Congress has finally slipped the track - again


PDA






skidmark
June 22, 2005, 06:38 PM
The House of Representatives just passed SJR #12 and sent it to the Senate.

As much as burning the American flag makes me ill and see red, I am vehemently opposed to this on so many levels I cannot begin to get them in order and list them inteligently.

Here is the Resolution:

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. (Introduced in Senate)

SJ 12 IS

109th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. J. RES. 12
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

April 14, 2005
Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. THUNE, Mr. TALENT, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. ALLARD, Mr. ALLEN, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. BURNS, Mr. BURR, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. COBURN, Mr. COLEMAN, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. DEWINE, Mr. DOMENICI, Mr. ENSIGN, Mr. ENZI, Mr. FRIST, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. KYL, Mrs. LINCOLN, Mr. LOTT, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. SANTORUM, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. SHELBY, Mr. THOMAS, Mr. VITTER, Mr. WARNER, Mr. BOND, Mr. BUNNING, Mr. DEMINT, Mrs. DOLE, Mr. GREGG, Mr. HAGEL, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. MARTINEZ, Mr. NELSON of Nebraska, Ms. SNOWE, Mr. SPECTER, and Mr. STEVENS) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.


Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within 7 years after the date of its submission by the Congress:

`Article --

`The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.'.

No matter how you feel about the issue, I encourage everyone to contact their Senators ands let them know where you stand. There sahould be NO "silent majority" when it comes to tinkering with the Bill of Rights.

[/ :banghead: :cuss: ]

stay safe.

skidmark

If you enjoyed reading about "Congress has finally slipped the track - again" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
richyoung
June 22, 2005, 06:41 PM
I must repectfully disagree - i think the Founders would be suprised to be informed that the First Ammendment they crafted had been stretched to protect flag burners and pornographers...

Alex45ACP
June 22, 2005, 06:43 PM
If this passes, I may have to burn an American flag in protest... :confused:

MrTuffPaws
June 22, 2005, 06:59 PM
Great, if this passes, I will have to piss on the constitution to protest the government.

There are a tremendous amount of other crap congress should be doing, why are they wasting time on taking away the rights of the people?

Jeff
June 22, 2005, 07:00 PM
And what people don't realize is that by making it illegal more offenders will commit the act. It has more impact and activist outrage value if the action is prohibited at the time.

Not many do it now because it is not outrageous enough. Congress is acting like a bunch of naive children.

MrTuffPaws
June 22, 2005, 07:03 PM
i think the Founders would be suprised to be informed that the First Ammendment they crafted had been stretched to protect flag burners and pornographers...



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

What part of the 1st don't you understand?

Mr. X
June 22, 2005, 07:05 PM
i think the Founders would be suprised to be informed that the First Ammendment they crafted had been stretched to protect flag burners and pornographers...

Pornographers, yes, most likely. Flag burners, no. Flag worship is a 19th C. development, steming from anti-immigation and post-civil war patriotic fervor.

2nd Amendment
June 22, 2005, 07:06 PM
How about instead we write a simple law that says while freedom of speech allows you to burn my flag it ALSO allows me to use that burning flag to set you ablaze? Works, no waste, Karma is satsified, etc...

Seriously.

*why are you looking at me funny?*

R.H. Lee
June 22, 2005, 07:06 PM
How flagburning 'speech'? Speech is speech, the practice of flagburning is/should not be 'protected' by the 1st, neither should it be a prosecutable offense.

I get really ticked off at all the crap that attempts to hide behind the 1st.

mcmoyer
June 22, 2005, 07:26 PM
It's gotta go and be voted on nation-wide and be ratified by 2/3 of the states.

How about all of the MORONS who fly flags until they're nothing but rags???

:cuss:

Biker
June 22, 2005, 07:26 PM
Me and most of my Bros in this area wear a patch on our cut-offs that says "Try burning this one, A**hole!" with an American flag underneath it. Personally, I mean that very, very much. If I see a man burning the Flag, I will personally eliminate his need to ever visit a dentist again. I'm a Vet and proud, and some of my friends never came back home from the Nam. However, imo, they died so these flag-burners have the right to be a**holes as our constitution states, I believe. Having said that, I will excersise *my* right to de-tooth any Flag-burning SOB I see and go to jail for it if necessary-no regrets.
Biker

Derby FALs
June 22, 2005, 07:40 PM
Amendments should restrict the government, only...

Justin
June 22, 2005, 07:46 PM
i think the Founders would be suprised to be informed that the First Ammendment they crafted had been stretched to protect flag burners and pornographers... Given that porn has been around since, oh, roughly Neolithic times, it seems that if the founders didn't want the 1st Amendment to extend to materials of a prurient nature that they probably would have included that in the text of the First Amendment. :rolleyes:

Once again, this proposed amendment is nothing more than a solution in search of a problem. So far as I know, there's been something like one case of a flag being burned in protest in the US in the recent past.

And even if people were lighting flags up willy-nilly, it still wouldn't compare to the abuse being dealt to the bill of rights on an almost daily basis.



Personally, I'm still waiting for a congressmember to propose a bill that prohibits the desecration of the Bill of Rights.

George S.
June 22, 2005, 07:50 PM
Happened to notice that one of the backers of the proposal is a "Mrs. Feinstein".

Maybe gun makers should start putting an image of the US flag on guns....

Lone_Gunman
June 22, 2005, 07:56 PM
I must repectfully disagree - i think the Founders would be suprised to be informed that the First Ammendment they crafted had been stretched to protect flag burners

The founders burned King George III in effigy. What specifically makes you think they would want to stop flag burning?

mics357
June 22, 2005, 07:58 PM
although I personally find flag burning reprehensible and very easly could result in a sound poundin by someone like (me) for example it is far worse to try an tack more admendments to the bill of rights because everytime they add one I lose another of mine. ( civ. rights ) that is.

wasrjoe
June 22, 2005, 08:07 PM
Rediculous. Flag burning is a form of political protest. (A stupid one that only gets people angry, but a form of protest nonetheless.) Even if you think flag burning should be outlawed, please just think of the possible unintended consequences.

Sindawe
June 22, 2005, 08:08 PM
Biker & mics357: Don't forget the adage that "Your "right" to swing your fist ends at my nose (or in Biker's example teeth)." Verbal disagreement, shouting, waving one's arms and jumping up & down in fury is all well and good. Striking another person because you disagree with their choice of expression can get you shot, as you yourself have noted (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=143999) mics357.

