House approves flag-burning amendment

[faust9]

Yep, sorry I got a bit carried away. You two were going at it pretty fast and furious.

At any rate I do still agree with Pengwuino's assesment of your argument. Letters on paper are symbols and symbolic. It takes a people to carry our the idea present in the symbols. One is just a more complex symbolic object than the other.

And I still hold with my argument. Why is it wrong to make burning the flag illegal if it's just a piece of clothe? If it's not strongly symbolic of something?

"...here is a law which is above the King and which even he must not break. This reaffirmation of a supreme law and its expression in a general charter is the great work of Magna Carta; and this alone justifies the respect in which men have held it."

Winston Churchill, 1956

Thank you Mr. Churchill.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

"...here is a law which is above the King and which even he must not break. This reaffirmation of a supreme law and its expression in a general charter is the great work of Magna Carta; and this alone justifies the respect in which men have held it."

Winston Churchill, 1956

Thank you Mr. Churchill.

I like quoting Churchill too but generally in a more bawdy sense. Either way it does nothing for your argument. We've gone from symbols to rhetoric now?

 

[Pengwuino]

I said the constitution gives you the rights and laws. I didn't say it did these things.

Sorry, i had to get past the rhetoric before i got to this confusing statement...

 

[faust9]

Flags do not define societies. Social codes do. The constitution is the enumeration of the supreme social rights. You have the RIGHT to remain silent. If that was not written down somewhere you would not have that right---at least not in all courts. The flag does not enumerate your rights. Your right in that the people enumerate your rights but if these rights were not written down then there would be zero guarantee that you'd have a right in Florida and in Wyoming. What right does the flag itself give you in Wyoming? How does the flag prevent you from being locked up for years and years? The enumerated rights in the constitution prevent you from being interned.

Talking to you two is like talking to a wall. You refuse to see the difference between enumerated law and a red/white/blue cloth. The flag affords you no protections. Enumerated laws are the only protections you have. Well, I guess if you put a flag on a pike you could protect yourself for a few minutes.

 

[SOS2008]

rofl obstructionism. SOS you are so funny thinking that THIS is the greatest example of the Senate wasting its time. Look at a ... ugh, i don't know what its formally called, but its like a 'to do' list for the Senate. It has the stupidest things. They vote on commemorating something some random person does 10 years earlier for something stupdi like fixing someones tire or getting a 3rd place metal in some unknown sporting event. Or of course, fillibustering federal court nominees or refusing to vote for years at a time

There you go misquoting me again. Though I was talking about the House, did I say this is the greatest example of the Senate wasting time? The rest of your post doesn't make much sense, and as usual wasn't checked for spelling. I think you are trying to say there is an agenda, which may include ongoing business on less important matters. However, if you read the quote from the news source, it says this attempt has been made five times now. This is wasting tax payer money honey.

 

[faust9]

Sorry, i had to get past the rhetoric before i got to this confusing statement...

I meant these things as in the cutting down of trees that you said. I'm glad to see you waited until someone pointed out the fact that you were simply knee-jerk responding to bits of post before you took the time to read the thread.

 

[rachmaninoff]

I propose a new angle on this. Rather than be on the defensive (why should I?), I ask, what conievable interest does the Federal Government have in regulating the combustion of the national flag? I don't see anything remotely implying the right of congress to regulate poltical expression for being "offensive" - quite the opposite. I see "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech - they can't just give you some free speech, they have to give you all of it, UNabridged, unedited. And it's not up to congress to decide what is speech and what is not speech - that power is clearly given to the Judiciary (Article III, I believe section II). Notice I'm not using any modifiers like "protected speech" - speech is speech, you don't need to "protect" it from congress becuase they have no jurisdiction over it.

Notice the key difference here - between the Supreme Court saying XYZ form of expression causes physical damage and interpreting it to be NOT speech - as opposed to Congress, passing a law to declare XYZ expression exempt from protection. SCOTUS has jurisdiction over the 1st amendment; Congress has NO jurisdiction - insofar as said amenmend explicitly prohibits them passing legislation "abridging" speech.

