House approves flag-burning amendment

[Ivan Seeking]

Uphill battle seen in Senate
By Laurie Kellman
ASSOCIATED PRESS

4:41 p.m. June 22, 2005

WASHINGTON – Supporters of a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning hoped a bigger Republican majority in Congress and wartime patriotism would give the proposal the best chance in years to advance to the states for ratification.

"The American people want this," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, sponsor of the amendment in the Senate. "I believe this is the year that the Senate will join the House to send it to the states for ratification."

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20050622-1641-flagburning.html

What a load of bull. In this day and age, if this is important to the American people then things are worse than I thought. Not only is this all huge waste of time, which alone shames the House of Reps, but the right to burn a flag is the essence of being an American. What exactly is the flag supposed to represent anyway? It is the ultimate symbol of rule by the people. And that's what really bothers the promoters of this hogwash. They want a symbol that is bigger than the right of the people to express dissatisfaction with their government.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I don't think there needs to be a constitutional amendment. In the only situations where it will matter you can already get them for inciting a disturbance. And an amendment to the constitution for this purpose makes about as much sense as an amendment banning gay marriage. The purpose of the constitution is to protect rights.

 

[SOS2008]

...What exactly is the flag supposed to represent anyway? It is the ultimate symbol of rule by the people. And that's what really bothers the promoters of this hogwash. They want a symbol that is bigger than the right of the people to express dissatisfaction with their government.

Oooooh, that's against the first commandment: "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me." I wonder if there is any controversy between the neocons and some fundamentalists on this one. Oh wait, if you take away the flag, then you can't say "under God" in the pledge. I guess they'll agree on it.

 

[Pengwuino]

Yah I am sure the hundreds of thousands of men and women who died defending our flag looooooooove seeing when its burnt. What a society! We ignore the wishes of heros and build our nation around the demands of draft-dodging traitors.

 

[rachmaninoff]

Yeah! Free speech is offensive to our patriots! Out with the 1st amendment!

Seriously though, I don't understand whether the gop is seeking a constitutional amendment for this, or are they just writing a bill? Because in the first case they'd never get it past the states... and the other case I don't see how SCOTUS would reason their way around the 1st amendment...

 

[Pengwuino]

When i first read about it, it was being presented as a bill and not an amendment. And people are as usual, exagerating about this destroying free speech. You could EASILY catagorize this as a special case such as the 'fire in a threatre' case or a few other situations where free speech doesn't apply (I find it far more reasonable to ban flag burning then it is to shut out 100% of free speech to K-12 students). Its odd that their burning the symbol that grants them the right they are burning the flag with however. Your basically saying NO to all the flag stands for but then you are trying to defend it with a freedom the flag represents. Kinda like waiving your rights when u get a speeding ticket :)

PS I wonder how many people that will respond to this thread also are for gun control or believe the government should censor all religion (I guess the first amendment is a buffet type amendment) :-/

 

[Rabid]

I think Ivan nailed it.

They want a symbol that is bigger than the right of the people to express dissatisfaction with their government.

I really don't see it passing the states, but it does give the supporters an opportunity to label the defenders of the First Amendment as anti-American. I find the numbers disturbing, 286-130 in the House and only 35 senators oppose it. No one can speak for an entire group of people. I am sure many people including veterans hate to see the flag being burnt, but I also know people who have served who oppose this amendment.

 

[kat]

I'm not sure why people consider burning anything having anything to do with speech...even "Free" speech for that matter. No speaking involved with starting fires..unless you have really, really bad breath maybe?? I dun get it.

Anywhoo...do we really need more laws? Can we just leave the freaking constitution alone, pulease?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

When i first read about it, it was being presented as a bill and not an amendment. And people are as usual, exagerating about this destroying free speech. You could EASILY catagorize this as a special case such as the 'fire in a threatre' case or a few other situations where free speech doesn't apply (I find it far more reasonable to ban flag burning then it is to shut out 100% of free speech to K-12 students). Its odd that their burning the symbol that grants them the right they are burning the flag with however. Your basically saying NO to all the flag stands for but then you are trying to defend it with a freedom the flag represents. Kinda like waiving your rights when u get a speeding ticket :)

PS I wonder how many people that will respond to this thread also are for gun control or believe the government should censor all religion (I guess the first amendment is a buffet type amendment) :-/

The thing is that it already is more or less illegal. If you want to just sit in your back yard and burn the flag then I doubt that it's going to be a problem or anyone is going to care. If you're out in public pissing people off or creating some sort of disturbance that, in and of itself, is against the law no matter how you go about doing it. You are legally allowed to say "Heil Hitler" if you want to but if you say it at a black panthers meeting you're going to get it for inciting a disturbance.

