Posted on 06/20/2005 10:35:24 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
A newly released independent poll confirms that the vast majority of Americans want the U.S. Flag protected from acts of desecration.
The random poll of 1,004 adults nation-wide was conducted by the Opinion Research Corporation June 16-19. In responding to the question how important do you think it is to make flag desecration against the law, 81 percent said it was somewhat to extremely important. Another 75 percent said they wanted Congress to pass a flag protection constitutional amendment.
The poll echoes numerous others conducted since a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court decision overturned five previous courts and made flag desecration legal. Poll after poll indicated that between 75 percent and 80 percent of the public support legal protection of Old Glory from physical acts of desecration.
"I'm delighted but not surprised that this poll again confirms what we already know," said Thomas P. Cadmus, national commander of The American Legion. "When asked a straight forward question, most Americans will give you a straight answer -- protect Old Glory."
The U.S. House of Representatives is expected to vote on HJR- 10, the flag protection amendment this week.
Only 28 percent of those surveyed said they would be likely to vote for someone who is opposed to protecting the U.S. Flag.
Complete poll results are available online at http://www.legion.org.
"The people have spoken again loud and clear," Cadmus said. "I urge Members of Congress to heed the voices of the people and the call of all 50 state legislatures. Pass the flag protection amendment now."
The poll has a 3 percent margin of error.
That's nice. However, barring a Constitutional amendment, the people cannot ban flag-burning as it is covered by the 1st Amendment. Why do you think people keep pushing for a Constitutional amendment on this point? (Oh and by the way, you really should read your own links- the government cannot ban group libel or hate speech)
The point you seem unable to grasp is that the things you listed can be regulated by laws, rather than a Constitutional amendment, because they do not fall under the protection of the 1st Amendment, and never have. It's not the other way around- passing laws does not remove 1st Amendment protection.
Fortunately for us, the Supreme Court does not subscribe to your interpretation of First Amendment jurisprudence whereby any law that "benefits" the citizens is constitutional. In reality, the law must promote a governmental interest unrelated to the suppression of free expression, which the Supreme Court has already decided that flag-burning laws do not.
In Texas v. Johnson, the Supreme Court, in an opinion in which Justice Scalia concurred, stated "The State's interest in preventing breaches of the peace does not support [Johnson's] conviction [of flag burning] because Johnson's conduct did not threaten to disturb the peace. Nor does the State's interest in preserving the flag as a symbol of nationhood and national unity justify his criminal conviction for engaging in political expression."
Period.
Sacred?!? They're making thong bikinis out of it! Give me a break.
Tell me this one thing. Why an amendment? Why not just pass a law? That's way easier to get passed than an amendment.
Oh, that's right. A law would be found unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment. Nevermind.
Some poeple just don't think things through.
Pot meet kettle.
If that is true then why not just pass a law?
"Oh, that's right. A law would be found unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment. Nevermind."
Banning flag burning doesn't violate the First Amendment, except to those who interpret it to the extreme. I think the amendment is just a good way of promoting respect for such a significant symbol for America like our flag.
But please don't bother to reply with more of your contentious words, because it's clear we just don't agree on this issue.
So, why not just write laws against it?
There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about flushing or destroying a Koran. Flush away!
This is the same argument liberals throw around about the Second Amendment and the "extremists" who want to interpret it broadly. Once you start narrowing the application of constitutional provisions you don't like, it makes it easier for others to narrow the definition of provisions you like, until we have no constitution at all.
Even your side of the debate has acknowledged that this "speech" is not Constitutionally protected. In fact, laws have been written to make them a punishable offense. Look back through the posts and you may even find links to these laws. Do you have a point?
We can see that.
The wild-eyed, flag-burner defenders in this thread will hear no reason whatsoever on the issue.
Us wild-eyed defenders of the Constitution in this thread have not heard a single good arguement for amending said Constitution in order to take away rights of the people.
They keep saying that an amendment won't stop people from burning the flag in Iran or somewhere, so it's not worth it.
