Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

KING VOTES TO PROTECT AMERICAN FLAG [House Judiciary passed Amendment banning desecration]
Congressman Steve King ^ | May 27, 2005 | Rep. Steve King (R-IA)

Posted on 06/08/2005 11:26:52 AM PDT by newgeezer

KING VOTES TO PROTECT AMERICAN FLAG
Americans’ Duty to Protect Symbol of Freedom

Washington, D.C. — Leading up to Memorial Day, with the support of Iowa Congressman Steve King, the House Judiciary Committee passed a Constitutional amendment that would allow Congress to make it a crime to burn the American flag.

Although almost eighty percent of Americans support a Constitutional amendment banning desecration of the American flag, in 1989 and 1990 the Supreme Court ruled that laws passed by Congress violated the First Amendment. Passing a constitutional amendment is the only way to protect the American flag from acts of desecration.

“Our Founding Fathers would have never imagined the need for an amendment to the Constitution like this,” said King. “They fought so hard to be able to display the American flag, and they did so proudly. This Memorial Day weekend, we must remember all of those who fought for our country and this flag. It’s not just patriotic to want to protect this flag, but our duty as Americans.”

“This flag has led the way into battle, been planted on the moon and draped the coffins of Americans who have sacrificed their lives for our county. It was raised at Iwo Jima and in the debris at Ground Zero. It is the symbol of freedom to everyone in the world,” added King.

H.J. Res. 10, the Flag Protection Amendment, will need to be passed by two-thirds of the full House and Senate and be ratified by three-fourths of the states to become law. The amendment has been passed by the House with more than the two-thirds majority needed in the past five Congresses. In addition, all 50 state legislatures have petitioned Congress to approve a flag protection amendment and send it to them for ratification. The amendment has been considered in the Senate twice in the last five Congresses, and both times it failed to garner the two-thirds majority needed.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News; News/Current Events; US: Iowa
KEYWORDS: 109th; amendment; constitution; desecration; flag; flagamendment; flagburning; flagdesecration; hjres10
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-90 next last
To: TheOtherOne
In addition, all 50 state legislatures have petitioned Congress to approve a flag protection amendment and send it to them for ratification.

Ain't that amazing?

According to some here, those 50 legislative bodies, the expression of their states' electoral will, are made up of a bunch of Nazi freedom-haters.

Up until this thread, I was rather ambivalent about this issue, but now I think I'm leaning towards supporting the amendment.

41 posted on 06/08/2005 1:00:09 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (The gift of life: The first gift. The right to life: The first right. Fight for life and liberty!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: RonF
Enforced reverence for national symbols is the mark of a tolitarian government, not a democratic republic.

An excellent point, and one worth repeating. What these proposed amendments do to the Constitution is much more offensive than what a couple idiots do with their own flags.

42 posted on 06/08/2005 1:00:22 PM PDT by highball
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Paradox
"IF they ban flag burning, I will personally burn a flag on television news."

I'll happily do the same. Banning flag burning damages this country far more than burning flags does.
43 posted on 06/08/2005 1:24:10 PM PDT by NJ_gent (Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RonF
Enforced reverence for national symbols is the mark of a tolitarian government, not a democratic republic.

If this amendment passed, you would still not have to reverence the flag. You could still despise it all you wish. You just wouldn't be legally allowed to desecrate it as a public act.

44 posted on 06/08/2005 1:27:46 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (The gift of life: The first gift. The right to life: The first right. Fight for life and liberty!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: NJ_gent

45 posted on 06/08/2005 1:33:54 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (The gift of life: The first gift. The right to life: The first right. Fight for life and liberty!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Same thing - it's the love of a symbol greater than that for what the symbol represents.


46 posted on 06/08/2005 1:34:26 PM PDT by highball
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: highball

47 posted on 06/08/2005 1:37:30 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (The gift of life: The first gift. The right to life: The first right. Fight for life and liberty!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

a couple times. over a campfire, with all of us standing in silence. i was told this is the proper way to dispose of a flag that had spent its life being prodly displayed and had become worn and slightly tattered.


