That's right, not just the Judiciary, but all three branches of government decided to take turns today redefining what it means to live in the 'land of the free and home of the brave.'

The first of the events I am referring to most of you have probably already heard about; the House has approved, and the Senate is likely to pass (it is estimated they have 65 of the 67 votes atm) the Flag Burning Amendment, which will then go to the states for ratification. Assuming that 38 states ratify the amendment, which seems likely given the current climate, the states and Congress will have the right to pass laws prohibiting flag burning.

I wonder about folks who have so little faith in what our flag stands for that they feel that its physical body needs protection. In fact, the very way this amendment is worded reeks of cowardice, as if the authors knew that if they pushed for a blanket ban that the people would balk at an amendment specifically designed to *restrict* freedom of expression. Should the amendment be ratified, the following will most likely be (re)enacted by Congress:
TITLE 18 Part I CHAPTER 33
N.B. This section, passed in 1989 as the Flag Protection Act, was declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1990 (United States v. Eichman). The act remains in the U.S. Code, but is unlikely to be enforced unless an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is ratified.

§ 700. Desecration of the flag of the United States; penalties

(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.


Excuse me, but isn't it an act of desecration to the flag to assault what that flag represents? Our lawmakers should be ashamed of themselves.
Should Texas ratify this myopic and small-minded assault on freedom of expression in the name of 'patriotism', Faervas and I have decided that we are going to have a funeral for Old Glory in our back yard, and cremate her so that she may at least die with dignity.

At least a *few* members of Congress got it. I'd like to thank Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., who had the guts to stand up and say:

"If the flag needs protection at all, it needs protection from members of Congress who value the symbol more than the freedoms that the flag represents."

The editor is acting screwy on me atm, so I'm going to move the next section of this to a new thread...

Regards,
Nydia

P.S. The vote is currently expected on this after the July 4th holiday; I apologize for the confusion (including my own ;) ) earlier, I was greeted with the news by a rather animated Faervas (who is rarely inaccurate on such things) upon waking up from my nap...

The fact that this requires 3/4ths of the states ratification alone means it'll never pass.

This isn't the first time they have tried to pass this is it? And I agree with Talid, the fact it takes 3/4 to ratify it probably means it won't happen.

Dear Fildien:

This will be, assuming it passes the Senate, the first time the amendment has passed *both* houses of Congress and been forwarded to the states for ratification. And I certainly *hope* the states have the common sense not to ratify it, but don't be surprised if it passes easily in more states than one might expect at first glance...

Regards,
Nydia

The fact that this requires 3/4ths of the states ratification alone means it'll never pass.

I wouldn't be so sure. Prohibition, anyone?

I gotta agree with Nydia. the large population progressivly social states i.e. California, Oregon, Washington will most likely soundly defeat any kind of proposed amendement such as this.
Sadly though these 3 states represent what? 35-40% of the population of the US, in this case they only = 3.
In this new found God loving neocon/nationalist legislature you morons saw fit to give dominate control to we will no doubt see the lower population "red" states render a minority opinion as majority law.
Once again welcome to the New World Order.

I wouldn't be so sure. Prohibition, anyone?
Prohibition was less about the evil alcohol and more about a severe grain shortage that was being "wasted" on booze

In this new found God loving neocon/nationalist legislature you morons saw fit to give dominate control to we will no doubt see the lower population "red" states render a minority opinion as majority law.

You're more then welcome.

Man, I see both sides of the arguement on this one. I love the symbol the Flag stands for and would gladly knock someone on their ass for burning it in front of me. BUT, there in an implied Freedom by being an American that should allow it.

Truth is, in my own personal narrow world, the act itself is extremely incendiary. It's not unlike what's going on in the workplace nowdays, where certain trigger words and phrases are grounds for seperation from said company and more...

But I have to assume this impending legislation has nothing to do with the "touchy feeling pussification of America" the left hoists upon us and more to do with telling us what's "Right".

This is why I can't be labeled by either side, because to be honest this shouldn't come to pass imho.

Of course , it should be just as wrong to jail me for sticking my old combat boot up the ass of some ne'er do well kid that's burning the flag because we won't legalize him smoking pot for the pain inflicted by his fucking hangnail either...


Fandros

Help, help! I'm being opressed, I'm being opressed!

I don't hear the same tune from y'all when it's laws being passed banning cross burning instead of flag burning.

Cross burning is an act of intimidation against a specific class of people. Flag burning voices disapproval of governmental policies.

I'm not supportive of those who burn flags (for one thing, it's impractical; burning flags also burns bridges for those who wish to institute change), but free speech is free speech.

Get into the cottage industry of creating flags that LOOK JUST LIKE the American flag from 20 feet away now. Maybe there's a fortune to be made.

Prohibition was less about the evil alcohol and more about a severe grain shortage that was being "wasted" on booze

That's like saying it was the paper mill lobby that got hemp criminalized. Yes, it was a contributing factor but don't confuse the scapegoat du jour with the politics.


