Flag Burning

[ScreamingEagle]

Sure, burning the flag is despicable. So is Sean Hannity's radio program.
Unfortunately, both are protected under the Constitutional freedoms of speech and expression.
If we ban flag burning, what is next? Criticism of elected officials? Will we be prohibited from burning pictures of Dubya, or making him the butt of political cartoons?
The American Eagle is as much of a symbol of America as the flag. But we keep eliminating their habitat.
This is just another excuse for Republicans to wrap themselves in the flag and show how "patriotic" they are. But I expect that the effort will die as soon as the lighter fluid and match lobbies descend on Washington with their big pockets.
Heck, I bet the flag makers of America are opposed to this nonsense. Someone has to sell the flags that are burned.

The American Bald Eagle is protected under the Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940. http://baldeagles.org/eagleinfo.html

It's also against the law to disrepsect the flag of the United States of America. http://www.wi.net/flag.html

I think a constitutional amendment for flag burning is rather excessive but in this day and age of excessive anti-Americanism perhaps it is necessary. Maybe it is a way to push back the forces that continually are pushing to hurt, defame, and destroy America.

If it goes, I think we should now make it a two-fer, and also include an amendment that spells out no seizing of private property unless it's for very strictly defined public uses.

Kathianne's post (#44) makes an excellent point - the real solution is to clean up our courts.

 

[IControlThePast]

The American Bald Eagle is protected under the Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940. http://baldeagles.org/eagleinfo.html

It's also against the law to disrepsect the flag of the United States of America. http://www.wi.net/flag.html

I think a constitutional amendment for flag burning is rather excessive but in this day and age of excessive anti-Americanism perhaps it is necessary. Maybe it is a way to push back the forces that continually are pushing to hurt, defame, and destroy America.

If it goes, I think we should now make it a two-fer, and also include an amendment that spells out no seizing of private property unless it's for very strictly defined public uses.

Your Eagle Protection legislation is only for actual Eagles, not the US Eagle emblem/symbol.

Burning the flag is, according to the flag code, not disrespecting it. If people wanted to disrespect the flag, they would throw it on the ground and stomp on it. Burning is "a dignified way" of disposing of flags, according to the Flag Code.

 

[Peace 6348]

Mr. P. (Reply #12) and Gem (Reply #13) did outstanding jobs explaining why there should be no constitutional amendment banning flag burnning. Though the idea of someone burning the flag is vile - free expression is the right of anyone and everyone.

 

[Merlin]

Mr. P. (Reply #12) and Gem (Reply #13) did outstanding jobs explaining why there should be no constitutional amendment banning flag burnning. Though the idea of someone burning the flag is vile - free expression is the right of anyone and everyone.

EXPRESSION: Will someone please post a link to where I can find expression being a right in the context that it is being used in this forum? I would appreciate it as I can't seem to be able to find it. Thanks.

 

[Gabriella84]

Anyway I want your take on this Gabby, what do you say to the factual charges that the Demos have kept Blacks poor, on welfare and huddled for the most part in inner city ghettoes just for the pure pleasure of having them vote for them every election cycle? I mean Blacks can't survive without that good ol' public assistance that the Demos provide, right?

Boy, are you ever full of shit with this one.

Many blacks are poor and on welfare because of the deep set racial prejudice that exists in people like yourself. Many of the jobs they once held have been outsourced by corporations run by rich white conservatives who want to get richer. They are denied the basic social programs through immense budget cuts. Ethnic schools continue to degrade due to wealthier whites who prefer to spend their money on elite private schools.
Blacks usually vote Democratic because they know that conservative Republicans would prefer to see them all boxed up and shipped back to Africa. The only "voice" that blacks usually have in government are tokens like Colin Powell and Condi Rice, who represent typical black interests as much as Oprah and Michael Jackson.

If Republicans want to appeal to black voters, perhaps they should try appealing to them. You don't want blacks to attend your schools, live in your neighborhoods or work in your companies. But you sure want them to join the military.
Next time I see wall-to-wall coverage of a missing poor black kid on the Fox Network, I will start believing that someone of your ilk cares. Meanwhile, you can go back to searching for future Willie Hortons.

 

[Avatar4321]

If it goes, I think we should now make it a two-fer, and also include an amendment that spells out no seizing of private property unless it's for very strictly defined public uses.

What exactly are we going to say in the amendment? "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation, and we really mean it this time."?

As for flag burning being "protected" under the first amendment. I don't see it. The First amendment protects free political speech. It doesn't allow acts of desecration. Actions are not speech.