Passing a consitutional amendment to explicitly remove free speech protection from flag burning is, by necessity, an infringment on the 1st amendment. It restricts the scope of the 1st amendment; such legislation cannot coexist with the 1st amendment as it was originally written and is not compatible with what the Authors intended it to mean.

As to whether the Judiciary considers flag burning free speech, the answer is YES. The Supreme Court affirms repeatedly that flag burning is a form of free speech as defined and protected by the First Amendment:

TEXAS v. JOHNSON, 1989
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/texasvjohnson.html

After publicly burning an American flag as a means of political protest, Gregory Lee Johnson was convicted of desecrating a flag in violation of Texas law. This case presents the question whether his conviction is consistent with the First Amendment. We hold that it is not.

From the Majority opinion:

The First Amendment literally forbids the abridgment only of "speech," but we have long recognized that its protection does not end at the spoken or written word. While we have rejected "the view that an apparently limitless variety of conduct can be labeled 'speech' whenever the person engaging in the conduct intends thereby to express an idea," we have acknowledged that conduct may be "sufficiently imbued with elements of communication to fall within the scope of the First and Fourteenth Amendments."

In deciding whether particular conduct possesses sufficient communicative elements to bring the First Amendment into play, we have asked whether "[a]n intent to convey a particularized message was present, and [whether] the likelihood was great that the message would be understood by those who viewed it."

(emphasis mine)

At his trial, Johnson explained his reasons for burning the flag as follows: "The American Flag was burned as Ronald Reagan was being renominated as President. And a more powerful statement of symbolic speech, whether you agree with it or not, couldn't have been made at that time. It's quite a just position [juxtaposition]. We had new patriotism and no patriotism." In these circumstances, Johnson's burning of the flag was conduct "sufficiently imbued with elements of communication," to implicate the First Amendment.

Parallel circumstacnes to many of today's flag-burnings which protest the election of a US President.

The State's interest in preventing breaches of the peace does not support his conviction because Johnson's conduct did not threaten to disturb the peace. Nor does the State's interest in preserving the flag as a symbol of nationhood and national unity justify his criminal conviction for engaging in political expression.

(emphasis mine).

This is a pretty recent interpretation - only 16 years old. Let me pick out one last excerpt from this, which I find especially important and relevant today:

There is, moreover, no indication -- either in the text of the Constitution or in our cases interpreting it -- that a separate juridical category exists for the American flag alone. Indeed, we would not be surprised to learn that the persons who framed our Constitution and wrote the Amendment that we now construe were not known for their reverence for the Union Jack. The First Amendment does not guarantee that other concepts virtually sacred to our Nation as a whole -- such as the principle that discrimination on the basis of race is odious and destructive -- will go unquestioned in the market-place of ideas.We decline, therefore, to create for the flag an exception to the joust of principles protected by the First Amendment.

 

[Pengwuino]

There you go misquoting me again. Though I was talking about the House, did I say this is the greatest example of the Senate wasting time? The rest of your post doesn't make much sense, and as usual wasn't checked for spelling. I think you are trying to say there is an agenda, which may include ongoing business on less important matters. However, if you read the quote from the news source, it says this attempt has been made five times now. This is wasting tax payer money honey.

It was just a humorous bit about what hte Senate does all day. Go check it out, its a joke! Some of the stuff you just think "ok, just hire some guy for minimum wage to pass htese things and stop wasting our time" when you read it. I mean they practically vote on whether or not to plant 3 new trees in a forest in oregon. So as usual, stop pretending like you don't know what i said and then replying to it

 

[Pengwuino]

Flags do not define societies. Social codes do. The constitution is the enumeration of the supreme social rights. You have the RIGHT to remain silent. If that was not written down somewhere you would not have that right---at least not in all courts. The flag does not enumerate your rights. Your right in that the people enumerate your rights but if these rights were not written down then there would be zero guarantee that you'd have a right in Florida and in Wyoming. What right does the flag itself give you in Wyoming? How does the flag prevent you from being locked up for years and years? The enumerated rights in the constitution prevent you from being interned.