I don't hear the same tune from y'all when it's laws being passed banning cross burning instead of flag burning.

You can burn a cross on your own property all you want. What is illegal is burning one on somebody else's lawn at 3am, and it's not a restriction of speech any more than any other sort of assault statute. I've never heard of anyone being arrested for burning a cross as part of a public protest, although it may have happened.

Amendments are traditionally given 7 years by the writers to be ratified by the appropriate number of states.. but one of the newest amendments took almost 200 years to pass since no limit was specified by James Madison (the one dealing with pay raises and current office holders, etc.)

My point is that even this amendment can be ratified by 3/4 the states even in a 7 year time period. It doesn't have to be done in a month or whatever.

That pesky Constitution wasn't designed to protect popular opinions or voices. It was designed to protect assholes and the fringe elements.

I gotta agree with Nydia. the large population progressivly social states i.e. California, Oregon, Washington will most likely soundly defeat any kind of proposed amendement such as this.
Sadly though these 3 states represent what? 35-40% of the population of the US, in this case they only = 3.
In this new found God loving neocon/nationalist legislature you morons saw fit to give dominate control to we will no doubt see the lower population "red" states render a minority opinion as majority law.
Once again welcome to the New World Order.

Yeah.

The entire 14.5% of the United States population that Orgeon (lol), Washington, and California comprise should trump the conservative majority. I mean, these bastions of liberalism so clearly reflect the American view, which is obvious by their tremendous success at winning recent elections, right?!?! (Plz 2 stop electing republican governors, k? Dino Rossi was cheated!)

If only I could move to one of these enlightened states.

And who the fuck is "you morons"? Grow up.

P.S. The ban on flag burning is retarded.

Well. I dont blame congress, now they have balanced the budget, resolved the situation in Iraq, fixed Social Security, averted the upcoming energy crisis and engaged the global economy by passing CAFTA, they deserve a victory lap and spend energy on such frivolous issues..

...oh wait....

Seriously.. there was one... ONE.... documented case of flag burning last year. I seriously suspect the flag making industry has forced this bill through, because it if passes, flags will burn on a record place.
(and to borrow from Jon Stewart)

On to Congress! The House of Representatives voted 286 - 130 in approval of a constitutional amendment to ban flag-burning in the States. Forget the Iraq insurgency! We've got flags to save! Stewart remarks that flag-burning seems to be a bigger deal outside of the US. It's like banning Americans from using the metric system. The arguments for the ban are somewhat flimsy and a great number of them reference 9/11 (firemen holding flags from the ashes, all that fun stuff), almost rendering the meaning of their arguments completely useless. If this is actually put into action, how will we dispose of flags in bad condition? According to the VFW (Veterans of Foreign Wars organization), a flag in bad condition "should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning". Smooth move, House. House Republicans are also calling for tattered flags to be kept alive via feeding tube.

Whatever way you slice it, it's just an inanimate object. It's a symbol; nothing more. Some of the proponents of this ammendment tout things like, "Our soldiers have died to protect this flag!" and other such horseshit. Sure, it sounds nice, but it's just manipulative language. Soldiers didn't die to protect a piece of cloth, they died to protect the nation.

The Flag amendment is a congressional distraction from all that cited in L2's Daily Show quote, just in time for the 4th of July.

Distraction
Distortion
Disinformation
Demonization

That is the platform of the republican party

Ouch. That would suck. I'd hate to see either of my son's thrown in jail because they were waving flags around then became distracted by a different object, and knowingly dropped the flag on the ground. I don't think they could handle jail at 3 1/2 and 2 years of age.

On a positive note though it would be a good way to get rid of a pesky neighbor. Toss a flag in their back yard and call the cops.

On a similar note, what about a British flag or any countries flag for that matter? Haven't other contries had their soldiers die defending their flag? Shouldn't they do the same for those other contries as well? If those flags are dis-respected shouldn't the perps be locked up? Or are we gonna be narrowminded?

Anyone ever remember if Evel Knievel was arrested for wearing his Stars and Stripes outfit when he rode thru fire and had to be doused with fire extinguishers?

Wonder if there is a statute of limitations, or if we can go after that criminal.:rolleyes:

/agree Lleauric
Germany was sucked in by Hitler, not like it could not happen somewhere else.

L2....kinda extreme ...


All those things can be said of either party. Hell our entire 2 party system is just one of a coin flip...

Want to burn a flag? Go ahead, speak up and voice your anger.

If you're truly pissed, leave get out and get out now.

But, burn it in front of me for something less than real reasoned out anger? I'm planting you ....

Oh, you doesn't imply L2...;P He's not as liberal as he argues by gods...