And if there is to be a law against it then why should it be in the Constitution?

 

[rachmaninoff]

You could EASILY catagorize this as a special case such as the 'fire in a threatre' case or a few other situations where free speech doesn't apply

Yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre endangers lives. Burning of flags, american, belgian, finnish or otherwise, does not, unless you're doing it in a crowded theatre or other closed space, which is especially idiotic. Burning of flags is also usually not a direct incitement to violence (although sometimes it could be). The other major form of protected speech is libel/slander with provable economic consequence, which of course does not apply. Am I missing something OBVIOUS, Pengwuino?

I'm not sure why people consider burning anything having anything to do with speech...even "Free" speech for that matter.

Symbolic speech.

I think it's virtually impossible that this thing passes the states... good thing the consititution was designed to keep this kind of thing from happening.

 

[Pengwuino]

Merely burning a flag isn't creating a problem because you can put it on a metal stand and set it on fire in an open area and its not endangering anyone. Thats how its done sometimes. Most of the time however , people are lighting it in crowds which is rather stupid.

A more obvious example would be getting a bunch of people to stand infront of say, a welfare building to protest welfare reform or whatever. The police are going to come and kick you out. You could also walk up into a library and start a mass fart :D Or something more intelligent like a protest. The police will come and kick you out even though you are obviously displaying free speech. Theres certainly even more examples where the publics wish does trump free-speech if you put your mind to it.

It certainly is a disgusting act to burn the flag that guarantees you the right to do just that... but after thinking about it, i suppose its a matter of principle depending on who sees the situation. Look at it as a matter of honoring people who died and what a country has done for you and its dispicle but look at it from a law schoolish 'what can i get away with to piss people off' view and it certainly can fall under a requirement of the 1st amendment

 

[honestrosewater]

Has anyone else ever read http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title4/chapter1_.html ?

"The American people want this," said Sen. Orrin Hatch

Did the senator not see this poll? Think there's something wrong with the poll?
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=15418

 

[faust9]

Yah I am sure the hundreds of thousands of men and women who died defending our flag looooooooove seeing when its burnt. What a society! We ignore the wishes of heros and build our nation around the demands of draft-dodging traitors.

No one died defending the flag! People have died defending the ideals of this nation and the ideals of the constitution but not the flag. The flag does not define this nation, the constitution does. The flag is a piece of cloth. The constitution is the greatest legal document ever created and is what gives you the freedom to actually open a book instead of blindly buying into this idea that the flag holds a mystic meaning when it doesn't. When you join the military and take the oath you recite an oath to defend the constitution----no mention of the flag (I took this oath in 1990 and I don't recall a mention of the flag) http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/faq/oaths.htm

Your Neocon assertion is emotional at best and dead wrong with no basis in the document which military personel defend at worst. Join the military if you don't believe me. Take the oath. Defend the 1st amendment and not the flag.

The flag is flashy piece of cloth. The constitution is what gives you everything, and I mean everthing, you have as an American.

PS. did you serve? If not then by your argument my wishes are more valuable because I did serve and I value the tattered yellowing document under glass more than a piece of cloth sold at wal-mart for a dollar on a stick.

 

[Pengwuino]

Well people like my uncles and grandfather do feel the flag is important because it symbolizes a country. Your argument is dead wrong at best and yoru emotional knee-jerk reaction is silly at best. The Constitution is a piece of paper, no one died defending a piece of paper. That piece of paper merely symbolizes what this country stands for. No piece of paper has ever stormed a beach or parachuted into enemy territory, people did. People know that piece of cloth represents freedom, justice, etc just as they know that piece of paper represents freedom, justice, etc.