 

[insein]

I dont feel a constitutional ammendment is needed to protect an inanimate object. Just like some misunderstood handling of the Koran sets those raghead fuckers off, i dont see why people get all pissy about the flag. It doesnt diminish anything that those who have fought and died for her have done in this country's lifetime. We dont need an ammendment to prevent flag burning. We need people with bats to beat those that burn the flags.

 

[Avatar4321]

Many blacks are poor and on welfare because of the deep set racial prejudice that exists in people like yourself. Many of the jobs they once held have been outsourced by corporations run by rich white conservatives who want to get richer. They are denied the basic social programs through immense budget cuts. Ethnic schools continue to degrade due to wealthier whites who prefer to spend their money on elite private schools.

Blacks aren't poor because of racial prejudice. Black Africans who immigrate from Africa deal with the same so called deep predjuce as those born here, yet they dont end up on welfare or end up in poor, in fact they do very well for themselves.

The problem that faces blacks isnt prejudice, its a culture that tells them they can't amount to anything without government help. It's a culture that tells them to have many many kids out of wedlock by the time you are 22 and to life off welfare rather than teach them the value of hard work. It's a culture of affirmative action where black youth are told you can't amount to anything unless a white man gives you an edge based on race. Its a culture that tells them they can only succeed with drugs or stealing. It's a culture that is perpetuated by the break up of the family and politicians squeezing the will to live from them with entitlement programs so rather than thinking you need to work for it, the government tells them they should just demand it without working.

Blacks usually vote Democratic because they know that conservative Republicans would prefer to see them all boxed up and shipped back to Africa. The only "voice" that blacks usually have in government are tokens like Colin Powell and Condi Rice, who represent typical black interests as much as Oprah and Michael Jackson.

Hence, an example of the problems with the black culture. Those who actually succeed in life like Powell, Rice, Thomas, etcs are accused of being sell outs. How the heck is it selling out to actually work hard and achieve what you have with your own merit?

Conservative Republicans are the ones who look at blacks not by what color their skin is but on the merits of their achievement. We couldnt care less whether someone was black, white, hispanic, asian, or what as long as they are the best for the job. See why you focus on people's skin, we focus on who they are. Yet, somehow we are the racists.

If Republicans want to appeal to black voters, perhaps they should try appealing to them. You don't want blacks to attend your schools, live in your neighborhoods or work in your companies. But you sure want them to join the military.

You can't seriously be this bigotted can you? You can't be this sanctimonious and self righteous. I am not even sure this deserves a response. How can someone be so blind and hateful. It's the Republicans that freed the slaves. It's the republicans who made the deciding votes to pass the equal rights acts. It's Republicans that are supporting black candidates. It's Republicans that appoint blacks to high levels they are qualified for. It's Republicans who want a colorblind society. And honestly military service would be good for any man of any race. It builds character.

Next time I see wall-to-wall coverage of a missing poor black kid on the Fox Network, I will start believing that someone of your ilk cares. Meanwhile, you can go back to searching for future Willie Hortons.

This is the stupidest thing i've ever heard. Yet oddly I have a feeling that you are going to prove me wrong again. Why do you think so low of black people that you think they seem to need special treatment to matter in life? They are human beings like everyone else. How about treating them like everyone else instead of continually putting them down? Why do you continually want to cripple them with your attitude that they can't succeed without government help? Or tell them they have sold out if they actually work hard and succeed on their own without government hand outs?

Thats one of the problems with liberalism. They try to fix problems and end up making things 100 times worse.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Dubbyuh desecrates the flag when he signs little paper ones at functions. Wearing the flag as a tie, or any other article of clothing, is desecration...using the flag in advertising is desecration...Need I go on

Free speech is protected unfer the Constitution, even if it is as pathetic as burning the flag.

People with common sense see a difference between setting fire to the American flag and putting an image of it on a coffee cup or a baseball cap.

If someone has something to say, they have freedom of speech. Why do they need to burn the flag to say it? Not smart enough to put it into words?

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Your Eagle Protection legislation is only for actual Eagles, not the US Eagle emblem/symbol.

Burning the flag is, according to the flag code, not disrespecting it. If people wanted to disrespect the flag, they would throw it on the ground and stomp on it. Burning is "a dignified way" of disposing of flags, according to the Flag Code.

