Burn the Flag / or Sacred Symbol?

[grotto]

Just wondering why Congress is working so hard on a bill that directly effects no one? Ok so now you know MY views, I'd love to hear some reasoned arguments for both sides.

[Epee_Pox]

But... but... but... you're SUPPOSED to burn the flag if it's been defiled. That's the official way to dispose of it.

That said, Congress is free to pass any law they want to. Whether it withstands judicial scrutiny is another matter entirely.

I'm curious. What exactly ARE the reasons why burning the flag should not be considered protected speech for the purposes of the First Amendment?

[keith]

my understanding was that this will be a constitutional amendment - and since most states already have the law on the books all it needs is congressional approval to get scribbled on the bottom.

Can the courts rule a constitutional amendment unconstitutional?

[mrbiggs]

Can the courts rule a constitutional amendment unconstitutional?

I asked my history teacher that this year, and he didn't really have an answer. But if it's part of the constitution, I don't think they could. That's why it's so hard to pass an Amendment, it overrides the Judicial branch entirely.

I think it would be ridiculous to make flag burning a serious crime.

[darius]

Ever read the Flag Code? Your congresscritter hasn't either.

"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."

I've never had occasion to burn a flag, but the day such a constitutional amendment passes, that will be the day that I do.

Or perhaps hang it upside down:

"The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property."

darius

[RebelFencer]

That's our wacky government, trying to pass bills that people will respond to emotionally rather than intellectually. That said, I take offense that my government is trying to say that I can't go into a Wal-mart, buy a flag with my own money, and burn it on my own property. I disagree with flag burning and would probably never do it myself, but that does not mean that we should lose the right to do it if we deem it necessary.

[Epee_Pox]

What a bizarre amendment! So basically, they want to carve out a specific exception to the First Amendment because... why, exactly?

Seriously, whenever I see a picture of an American burning a flag in petty protest, I feel a deep visceral revulsion and anger. That someone could demonstrate such hatred of the very nation that gives them the freedom to express themselves in such a way, it makes my blood boil.

Nevertheless, I don't think they should be punished or forbidden from expressing themselves in this way.

Besides, isn't it the case that constitutional amendments that amount to little more than legislation rather than framework -- say, prohibition -- tend to be a bad idea?

[scrapinpeg]

It is a sacred symbol.

Burning the flag shows that you despise everything America stands for. Not just whatever "badness" you perceive, but also the freedom, opportunity, liberty and justice that make America the unique nation it is.

It shouldn't be prohibited, though.

After all, as a wise person once said, "freedom of speech makes it easier to spot the idiots."

[darius]

It is a sacred symbol.

"You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them..."

Since we're a Christian nation, that's a Biblical passage that seems to come to mind. I guess we can ignore it, though...Moses wasn't a particularly influential figure. (Although, judging by much of the behavior perpetuated by certain folks, neither was Christ.)

Burning the flag shows that you despise everything America stands for. Not just whatever "badness" you perceive, but also the freedom, opportunity, liberty and justice that make America the unique nation it is.

Let's try again. "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." - 4 US Code 1

After all, as a wise person once said, "freedom of speech makes it easier to spot the idiots."

You said it!

[Drifter]

The truly INSANE aspect of this foolishness is that apparently the amendment says, "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."
(http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~c106ppe55B::)

Sooo... that naturally begs the question what is a flag? Ok if the amendment is passed you can't burn fabric flags but plastic one's are ok? Or how about a flag with just 49 stars? What about all those silly 4th of July paper plates and napikins with flag-like symbols on them? No more using them to start the barbque? Come on this is just rediculous.

The alternative of course isn't much better. Some nutjob group called the Citizens Flag Alliance would have it be a crime for one to burn anything that remotely looks like a flag.

http://www.cfa-inc.org/?section=amen...nt=flag_amend3

Ok so by thier standards if its red, white & blue with stars on it, nope you can't burn it. What about b&w photocopies of a flag? See the lunacy in trying to silence people? (Which is really what those in favor of this kind of trash are doing. They want to insure that those who are making a protesting statment about some aspect of the country are punished for it.)