And your logic with the piece of cloth sold at wal-mart is completely illogical. Many copies of the Constitution have been made for various reasons, academic or not. There was a 'first' flag... i don't understand why it wouldn't represent the same thing to you... It was a symbol of our nation, there was an original; you claim you will defend the Constitution solely because its a symbol and it was an original but not the flag... odd...

And oddly enough, someone just posted why you respect a flag of the United States... sure you want to base your opinion on a small oath instead of the US Code?

 

[honestrosewater]

Actually, the code says:

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.

The bill is aimed at flag burning as a form of protest, making it clearly a First Amendment issue.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I'm not sure why people consider burning anything having anything to do with speech...even "Free" speech for that matter.

Symbolic speech.

blindly buying into this idea that the flag holds a mystic meaning when it doesn't.

Sorry this argument doesn't seem to be adding up right here.

 

[faust9]

Well people like my uncles and grandfather do feel the flag is important because it symbolizes a country. Your argument is dead wrong at best and yoru emotional knee-jerk reaction is silly at best. The Constitution is a piece of paper, no one died defending a piece of paper. That piece of paper merely symbolizes what this country stands for. No piece of paper has ever stormed a beach or parachuted into enemy territory, people did. People know that piece of cloth represents freedom, justice, etc just as they know that piece of paper represents freedom, justice, etc.

And your logic with the piece of cloth sold at wal-mart is completely illogical. Many copies of the Constitution have been made for various reasons, academic or not. There was a 'first' flag... i don't understand why it wouldn't represent the same thing to you... It was a symbol of our nation, there was an original; you claim you will defend the Constitution solely because its a symbol and it was an original but not the flag... odd...

And oddly enough, someone just posted why you respect a flag of the United States... sure you want to base your opinion on a small oath instead of the US Code?

open a book and find out what flags were first used for. I've highlighted some of your own points.

NO ONE DIED FOR THE CONSTITUTION! That has got to be the dumbest thing I've heard this week! I know a few people who died for the constitution because they died serving their country. They did nNOT take an oath to flag! They took an oath to the constitution and to the ideals which it embodies. You my ill-informed fellow human are sorely mistaken. Spend some time on a sub or on a target or in the field before you preach about what people decide to defend.

PS no flag has every done the things you said above. The constitution empowered people to carry a flag into battle. The flag was carried. The flag was carried. The flag was carried. It did not storm. It did not act on its own. It does not think or feel. It does not give you the freedoms you enjoy.

 

[faust9]

Sorry this argument doesn't seem to be adding up right here.

Perhaps if you didn't combine the thoughts of three people into one omnibus thought things would add up a little better.

 

[Pengwuino]

The Constitution did not do anything either and it did not give you freedom. The PEOPLE give you teh freedom defined. Anyone can come and rip up the Constitution and burn it and you know what? We will still have the ability to go to church, own a firearm (ok let's be simplistic here lol), elect our leaders, etc etc. The Constitution does not empower people. People empower people. People decide to go out and risk their life for an ideal, not a piece of paper.

You are attempting to use the same logic to defend the Constitution as I am using to defend the flag yet you are saming my logic is wrong. I am sorry that you need a lesson in logical discussion, but i am clearly using the same logic as you.

 

[Pengwuino]

Perhaps if you didn't combine the thoughts of three people into one omnibus thought things would add up a little better.

Hes saying that its a hypocritical stance. You say one thing they contradict yourself perfectly.

 

[faust9]

Hes saying that its a hypocritical stance. You say one thing they contradict yourself perfectly.

It's not hypocritical to say a symbol means less than enumerated law. Here, I'll give you an example you'll surely enjoy:


Iraq. The laws in Iraq gave and took freedoms at the will of the law maker. The Iraqi flag did nothing for the people.

The constitution is a legal document that gives you freedoms and is a continuation of the magna carta. The magna carta enumerated cartain freedoms for the British not the Jack.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Hes saying that its a hypocritical stance. You say one thing they contradict yourself perfectly.

Exactly. If the flag weren't anything special there would be no reason to burn the thing in the first place. If it wasn't a powerful symbol there would be no symbolic speech behind the act. At that point it might as well be illegal to burn it and simply call it arson. Your logic, as Pengwuino stated, doesn't add up. I'm not against your ends here I just don't agree with the way you're getting there.