Fandros

Both parties engage in politics. We're all accustomed to the usual aggressive banter between the two parties, defensiveness and rationalizations for decisions made. But even the most casual examination reveals that L2's estimation of the Repubs is hardly over the top. Whether it be the flag amendment, editing of scientific studies by admin staff to appease policy (a la Philip Cooney), the ramp up to the war, Rove's (and Coulter's and Limbaugh's and DeLay's, etc) conflation of liberals with terrorists, and disconnection from reality with regard to Iraq, the Repubs have followed L2's diagnosis to the letter (and I'd add one more: Division).

And remember, Fanny, they're are in charge. Completely in charge. And now that the polls show Americans disapproving of their performance, they're growing even more aggressive, blaming Democrats, the media, and anyone else who disagrees with them for the failure of their own policies, and worse. I wouldn't for a minute try to picture the Dems as angels or innocents, but at this point there's simply no comparison.

Politics aside. I'm really divided on this. One part of me loves the 1st Amendent and the freedom it instills and the other part of me is so patriotic that I feel the Flag is almost holy. Dilemma.

If you don't believe in flag burning, you shouldn't have one.

Surely this won't prohibit official flag retirement burning ceremonies? I attended a very good one once.

Surely this won't prohibit official flag retirement burning ceremonies? I attended a very good one once.


What the intent of the amendment is is the stifling of protest which dishonors or denigrates the flag; the honoring of the flags by official retirement (burning) ceremony is not going to be affected.

And as has been pointed out earlier, the amendment itself dishonors the flag as it stifles the freedoms the flag is supposed to represent.

Exhibt A as to why this is a dumb idea
Arrested for Desecration (Abby Hoffman)
http://www.erowid.org/culture/characters/hoffman_abbie/images/hoffman_abbie4_med.jpg

Hailed as hero Iraq War General Richard Myers
http://www.voanews.com/english/images/AP_Myers_-_Rolling_Thunder.jpg

Hoffman was arrested not for what he was wearing, but for believing what he believed in. Laws like this are too subjective.

Ok, you cant burn a flag... how about painting a Nazi Swastika on it? How about wearing it as a diaper? Is Hoffman wearing the shirt and calling American Soliders baby killers desecration and Myers wearing one not?
Dangerous ground

This is just like the patriot act. It is dangerous and has the capability to be abused. They justify it the same way they justify the patriot act. "Sure it has the capability to be abused, but it hasn't happened yet so it's ok"

Abby Hoffman is a liberal jew though, L2. That is why it is wrong.

Here's the thing that also is shaky ground. Personally I've burned somewhere around 100 flags. Was I retiring the flags, or defacing them ... when both cases would involve a big fire and a flag? This is too open to interpretation. Maybe next we'll start to go after people who mistreat the flag: they drop it on the ground, they hang a non-waterproof flag out during a rainstorm, they don't have the appropriate ammount of lights on a flag hung after dusk. Its illegal to burn a flag, what about to wipe your ass on it? What about all those hillbilly girls that wear confederate flag bikinis, that should be illegal too, right? Perhaps the death penalty for that one. (begin landslide)

All southen girls in confederate flag bikinis will be sent to my house for "reeducation."

In all seriousness, *we* all know laws like this are grade-A, pure, unadulterated bullshit. Of course, we don't have to win elections with votes from old folks homes. We don't have to lead the rally at the 4th of July fundraiser either. This law does *nothing*, except make a platform for civil disobedience the day it passes. You can bet your sweet asses that the SECOND a law like this goes into place, that people will march themselves to the courthouse steps and light a flag on fire.

I have to wonder, if there was a bill in congress that was going to outlaw burning the Gay Pride flag whether the opinions here would change.

I'm just saying...

It'd be just as absurd as any other kind of flag burning law.

Thing is, if someone were to burn the gay pride flag, that would make them gain disfavor from gays and gay supporters, but they have their right to voice their opinion, but not the right to everyone's support, so they have others think of them what they want.
Just like those who burn the american flag, you can think of them what you want, but your opinion about them doesn't condemn them, being positively seen by you in your mind isn't a right for them, so they lost nothing, but being imprisoned or fined is a removal of a right to burn the flag(free speech).

You don't have the right to other people's favor and support, people can think of you what they want, but you make the government step in and say you can't express your opinion, and they're overstepping their boundaries. Same goes the other way, you can't have laws that protect people from other people's disfavor, for example, the dixie chicks started some free speech crap when they bashed bush and people boycotted their albums, their right to free speech wasn't violated in anyway, consumers aren't part of the government and they have the right to their opinion on the dixie chicks because of what they said. the dixie chicks cried about loss of freedom of speech which was total and utter BS.

and no im not a republican, or a democrat, politics stink.

I am sorry, but was just thinking about the domino effect that was used to justify our presence in Viet Nam, after talking with some fellow vets last night,
so please allow a flight of fancy....

Now, if we allow the government (republican atm) to ban burning the flag, how long before Carrot Top is arrested for having red hair and a terrible act, thus dishonoring the Great Communicator (Ronald Reagan) himself?:p