Flag Amendment

[Ian]

You misunderstand me. The point was that a lack of government does not necessaraly imply the lack of a means of territorial defense.

Please explain this in more detail

People can defend land without needing a government to tell them how to or when to. This is the concept of the militia which this nation's Founders grasped and utilized. One example I've been reading up on lately is central Afghanistan. Unless I'm uninformed about an ancient event, that place has never been successfully conquered. Most notably, the Russians were booted out by spontaneous, non-governmental resistance over the course of 8 or so years. The British met the same fate several times there. The closest thing to a government in the mountains of the area are a number of tribal systems. In addition, the Boers very nearly defeated the British, and our own American ancestors defeated the British. A centralized government is not essential to territorial defense - the will to fight is the essential element (this has the convenient side effect of rendering civilian armies nearly incapable of offensive warfare).

I never claimed that the government grants freedoms. But it should be clear from recent Supreme Court decisions that our government means to protect freedom of expression.

You're neglecting to mention that those decisions protect freedom of expression from none other than the government itself. No government, no problem there in the first place.

 

[campergeek]

My personal thoughts:

I disagree with burning the flag.

I agree with having the right to burn the flag.


Some years ago when this was a hot issue, I remember there was some locality that passed an ordinance that permitted flag burning and made battery of a flag burner a specific crime - with a penalty of a $1 fine. Thinking about it deeply that's probably a slipperly slope, but on the surface I like the equity of such a law.

 

[Silver Bullet]

I'm not in favor of an amendment prohibiting flag-burning, either.

I'm not a constitutional scholar (I'd like to be), but it seems to me that the Constitution is a tool to define and limit the authority of the federal government, not a device to limit the people. I don't believe the Constitution is the place for this kind of thing. And I don't want to see a precedent of politicians changing the Constitution on a whim; once they get a taste of it, who knows what amendments they might add or delete, if you catch my drift. If they have to change the Constitution, let them repeal the XVII.

Not to appear anti-flag, but I'd also like to see school children pledging allegiance to the Constitution instead of the flag.

 

[CZ-75]

I'm not a constitutional scholar

I question the value of anything meant to promote the general welfare of the people that is complicated enough to warrant this amount of specialized study. Seems to me this is a sure indication that most folks can't understand their rights and means that enough latitude exists for endless obfuscations. Abridgment of these rights must follow.

Not to appear anti-flag, but I'd also like to see school children pledging allegiance to the Constitution instead of the flag.

When folks talk about men dying for their country, which do they think these men actually died for? I doubt it was a piece of cloth, but rather the ideals enshrined in a document.

 

[Zander]

Oh wait, Congress is doing that for us. -- MI

Ooooh, that's just so sharp that I need your help in honing my carry knives' edges.

Well done, sir...

Freedom of speech includes political protest, and free speech is only guaranteed for everyone if it is granted to even the most loathsome segment of society. -- lendringser [moderator]

So you are in agreement that teachers and students of government-indoctrination centers should be allowed to express their opinions without fear of governmental abuse because they, at worst, meet your definition of the "most loathsome segment of society"? Outstanding!

Another thing true throughout history - any good or service worth having has been provided at lower cost, privately. -- Chris Rhines

Except, of course, if certain individuals deem it perfectly acceptable to destroy any business vending products or services "dangerous" to society.

You know what I mean, don't you, Chris? You should...you're on record in this very forum and on TFL.

 

[Destructo6]

I'm with CZ-75: the ideals for which the flag stands are important, not the flag itself.

However, I'm not sure I could resist pounding someone for doing it.

 

[Henry Bowman]

I hate to have to say this, but . . .
This is the Republicans' form of "feel-good" legislation that we see every session.

 

[doseyclwn]

I'm with CZ-75: the ideals for which the flag stands are important, not the flag itself.

However, I'm not sure I could resist pounding someone for doing it.

I am. Those people are not worth my time, or my spending time in jail.

I can think of several ways to combat that sort of attitude rather than physically beating them up. Like holding my son, watching them, and taking the time to explain to him why I disagree with them. By showing that a person that would do that is full of hate and disgust rather than love and compassion. In fact, it affords me the opportunity to address the issue.