FPrice
June 22, 2005, 08:16 PM
"although I personally find flag burning reprehensible and very easly could result in a sound poundin by someone like (me) for example..."

I have to agree with you here.

"it is far worse to try an tack more admendments to the bill of rights because everytime they add one I lose another of mine. ( civ. rights ) that is."

Out of curiousity, which civ right did you lose as a result of Amendment XIII? Or Amendment XV? How about Amendment XIX?

Biker
June 22, 2005, 08:17 PM
Very true, Sindawe. However, as one of our other members observed, most of us selectively obey/break laws. I am one of those people even though nowadays, at least, I obey a lot more than I break. Fact is, there are times when it is right to do something even when it is illegal, and yes, I know, morality is subjective. If a Man is willing to fight and die for the Flag in another country, he should have the right to do it at home.
In other words, just cause it's legal, it don't make it right, and just cause it's illegal, it don't make it wrong.
I'll live with the consequences-done it before.
Biker

mics357
June 22, 2005, 08:22 PM
I stand corrected poor choice of words perhaps ,just this particular issue sometimes makes me start yellin before brain totally engauged :(

mics357
June 22, 2005, 08:27 PM
after you have left friends and family under one of those flags maybe you will understand better

dolanp
June 22, 2005, 08:33 PM
It is the CONSTITUTION! The BILL OF RIGHTS!

Not the Bill of You Can't Do This or This or Whatever Else Bliss Ninny Politicos say!

Regardless of how you feel about it, like the gay marriage ban amendment, it is an affront to the ideals of America and the idea of freedom. It is an agregious misuse of our document to guarantee our rights from infringement.

grimjaw
June 22, 2005, 09:09 PM
What about a video of a burning flag?

A cartoon of a burning flag?

What if I accidentally set one on fire?

Is it just restricted to burning, or any 'desecration' of the flag or its image? Tearing, ripping, stomping on, applying the likeness to products (which in my view 'desecrates' some symbols), are they all prohibited?

If you grant the power to government to prohibit your activities in this way, you are opening the door for more infringement down the road.

If all that a nincompoop can do is yell and scream and burn a symbol (flag), I'm not very worried. There are much worse things that go on in the media and entertainment industries that are worse as far as symbols go. If my beliefs are strong, they can outlast the burning of a flag.

Aren't flags erected after victory, after the fight is won? Aren't flags a rallying point?

I don't mean to insult, but how is anger over the burning of the flag (and violent acts as espoused by some posters) different than people of the Islamic faith rioting over reported desecration of the Koran (sp?)

Next we can't damage other symbols, such as the Great Seal of the state of Ohio, or pictures of the presidents, or portray the police as crooks on television, and so on.

Let them light up and burn away, I say. Then arrest them for attempted arson. Fine them for causing dense, acrid smoke to fill a public space, lawd sakes, it might hurt the little children! ;)

jmm

NIGHTWATCH
June 22, 2005, 09:15 PM
If we could only get so passionate about privacy rights and burning our new National ID's down the road :rolleyes:

jefnvk
June 22, 2005, 09:27 PM
As much as I hate flag burners, I hate making it illegal even more.

Even worse, I hate that something like this is even being worked on, when there are other more pressing issues that the time could be used on.

And I cannot see how anyone could say in one second that the founders put the 2A in as a suicide clause against a tyrannical government, and then believe that the founders would never have allowed flag burning as a way to protest the gov't :confused:

And you do not have a right to make someone toothless because they are disagreeing with your opinion. That is why you will go to jail for it, because you don't have that right.

fistful
June 22, 2005, 09:32 PM
Is flag-burning not protected by the right to personal property?

Standing Wolf
June 22, 2005, 09:36 PM
Nero fiddled while Rome burned.

Too Many Choices!?
June 22, 2005, 09:47 PM
You mean to tell me that ALL the nations major problems have been dealt with to the point that Congress has time to pass a don't burn the flag law :banghead: ! This is completely as(s)inine and wrong to say the least :mad: ...

No time for border control or public school reform but hey, not burning flags will keep us safe :confused:? It is only a symbol of what we truly stand for, jeez.

javafiend
June 22, 2005, 09:50 PM
When I was a Boy Scout, we were taught the proper ways to display American flags, as well as the proper way to dispose of flags that were no longer suitable for display.

***
United States Code
TITLE 4--FLAG AND SEAL, SEAT OF GOVERNMENT, AND THE STATES
CHAPTER 1--THE FLAG
Sec. 8. Respect for flag

No disrespect should be shown to the flag of the United States of
America; the flag should not be dipped to any person or thing.
Regimental colors, State flags, and organization or institutional flags
are to be dipped as a mark of honor.
...
(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.
***

So Congress wants to punish Boy Scouts who properly dispose of American flags? No, Congress wants to punish people based on their political thoughts and feelings while they burn the flag.

In other words, it's an attempt by Congress to enact thought crime legislation.

Murray ROthbard had an excellent essay (http://www.mises.org/econsense/ch31.asp) on this subject.

FPrice
June 22, 2005, 10:02 PM
No, Congress wants to punish people based on their political thoughts and feelings while they burn the flag.

I think you have it wrong. You can have any political thoughts and feelings you want. You just can't act them out in an inappropriate manner.

But don't worry, it's a subtle mistake many people make. Confusing the two.

Biker
June 22, 2005, 10:14 PM
jefnvk
I don't advocate making it illegal. As to the rest of your statement, I *do* have the right because I give it to myself. The law, imo, doesn't have a right to determine what is *right* in many circumstances. I will do what I consider to be right and accept the consequences.
A reach maybe, but if the law determines that you no longer have the right to own a gun, is it *right*? Will you resist and break the law?
If a mofo molests your kid, is it right to deliver justice, in your own way, to him?
If a man grabs your wife's butt in front of you, will you call the cops or break his jaw?
We have far too many laws and waaaaayyy too little common sense and the combination often equals no justice.
Biker

Clean97GTI
June 22, 2005, 10:32 PM
Texas v. Johnson overturned a conviction and ruled that the burning of the flag is protected under the 1st amendment.

If this passes, I will video tape myself burning a flag and mail it to my Rep. John Ensign who is a backer of said bill.

And to those who threaten physical violence on flag burners...I DARE you to try such a stunt with me.
You forget where you are and that such an attack could very well result in your death.

You will, at least risk losing your right to keep and bear arms simply because you lost your temper.
I should think that vets would have more respect for the constitution they swore to uphold.

stevelyn
June 22, 2005, 10:42 PM
You mean to tell me that all of the Nation's major problems have been dealt with to the point Congress has time to pass a "don't burn the flag law"?