Talking to you two is like talking to a wall. You refuse to see the difference between enumerated law and a red/white/blue cloth. The flag affords you no protections. Enumerated laws are the only protections you have. Well, I guess if you put a flag on a pike you could protect yourself for a few minutes.

As usual, you bring in nothing new to this comment and show that you are just unwilling to see the logical point of view on this. If the entire US decided to look a blind eye while someone came up and started beating you down, all of a sudden the idea of protecting someone as stated in the Constitution goes up in flames (no pun intended). Look at the Emancipation Proclomation. It was a piece of paper just like the US Constitution that gave a certain type of person a certain number of rights. Now if you can convince me that the next day, african americans were running around free and enjoying life, then i'll believe you when you say a piece of paper is the living breathing will of the people.

IRT rachmaninoff:

What you are forgetting is that the supreme court has infringed on the US Constitution in many cases, such as the 'fire in a movie theatre' idea. They were also used to deny the right to vote for african americans in complete contradiction to the US Constitution even at the time. People use the idea of 'protected speech' because things DO need to be catagorized. Yelling fire in a movie threatre is exactly the type of thing that has to be differentiated. It is pure speech as you said, but the US Supreme Court has said it is not allowed.

 

[faust9]

As usual, you bring in nothing new to this comment and show that you are just unwilling to see the logical point of view on this. If the entire US decided to look a blind eye while someone came up and started beating you down, all of a sudden the idea of protecting someone as stated in the Constitution goes up in flames (no pun intended). Look at the Emancipation Proclomation. It was a piece of paper just like the US Constitution that gave a certain type of person a certain number of rights. Now if you can convince me that the next day, african americans were running around free and enjoying life, then i'll believe you when you say a piece of paper is the living breathing will of the people.

IRT rachmaninoff:

What you are forgetting is that the supreme court has infringed on the US Constitution in many cases, such as the 'fire in a movie theatre' idea. They were also used to deny the right to vote for african americans in complete contradiction to the US Constitution even at the time. People use the idea of 'protected speech' because things DO need to be catagorized. Yelling fire in a movie threatre is exactly the type of thing that has to be differentiated. It is pure speech as you said, but the US Supreme Court has said it is not allowed.

At no point in time have I said the courts are quick. You are throwing a strawman out there and building an argument against it yourself.

I'll ask you a question---What protections has the flag afforded you or anybody? Simple question. You might want to note the distinction I've made by using the word afforded. I've used words like this throughout my comments thus far but you seem to ignore them. What protections have you been afforded by the flag? How does the flag protect you from state to state?

Oh, and since you didn't read the link, nor have you made the oath yourself:



"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

You are still trying to equate cloth to enumerated law. Enumeration of the law sets social boundries the flag does not. I'm sorry you can't understand the difference. I'm sorry that this concept elludes you.

 

[rachmaninoff]

What you are forgetting is that the supreme court has infringed on the US Constitution in many cases, such as the 'fire in a movie theatre' idea. They were also used to deny the right to vote for african americans in complete contradiction to the US Constitution even at the time. People use the idea of 'protected speech' because things DO need to be catagorized. Yelling fire in a movie threatre is exactly the type of thing that has to be differentiated. It is pure speech as you said, but the US Supreme Court has said it is not allowed.

The Supreme Court is incapable of infringing on the Consitituion, because they are the ultimate authority on what the Constitution means. If they were to define "congress" as being a type of rhesus monkey, that would be what the consitution means.

Anyhoo, you seem to have completely ignored the content of my post. "Fire in a theatre" is not pure speech as defined by centuries of legal precedent. As of 1989 the litmus test looked like this:

In deciding whether particular conduct possesses sufficient communicative elements to bring the First Amendment into play, we have asked whether "[a]n intent to convey a particularized message was present, and [whether] the likelihood was great that the message would be understood by those who viewed it."

This was in my previous post, you seem to have ignored it. I'll say it a third time, just so we're clear:

"[a]n intent to convey a particularized message...

That is the operative legal definition of speech, as protected under the 1st amendment. Deal with it.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm against an amendment or law banning flag burning, but for a different reason than most: flag burning is the ultimate in hypocrisy and I love it when American citizens (generally hippies) do it.

