House Approves Flag-Burning Amendment

[Bob Hubbard]

The US is one of very few nations that put an almost religious reverence on it's flag. To most other nations, a flag is, well, just a bit of cloth. I had this discussion with a few folks in the past, members of the "Greatest Generation" who fought in WW2. To them, it is a symbol of everything this nation is supposed to stand for, and was something they fought and died for.

To a man, they also agreed that the US is not now, nor has it been for a long time that nation for which they gave so much.

I have read the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, as well as many of the writings of those who wrote those defining documents. Our "Founding Fathers". I firmly believe, that if they were alive today, they would be taking up arms to return us to their vision. Not the corporate whore-state we have today with "Free Speech" zones, a top heavy and bloated Federal government, and career politicians who are well out of touch with what the people want.

That flag is but a cloth, desecrating it, an emotional but in the end pointless act.
"Old Glory" deserves better.

 

[OUMoose]

i wonder what Russian for ingorance is?

невежество according to English-Russian dictonary (don't ask me how to pronounce it).

and thanks for the neg rep based upon disagreeing with you. i was only expressing my freedoms of speech, which you didn't like. :idunno:

... and whoever gave you the ding was expressing THEIR free speech right back. That's what's great about this country, that we can agree to disagree.

Personally I'm on the fence about flag-burning. I can see and appreciate those with Sapper's point of view. I can also see how telling someone they can't do something which causes no harm to others but allows that person a non-violent method of expression would be considered unconstitutional.

Do I have a flag up now? No. It's my way of showing that I don't buy into the rampant nationalism that's gripping this country tightly by the throat. Would I burn it in protest? Probably not, as I also believe people to be short-sighted and focus on a symbol rather than what it stands for, and all I would be doing is inciting riot (which could cause harm to others) and lessening the purpose of the statement.

:idunno:

 

[Bammx2]

The US is one of very few nations that put an almost religious reverence on it's flag. To most other nations, a flag is, well, just a bit of cloth. I had this discussion with a few folks in the past, members of the "Greatest Generation" who fought in WW2. To them, it is a symbol of everything this nation is supposed to stand for, and was something they fought and died for.

To a man, they also agreed that the US is not now, nor has it been for a long time that nation for which they gave so much.

I have read the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, as well as many of the writings of those who wrote those defining documents. Our "Founding Fathers". I firmly believe, that if they were alive today, they would be taking up arms to return us to their vision. Not the corporate whore-state we have today with "Free Speech" zones, a top heavy and bloated Federal government, and career politicians who are well out of touch with what the people want.

That flag is but a cloth, desecrating it, an emotional but in the end pointless act.
"Old Glory" deserves better.

Hooaa!

My family has a direct,traceable lineage in fighting in every war this country has ever been involved in,all the way back to the revolutionary war (and then some since my mom was native american

)

And not one of my ancesters ever fought this "government".
They fought for the american people....
and NO,this "fantasy" of "we the people" being the government...is just that...a fantasy.
The flag does NOT represent the government and never will.It represents the american people!
For those of you think otherwise,let me put it like this.....
No law states that ONLY democrats and republicans can run the government.
How long has it been since we had political party running things who WEREN'T one of those 2 parties?
Sure,you can run...but you won't win.
No law states you MUST be rich or a college grad to run.
When was the last time we had a ditch digger from "podunk kentucky" become president?
If you can't afford to spend at least 200 million on the campaign trail....you won't win.
But how many non dems or reps,ditch diggers from "podunk kentucky" have died serving just so these twits can keep the monopoly on "we the people" in washington?
Sure...you have the right to freedom of speech.
you have the right to verbally complain when corperate america decides to move thier companies to other countries just to give themselves a tax break and screw your family out of a meal and a home.
But thats ALL you get to do.
Re-read the 2nd ammendment(sp) AGAIN AND AGAIN until it sinks in!
"to take up arms against an oppressive and tyrannical government".
That flag does NOT give the right for you to just sit there and be pissed on by some political moron living in a multi-million dollar mansion who claims to be doing it for the "best interest of the american people".
It gives the right to kick his a** for pissing on the american people regardles of HIS "best interest"!
This is MY personal opinion....I am NOT speaking for anyone else at this point in time,
If you want to burn the flag out of disgust for the american government,go a head,I don't care to much for it anyway.
But if you want to burn it out of disgust for the american people and those who fought to give you that right,
I highly advise you state your purpose first AND LOUDLY and have proper ID so the coroner can identify you to your next of kin.
Cause my boot prints will surely tell them who I am!