Looks to me that Congress has no inclination of dealing with the Nation's major problems, afterall that would mean having to do real work. This way they can hype up a non issue (flag burning) and screw with the Bill of Rights.

If the govt keeps heading in the direction it's going, the flag won't represent anything we recognize and value now.

I'm with other posters on this issue. If this ammendment passes I'm gonna have to torch one in protest myself...................on Independence Day.

Biker
June 22, 2005, 10:44 PM
Clean
Getting into an internet pissing contest with you would accomplish nothing and make us both look foolish.
If you would shoot me for defending the Flag that I fought for and some of my Bros died for while you burned it, good on you.
You're a different man than me. I defend your right to burn it, and assert my right to defend it.
This debate is likely going nowhere good, so I think I'll bow out now.
Best o' luck....
Biker

Beren
June 22, 2005, 11:00 PM
If you would shoot me for defending the Flag that I fought for and some of my Bros died for while you burned it, good on you.

Was it the flag you fought for?

The symbol is not the object it represents. Those who burn flags as political protest deserve to be shunned, ridiculed, and ignored, after you sell them a flag at an inflated cost and mark up your price on matches.

But imprisoned? Ridiculous. You bought the flag, it's your property, do what you want with it. If you wish society to respect you, you'll treat the flag honorably.

Frankly, I can see flag burning as a legitimate political statement in one context: when a flag is no longer suitable for display, it is to be destroyed honorably - preferably by fire. If I'm the type who confuses symbols for the physical object, I could see a statement in burning the flag. I'm saying that our country has turned its back on what it was supposed to represent and is no longer worthy of the blood sacrified on our behalf.

After rulings like Wickard and Raich; with the War on Some Drugs, direct federal income tax, and popular election of U.S. Senators; with certain arms banned without a tax stamp we can no longer obtain; with our country wasting billions nosing into world affairs when a more hands-off approach would be more rewarding both ethically and objectively; I admit it: I'm tempted to burn a few flags.

RevDisk
June 22, 2005, 11:10 PM
If it passes the Senate, I'm burning all my flags.

I will have my SAR-1 slung just in case anyone misunderstands my freedoms of expression and protest. 7.62x39mm in 40 rd mags tends to remind people of their manners. If I had the rifles, I'd do a 21 gun salute with AR15's while the flags were burned. I've done so at enough funerals.

Sigh.

Edit :

If you would shoot me for defending the Flag that I fought for and some of my Bros died for while you burned it, good on you.
You're a different man than me. I defend your right to burn it, and assert my right to defend it.

Biker. I understand your perspective, and respect it. Some of us feel differently. The Constitution protects the right to annoy the status quo, not protect the politically correct. Me, I'm not gonna burn my flags in protest. I would be destroying them in memory of my country, which would obviously be dead.

The Constitution was created to protect the citizenry, and limit the government. Once the Constitution is turned to protect the government and limit the citizenry, we're well down a very dark road.

cuchulainn
June 22, 2005, 11:23 PM
I thought Congress wasn't supposed to make laws relating to the establishment of a religion. ;)

des·e·crate v 1: violate the sacred character of a place or language; "desecrate a cemetary"; "violate the sanctity of the church"; "profane the name of God" 2: remove the consecration from a person or an object.

Antonym: Consecrate

Would this amendment protect only those flags that have been consecrated (I'm very interested in the rite for that), or would the Constitution render all U.S. flags to be automatically sacred?

Would this mean the Fort McHenry flag in the Smithsonian would be a holy relic. I wonder if it would cure cancer, you know, like touching a hem or something. I bet the Natioanl History Museum could give Lourdes a run for its money. I foresee a new criminal cottage industry selling thread that supposedly came from the holy relic.

If Francis Scott Key is associated with three miracles, can Congress declare him to be a saint?

If you threw a holy flag onto the undead, would they burst into flames? Better stick to sticks and silver bullets. You wouldn't want the flag consumed in the unholy flame from the destruction of a vampire or zombie.

Does transubstantiation work with flags, or just bread?

Where's that golden calf smiley when you need it?

Flyboy
June 22, 2005, 11:25 PM
How flagburning 'speech'? Speech is speech, the practice of flagburning is/should not be 'protected' by the 1st.
How about burning draft cards?
How about effigies?


I suggest you review the concept of "symbolic speech;" you might find http://www.landmarkcases.org/texas/symbolic.html and http://www.landmarkcases.org/tinker/symbolicspeech.html to be of interest.

Or, to put a different way: if you want to take "speech" literally, as only covering the words that come out of your mouth on a verbal manner, shall we restrict freedom of the press to only that which is produced by a printing press?

HonorsDaddy
June 22, 2005, 11:25 PM
Flag burning is legal only because of a Supreme Court decision. When they do that with other things, we call it "judicial activism" or "legislating from the bench".

Congress has done nothing they shouldnt do. In fact, this is one of the rare occurences of them actually doing their job. Remember, the amendment process is one of the checks and balances on the Supreme Court.

Congress also hasnt really done anything yet, except start the process, as they are obligated to do.

If this passes the Senate, it then moves on to a direct vote of the people. It does NOT become law until 3/4ths of the states pass it. This means if it DOES become law, it is because a super-majority of the states, not just the popular vote, has decided this additional power should be granted to Congress.

Last but not least, Amendments do not necessarily restrict government power. There have been some pretty good ones which have granted them additional powers.

In short, before you get your panties in a twist, do try to remember who ultimately decides this one.

beerslurpy
June 22, 2005, 11:27 PM
Ron Paul said something about this (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul99.html)

Most sadly:
One of the very first laws that Red China passed upon assuming control of Hong Kong was to make flag burning illegal. Since that time, they have prosecuted some individuals for flag burning. Our State Department keeps records of how often the Red Chinese persecute people for burning the Chinese flag, as it considers those prosecutions an example of how the Red Chinese violate human rights. Those violations are used against Red China in the argument that they should not have most-favored-nation status. There is just a bit of hypocrisy among those members who claim this amendment does not interfere with fundamental liberties, yet are critical of Red China for punishing those who burn the Chinese flag.

Bruce H
June 22, 2005, 11:35 PM
They can have their flag burning ammendment the same day we get a one term term limits ammendment.

pax
June 22, 2005, 11:37 PM
I wish people were half so passionate about protecting the freedom the flag stands for, as they are about protecting a bit of colored fabric.

pax

No man is entitled to the blessings of freedom unless he be vigilant in its preservation. -- Douglas MacArthur

Sindawe
June 22, 2005, 11:41 PM
In light of cuchulainn's post on desecration, it strikes me that such an amendment places the national flag of the U.S. on par with the Nazi's blood flag (http://www.fahnenversand.de/fotw/flags/de%7Dns_bf.html#blu). :uhoh:

Not a direction *I* want the republic to be going.