Has anyone seen the Simpsons episode where Homer damages the Bill of Rights? It makes the symbolism of flag burning a little more obvious: A cop says he's tired of people hiding behind the bill of rights, then sees that Homer has wiped out the 8th Amendment. Free from the restriction aganst cruel and unusual punishment, the cop starts beating Homer.

The flag is a symbol of our country and there is no right more fundamental to this country than the right to freedom of speech. So using freedom of speech to burn a symbol of freedom of speech is just basic hypocrisy. I love it when hippies display their hypocrisy publicly.

 

[rachmaninoff]

I agree, it's ironic and entertaining in that sense.

 

[faust9]

I'm against an amendment or law banning flag burning, but for a different reason than most: flag burning is the ultimate in hypocrisy and I love it when American citizens (generally hippies) do it.

Has anyone seen the Simpsons episode where Homer damages the Bill of Rights? It makes the symbolism of flag burning a little more obvious: A cop says he's tired of people hiding behind the bill of rights, then sees that Homer has wiped out the 8th Amendment. Free from the restriction aganst cruel and unusual punishment, the cop starts beating Homer.

The flag is a symbol of our country and there is no right more fundamental to this country than the right to freedom of speech. So using freedom of speech to burn a symbol of freedom of speech is just basic hypocrisy. I love it when hippies display their hypocrisy publicly.

Ah, the second sensible conservative sounds off on the issue. First Kat and now Russ; moreover inclusion of the Simpsons into any argument is always a boon. Those in support of limiting free speech take heed of Russ's sound words.

 

[honestrosewater]

If you think that's funny, imagine banning the symbol of free speech from being used in protest.

 

[russ_watters]

Ah, the second sensible conservative sounds off on the issue. First Kat and now Russ; moreover inclusion of the Simpsons into any argument is always a boon. Those in support of limiting free speech take heed of Russ's sound words.

If you like that, check the "Commander in Chief" thread for South Park politics.

 

[russ_watters]

If you think that's funny, imagine banning the symbol of free speech from being used in protest.

Yes, that is the other side of the coin - almost equally ironic. I say almost because while I can see the argument for flag burning being hate speech or inciteful, that isn't the stated purpose of the Amendment. The Amendment is about protecting the symbol itself.

And I'm sorry, this is kinda ot, but while checking on that fact, I found THIS little gem:

Senate Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Ken Salazar of Colorado have never voted on the issue, but each stated positions in their campaigns. During her 2000 race, Clinton said she opposed a flag amendment. On Wednesday, she repeated her opposition but endorsed legislation to outlaw desecration.

In case I needed to be reminded why I so dislike Hillary...

 

[honestrosewater]

Yes, that is the other side of the coin - almost equally ironic. I say almost because while I can see the argument for flag burning being hate speech or inciteful, that isn't the stated purpose of the Amendment.

But burning a flag can have different meanings. Just contrast it with burning the Constitution.

The Amendment is about protecting the symbol itself.

Only you cannot protect the symbol of free speech from free speech. It wouldn't be the symbol of free speech anymore.
Do you really think this is a good or even reasonable idea? The amendment doesn't create rights for anyone and takes away rights that we currently have. So right there- what is the purpose? And they need an amendment because what they're trying to outlaw is a right currently guaranteed to every US citizen by the Constitution.

While they're at it, why not add the Constitution to the list? No desecrating the Constitution. That would make just as much sense. Oh, any other law also. Any piece of paper on which a law is written. And no saying things others disapprove of either. In fact, no protesting at all unless you register and pay for a permit- and are approved, of course.

 

[Art]

And no saying things others disapprove of either. In fact, no protesting at all unless you register and pay for a permit- and are approved, of course.

It has already been done before to silence Vietnam protesters

President Johnson and later Nixon combated the picketers through a variety of legal and illegal harassment, including limiting their numbers in certain venues and demanding letter-perfect permits for every activity.

http://www.cyberessays.com/History/168.htm

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

If you think that's funny, imagine banning the symbol of free speech from being used in protest.