 

[SOS2008]

It was an amendment, and it was passed in the House:

WASHINGTON - A constitutional amendment to outlaw flag burning cleared the House Wednesday but faced an uphill battle in the Senate...

The 286-130 outcome was never in doubt in the House, which had passed the measure or one like it five times in recent years. 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.

But an AP survey Wednesday found 35 senators on record as opposing the amendment - one more than the number needed to defeat it if all 100 senators vote, barring a change in position.

For more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8317765/

It won't pass in the Senate. What is really sad is that there are so many important issues to be addressed, yet this is what Republicans in the House are wasting time on...for the sixth time. Obstructionism!

 

[Pengwuino]

It's not hypocritical to say a symbol means less than enumerated law. Here, I'll give you an example you'll surely enjoy:


Iraq. The laws in Iraq gave and took freedoms at the will of the law maker. The Iraqi flag did nothing for the people.

The constitution is a legal document that gives you freedoms and is a continuation of the magna carta. The magna carta enumerated cartain freedoms for the British not the Jack.

Yah but you didnt say that. You said its symbolic of something but then you said it doesn't hold any "meaning". "Meaning" and "symbolic" are reallllllly close in use.

Your example of Iraq is again, illogical according to hte logic you have been using. The laws did nothing as they were simple pieces of paper. People simply choose to obey a "law" and simply because something is written down does not make it something with power or meaning. Its like saying I could modify the forces of nature by simply writing down F=1/2ma or how some people tried to legislate pi = 3. Laws reflect the will of the people, they are not the actual will of the people. A piece of paper does nto come and arrest me for murder, people do.

 

[faust9]

The Constitution did not do anything either and it did not give you freedom. The PEOPLE give you teh freedom defined. Anyone can come and rip up the Constitution and burn it and you know what? We will still have the ability to go to church, own a firearm (ok let's be simplistic here lol), elect our leaders, etc etc. The Constitution does not empower people. People empower people. People decide to go out and risk their life for an ideal, not a piece of paper.

You are attempting to use the same logic to defend the Constitution as I am using to defend the flag yet you are saming my logic is wrong. I am sorry that you need a lesson in logical discussion, but i am clearly using the same logic as you.

No what I'm saying is the constitution is enumerated law. Your rights don't come from being the people. If that where the case then Mugabe would no longer be in power. Pol Pot would never have had killing fields. Yadda-yadda-yadda. Enumerated law---the constitution is more than a piece of paper it is the law---means more to your freedoms than the flag. When was the last time you heard of a court case wherer the defendant plead the flag. When did the flag grant the right to vote to women, 18 y/o's or minorities? When did the flag give you the right to be muslim, christian, or athiest? When did the flag establish the courts? When did the flag establish a president, the senate or the house? When did the flag give you the right not to incriminate yourself? When did the flag establish a system of innocent until proven guilty? When did the flag establish a curreny system? When did the flag establish the structure of government as we know it? When did the flag establish the right to form militias? When did the flag establish your right to own a home without fear of the government bursting in at will?

I could go on. The fact is the flag is a piece of cloth to rally behind. The constitution (not just the yellow one---all copies in all books) are the reason you are free to rally.

[edit]fixed some spelling

 

[Pengwuino]

It won't pass in the Senate. What is really sad is that there are so many important issues to be addressed, yet this is what Republicans in the House are wasting time on...for the sixth time. Obstructionism!

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

 

[faust9]

Yah but you didnt say that. You said its symbolic of something but then you said it doesn't hold any "meaning". "Meaning" and "symbolic" are reallllllly close in use.

Your example of Iraq is again, illogical according to hte logic you have been using. The laws did nothing as they were simple pieces of paper. People simply choose to obey a "law" and simply because something is written down does not make it something with power or meaning. Its like saying I could modify the forces of nature by simply writing down F=1/2ma or how some people tried to legislate pi = 3. Laws reflect the will of the people, they are not the actual will of the people. A piece of paper does nto come and arrest me for murder, people do.

Try reading the thread. I never said it was symbolic. That was incorrectly attributed to me.

That paper enumerates the right of the people to arrest you. The flag does not. That paper says the other person had the right to live. The flag says nothing about that. Flags were first used to kill BTW.