Clean97GTI
June 22, 2005, 11:42 PM
Clean
Getting into an internet pissing contest with you would accomplish nothing and make us both look foolish.
If you would shoot me for defending the Flag that I fought for and some of my Bros died for while you burned it, good on you.
You're a different man than me. I defend your right to burn it, and assert my right to defend it.
This debate is likely going nowhere good, so I think I'll bow out now.
Best o' luck....
Biker

I would never shoot you for defending the flag. I would shoot you to prevent you doing physical violence to me.
Thats called the 2nd amendment.

You may claim you defend my right to burn it, but the second you use physical force to stop me, you are transforming into a hypocrite.

cuchulainn
June 22, 2005, 11:42 PM
Shouldn't the moderators lock this thread? I thought discussions of religion were verboten here on THR.

:neener:

Clean97GTI
June 22, 2005, 11:45 PM
Freedom of religion is protected by the same amendment that congress is attempting to subvert.

Freedomv
June 23, 2005, 12:12 AM
My father is a WWII Veteran of the South Pacific. He and my mother were up in arms over the flag amendment and were very vocal about their suport for it etc. etc.

I was listening to them rant one day and I asked them if they thought Hitler and the rest of the axis powers would have allowed their flags to be burned?

There wasn't another word said.

It's easy to jump on the band wagon and puff your chest and sound off for what is conceived to be right and patriotic. But one should set back and think things out before committing to support the flag ammendment.

Keep in mind that most if not every law passed is an erosion of freedoms and liberty.

My $.02 worth.

Vern

jefnvk
June 23, 2005, 12:28 AM
A reach maybe, but if the law determines that you no longer have the right to own a gun, is it *right*? Will you resist and break the law?
If a mofo molests your kid, is it right to deliver justice, in your own way, to him?
If a man grabs your wife's butt in front of you, will you call the cops or break his jaw?

Ah! But in all those instances, the act has caused you some tangible damage. Burning flags does nothing but affect your emotions, which I am not going to allow you to physically harm someone for.

cuchulainn
June 23, 2005, 12:35 AM
Burning flags does nothing but affect your emotions Yep, flag-burn-banners have a lot in common with Million Mom Marchers, Animal Rights loons and other leftists who seek legislation to salve their feelings.

If it saves just one flag, it's worth it. ;)

sssteinkamp
June 23, 2005, 12:49 AM
I have always found it curious that some poeple seem to think that the best known symbol of freedom in the world needs to be protected from........well, freedom.

Shane

(Thanks, Jim!)

ralphie98
June 23, 2005, 01:04 AM
I love our flag and I love what it represents, but that feeling doesn't die when some looney toon burns a flag. It's what it symbolizes that is important, not the piece of cloth. When I see video of flag burnings, I just think to myself that this idiot just spent 20 bucks on a couple of flags, just so he could burn them. If it happened in city limits around here, I'd say have the person arrested for not having a proper burn pit or a burn permit (if one is needed).

What's next? make an amendment saying you can't make fun of the president, and question his decisions because it's disrespectful to our country? That's what the first amend. was put there for, and although many may not agree, I feel the flag burning issue is in the same neighborhood.

Akurat
June 23, 2005, 01:19 AM
If you never plan to burn the American flag you should not be upset.

Flyboy
June 23, 2005, 01:24 AM
If you never plan to burn the American flag you should not be upset.
If you never plan to use a gun to commit a crime, you shouldn't be upset about registering, providing a ballistic sample, etc.

cuchulainn
June 23, 2005, 01:26 AM
If you never plan to burn the American flag you should not be upset. If you never plan to publish a newpaper, you shouldn't be upset by censorship.

Joejojoba111
June 23, 2005, 01:41 AM
Lol, wth is happening? This is just wierd, very wierd. It's Bizarro America!

Might I suggest that historically, I'm just pointing out, historically one first attacks liberties that are toughest to defend, thus trying the courage of the people to stand together for rights. I know the Germany comparisons are totally overdone, but the basic essence here is the same, the theory that if you don't stand up for rights of others they won't stand for yours. It's the same principles, that they take the rights that are least popular first, then move on the the 2nd least popular, and then the 3rd. Maybe it's just me, maybe my head is broken, but it looks prefectly obviously crystal clear, just my opinion.

"Declaration of Guilt
Pastor Martin Niemoller, October 1945

In Germany, the Nazis first came for the Communisits,
And I didn't speak up
Because I was not a Communist..."

Akurat
June 23, 2005, 01:51 AM
To continue the analogy session (most of which are inherently flawed):

Hitler would have banned flag burning, so we should not.
Hitler carried a gun, so we should not.
Hitler took pride in having a strong military, so we should not.
...

We can sit and make analogies all day long. I stand by the fact that if you don't plan on burning our country's flag, this shouldn't bother you. Laws are passed all the time that some view as 'stripping away every freedom we have'. But this one - of all things - is the one that bothers you? Wow.

Malone LaVeigh
June 23, 2005, 02:13 AM
I can't speak for anyone else, but I've never cared about any of my rights until this idea came up to ban flag burning. (The new rolleyes icon isn't strong enough.)

beerslurpy
June 23, 2005, 02:23 AM
Flag burning is just the excuse we needed to further damage the constitution. </puke>

If they are so eager to fix the constitiution, let them repeal the 17th amendment and then impeach the 8 justices who dont understand what interstate commerce really means.

Malone LaVeigh
June 23, 2005, 02:25 AM
Just fired off the maddest message I've ever sent Feinswine. That's saying a lot. Oh, well, I will soon be back in Mississippi. I'm sure Sens Lott and Cochran would never support anything this unAmerican.

peacefuljeffrey
June 23, 2005, 02:56 AM
How about instead we write a simple law that says while freedom of speech allows you to burn my flag it ALSO allows me to use that burning flag to set you ablaze? Works, no waste, Karma is satsified, etc...

Seriously.

Seriously?

How on earth do you make the jump from demonstrating discontent with the government (Christ knows we do enough of that in print here!) to violent physical attack possibly leading to murder?

Seriously.