Most of us are simply saying that flag burning is constitutionally protected free speech and rightly so.
Well, duh. If we're not willing to protect our flag on our own turf, then we have no position to resent it abroad.
Any a-hole that attempts to come into my front yard and mess with MY "Old Glory" had best be prepared for dire consequences.
And why do people who support this flag amendment like myself think that burning the flag is NOT FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION? Simply because we believe it is a treasonous expression and it should not be permitted anymore than blowing up public property as 'freedom of speech' and 'expression'. The line must be drawn.
You people know full well that flag burning is constitutionally protected free speech. That's why you're wanting a constitutional amendment.
If you guys want to desecrate our flag, then move to a country that has no respect for it.
If you guys want to further dissolve our constitution, then move to a country that has no respect for it.
Such as Justice Antonin Scalia?
Your post #173 was far more contentious than anything that I had previously written. (or since then for that matter) You resorted to name calling and stating that many of us posting here should leave the country.
Let me make something clear here. My calling for you and others to leave the country was nothing but a sarcastic reply to your contentious statement for us to leave. If you were serious, that's your business and free speech right.
By 2008, we will need as many conservatives banding together as we can muster regardless of free speech differences.
Freegards, TOE.
Now THAT is an amendment bandwagon that I would jump on, especially involving 'partial-birth' abortion!
I hope they also consider the following "acts" to continue to be equivalent to "speech": 1. Pressing keys to turn my words to text, despite the words themselves not being printed, but merely stored as electronic data or displayed on a screen. 2. Mailing form 180's weekly to a certain Senator. 3. Sign language.
The Constitution is only supposed to be narrowly interpreted when determining what rights it gives to the government, not to the people. The document limits the powers of GOVERNMENT.
I can do anything I want that does not infringe on the rights of others ... unless the government takes that right away. What right of mine is taken away when someone burns a flag they own? The right not to be offended? How very ... liberal.
On the other hand, an anti-flag burning law and/or amendment would violate my following "rights": 1. free speech (according to current law) 2. right to private property (or would ownership of all flags immediately revert to the state? Would we have to license flags down at the police department?)
And what would such an amendment entail, anyway? Is it only burning that is outlawed? Can I still piss on the flag? Wipe myself with it? Probably not.
Can I leave it flying at night without proper lighting? Can I be arrested for leaving it out in inclement weather? Can I be investigated if someone accuses me of flag-burning? Would there be a special class of people still allowed to burn flags? If so, what special people get to judge the intent behind the flag burning?
If my house burns down, and I had a flag inside, do I go to jail? What if I am properly, reverently disposing of the flag via burning, but make disparaging comments about the current administration while doing so? Would I be able to make disparaging comments about the flag itself? Would just threatening to burn a flag I own be illegal? What other symbols of the state would be protected?
We're supposed to be intellectually honest here ... why doesn't the flag burning amendment supporting side admit it's not the ACTION of burning a flag they oppose, but the sentiment behind it?
And then they can go and vote for all the additional hate crimes legislation they want.
When does everything that offends people get made illegal? They've already gotten to or whave tried to get to the following: 1. smoking 2. driving without a seatbelt 3. wearing perfume (in some places) 4. breastfeeding in public 5. guns 6. individuals praying on their own time in schools 7. private clubs selecting their own members 8. etc.
Maybe all of those aren't the same as flag-burning, but's it's a growing list.
I am unaware of a fundamental constitutional right to abortion yet unborn children are flushed down toilets daily. A federal judge ruled that individuals have no fundamental constitutional right to smoke tobacco. Why not? I also checked the 14th Amendment per privacy and was unable to locate a right to abortion. So one may abort, cannot smoke, but may burn flags? As I inquired previously, as far as the desecration of the Koran is concerned, why are military personal being disciplined for possible destruction of it and nobody is concerned about the crosses which fall into the dirt after the beheadings?
Military personnel do not have free speech rights during service.
What do you think happens when a private tells an officer he thinks his momma dresses him funny?
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.