 

[Pengwuino]

No what I'm saying is the constitution is enumerated law. Your rights don't come from being the people. If that where the case then Mugabe would no longer be in power. Pol Pot would never have had killing fields. Yadda-yadda-yadda. Enumerated law---the constitution is more than a piece of paper it is the law---means more to your freedoms than the flag. When was the last time you heard of a court case wherer the defendant plead the flag. When did the flag grant the right to vote to women, 18 y/o's or minorities? When did the flag give you the right to be muslim, christian, or athiest? When did the flag establish the courts? When did the flag establish a president, the senate or the house? When did the flag give you the right not to incriminate yourself? When did the flag establish a system of innocent until proven guilty? When did the flag establish a curreny system? When did the flag establish the structure of government as we know it? When did the flag establish the right to form militias? When did the flag establish your right to own a home without fear of the government bursting in at will?

Wrong according to your own logic. According to your logic, that piece of paper got up and went and cut down trees and built court houses and keeps away people who demand i don't practice my religion. It also was suppose to come and slap the lawmaker here in California who decided to ban gun X according to your logic. As you can see, you are misinformed and wrong. It is simply symbolic of the will of the people. The will of the people cannot be gathered up and bottled and spread on a piece of paper. If the police come and search my house illegally, a piece of paper is not going to be kicking that officer out. As you can see your logic is flawed. If some person was able to walk up to the US Constituion and quickly jot down "prostitution is illegal", does that all of a sudden make prostitution illegal? You desperately need to read some books about hwo societies work and the theory of laws.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Try reading the thread. I never said it was symbolic. That was incorrectly attributed to me.

You said it's symbolic speech to burn the flag. If you don't agree with that go look at the thread yourself. I didn't incorrectly attribute anything, thank you.

 

[rachmaninoff]

Sorry to break the thread (I haven't yet finished reading) but you've misattributed some quotes here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by faust9
Quote:
Originally Posted by kat
I'm not sure why people consider burning anything having anything to do with speech...even "Free" speech for that matter.

Symbolic speech.

Quote:
Originally Posted by faust9
blindly buying into this idea that the flag holds a mystic meaning when it doesn't.

Sorry this argument doesn't seem to be adding up right here.

Actually faust9 did not say that, I did - things make more sense if you take note of this.

 

[faust9]

You said it's symbolic speech to burn the flag. If you don't agree with that go look at the thread yourself. I didn't incorrectly attribute anything, thank you.

All right killer. Where did I say that?

rachmaninoff said it. I did not.

Where did I say it?

 

[faust9]

Sorry to break the thread (I haven't yet finished reading) but you've misattributed some quotes here:



Actually faust9 did not say that, I did - things make more sense if you take note of this.

Ha HA thanks.

People, it helps if you take the time to read. I do. I take the time to read what you have to say. I'd be nice if you did the same before putting words into my keyboard.

 

[Pengwuino]

Try reading the thread. I never said it was symbolic. That was incorrectly attributed to me.

That paper enumerates the right of the people to arrest you. The flag does not. That paper says the other person had the right to live. The flag says nothing about that. Flags were first used to kill BTW.

your right, how the hell did that happen statuatory?

The paper does nothing as I've said, its simply people believing in the piece of paper just like they believe in the flag. The paper does not make someones right to live true, people do. Please actually argue the facts or this is a waste of time.

 

[faust9]

Wrong according to your own logic. According to your logic, that piece of paper got up and went and cut down trees and built court houses and keeps away people who demand i don't practice my religion. It also was suppose to come and slap the lawmaker here in California who decided to ban gun X according to your logic. As you can see, you are misinformed and wrong. It is simply symbolic of the will of the people. The will of the people cannot be gathered up and bottled and spread on a piece of paper. If the police come and search my house illegally, a piece of paper is not going to be kicking that officer out. As you can see your logic is flawed. If some person was able to walk up to the US Constituion and quickly jot down "prostitution is illegal", does that all of a sudden make prostitution illegal? You desperately need to read some books about hwo societies work and the theory of laws.

Do you actually read what is written or do you read what you want to? I said the constitution gives you the rights and laws. I didn't say it did these things. Establishing the courts and building them are two differnet things. Man alive!

You don't see the difference between enumerated rights and a hollow symbol?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

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?