48 posted on 06/08/2005 1:37:45 PM PDT by absolootezer0 ("My God, why have you forsaken us.. no wait, its the liberals that have forsaken you... my bad")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RedTail
And if someone was to vandalize the Lincoln Memorial in the name of free speech?

I may have the right to burn my flag, but I certainly don't have the right to burn your flag.

49 posted on 06/08/2005 1:38:44 PM PDT by Modernman ("Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made." -Bismarck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

I would love to see the exact wording of this proposed amendment.


50 posted on 06/08/2005 1:42:50 PM PDT by Stonewall Jackson (Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. - John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Yes, the picture is pretty (although I prefer the other one you posted above). What's the point?

Are you implying that I don't love my flag, because I love what it represents even more?


51 posted on 06/08/2005 1:46:34 PM PDT by highball
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: highball

Read into it whatever you will.

I mean, after all, I just posted a symbol, right?


52 posted on 06/08/2005 1:55:19 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (The gift of life: The first gift. The right to life: The first right. Fight for life and liberty!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Then perhaps I should rephrase. Enforcing public respect and specific treatment for national symbols is the mark of a tolitarian government, not a democratic republic. So far, while we have a U.S. Flag Code that defines how one should treat the flag, there are no criminal penalties for violating it. There's no need to change that. I see no reason why anyone should not feel free to publicly desecrate the flag, anymore than people should not be free to publicly desecrate the Bible or a Qu'ran or a copy of the Vedas.

That would be odd, wouldn't it, that one couldn't burn a flag but one could burn a Bible?


53 posted on 06/08/2005 2:01:45 PM PDT by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: bukkdems

Yes it would.


54 posted on 06/08/2005 2:03:35 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

Actually, if you read the U.S. Flag Code (which prescribes how to treat the American flag but has no criminal penalties attached), American flag shirts are illegal. So is incorporating the American flag or parts thereof into any article of clothing, except for uniforms of patriotic organizations. The latter would include, for example, the Boy Scouts, police, the military, etc., but would not include football teams, etc. I would think that Olympic teams would be exempt from that, as they represent the United States directly.

Yes, legally defining "desecration" would enrich a lot of lawyers.


55 posted on 06/08/2005 2:05:14 PM PDT by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: elbucko
Allow the fools that hold this nation in low regard to light a beacon to themselves (as long as it's their flag) so that we may know them.

When I was in college and anti-hate-speech codes were proposed, I opposed them on the grounds that this way, we know who the assholes are.

56 posted on 06/08/2005 2:06:25 PM PDT by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Exactly. Would you make it a crime for me to delete that symbol from my hard drive?


57 posted on 06/08/2005 2:08:28 PM PDT by highball
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
So, are these folks simply 'exercising free speech', or would you consider them a threat to the realities behind the symbol?

Both. But the first act is not the cause of the second. In fact, the first act actually aids in identifying them as a threat and thus makes it easier to defend those realities, which are far more important than the symbol.

58 posted on 06/08/2005 2:09:11 PM PDT by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: absolootezer0
From U.S. Code Title 4, Chapter 1, Section 8, Paragraph (k)

The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning.

Here you go. This is it. The definition of "dignified" is up to you, as is the judgement of "when it is such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display". Unlike many urban legends you may have quoted to you, there is no requirement that it be done by the VFW or police or Boy Scouts, nor that it be done privately, nor that it be cut up before burning, etc., etc. Not that you made any such assertions, but those are common allegations that are untrue.

59 posted on 06/08/2005 2:16:47 PM PDT by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: RonF
But the first act is not the cause of the second. In fact, the first act actually aids in identifying them as a threat and thus makes it easier to defend those realities, which are far more important than the symbol.

Exactly!

60 posted on 06/08/2005 2:44:25 PM PDT by newgeezer (Just my opinion, of course. Your mileage may vary. You have the right to be wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-90 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson