Protect the Flag Amendment

[snoopusmaximus]

Nice Job

A4s,
Nice job on the thread. Whether we all agree or not, it certainly has been thought provoking and serves as a reminder as to why we signed up for and continue to serve in this circus.

Best thread since Skidkid and what I learned in the Fleet.

 

[airgreg]

Point 1: Most of the world's totalitarian regimes ban flag desecration.

Point 2: The Boy Scouts of America and veterans groups regularly "honorably retire" flags by burning them. It is, therefore, not the burning that is the issue. The issue is the emotion or voice behind the burning, and we can not legislate that emotion or voice so long as it does not harm others.

 

[gregsivers]

However, there is a specific procedure when the BSA or other groups burn a flag to retire it, they don't simply light it and wave it around an/or stomp on it. So comparing the honorable retirement of the flag and the desecration of it by douchebag protesters is hardly fair or responsible.

 

[snow85]

from The Flag Code, United States Code, Chapter 1:
Adopted most recently, I believe by the 10th Congress, First Session, October 1999:

§ 8. Respect for flag

(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.

§ 10. Modification of rules and customs by President

Any rule or custom pertaining to the display of the flag of the United States of America, set forth herein, may be altered, modified, or repealed, or additional rules with respect thereto may be prescribed, by the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, whenever he deems it to be appropriate or desirable; and any such alteration or additional rule shall be set forth in a proclamation.

http://www.legion.org/pdf/flagcode.pdf

has the White House issued an official statement?

 

[DairyCreamer]

As disgusted as I am with anyone who burns our flag as an act of hatred, it nevertheless falls under the realm of freedom of speech, both in my own personal perception, as well as the Supreme Court ruling (divided as it may have been).

Certainly I wish people wouldn't, but if someone feels that's the best way to express their ideas, as childish or immature as it appears to be to me, that's their choice.

I understand the idea behind congress trying to pass the amendment to overturn that Supreme Court ruling. It's noble, but I think it's out of bounds. The Constitution is not the place to specify such narrowly bounded rules, that is the place for the U.S.C. and the courts to decide. I realize passing an amendment is the ultimate check of congress on the courts, but I still think it would be out of place. The courts found the original prohibitions unconstitutional through its violation of personal rights of free speech. Seems to me that our congressmen are trying to say "screw free speech."

I find the likelihood of this amendment passing the senate still unlikely... let alone passing the 38 state ratification requirement. Still, hard to tell what people are thinking nowadays. They may just vote for it, not considering that it's actually limiting their freedom of expression. It could be a serious slippery slope if it goes through.

~Nate

 

[skidkid]

I am against an amendment. Those misguided fools who feel that they need to burn the flag as a political statement have that right guaranteed by better men and that is as it should be. I think this should not be discussed on the floor of either house, there is more important things to do right now.

 

[airgreg]

However, there is a specific procedure when the BSA or other groups burn a flag to retire it, they don't simply light it and wave it around an/or stomp on it. So comparing the honorable retirement of the flag and the desecration of it by douchebag protesters is hardly fair or responsible.

Don't give me this "hardly fair or responsible" crap. You missed the point like Scott Norwood missed the field goal.

I'm not comparing the virtues of the BSA versus "douchebag protestors". I am simply stating that if the BSA has the right to burn the flag honorably, the "douchebag protestors" have the right to express their views on the flag. Unless, of course, they disagree with your definition of honor or "special procedure".

You introduce a lot of your opinion about the different groups, but not much insight about what a government can actually legislate.

I am not the flag-burning protestor type, but some of your "douchebags" (although misguided) may actually believe that in protesting against a perceived injustice, they are actually working to save the ideals that Americans support.

I'm done here.

 

[A4sForever]

Consider this:

While I do NOT favor "lighting up" the U.S. Constitution like a Christmas tree whenever some political force wants their wishes codified (ooops .... can I say "Christmas' these days ???? Or should I say "Xmas tree"??? ) ... I favor taking it OUT of Federal jurisdiction and taking it OUT of the perview of the Supreme Court ....