People who claim that burning a flag is not "free speech" shouldn't bitch if they get told that the 1st Amendment doesn't protect the @$$hole things that their idiotic t-shirts and bumper stickers say. "Duhhh, is that speaking?! T-shirts don't talk!" :barf:

Major points:

Flag burning is most definitely political expression.

It is a weak belief in the strength of America to suggest that the burning of the flag by a handful of malcontents harms American freedom, dignity, or rights.

It is hypocrisy to attempt to silence others' free expression just because you don't like their preferred method of delivery. Anyone supporting the flag-burning amendment is anti-freedom, simple as that. They want to call the shots, as far as what others are free to "say."

How does someone burning the flag hurt you, or hurt America?
How do you reconcile your opposition to people's right to burn the flag with the Islamic insanity of killing those who dishonor the quran? I see them as the same kind of extremist fundamentalist weak-minded crap. Get over it. IF America is strong, it can WITHSTAND the flag being burned, and by so doing, appear even STRONGER.

You're saying, but supporting a ban on flag burning, that America is so weak that it must prevent its silly symbol from being burned. It's like when Randi Rhodes hangs up on callers when they are beginning to make her look like an idiot and disprove her arguments. If you can stand there and let your opponents take their best shot and still triumph, THEN you are strong.

-Jeffrey

c_yeager
June 23, 2005, 02:58 AM
SO what you guys are saying is that its OK for the government to pass laws telling you what you can and cannot do with your personal property?

How is telling a person that they cant burn THEIR flag any different from telling a person that they cant convert THEIR rifle into a machinegun?

Someone correct me if im wrong but wouldnt this become one of the VERY few constitutional ammendments specificly geared towards limiting the rights of the people rather than the government? The only other example that springs immediatly to mind is the 18th ammendment, and that was a simply brilliant idea :rolleyes:

Using the constitution of the United States as a means of accomplishing social engineering is a HORRIBLE precident that has worked out very poorly in the past.

Justin
June 23, 2005, 03:12 AM
We can sit and make analogies all day long. I stand by the fact that if you don't plan on burning our country's flag, this shouldn't bother you. Laws are passed all the time that some view as 'stripping away every freedom we have'. But this one - of all things - is the one that bothers you? Wow. So what you're saying is that you don't have any problems with passing laws telling people what they can and cannot do with their own private property?

Wow.

Combat-wombat
June 23, 2005, 03:24 AM
I'll burn my flag if this becomes an amendment.

Delmar
June 23, 2005, 05:54 AM
I cannot believe this arguement goes for 3 pages worth!

If whatever it is that distresses you so much-not enough green M&M's, Bush won't paint the White House pink or whatever, that you feel the need to arouse an emotional debate rather than engage in an intellectual discussion, you GOT NOTHIN!

I have no sympathy for people, nor am I inclined to listen to people who burn the American flag-at least not yet. If the day ever comes when the flag stands for tyranny and injustice, then its long past time to take it back from the government and give it back to the people where it has always belonged.

I was more upset about people flying the NLF flag than any American flag burning back in the 60's/70's, but considering the source, I calmed down pretty quickly.
Did it anger me? You bet. Especially when I thought of my service and the service of others-and pointedly, those who died fighting under the American flag. Did that mean they died for mom, apple pie and Chevrolet? I don't think so, but they certainly gave all for the people around them, and that should never be taken lightly.

In a truly free land, you are just going to have to put up with morons and idiots from time to time. As a general rule, the people burning flags do not have the guts to really DO anything about their grievance-its just a public temper tantrum. My advice is to quit your crying, and come back to the rest of us with a real case. Who knows? You might even get some support!

In the end, the flag is really just a piece of cloth-the meaning of the flag comes from the hearts of the people, nothing more or less.

peacefuljeffrey
June 23, 2005, 06:19 AM
Delmar wrote:

In a truly free land, you are just going to have to put up with morons and idiots from time to time. As a general rule, the people burning flags do not have the guts to really DO anything about their grievance-its just a public temper tantrum. My advice is to quit your crying, and come back to the rest of us with a real case. Who knows? You might even get some support!

If you don't know every person who would be burning a flag, your statement/assertion here is just about useless and ridiculous. How on earth do you know what guts a flag-burner does or doesn't have?


In the end, the flag is really just a piece of cloth-the meaning of the flag comes from the hearts of the people, nothing more or less.

Then I take it you can let go of the idea of needing to "protect" it from "desecration"? :rolleyes:

-Jeffrey

Delmar
June 23, 2005, 07:01 AM
If you don't know every person who would be burning a flag, your statement/assertion here is just about useless and ridiculous. How on earth do you know what guts a flag-burner does or doesn't have?

Peacefuljeffrey-read the post. I said GENERALLY. That means commonly. I am pretty sure there are exceptions to the rule on this, just as there are on just about anything else where human beings are involved.
How did I base my conclusion? Mainly by KNOWING some of the protestors, if you must ask.

The protests they participated in was convienient-with more than a few who wanted to skip a class and see what the hubbub was all about. At least that was what was told to me, and I have no reason to doubt their statement. What I know for a fact was that NONE of them were actively involved in any great peace movement of the time. Sort of a spectator sport as much as anything.

Then I take it you can let go of the idea of needing to "protect" it from "desecration"?

You could not be more wrong. Personally, I could care less if you set your underwear on fire while wearing them, and would not lift a single finger to help you. Choices made-responsibility kept. Most of the flag burning demonstrations I have seen involve a disagreement with a single subject. Okay-the person or people actively involved have a grievance-fine.

If you want to symbolically burn down the whole government and/or constitution because of one or a few items, there are lots of folks who will look at your demonstration as akin to tossing the baby out with the bathwater. What is the gain here? Taking it to the streets to me is one of the fundamentals of the American Heritage, but lets be thoughtful of what it represents both to the crowd you address as well as any future supporters you wish to enlist.

As to the alleged "guts" of the demonstrators, what frequently happens is the few who start it tend to hide behind the crowd, and when it turns ugly as sometimes happens, frequently, the only "demonstrators" hurt are passers-by. See Kent State, among others. Riddle me this, PeacefulJeffrey? Where were the people who initiated the protest when the shooting happened? Who among them took a bullet for their beliefs? What did they solve?

Z_Infidel
June 23, 2005, 10:44 AM
I am totally against the proposed amendment. If I see someone burning an American flag in protest I will exercise my right to let that person know I think he or she is a worthless piece of dog####.

On a related note, sometimes I think the call for tolerance of shameful behavior goes a bit too far. Saying or doing something that is designed to create an angry response just might be risky at times, for good reason. For instance, if a guy insults my wife in front of me then he should fully expect to get knocked on his arse. But I expect to hear responses of "I'll sue!" or "Oh yeah, well then I'll draw my piece and shoot you dead! What about that?!" Good grief.

