Brit Hume: Flag-burning ban fails by one vote (to be discussed on the "All Star" panel)

FoxNewsChannel ^ | 6-27-06 | DTogo

[DTogo]

Brit Hume just mentioned it.

[Reagan Man]

>>>>Scalia makes mistakes every now and then.

This no mistake.

Not all inanimate objects are created equal.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Some victory. As the law now stands, they can take your house to give to a politically connected developer or throw you in jail for making a political contribution, but your right to burn the flag or consume pornography are well protected."

I'll agree that the Kelo case was a much more important issue, but I see no reason to make another mistake by banning the burning of your own property.

[muawiyah]

The flag at issue in the flag burning decision had been stolen.

Yes, the USSC ruled it was OK to pull down a US flag (owned by the US) and burn it as some form of political protest.

No doubt the USSC might draw the line at burning a justice' robes (particularly if the justice were still in them), and might even object if someone burned down the Capitol Building, but in their decision, they did not affirm that the law prohibited vandalism as well.

Congress-critters and the President should continue to beware of the USSC until it comes up with some reason why individual political protest at the expense of the general public is not Constitutional.

[Dimensio]

Hate speech is probably trickier: you can be sanctioned for saying anything disagreeable about most religions,

Please reference the laws allowing for such sanctions.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I've encountered you in the past. Many of your opinions are obviously well grounded in the Ante Bellum Souf'"

I think you have me confused with someone else. Or are just making it up.

[muawiyah]

The individual who won the case had been charged under the applicable statute which prohibited vandalism of US flags.

You guys who think you know this decision really ought to read the case some time. Ask yourselfs "who owned the flag", "what law was the offending person charged with", etc.

It's not the same case you've concocted in your minds.

[Dimensio]

Yes, the USSC ruled it was OK to pull down a US flag (owned by the US) and burn it as some form of political protest.

Please show that the USSC made a ruling regarding pulling down a US flag owned by the US by showing that such an act was challenged as Constitutionally protected and that the prosection argued that specific offense to the USSC.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"If a high school valedictorian mentions God in a personal speech, "free speech" enthusiasts such as Carolina Guitarman are the first to demand that the state crush her under foot."

That's a lie.

"An atheist is free to burn the American flag at a high school graduation ceremony in Carolina Guitarman's bizarro world,"

Not on school property it isn't. You are really good about making things up I allegedly believe.

Is there a reason you are so good at bearing false witness?

[Amelia]

As if they have nothing better to work on.

How about illegal immigration or balancing the budget?

[Dimensio]

The individual who won the case had been charged under the applicable statute which prohibited vandalism of US flags.

Were they also charged under an applicable statute prohibiting theft of federally-owned property? If not, why not?

[muawiyah]

Actually, you are wrong. The case involved a stolen flag. It didn't belong to the protester. The USSC ruled in such a way that if CarolinaGuitarman stole your flag and burned it in a public protest, he could not be touched by the law.

Presumably that would prevent you from a monetary recovery in a civil action.

The only way you could get satisfaction when CG steals and burns your flag is by going over to his house and sneaking up behind him with a D-handle shovel for an appropriate "blow for freedom".

That's one of the defects in the USSC decision that has concerned many right-minded people on both sides of the flag burning issue. Sure, it misrepresented flag burning as permitted political protest, but the nature of the case said the protester could steal the flag and there's nothing you could do about it.

This may, in fact, have deterred many possible flag burners. They know that no one is going to wait for the cops ~ they'll just take it as "fighting words" and cap 'em.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"The individual who won the case had been charged under the applicable statute which prohibited vandalism of US flags."

The statute was unconstitutional if it's object was to ban the burning of ANY US flag. The only crime should be if you steal someone else's property and destroy it.

[muawiyah]

You'll have to explain yourself. Remember, Scalia voted FOR flag burning. Flag burning is foul, bigoted, and indicative of a mind set that should be set right as soon as possible.

[DTogo]

BINGO!

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"It didn't belong to the protester. The USSC ruled in such a way that if CarolinaGuitarman stole your flag and burned it in a public protest, he could not be touched by the law."

Don't be a coward and post about me without pinging me.

[Cobra64]

They didn't die for the flag, they died for the country.

Guess you didn't learn anything in school. The American Flag is the SYMBOL of America. If you can't read, maybe you can look at pictures of our GIs raising the American Flag on Iwo Jima in WWII. Or if you're not familiar with that, you may remember the WTC and the firemen raising the American Flag.

Do you know the Pledge of Allegiance?

[DTogo]

Back to banning Gay Marriage, perhaps...

[CharlesWayneCT]

I agree with your assessment.

[L.N. Smithee]

Scalia makes mistakes every now and then. Probably has immigrant parents rather than Revolutionary War veterans in his background. Else he'd be more respectful. Eventually he'll come around or its back to Reggio de Calabria for him.

That's as brain-dead a statement as the "chickenhawk" insults coming from veteran Dems who didn't mind a whit that Bill Clinton was a draft-dodger. They act as if someone who has never served in the military has no right to authorize warfare, but would they dare suggest that only veterans be allowed to run for office or vote on funding for war?

So, what has Scalia's lineage got to do with anything? He's got to have an ancestor in the DAR to sit on the Court? Deporting an New Jersey native to Italy? What is WRONG with you?

Here's a tip: Type. Think. THEN hit "Post"!

[Cobra64]

Flag burning, to me, belongs in the criminal code, not in the document that defines the shape of our government.

It's up to the Congress and the judicial branch to determine if a law against flag burning is within the powers of the government, but I would NOT amend the constitution to give the government a new power like this one where none existed before.

Bingo! Well put.