Kudos to you. I've never seen an argument destroyed in so few, calmly spoken words.

 

[SOS2008]

More from the source I provided earlier, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8317765/

Let's put what Hillary said back into correct context:

Late Wednesday, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., a possible presidential candidate in 2008, revealed that she would vote against the measure. "As I have said in the past, I support federal legislation that would outlaw flag desecration, much like laws that currently prohibit the burning of crosses, but I don't believe a constitutional amendment is the answer," she said in a statement.

The article continues:

The House debate fell along familiar lines over whether the amendment strengthened the Constitution or ran afoul of its free-speech protections.

Supporters said there was more public support than ever because of emotions following the 2001 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. They said detractors are out of touch with public sentiment.

What are the "familiar lines" and is the public now in favor of having their rights restricted because of more knee-jerk reaction to 9-11? To repeat:

The amendment's supporters expressed optimism that a Republican gain of four seats in last November's election could produce the two-thirds approval needed in the Senate as well after four failed attempts since 1989.

The "familiar lines" means Republicans, and since they have been trying to pass this amendment since 1989 (before 9-11), this isn't really about the 2001 terrorist attacks. It's not only an attempt to mess with the constitution, it's fascist:

1) Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism
2) Disdain for the importance of human rights - individuals as individuals have no rights, and the People is conceived as a quality, a monolithic entity expressing the Common Will (so-called public sentiment)
3) Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause (terrorists)

Personally I would never burn the flag, but I believe the right to do so must be preserved per the constitution and freedom of speech. More importantly, I am never in favor of altering the constitution for any reason, and these Republicans who keep pushing for amendments of any kind need to be removed.

 

[honestrosewater]

Has anyone been able to find a recent (2004-05) poll other than the one I posted (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=15418 ), which says 63% oppose the flag-burning amendment? Someone mentioned a new gallup poll, but the only one I could find was from 1999 (http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/login.aspx?ci=3739 ), which says 63% favor.

 

[Moonbear]

First, I think this amendment is wrong. I don't understand what message people think they are sending when they burn the flag, it truly makes no sense to me, but I find it well within their rights to do so, and the Supreme Court has agreed in overturning state laws against it.

Of course, if they do so in a way that presents a public danger (not an adequate distance from buildings or other people to prevent risk of the fire spreading or injury to people in the crowd), then there are other reasons it would be illegal, not because it's the flag, but because setting fire to anything in a crowd seems stupid. But, that's not the purpose of this amendment, and doesn't require an amendment.

As for the parallel theme in this thread on burning the Constitution, certainly burning the original would be a crime simply for having destroyed an historical document. However, what is important are the words in the Constitution, the rights it upholds. If a tragic fire (not even by an act of a protester) resulted in the destruction of the original, the rights are still codified and documented and copies of their wording are abundant. Of course, if a protester wanted to take a piece of paper with the words of the US Constitution written on it and symbolically burn that, I again wouldn't understand their message (well, I suppose they could burn it to symbolically represent that it has been destroyed by whatever they are protesting; saying it's as good as toast due to whatever action they are protesting...burning stuff just makes it more likely your message will wind up on the front page of the newspaper rather than buried on page 12), but it would be within their rights to symbolically burn it.

I think it's more important to defend the rights of the people than the symbol of those rights. Symbols come and go, but it's the rights that are meant to be lasting and are the real foundation of the freedom the U.S. is supposed to be about. Too many of those rights are already being chipped away by those who have lost sight of the big picture, and while this one may be spearheaded by the GOP, they are certainly not alone in slowly chipping away at the rights we are supposed to have.

 

[russ_watters]

But burning a flag can have different meanings. Just contrast it with burning the Constitution.

Yes, that's true.

Only you cannot protect the symbol of free speech from free speech. It wouldn't be the symbol of free speech anymore.

Yes, that makes the amendment essentially self-contradictory.

Do you really think this is a good or even reasonable idea?

No, I don't. I'm kinda confused here: you do see that I'm against the amendment, right?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Ah, the second sensible conservative sounds off on the issue. First Kat and now Russ; moreover inclusion of the Simpsons into any argument is always a boon. Those in support of limiting free speech take heed of Russ's sound words.