Art Eatman
June 23, 2005, 10:48 AM
I really don't see the point of this proposed Amendment. We had flag-burning in the 1960s/1970s and the nation survived. It didn't seem to affect the birth rate or the death rate or the economy...

Those who would burn the flag are sorta tunnel-visioned, it seems to me. They are seeing it as limited to being only a symbol of government, not as a symbol of the aspirations, hopes and dreams of the nation as a whole--much less as a symbol of their own right to burn it in protest.

As far as violence perpetrated upon one who burns a flag: There are court precedents for a defense in the case of "provocation". If one is provoked into an action, a limited response is not wrongful. An actor could probably justify one good punch, but then self-control should kick in. :)

Heck, Congress maybe should have limited itself to just passing a law that if I hit some guy if I see him burning a flag, I get one free punch. :D Then again, Congress gave us the TSA, with its implicit structure meaning we as individuals are incompetent to judge anything at all.

Art

Sean Smith
June 23, 2005, 11:05 AM
Think about it for a second, super-patriots of the forum:

This is creating a mindcrime. The flag is, generally, private property of the person burning it. Barring extraordinary circumstances, you can normally do anything you want with your property... that's what makes it "property."

Burning a flag offends people, not because of the problems inherent in the burning of small bits of privately-owned fabric, but becasue it is an expression of an idea: I don't like America, and have no respect for what it stands for. Forcing people to not express an idea you don't like is the negation of the whole point of the Bill of Rights, in fact the whole point of this damn country.

It isn't freedom if you are only free to do what other people like.

Father Knows Best
June 23, 2005, 11:15 AM
I wish people were half so passionate about protecting the freedom the flag stands for, as they are about protecting a bit of colored fabric.

pax

+1

Igloodude
June 23, 2005, 11:29 AM
"Ask the men and women who stood on top of the (World) Trade Center," said Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-Calif. "Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment."

I'm wondering why this guy thinks he knows what their answer will be... :mad:

And this has to be the first time I can ever recall being on the same side of an issue as Hillary Clinton. :eek:

cuchulainn
June 23, 2005, 11:33 AM
The only desecration I see is the use of the dead as political props.

Sindawe
June 23, 2005, 12:36 PM
If the day ever comes when the flag stands for tyranny and injustice, then its long past time to take it back from the government and give it back to the people where it has always belonged.

Kelo v City of New London: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=144145

Ashcroft v Raich: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=141812&highlight=Raich

BATFE; IRS; Waco, TX; Jose Padia, etc, etc...

To my eyes, it looks like that day is nigh Delmar

pmcbooks
June 23, 2005, 02:32 PM
Me and most of my Bros in this area wear a patch on our cut-offs that says "Try burning this one, A**hole!" with an American flag underneath it.

Actually, Biker, I think this falls under their definition of "desecration." I know many public schools (including the one I went to back in the day) would go nuts if you had the flag on clothing. You're sweating on it, getting it dirty etc. etc. and heaven help you if the patch was on your jeans. Then you're SITTING on it.

And jeez, all you guys who would physically attack someone for "desecrating" a piece of cloth.... Guess that goes to show how much you support "freedom" and "taking the high road."

BryanP
June 23, 2005, 02:38 PM
Great, if this passes, I will have to piss on the constitution to protest the government.

Might as well, Congress is doing so with this amendment.

R.H. Lee
June 23, 2005, 02:47 PM
Great, if this passes, I will have to piss on the constitution to protest the government. And, as I've learned on this thread, that's 'symbolic' speech, and is protected by the 1st. Thanks, Flyboy, I never knew I had so many ways to talk! :p

Clean97GTI
June 23, 2005, 02:51 PM
I am totally against the proposed amendment. If I see someone burning an American flag in protest I will exercise my right to let that person know I think he or she is a worthless piece of dog####.

On a related note, sometimes I think the call for tolerance of shameful behavior goes a bit too far. Saying or doing something that is designed to create an angry response just might be risky at times, for good reason. For instance, if a guy insults my wife in front of me then he should fully expect to get knocked on his arse. But I expect to hear responses of "I'll sue!" or "Oh yeah, well then I'll draw my piece and shoot you dead! What about that?!" Good grief.

The beauty of it is that you have the right to let the person know you believe they are worthless. Thats what the 1st amendment protects.

What you do not have the right to do is hit somebody for no reason. If they insult your wife, you aren't granted license to assault them.
If you do assault them, you should fully expect to deal with a legal response. This could mean you getting shot as you posed a threat of physical harm or getting sued because you decided to haul off and sock someone.

By stooping to such a low point, you would be getting what you deserve.

Snake Eyes
June 23, 2005, 02:51 PM
RevDisk Said:
The Constitution was created to protect the citizenry, and limit the government. Once the Constitution is turned to protect the government and limit the citizenry, we're well down a very dark road.

Profound.

I may have to steal that as my new sig line. In fact, I think I will. (Is plagiarism covered under free speach?)

cuchulainn
June 23, 2005, 02:52 PM
The fact that it communicates an idea that makes so many people angry is proof that it is speech.

Justin
June 23, 2005, 03:10 PM
The fact that it communicates an idea that makes so many people angry is proof that it is speech. And overtly political speech at that.

Delmar
June 23, 2005, 03:11 PM
The Constitution was created to protect the citizenry, and limit the government. Once the Constitution is turned to protect the government and limit the citizenry, we're well down a very dark road.

It used to be the government and the citizenry were one in the same. I'm not so certain this is still the case.

Z_Infidel
June 23, 2005, 03:30 PM
The beauty of it is that you have the right to let the person know you believe they are worthless. Thats what the 1st amendment protects.

What you do not have the right to do is hit somebody for no reason. If they insult your wife, you aren't granted license to assault them.
If you do assault them, you should fully expect to deal with a legal response. This could mean you getting shot as you posed a threat of physical harm or getting sued because you decided to haul off and sock someone.

By stooping to such a low point, you would be getting what you deserve.

I fully realize that I have no legal right to assault the person in my example. And I would then expect to deal with the circumstances. What I'm saying is that sometimes what is legal should not be the only guideline for behavior. As far as I'm concerned if someone calls your wife a sl#t in front of you and you deck him, then he had it coming. The man who sues or produces a weapon at that time has no sense of honor -- though he may have every legal right to do so. The only proper thing for the guy who just got decked to do would be to apologize for making the comment in the first place.