It's funny, this is the same type of twisted logic that came from a person on the right who wasn't incensed that Clinton got special services from an intern but that he got those services "In the Oval Office!" His logic was that the building was a sacred place where all the forefathers of this country back to Washington himself had struggled with difficult descisions about running this country and Clinton defiled and debased it by having sex there. Tragically, the radio show host that was taking this caller failed to point out that the White House and as a result the Oval Office DIDN'T EXIST when Washington was president. Nor is the building of any importance at all, it is a physical structure. What it represents, that's whats important. But again tragically Americans have never been able to separate meaning from Iconism.

[Philistine]

{snip}
Can the courts rule a constitutional amendment unconstitutional?

No. Except that they theoretically could rule that the proper procedure in ratifying the Amendment wasn't followed.

--Philistine

[telkanuru]

No. Except that they theoretically could rule that the proper procedure in ratifying the Amendment wasn't followed.

--Philistine

Well, since the courts only have the power to declair laws unconstitutional through some legal gerrymandering and not through the Constitution (the majority opinion of the SJC that actually gave them this power is brilliant, I suggest you read it)...

[jBirch]

No. Except that they theoretically could rule that the proper procedure in ratifying the Amendment wasn't followed.

--Philistine

How does the constitutional Ammendment process handle paradoxes?

Ammendment 589: No citizen shall pick their nose.
Ammendment 590: Every citizen shall have the right to pick their nose.

What's the constitutional procedure for prosecuting someone for picking their nose?

James.

[jeff]

I think the motivation for this is political grandstanding and the chance to label people opposed to this as un-American. There's existing law protecting politicl speech, there's no problem that needs to be solved, and it's just being used as a partisan tool. When Abby Hoffman got busted for using a shirt colored like the flag - when Roy Rogers wore a similar flag and it was viewed as patriotic, you could see this had nothing to do with the flag itself.

I'm more offended when companies use symbols of the flag, Statue of Liberty, pictures of Lincoln or Washington, etc, in ads to hawk their goods. I think that's demeaning to them, but I don't think we need a law to prevent it.

[RebelFencer]

I thought Texas vs. Johnson took care of this. Boo to you Washington!

[prototoast]

That said, Congress is free to pass any law they want to. Whether it withstands judicial scrutiny is another matter entirely.

Actually, that's not true. Congress is not allowed to pass unconstitutional laws (though that hasn't stopped them so far). They are limited, one obvious example comes from the first ammendment:

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

It was not the intention of the courts to be the governmental judge of constitutionality. All three branches of the government are supposed to take into account the constitution when deciding their actions.

[Inquartata]

Smoke and mirrors, bread and circuses. Pay no attention to the real issues facing the nation and our inability to address them, look over HERE!

For this we pay them unconscionable sums of money.

It would not occur to me to burn a flag, and I suspect that those who do so are rather dimwitted, but it seems silly to enact a Constitutional Amendment about their stupidities.

About the flag code, there is a provisions prohibiting the reproduction of the flag on items meant to be disposed of, like napkins. Yet the Post Office prints flag stamps...

[keith]

About the flag code, there is a provisions prohibiting the reproduction of the flag on items meant to be disposed of, like napkins. Yet the Post Office prints flag stamps...

clearly it is the stamp collectors who are the last bulwark against the collapse of american decency.

[esskreemr]

I was going to start this thread. I'm glad someone beat me to it.

They are considering a constitutional amendment. This would have to be passed by both the House and the Senate and then would have to be voted on by the states.

This is ONE of the most ridiculous things I have ever had the misfortune of hearing. Sad things is it probably comes up once a year. The flag is a SYMBOL, but burning one of such said symbol, you are not destroying The Flag, you are destroying a copy of the flag of the U.S.

The flag is designed to honor those who died for this country to ensure that we have freedom from tyranny. I think it is a tremendous dishonor to what the flag represents to even consider this amendment. In my mind, it is act of violence against the Constitution of the United States. These people are Un-American and traitors to the values of the U.S.

What's next? Can't "desecrate" a copy of the Constitution? Drawing a moustache on a picture of the President is sedition?

Also, notice the wording (as has been pointed out by other posters). What exactly is physical desecration? Seems like it could be applied broadly and arbitrarily.

[Have At You]

Is it me, or do we appear to have unanimous agreement on something in this folder?

Oh no. I see four guys on horses, one's really really skinny. Gottagobye!