 

[CZ-100]

While seeing someone desecrate the flag in this manner does PISS ME OFF! I do not agree that there should be a law against it.. I believe in the freedom of speech more.

So NO there should not be an amendment for this.

I would love to see some of these people burn themselves while doing it thought

 

[Derek Zeanah]

I think a law banning flag burning fits just right

But could some lawyer interpret this amendment to mean that the flag sewed on the back of a biker's jacket is "desecration?" Or a flag-themed necktie? How about someone wearing a stars 'n stripes do-rag? What if the flag in my front yard falls off the pole and gets all muddy and dog-poopy -- can I burn it, or is there now going to be a new way to properly dispose of a flag?

 

[Graystar]

But could some lawyer interpret this amendment to mean that the flag sewed on the back of a biker's jacket is "desecration?"

Is it on fire?

 

[mattd]

How about making it legal to punch a person burning the flag?

 

[Silver Bullet]

How about making it legal to punch a person burning the flag?

Sounds like personal expression to me !

 

[mattd]

Its already illegal to burn stuff in my city anyways.

 

[FPrice]

Derek...

"What if the flag in my front yard falls off the pole and gets all muddy and dog-poopy -- can I burn it, or is there now going to be a new way to properly dispose of a flag?"

Burning is the correct method of disposing of an unserviceable flag. But done with proper respect and ceremony - NOT the antics that go on at protests.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

Burning is the correct method of disposing of an unserviceable flag. But done with proper respect and ceremony - NOT the antics that go on at protests.

That's what they taught us in Boy Scouts, but I don't see an exception being made.

Lots of searching resulted in the following -- apparently from the last time this was tried, back in 1989:

(a)(1) Whoever knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon any flag of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

(2) This subsection does not prohibit any conduct consisting of the disposal of a flag when it has become worn or soiled.
(b) As used in this section, the term ''flag of the United States'' means any flag of the United States, or any part thereof, made of any substance, of any size, in a form that is commonly displayed.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of Congress to deprive any State, territory, possession, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico of jurisdiction over any offense over which it would have jurisdiction in the absence of this section.

Sounds to me like I can come to a demonstration with a pile of flags that need to be destroyed and burn 'em, slash 'em, shred 'em, stomp 'em (cause they're on fire, you understand), etc to my heart's content. How does that stop the behavior you disagree with?

 

[Marko Kloos]

(b) As used in this section, the term ''flag of the United States'' means any flag of the United States, or any part thereof, made of any substance, of any size, in a form that is commonly displayed.

That definition also includes the little paper flags they hand out at parades. Talk about an unenforcable law...who's getting fined, the people who throw them away after the parade, or the city workers who sweep 'em up and throw them in the trash?

 

[Seeker]

How about making it legal to punch a person burning the flag?

That would be wrong and un-American! What could possibly give you the right to initate violence against another person, outside of self-defense?

The laws regarding flag-burning should be the same as the laws for burning anything. It must be your personal property and done in such a fashion as to not create a fire danger.

It is already wrong to destroy what isn't yours.

The flag is a symbol, thats all. If are making a statement with that symbol that is your business - provided it is your property and it is done in a safe manner. If you want to fly your flag on your property, that's fine - if you fly it in such a way that it obscures a stop sign then youare creating a hazard and you should cease and desist. likewise if you go to walmart and buy a flag take it to the park and use it as a fire starter in the designated firepit that is your business and NOBODY has the right to come up and punch you for it. If you take someone elses' flag and burn it you should be chaged w/ theft and arson the same as if you stole someones shirt and set fire to it.

Limiting what a person can do with there own property, especially the symbol of Freedom, desecates the very Freedom that the flag reresents.

When will these statists disquised as rebuplicans understand that passing laws telling us what we can and can't do (provided you don't damage anothers property or harm another) is un-American?

I couldn't be more opposed to the proposed amendment!

That said; at my house I fly the flag 24x7x365 and have for ten years. I also wear the colors, permamently, on my right arm.

 

[Mark Tyson]

I say again: If you pay for the flag, it's yours to burn.

And like Seeker, I've got a flag on my skin too. Try burning that one!