Correct, but not correct. Burning is the proper way to dispose of an OLD flag, one that is tattered and needs to be replaced. People who burn it in protest, then cloak themselves with a word like freedom which that flag represents, are not "disposing" of the flag. They are disrespecting it.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

How is this not unconstitutional? Come ON people...

Orwellian names like "Patriot Act" and "Freedom Fries" are one thing, but what's next? Repealing one's right to speak ill of his/her country? Man, its like the pigs sneaking into the barn in the middle of the night to change the rules just a little.. does anyone care?

Not to mention the fact that THIS IS A NON-ISSUE. This is a completely political push-button, 'more patriotic than thou', non-issue. Who does flag burning affect? How many flags has anyone ever seen burned outside of the Middle East? Way to waste taxpayer time and money, congress, not to mention shred the constitution just a little bit.

Flags burned in the United States:

http://hammeroftruth.com/images/articles/486-protest_flag_burning.jpg

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/flagburning2.jpg

http://www.americanpatrol.com/RALLIES/JULY42000/July4images/univisflagburn4in.jpg

That's just a small sample. This is not shredding the Constitution. If anything, it's clarifying it. If a tiny cross on a county seal is deemed unconstitutional, then banning flag burning is certainly not unconstitutional.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Sure, burning the flag is despicable. So is Sean Hannity's radio program.
Unfortunately, both are protected under the Constitutional freedoms of speech and expression.
If we ban flag burning, what is next? Criticism of elected officials? Will we be prohibited from burning pictures of Dubya, or making him the butt of political cartoons?
The American Eagle is as much of a symbol of America as the flag. But we keep eliminating their habitat.
This is just another excuse for Republicans to wrap themselves in the flag and show how "patriotic" they are. But I expect that the effort will die as soon as the lighter fluid and match lobbies descend on Washington with their big pockets.
Heck, I bet the flag makers of America are opposed to this nonsense. Someone has to sell the flags that are burned.

The term "freedom of expression", which was not in the Constitution, apparently stems from James Madison's original version, which said, ''The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments." Nothing about burning or destroying anything, but actual expression. Over the years, people have wanted to put their own twist on the Constitution, and it still happens today. If Liberals would stop trying to prove they are so "rebellious", maybe Republicans wouldn't feel the need to wrap themselves in the flag to protect it.

 

[Merlin]

Boy, are you ever full of shit with this one.

Many blacks are poor and on welfare because of the deep set racial prejudice that exists in people like yourself. Many of the jobs they once held have been outsourced by corporations run by rich white conservatives who want to get richer. They are denied the basic social programs through immense budget cuts. Ethnic schools continue to degrade due to wealthier whites who prefer to spend their money on elite private schools.
Blacks usually vote Democratic because they know that conservative Republicans would prefer to see them all boxed up and shipped back to Africa. The only "voice" that blacks usually have in government are tokens like Colin Powell and Condi Rice, who represent typical black interests as much as Oprah and Michael Jackson.

If Republicans want to appeal to black voters, perhaps they should try appealing to them. You don't want blacks to attend your schools, live in your neighborhoods or work in your companies. But you sure want them to join the military.
Next time I see wall-to-wall coverage of a missing poor black kid on the Fox Network, I will start believing that someone of your ilk cares. Meanwhile, you can go back to searching for future Willie Hortons.

To see and understand what is bringing the United States to the brink of being a washed up hell hole, just read the statement above. Actually having people believe crap like that is an embarrassment to all Americans. Shouldn't we have some kind of way to educate these people and move their I.Q. from 30 to at least up to 50?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

What exactly are we going to say in the amendment? "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation, and we really mean it this time."?.

I know, it's ridiculous. The real problem is with the judges. But in this case I'd be all for an Amendment that would spell things out so clearly the judges couldn't miss it! Otherwise - if we can't change the judiciary - what to do?

As for flag burning being "protected" under the first amendment. I don't see it. The First amendment protects free political speech. It doesn't allow acts of desecration. Actions are not speech.

I don't see it either. I agree with you about speech versus expression/desecration. If a guy decided to shoot everybody in sight with a gun, couldn't that also be considered "expression" (as well as desecration)? If all he did was shoot off his mouth - that's free speech.

Of course addle-brained liberals think burning our flag is an "expression of free speech", not hateful, seditious, anti-American behavior. But when it comes to people making just verbal anti-homosexual protests, they get all upset - all of a sudden that's called "hate speech" and not "expression of free speech".

 

[IControlThePast]

Correct, but not correct. Burning is the proper way to dispose of an OLD flag, one that is tattered and needs to be replaced. People who burn it in protest, then cloak themselves with a word like freedom which that flag represents, are not "disposing" of the flag. They are disrespecting it.