Freedom of speech or expression??? What would you say if:

I chose/decided to burn a cross on my own property across the street from my black neighbor .....

I chose/decided to call a homosexual "fag" to his/her face .....

I chose/decided to fly the Confederate flag in my front yard .....

I chose/decided to burn a large cardboard box in Pioneer Square in downtown Seattle ...... (do you suppose that I would be arrested??? How about if I decided to burn the American Flag instead???)

I chose/decided to beat the living sh!t out of someone who chose/decided to burn the Flag in front of me .....

Am I not just exercising my First Amendment rights .... ??? Please UNconfuse me ...... because I care.

 

[Fly Navy]

(ooops .... can I say "Christmas' these days ???? Or should I say "Xmas tree"??? )

I think the PC term now is "Holiday Tree".

 

[Fly Navy]

The issue is the emotion or voice behind the burning, and we can not legislate that emotion or voice so long as it does not harm others.

We already have. Reference Hate Crime Legislation.

 

[Jeff29]

"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. "

Explain to me where flag burning is protected.

For those who say "freedom of speech":
"SPEECH
1. The faculty or act of speaking.
2. The faculty or act of expressing or describing thoughts, feelings, or perceptions by the articulation of words.
3. Something spoken; an utterance.
4. Vocal communication; conversation."

Unless of course your words are so scathing that you can make things combust.

Now I don't know whether or not it's worth the time of the Congress to worry about this, but I really wish people would stop rewriting/reinterpreting the Constitution. I think you would be hard-pressed to find anyone in Congress or on the Supreme Court who even belongs in the same room as the Founding Fathers.

 

[snizo]

Jeff29 - well then I guess we need inform all those people who put stickers representing other countries (you know what I'm talking about - those oval stickers with like the german/french/etc colors on it) on their car that their "expression" is subject to congressional approval since it doesn't actually use any words.

In fact - the service star banner (the ones people put infront of their house for an immediate family member serving during war) doesn't use words, either! We must send a bill to congress for popular approval to make sure we are allowed, as citizens, to post it publically! Considering how a large part of this country thinks about this war, I wouldn't rest assured that it would be allowed!

To say that the freedoms of expression gauranteed in our country are limited SOLELY to the spoken/written word is absolutely absurd.

A4 - the only laws that should cover those actions are ones that have nothing to do with the actual expression. Obsiously assault is illegal. Burning a cross shouldn't be illegal just because it means something socially "wrong". As nittany said - "My right to swing my fist stops only where someone else's nose begins."

Feel free to say, write up a sign, protest, campaign, wave your own flag, etc all you want about each of the targets of your points, but it becomes illegal when you hurt or endanger them or any other bystander (hey - check out the picture above - somtimes fires spread inadvertently haha).

Can't say the dude who catches fire after igniting the flag doesn't make me laugh - I think burning the flag is deplorable, but he is allowed to do it just as I am allowed to call him a ****ing piece of **** for doing it...

 

[phrogdriver]

One thing's for certain: passing this amendment will get a lot more flags burned protesting the amendment.

We should be expanding freedoms, not restricting them. This amendment hurts the flag's symbolic value more than burning it ever could.

Flag burning should perhaps get you a bloody nose, but not jail time.

 

[DanMa1156]

You know, I hate to say it, but I think Sen. Clinton has the right idea here, whether or not she actually feels this way is questionable, but I think it is a good start. She does not support the ammendment, but she does support legislation banning it, much like legislation that bans cross burnings when it could be a threat to other people. For example, it's more the act of arson than flag burning, but it would get the point across. More to come later... I'm tired.

 

[snoopusmaximus]

That can happen. CVN/LHA Captains get this training!

Unless of course your words are so scathing that you can make things combust.

Now I don't know whether or not it's worth the time of the Congress to worry about this, but I really wish people would stop rewriting/reinterpreting the Constitution. I think you would be hard-pressed to find anyone in Congress or on the Supreme Court who even belongs in the same room as the Founding Fathers.[/QUOTE]