Am I not sensible simply because I do not like your argument? Perhaps it's odd but I'm more critical of people arguing for something I believe in than those arguing against. If the majority of people arguing along side me for something I believe in do a poor job of it it only tends to weaken my argument in the eyes of others.

I'm against an amendment or law banning flag burning, but for a different reason than most: flag burning is the ultimate in hypocrisy and I love it when American citizens (generally hippies) do it.

As stated before it's symbolic. The Constitution itself, or more particularly the 1st amendment, is the symbol of our freedom of speech. The flag is a symbol of our country as a whole. You can argue that it to some degree represents the constitution but really there is much more to it than that. The flag itself certainly is not the embodiment of freespeech, that is just one of the things that it is supposed to represent. It directly embodies this country and it's government and if the government is not living up to what it is supposed to be, according to the constitution, then I can see the burning of the flag being a logical symbolic show of disapproval. It may make more sense if the burner(s) were to hold up a copy of the constitution in contrast to the burning of the flag.
Either way I think that the act most often is an aggresive provoking act and that the offenders, depending on the situation, ought to be arrested for inciting a disturbance. And I'll emphasize depending on the situation. Such things are still likely to be abused though.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Flags do not define societies. Social codes do. The constitution is the enumeration of the supreme social rights. You have the RIGHT to remain silent. If that was not written down somewhere you would not have that right---at least not in all courts. The flag does not enumerate your rights. Your right in that the people enumerate your rights but if these rights were not written down then there would be zero guarantee that you'd have a right in Florida and in Wyoming. What right does the flag itself give you in Wyoming? How does the flag prevent you from being locked up for years and years? The enumerated rights in the constitution prevent you from being interned.

Talking to you two is like talking to a wall. You refuse to see the difference between enumerated law and a red/white/blue cloth. The flag affords you no protections. Enumerated laws are the only protections you have. Well, I guess if you put a flag on a pike you could protect yourself for a few minutes.

You know I was recently made aware that the Contitution of the Soviet Union included a clause granting citizens freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Do you think that the citizens really had those freedoms in practice? Do you think they felt much better because a piece of paper existed stating that they had those rights?

 

[GENIERE]

Originally Posted by faust9
Flags do not define societies. Social codes do. The constitution is the enumeration of the supreme social rights. You have the RIGHT to remain silent. If that was not written down somewhere you would not have that right---at least not in all courts. The flag does not enumerate your rights. Your right in that the people enumerate your rights but if these rights were not written down then there would be zero guarantee that you'd have a right in Florida and in Wyoming. What right does the flag itself give you in Wyoming? How does the flag prevent you from being locked up for years and years? The enumerated rights in the constitution prevent you from being interned.

Talking to you two is like talking to a wall. You refuse to see the difference between enumerated law and a red/white/blue cloth. The flag affords you no protections. Enumerated laws are the only protections you have. Well, I guess if you put a flag on a pike you could protect yourself for a few minutes.

Faust9 is incorrect. The framers of the US Constitution saw no need to enumerate the rights of the citizens and they specifically did NOT in the non-amended text. Rights of the individual were considered fundamental. Madison and Jefferson were among the principles that demanded a “Bill of Rights” fearing the states and the individuals were given short shrift. The Bill of Rights codifies a few rights of the states and the individual. It is the 9th amendment that refers to the fundamental rights that all persons possesses whether “written down” or not.

...

 

[fourier jr]

this is just a silly argument. if someone wants to burn a flag, i say go for it. whether i agree with what they say/do or not, they're not causing harm to other people, so i wouldn't try to do anything about it. i would probably never burn a flag, but that doesn't mean someone else shouldn't if they want to. unless it's the yankee swastika, then of course everyone should bow down in reverent awe & people who think about burning it should be sent to room 101. :tongue2:

 

[wasteofo2]

Our Declaration of Independence states that people have the right to alter or abolish any form of government that becomes destructive, and yet the House is trying to ammend the constitution so that you can't symbolically protest the government?