Well, correct or not correct. Burning is the reccomended way to dispose of a flag "that is no longer a fitting emblem for display." If someone objected to the government, they could claim that the flag is a symbol of the administration at the time, and that by their act of burning the flag showing their belief that the administration is no longer a fitting symbol to display the values our country was founded on. I'm not saying that burning the flag isn't a despicable thing, but that burning the flag is not disrespecting it according to the flag code.

 

[Annie]

Well, correct or not correct. Burning is the reccomended way to dispose of a flag "that is no longer a fitting emblem for display." If someone objected to the government, they could claim that the flag is a symbol of the administration at the time, and that by their act of burning the flag showing their belief that the administration is no longer a fitting symbol to display the values our country was founded on. I'm not saying that burning the flag isn't a despicable thing, but that burning the flag is not disrespecting it according to the flag code.

Wrong. The 'flag' stands for the republic. The way the 'President' stands for the office. Neither the republic, nor the presidential office should be disrespected.

I've confused myself. I'm not for an amendment on the flag burning, but you are just wrong. Damn logic courses...

 

[IControlThePast]

Wrong. The 'flag' stands for the republic. The way the 'President' stands for the office. Neither the republic, nor the presidential office should be disrespected.

I've confused myself. I'm not for an amendment on the flag burning, but you are just wrong. Damn logic courses...

Really, do you have an official link where the government explicitly defines the flag to be standing for the Republic? Something to support your point that the flag code officially already says burning the flag is disrespecting it? The flag is often used as a symbol for the people serving in the current government, not just the offices they hold. Might it be a little presumptious to declare you know what the flag means to everyone?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Really, do you have an official link where the government explicitly defines the flag to be standing for the Republic? Something to support your point that the flag code officially already says burning the flag is disrespecting it? The flag is often used as a symbol for the people serving in the current government, not just the offices they hold. Might it be a little presumptious to declare you know what the flag means to everyone?

Could you provide a link showing you have a brain? Seriously. You're cracking up.

 

[Annie]

Really, do you have an official link where the government explicitly defines the flag to be standing for the Republic? Something to support your point that the flag code officially already says burning the flag is disrespecting it? The flag is often used as a symbol for the people serving in the current government, not just the offices they hold. Might it be a little presumptious to declare you know what the flag means to everyone?

ICTP this may be the weirdest post I've responded to without sarcasm, only because your posting warrants your being taken seriously, don't push it:

http://www.usflag.org/history/flagevolution.html

Evolution of the United States Flag

No one knows with absolute certainty who designed the first stars and stripes or who made it. Congressman Francis Hopkinson seems most likely to have designed it, and few historians believe that Betsy Ross, a Philadelphia seamstress, made the first one.

Until the Executive Order of June 24, 1912, neither the order of the stars nor the proportions of the flag was prescribed. Consequently, flags dating before this period sometimes show unusual arrangements of the stars and odd proportions, these features being left to the discretion of the flag maker. In general, however, straight rows of stars and proportions similar to those later adopted officially were used. The principal acts affecting the flag of the United States are the following:

* On June 14, 1777, in order to establish an official flag for the new nation, the Continental Congress passed the first Flag Act: "Resolved, That the flag of the United States be made of thirteen stripes, alternate red and white; that the union be thirteen stars, white in a blue field, representing a new Constellation."
* Act of January 13, 1794 - provided for 15 stripes and 15 stars after May 1795.
* Act of April 4, 1818 - provided for 13 stripes and one star for each state, to be added to the flag on the 4th of July following the admission of each new state, signed by President Monroe.
* Executive Order of President Taft dated June 24, 1912 - established proportions of the flag and provided for arrangement of the stars in six horizontal rows of eight each, a single point of each star to be upward.
* Executive Order of President Eisenhower dated January 3, 1959 - provided for the arrangement of the stars in seven rows of seven stars each, staggered horizontally and vertically.
* Executive Order of President Eisenhower dated August 21, 1959 - provided for the arrangement of the stars in nine rows of stars staggered horizon tally and eleven rows of stars staggered vertically.

 

[IControlThePast]

ICTP this may be the weirdest post I've responded to without sarcasm, only because your posting warrants your being taken seriously, don't push it:

http://www.usflag.org/history/flagevolution.html

I don't see in that link where the flag is said to be representative of only the Repulic and not the people serving as the state.