Have you ever heard the phrase "them's fightin' words"? There are some things you shouldn't go mouthing off about in front of a man without expecting a reaction. It shouldn't be too difficult to discern what it is I'm getting at here.

Delmar
June 23, 2005, 03:46 PM
In a way-I have to side with Z on punching the loud mouthed insulter. Words, as well as deeds should have consequences, and frequently do. Sure, reasoning like that could get way out of hand and have unintended consequences, but if the situation was exactly as Z described it, I would no-bill him in a grand jury, and would find for his innocence if I were a jurror.

We cannot-we must not have every single minute detail of our lives dragged into court for scrutiny. This is how we get things like the Flag Burning amendments in the first place. Don't like it? Pass a law. Don't like guns? Pass a law.

If congress had anything resembling common sense, they could stick to what they know-which is spending more money than they take in, and leave laws out of it-that should be for a 3/4 majority vote of the people every time.

My lawyer once told me that judgeships and political positions are for wanna be lawyers who can't make it in the real world. Time has proven him correct on so many levels.

Father Knows Best
June 23, 2005, 03:52 PM
My lawyer once told me that judgeships and political positions are for wanna be lawyers who can't make it in the real world. Time has proven him correct on so many levels.

Q: What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 50?

A: "Your honor."

Delmar
June 23, 2005, 04:02 PM
Q: What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 50?

A: Your Honor.

B: My esteemed colleague from the state of/district of....

C. The honorable Secretary of.......

D. Ladies and Gentlemen-the President of the United States.

E. All of the above.

Thank you Father-you undoubtedly know best!

Maybe we should turn the Capital into a museum, and make the legislators stay at home in their districts, where we can watch them more closely. Develop a forum on line which the People have access to, and in the case of votes, there would be 3 choices. 1. Yes 2. No 3. I call BS! 4. Throw the bum out.

jefnvk
June 23, 2005, 04:05 PM
The man who sues or produces a weapon at that time has no sense of honor

So if you attack him in a way you see fit, it is honorable, but if he comes back with anything other than what you would approve of, it is unhonorable :confused:

I'm not very big. 5' 8", 180 pounds. In the unlikely event that I insult a 6' 6", 300lb guy's wife, how is him punching me any more honorable than me suing him for punching me, or defending myself with a weapon :confused:

Delmar
June 23, 2005, 04:18 PM
In the unlikely event that I insult a 6' 6", 300lb guy's wife

Shouldn't the question be, WHAT posessed you to insult the wife of a 6'6" 300 lb male, and why do you believe you should suffer nothing because of it? If it is because of "your right to free speech", YOU should be in court for disturbing peaceable citizens.

You should not tempt the Lord, or so I am told, nor should you unnecessarily tempt people who can stomp a mudhole in your chest and walk it dry. If your rights are being violated in the first place, that is certainly another story. If you are trash talking to people minding their own business, then pick up your teeth and go home!

Z_Infidel
June 23, 2005, 04:25 PM
I guess I just have a completely different (and I suppose antiquated) viewpoint on this issue than some of you. According to legality and political correctness, you are right and I am wrong.

Never mind. Feel free to say "neener neener neener" to the next guy who insults your wife or family. That'll teach him. Better yet, take him to court.

Mongo the Mutterer
June 23, 2005, 04:30 PM
Civil discourse is made valuable by the fact that many of us can become uncivil verrrrrrrry quickly.

grimjaw
June 23, 2005, 05:04 PM
We can sit and make analogies all day long. I stand by the fact that if you don't plan on burning our country's flag, this shouldn't bother you. Laws are passed all the time that some view as 'stripping away every freedom we have'. But this one - of all things - is the one that bothers you? Wow.

I wasn't a gun owner until recently (age 33). I should be happy that until now, people other than myself were standing up for my rights to keep and bear arms. Before now, I wasn't worried about it. If no one else had been, this forum might not exist for us to gripe and moan. I think the argument above shows a lack a foresight. There are many things I do not wish to do TODAY, but I might want to do in the future, or might want my children to be able to do.

***
United States Code
TITLE 4--FLAG AND SEAL, SEAT OF GOVERNMENT, AND THE STATES
CHAPTER 1--THE FLAG
Sec. 8. Respect for flag

No disrespect should be shown to the flag of the United States of
America; the flag should not be dipped to any person or thing.
Regimental colors, State flags, and organization or institutional flags
are to be dipped as a mark of honor.
...
(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.
***

Much thanks to javafiend for posting this bit.

When I was young, I was taught the code above by my mother. After the loss of her brother, a Navy pilot shot down in Vietnam, the flag came to symbolize to them his loss and sacrifice. Out of respect for my family and friends, many of whom are military, and what they have fought and died for, I would not burn a flag today.

If, however, the government begins to pervert this symbol and continues to drape itself in it, I have no problem burning the flag. Better to burn it honorably than see it perverted.

It's not flag burning that's criminalized per se, it's the *way* I burned the flag. It was what I intended when I burned that flag. It's not that I have a rifle, it's how long the barrel is. It's not that I have a purple sombrero, it's how it was sitting on my head, all tilted and clearly unpatriotic. I don't have the link anymore, but TSA was auctioning off a purple sombrero they had confiscated, obviously a threat to national security. (No mixing of red and blue here, buddy!)

Like Congress hasn't made a mistake in passing amendments to the Constitution in the past? How was prohibition allowed to pass?

Ridiculous amendment say I. I should go upstairs and give Voinovich's office an earful before he votes on this . . .

jmm

Clean97GTI
June 23, 2005, 05:33 PM
I guess I just have a completely different (and I suppose antiquated) viewpoint on this issue than some of you. According to legality and political correctness, you are right and I am wrong.

Never mind. Feel free to say "neener neener neener" to the next guy who insults your wife or family. That'll teach him. Better yet, take him to court.

How about you take the high road and ignore him.

Our system is there to ensure everyone gets justice and to ensure people recieve equal protection under the law. The man's speech is protected and your attempt to stop him from expressing said right is what is illegal.

Now, in this case, that man may actually be defaming your wife. You may be entitled to shut him up...now that I think about it.
Whether or not you should belt him is up to you and a jury should the peon press charges.

Z_Infidel
June 23, 2005, 06:06 PM
How about you take the high road and ignore him.

I might not consider that to be the high road in that type of situation.

