de corps, but civilians have their own ideas. The military is not free to impose its own standards on civilians. As I have said, I have spoken at length with a very wise and well-thought veteran who nearly died for this country one day about 60 years ago. He instilled in me a great respect for the flag, and I've never known anyone who cares for it better. But he explained that one of the freedoms for which he fought and nearly died was for a flag owner to desecrate his own flag for his own reasons. You are afraid of something, and that is why you want an amendment. I do not share those fears, and neither did the patriot of whom I speak. He did fear people who would run scared while making legislation, however. That is when our freedoms are most at risk.

[Tamzee]

Those "plastic U.S. Flags" don't fall under the laws regulating the display and disposal of the U.S. Flag anyways... the same with a flag-print shirt. They aren't THE Flag, they are just replicas or patterns...

I wouldn't want a Flag burning Amendment to apply to anything but THE Flag, the dimensions and parameters of which are already outlined legally.

[familyop]

"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?"

We already have much footage of the likes of Rachel Corry, whose "expression" has certainly cost the lives of many US soldiers and innocent civilians since then by encouraging the enemy to use her act of hatred against her own country and the following victimology campaign in his (the enemy's) propaganda to his co-conspirators.

That's why most of the people in our country refuse to sympathize with the report on her fate.

Would but all desecraters of our flag be rendered into macabre, long haired pizzas.

[familyop]

"You are afraid of something, and that is why you want an amendment. I do not share those fears,..."

By that, we know where you're coming from. It's a common projection of your own fear against those you consider to have been less fearful. And with the topic at hand, for some of us, that displayed fear is reminiscent of televised spectacles of insults against us not so long ago.

You may raise the rare exception of one veteran all you like. We see those as they campaign for the social left. But most veterans disagree with you and are against flag desecration. To call for legalization of that while holding up a rare opinion in favor of it is to commit an obvious fallacy.

To all:

Folks, we should bring back the draft for at least three months of one-station initial training for every able bodied young man in our country. The real men that they could become would put a stop to the degeneration.

[risk]

You're slick but you don't have an amendment yet. I might add that you're wasting a lot of precious time on this that could be used in figuring out how to defend our rights instead of restricting them.

[familyop]

"I might add that you're wasting a lot of precious time on this that could be used in figuring out how to defend our rights instead of restricting them."

I'm digging up a few old pictures of ingrates who burned flags and defended flag desecration instead of having the guts to do what it takes to defend our rights.

[NYCVirago]

Please bear in mind that George Bush is also spending a lot of his time now campaigning for the election, which must mean that he is delegating a fair amount of his presidential responsibilities to others.

When Bush passes up signing bills because he's busy campaigning, you'll have a fair comparison to Kerry/Edwards not voting on anything anymore.

[Casloy]

Ok, how about a compromise. Instead of banning flag burning, how about legalizing shooting of flag burners. Now that we can all have "assault weapons" it just makes sense.

[Puddleglum]

Come on, you guys know better than to support this amendment. If someone owns a flag and decides to burn it, that's his decision. Even Zell Miller quoted a poem about soldiers who defend others' rights to burn the flag at the RNC Convention.

The Constitution is about limiting government power, not about restraining the American people.

I agree. Let's not legislate on the issue but instead try to win over the consciences of folks the flag-burners are trying to persuade. I think conservatism is winning on its own merits and that this law would only reinforce stereotypes about it.

[Melas]

You may raise the rare exception of one veteran all you like. We see those as they campaign for the social left. But most veterans disagree with you and are against flag desecration. To call for legalization of that while holding up a rare opinion in favor of it is to commit an obvious fallacy.

I'm a veteran and I'm against flag desecration. I'm also against spandex over celluite, green hair, nose rings, and body odor. Still, I don't favor criminalizing any of the above.

Desecrating the flag is an ugly, disrespectful act. However, you have the right to be ugly and hold dumbassed opinions. Flags are property, and if you own it, who am I to tell you what you can do with it? Let's not get so wrapped up in symbolism that we forget the liberty and freedom the flag is supposed to represent.

[technomage]

Please bear in mind that George Bush is also spending a lot of his time now campaigning for the election, which must mean that he is delegating a fair amount of his presidential responsibilities to others.

That may be true now, but how long has Kerry been ignoring his Senate responsibilities and getting paid for it? A year, year and a half? At least since all the Dims started the primary process way back in early 2003.

I do not think there is a comparison between the President and Kerry.

[Freeper]

The Constitution is about limiting government power, not about restraining the American people.

You are absolutely correct.

Although the thought of "protecting" the Flag is honorable, an amendment in the Constitution is not the proper place