 

[Sam]

burning the flag isn't free speech. burning your nation's flag is an expression of misguided judgment.

But what would be the point of free speech if we couldn't all be misguided? Most political issues have two sides (sometimes more). both options cant be correct - one side MUST be the correct answer - something cannot be moral and immoral at the same time. Not getting into the politics of this particular issue, but take abortion as an example. Some people are pro choice, some are pro life. People who are pro-life will always believe that they are correct and pro-choicers are misguided. The exact holds true for the reverse. There would be no point of free speech unless there was 'misguided judgement' (aka someone opposing someone else). It's easy to let a person talk about butterflys and flowers without having to protect their rights - people will just let them get on with it. It's when you get to controversial (and therefore in the eyes of many) misguided opinons that we need free speech laws protecting us.

the flag stands for so many things, ideals, and events in this countries history. to burn the flag in protest of Operation Iraqi Freedom is entirely ignorant. to do so, you are not only showing you oppose the current actions of our government, but the past as well.

Again, ignorant or not, that's why we have laws to protect free speech. you might think it is an ignorant action, but that doesnt have anything to do with whether I should be allowed to. And, as somone already mentioned, it stands for whatever it stands for to the person doing the burning. You can't assume what the person means by it. But what if they were oposing the past as well as the present as you say they are? What if they meant to say that the entire us government always has and still does suck completely and is useless? Are you not within your rights to do so?
[/quote]

 

[Sapper6]

as Bammx had stated, the flag doesn't represent the gov't, it represents the people. so burning the flag in opposition of the gov't is misguided judgment.

like i said, do what you wish. of course, this coming from a person that said they'd only do it should it become illegal to do so. i guess "spite" is a freedom as well. :idunno:

 

[heretic888]

Y'know, I found that line about "activist judges" and nothing ever being "unconstitutional" to be balls-out hilarious. I couldn't stop laughing for two minutes.

Now, on to the discussion...

But what would be the point of free speech if we couldn't all be misguided? Most political issues have two sides (sometimes more). both options cant be correct - one side MUST be the correct answer - something cannot be moral and immoral at the same time. Not getting into the politics of this particular issue, but take abortion as an example. Some people are pro choice, some are pro life. People who are pro-life will always believe that they are correct and pro-choicers are misguided. The exact holds true for the reverse. There would be no point of free speech unless there was 'misguided judgement' (aka someone opposing someone else). It's easy to let a person talk about butterflys and flowers without having to protect their rights - people will just let them get on with it. It's when you get to controversial (and therefore in the eyes of many) misguided opinons that we need free speech laws protecting us.

While I agree with the spirit and general message of what you're saying here, Samantha, I disagree with the contention that two positions cannot have simulataneous validity at the same time. I also disagree that an individual is necessarily "misguided" because their position falls short of "the truth". This assumes an absolutistic paradigm which, as a proponent of the developmental structuralist school of psychology, I do not subscribe to.

Now, that being said, I agree wholeheartedly with the rest of your post.

 

[heretic888]

like i said, do what you wish. of course, this coming from a person that said they'd only do it should it become illegal to do so. i guess "spite" is a freedom as well. :idunno:

Yes, it is.

The problem, Sapper6, is that when you start restricting what people can and cannot express (which, in this case, are what you interpret to be "misguided" and "spiteful" beliefs), you have simultaneously infringed on their First Amendment rights --- apparently for no other reason than you disagree with their political beliefs.

The Constitution does not protect freedom of expression and a free press, provided their positions are the "right" ones. It protects freedom of expression and a free press absolutely, without exception (barring infringing on the freedoms of others, such as starting a mass fire that would endanger several lives).

I really don't even see why this is an issue. It seems pretty clear-cut to me.