Okay, one last try:

Scenario 1
I accidentally step on a guy's foot while in a bar with my wife:

Me: "Sorry."
Rude guy: "Look where you're going a##hole."
Me: "I said I'm sorry - what's the big deal?"
Rude guy: "The deal is you're an a##hole."
Me: "Whatever." ...as I walk away.
Rude guy: "And so's your wife."
At this point I'll either continue to ignore him and keep walking or make an appropriate hand jesture, depending on my mood. I won't do anything violent because the guy is obviously targeting me with his insults and it has nothing to do with my wife. No big deal.

Scenario 2:
My wife accidentally steps on the guy's foot:

Rude guy: "Look out, ya stupid b##ch!"
Me: "What did you just say?"
Rude guy: "I said she's a stupid b##ch!"
POW!

Assuming he's awake, the guy will then have another chance to apologize.

jefnvk
June 23, 2005, 06:25 PM
Delmar, hence the unlikely. The guy or lady would have to be hanging over my shoulder insulting me to get me to insult them, not something like tripping over my foot.

So you punch him because he said something stupid. If that were me that was punched, and I had a gun, I think it would be coming out in a hurry. I can turn around and ignore words. I cannot turn around and ignore a punch.

Sometimes I wonder where anti's get the idea that people will be shooting people at every chance, if CCW is legal :rolleyes:

Delmar
June 23, 2005, 06:48 PM
Scenario 2: Z-that was SO funny, but I see exactly where you are coming from. We have gone from a society where acting like a lady or a gentleman, in the best of the terms is now not expected. That, to me is a cryin shame.

jefnvk-FWIW, the last fist fight I was dragged into, I had a snubby 38 and it did not dawn on me to draw it. I was trying to deal with an unarmed drunk and did so. One of those where the fool would not leave me alone and I had left the party, and he STILL was yammering away. When he grabbed my shoulder to spin me around, that was his mistake.

Mongo the Mutterer
June 23, 2005, 07:29 PM
Clean,

Ignore him?

Okay, a non macho answer. There are some ah in this world who will go on and on abusing and being rude to people UNTIL they get what they deserve.

Maybe it is because I am from the South, but you mouth me or my lady, you will be looking up at me very quickly, (or vice versa) but it WILL GET SETTLED. I respect others and I fn DEMAND respect.

A New York comedian (I forget who) had a skit about southerners. You remember "you talkin to me?" He went South and used that one and instead of the other guy verbalizing with him, the other guy hit him right in the middle of the forehead.

Oh and by the way, his speech is protected... IF HE HAS THE NADS TO PROTECT IT. otherwise he better hold his water.

cuchulainn
June 23, 2005, 08:29 PM
You've got to wonder about the maturity of people who get violent over insults. You've also got to wonder about the emotional wellbeing of people who can't respect themselves unless they hit someone who isn't giving them "fn respect."

This ol' Southern boy is self-confident and mature enough to let insults slide off my back. So's my lady. In fact, we usually get a knee-slappng laugh out of how such low life expose their dungheap breeding when they open their mouths. As long as they don't threaten us physically, they can say whatever moronic trash they want.

The Honor of this Southern gentleman relies on my behavior -- like how I treat people, not telling lies or not cheating others -- not on controlling the behavior of others. I'm not concerned with the false, schoolyard honor of boys. But I suspect that those boy-men who go to fists over mere words have never pondered the meaning of the word gentleman.

I admit, however, that I used to get into fights over words. But then I started high school and figured I should grow up. That was a long time ago.

deanf
June 23, 2005, 09:04 PM
Consider for a moment the school custodian who respecfully burns in the school boiler a flag that flew over the school for many years, but is now in need of replacement. Or the boy scouts who collect old flags and burn them in a respectful ceremony.

Who would be opposed to that kind of flag burning? Nobody.

Yet some are opposed to someone who burns the flag as political protest.

So it's not the physical act of burning that some people oppose (because if that were true, then they would oppose the custodian or the boy scouts) but the political statement.

There is no accomodation in the Constitution for the restriction of political statements, nor should there be. Leave that to the europeans . . . .

Biker
June 23, 2005, 09:11 PM
Well said, Deanf.
Biker

Jeff
June 24, 2005, 03:29 AM
HonorsDaddy said:

Last but not least, Amendments do not necessarily restrict government power. There have been some pretty good ones which have granted them additional powers.

Yeah, like the final statement in the 5th Amendment. We all know how that type of "power," once acknowledged, gets abused and misused. Just look at today's ruling.

And Amendment language which grants power to the State while "suggesting" to remove personal liberty is immoral and misinterpreted. Powers of state are to be delegated-- as to be representative of a delegate-- instead of compromising individual freedom with ridiculously frivolous amendments such as: Prohibition, Gay marriage, flag-burning.

hifi
June 24, 2005, 04:12 AM
More police state patriotism.

There has been one flag burning incident this year. Instead of getting spending under control or a million other things they could be doing, Congress is wasting their time removing the 1st Amendment from the Constitution.

Congress has finally slipped the track - again

How is that possible, it's Republican controlled. :rolleyes:

dustind
June 25, 2005, 04:31 AM
If the flag was protected by law it would lose a lot of it's meaning.

I love my country, but I could never fly an Amaerican flag if this amendment passes.

If this amendment fails I will put one up in front of my house.

RevDisk
June 25, 2005, 05:05 AM
I may have to steal that as my new sig line. In fact, I think I will. (Is plagiarism covered under free speach?)

I was merely plagiarizing the ideas in the Federalist Papers and various volumes written about the Founding Fathers.

Some people argued against the original Bill of Rights believing that the future government might limit freedoms to just the ones listed in the BoR. They were also worried that people might start believing said rights were derived from the BoR itself, which is false. We were born with certain rights. The BoR just lists a FEW of them, and clearly specifies this.

These people were proved correct, but I think that without the BoR, we'd be worse off than we currently are.


It used to be the government and the citizenry were one in the same. I'm not so certain this is still the case.

Erm. Perhaps, a long time ago. If I had to peg a specific period of this seperation, I'd say the Civil War. Lincoln's ghost is still trying to make slaves of us all. Regardless of when this seperation occurred, it is definitely not the case these days.

David W. Gay
June 27, 2005, 04:04 AM
Who cares how many flags get burned? Just make more!

BTW, has anyone noticed how many American Flags have "Made In China" labels on them??
:)

Carry on!

Orthonym
June 27, 2005, 05:42 AM
at a price I can afford, that's what I'll be flying on the Glorious Fourth. As well as making whatever loud noises I deem appropriate, be they quite "legal" here, or not.

If you enjoyed reading about "Congress has finally slipped the track - again" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!