News House approves flag-burning amendment

[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.

 

[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.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

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

Have you been reading my posts? In their entirety?

 

[arildno]

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.

You've just arbitrarily chosen one particular ideal that the flag supposedly symbolizes in order to derive your "contradiction".
Since a nation's flag will be wherever the armed forces of a country is, the flag can equally well be regarded as a symbol for something totally different than "freedom of speech".


Not that I condone flag-burning; I find it puerile and counter-productive.

 

[honestrosewater]

So has anyone else written their senators? I wrote mine (even though Mel Martinez is a http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SJ00012:@@@P ).