 

[arnisador]

Once a government no longer allows for the disagreement of its' actions then it is no longer a democracy or a republic.

Yup, that's the heart of it. Kaith's quotes are on-the-mark too.

If you can't disagree with the govt. and express that opinion...what's left worth fighting for, anyway? Isn't that why this is in the First Amendment?

 

[arnisador]

as Bammx had stated, the flag doesn't represent the gov't, it represents the people.

A flag represents a govt., or part of it (like a State, or the British Navy having its own ensign, etc.).

like i said, do what you wish. of course, this coming from a person that said they'd only do it should it become illegal to do so. i guess "spite" is a freedom as well.

No, protest and civil disobedience are traditions. They're been effective. The right to protest against govt. actions and demand a redress of claims in enshrined in the Constitution. It's the American way. How else are bad laws changed? Mostly, when people protest (or lawsuits force them to be changed). Protesting is a responsbile act by those who love the country and want to protect it.

I can hardly wait for the Peter, Paul, and Mary song aboyt flag-burning!

 

[Rich Parsons]

See, now... I thought I found a loophole. I figure I can wrap people i dont like in the flag and burn it because its "protected as free speech" and here you go telling me I cannot.

Its oppression of my freedoms, man...

Sorry dude this is only my opinion , and not what the judge will say.

 

[heretic888]

Bah! Its just another "activist judge"!! Screw 'em!!! :2xBird2:

 

[Marginal]

Yep. Wrapping someone in a flag and setting them on fire is a manifestation of people's frustration with the activist judges. Therefore, it's not really a crime.

 

[TonyM.]

I'm not fond of the Wessington family crest being our flag anyway. Perhaps if we changed it to something more representative of the American people folks would be less inclined to burn it.

 

[Ray]

Compromise: Keep it legal to burn the flag as a freedom of speech thing. But require that all US flags be made flame retardent (for safety reasons).

Does the gov't have a trademark/copyright on the flag? The manufacture could be licensed like other branded products. No, stop.

 

[Marginal]

Can't even remember the last time any media outlet reported domestic flag burning...

 

[Kane]

This would surely be an unconstitutional restriction on free speech.

Limiting the right of people to criticize their govt. is so anti-American that I can't believe anyone would seriously consider it. I don't want my govt. to limit my rights to express myself. I don't want to burn a flag, but I do want the principle of freedom of speech respected.

Yea I think it would be a violation of free speach, so I am not totally for it. At the same time I do wish those same people who do burn flags would leave the country.

 

[arnisador]

Well, I also wouldn't burn a flag except as a protest against this ridiculous law. Burning it to protest the government's policies is far too extreme for me. But, restricting it is worse.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

and thanks for the neg rep based upon disagreeing with you. i was only expressing my freedoms of speech, which you didn't like.

Well, at least nobody put you in jail for your disagreement with them, eh?





Regards,


Steve

 

[Shu2jack]

Are they trying to make this a law or a constitutional amendment? If they are trying to make it an amendment, don't they need a certain majority of the states to approve it even after the House and Senate approve it or does the fact that if the Senate approves it mean they don't need the states to agree to it because the States are represented equally in the senate?

Did that make sense? If I am on the right track, do you really think that the House, the Senate, the President, the majority of the states (through the governors?), and the Supreme Court will all go for it? To me it seems unlikely, but you never know.

 

[Sam]

Are they trying to make this a law or a constitutional amendment? If they are trying to make it an amendment, don't they need a certain majority of the states to approve it even after the House and Senate approve it or does the fact that if the Senate approves it mean they don't need the states to agree to it because the States are represented equally in the senate?

Did that make sense? If I am on the right track, do you really think that the House, the Senate, the President, the majority of the states (through the governors?), and the Supreme Court will all go for it? To me it seems unlikely, but you never know.

I don't know if your right or not, but if you are, and I agree that it is unlikely, the fact that people are even trying to pass this into a law or constitutional amendment just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It's the spirit behind it that bothers me. Flag burning won't make a huge impact in my life, or anyone's probably, but its the principal of what they are trying to do that just irks the hell out of me.