 

[SOS2008]

Our Declaration of Independence states that people have the right to alter or abolish any form of government that becomes destructive, and yet the House is trying to ammend the constitution so that you can't symbolically protest the government?

That's right, and it was passed 286-130 in the House. What does this tell you about the direction of our government?

 

[russ_watters]

Either way I think that the act most often is an aggresive provoking act and that the offenders, depending on the situation, ought to be arrested for inciting a disturbance. And I'll emphasize depending on the situation. Such things are still likely to be abused though.

Frankly, I get the idea that most people (today) do it just for the sake of getting arrested - they don't have a clear purpose beyond that (perhaps that's what you meant).

You know I was recently made aware that the Contitution of the Soviet Union included a clause granting citizens freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Do you think that the citizens really had those freedoms in practice? Do you think they felt much better because a piece of paper existed stating that they had those rights?

I didn't know that, but it doesn't surprise me. Such countries are masters at saying one thing and doing another. But in the west, such things as the Bill of Rights really do have teeth.

The framers of the US Constitution saw no need to enumerate the rights of the citizens and they specifically did NOT in the non-amended text.

Yes, that's true and for some reason not well known. The Bill of Rights was somewhat of a compromise. When you think about it though, it makes sense - why else would it be a set of Amendments and not a part of the Constitution? In hindisght, it was a pretty good idea to include it...

 

[russ_watters]

Our Declaration of Independence states that people have the right to alter or abolish any form of government that becomes destructive...

That's a toughie, waste - the civil war was largely about that very principle and the Union victory and the Amendments that followed restricted affirmed that a state did not have a right to unilaterally seceed. However, it is built into the Constitution itself that you can abolish it - if you can change anything with an Amendment, you can change the whole thing. But its still a contradiction in terms to protest the very rights that you are exercising.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Frankly, I get the idea that most people (today) do it just for the sake of getting arrested - they don't have a clear purpose beyond that (perhaps that's what you meant).

To some degree. I've never seen a flag burned publicly in a peaceful protest. It tends to get people's ire up. The only flag burning I can think of off the top off my head was a while back here in Orange County. It was the Fourth of July and something close to a riot was going on downtown. It wasn't exactly violent just a bunch of drunk people getting out of hand in the street. They had started a bonfire in the middle of the street and somebody decided it would be a good idea to throw a flag on it. Well quite a few people got pissed and fights started to break out. In this particular situation that particular act created a major disturbance and I think the individual should have been charged with a crime. A crime related to the consequences of the act though not necessarily the act itself. It is a crime to incite a disturbance and I don't care if someone feels that their actions should be considered freedom of speech.

 

[rachmaninoff]

It is a crime to incite a disturbance and I don't care if someone feels that their actions should be considered freedom of speech.

You're aware this has virtually nothing to do with the proposed legislation?

 

[wasteofo2]

That's a toughie, waste - the civil war was largely about that very principle and the Union victory and the Amendments that followed restricted affirmed that a state did not have a right to unilaterally seceed. However, it is built into the Constitution itself that you can abolish it - if you can change anything with an Amendment, you can change the whole thing.

This isn't secession we're talking about though, it's private individuals symbolically protesting the government.

But its still a contradiction in terms to protest the very rights that you are exercising.

The burning of flags isn't something one would do to protest the rights that the government affords them, it's something one would do as a general protest of the institution of American Government. For instance, if the government failed to protect their rights or tried to legally limit their rights, or if the government in general was no providing for the common welfare, one might burn the flag. It is blatently disrespectful, but that is what it is meant to be. If people have such a lack of respect for the U.S. government that they burn its flag in effigy, it should be a signal to the government that it is not being responsive to the will of the people. Admittedly, burning a flag won't tell the government exactly what your problem with it is, but it's not meant as a specific redress of grievences, rather as a broad and general condemnation of the instutition of the USA. If the Congress passes this, they might as well just renew the Alien and Sedition acts as well...

And even if flag burning was self-contradictory, why in the world would that matter? If self-contradictory actions were unconstitutional, nearly every President ever should have been impeached.