My Take On The Flag Burning Admendment

Bullypulpit said:
Let's change the order a bit:

<b>1.</b>Civics awareness-what it means to live in and participate in a representative democracy. How we got here and why.

Make that a priority and I should think all else would fall into place. An informed and involved electorate is the greatest protection the Republic can have.

Yep - thank God for the Internet, talk radio, and Fox News. Can you believe that there are people alive today who have no concept of life under an official, organized information blackout? You try to tell them about the thirty-year MSM/DNC monopoly, and they look at you like you're speaking an alien tongue. We've come a long, long way - but we must take care to remember the folly of the past.
 
Burning the American flag without punishment is the ultimate example of how great America is. That is exactly why our soldiers gave their lives. So we could live in one of the most free republics in the history of the world. The flag is a representation of our freedoms. Since it is that, soldiers have hoisted it up after victory to proudly display that they protected our freedoms.

An amendment to take away this freedom is ludacris. How often are flags actually burned? A couple a year, maybe.

What happened the last time the US Supreme Court passed an amendment taking away a freedom of American citizens(prohibition)? Drinking increased in popularity and crime rates rose drastically.
 
CharlestonChad said:
Burning the American flag without punishment is the ultimate example of how great America is. That is exactly why our soldiers gave their lives. So we could live in one of the most free republics in the history of the world. The flag is a representation of our freedoms. Since it is that, soldiers have hoisted it up after victory to proudly display that they protected our freedoms.

An amendment to take away this freedom is ludacris.

How would you feel about taking the matter out of federal hands entirely, and letting the people decide at the state, community, and individual levels - as such matters were designed, by the U.S. Constitution, to be decided?

CharlestonChad said:
What happened the last time the US Supreme Court passed an amendment taking away a freedom of American citizens(prohibition)? Drinking increased in popularity and crime rates rose drastically.

Actually, the last time the US Supreme court took away a freedom of American citizens, that particular freedom was representative government itself - the very heart and soul of the American ideal. The court did this by instituting a national policy on abortion by judicial fiat, and the consequences of that have been 40 million innocent lives, and an intrusive, out of control central government.
 
How would you feel about taking the matter out of federal hands entirely, and letting the people decide at the state, community, and individual levels - as such matters were designed, by the U.S. Constitution, to be decided?

I would be fine with that.
Actually, the last time the US Supreme court took away a freedom of American citizens, that particular freedom was representative government itself - the very heart and soul of the American ideal. The court did this by instituting a national policy on abortion by judicial fiat, and the consequences of that have been 40 million innocent lives, and an intrusive, out of control central government.

That wasn't an amendment, but I see what you're saying.
 
CharlestonChad said:
I would be fine with that.


That wasn't an amendment, but I see what you're saying.

The Supreme Court doesn't write or institute amendments; they originate from the legislative branch.
 
CharlestonChad said:
I've had a total mental meltdown in my last post. Please excuse my stupidity.:blowup:

LOL - happens to all of us from time to time. Welcome to the board!
 
mattskramer said:
I think that I completely agree with your perspective. In addition, I know that we are to draw the lines somewhere but I think that if someone wants to buy or make a flag and burn it, as long as he obeys the “fire codes” and does not create a fire hazard, so be it.
I actually started a thread on this issue on a different board.
I think that flag burning is a shamefull way of protest, but it is the protesters right to self expression, and if they take that away, I might burn a flag in protest myself.
 
Why is it that it has to be a flag?

Why can't they take off their shoes. Pour gasoline on their shoes and light them up?

Why must the flag be the central point?

Well, here's my take:

They pick the flag, because they won't get a rise out of anyone by burning their shoes, socks or whatever.

Who does the flag burning affect? Those that esteem or reverence it as a symbol, that goes beyond it's material make-up of being cloth and nicely applied dye.

There may be a few exceptions, but I would hazard a guess that most flag burners don't really reverence the symbol, but only use it as a means to be heard.

The flag to them is a "tool" to further an agenda. The know that what they see/perceive as their tool is another man/womans sacred symbol.

So, go for the jugular, and burn something special to those and their philosophys that you abhor, or disagree with.

It's almost like holding someone hostage. In some ways it's as though these folks hold the American flag hostage as a means to their end. The first amendment works perfectly into their "motive operandi".

In the Middle East they hold human lives hostage to protest the war, here they take a sacred symbol that holds reverence to many and use it similarly.

Back in the "Nam" Days, they took over college administration buildings, and basically shut down these places of higher education. Again, "Motive Operandi" again, just a tool or means to an end for these folks.

These same folks of higher intellect than the dumb sheeple of the "Red" states, also advocated the questioning/challenging of all authority, and Making Love, Not War, with their LSD.

Many of them are now in positions of authority or strong influence over your lives nowadays.

Don't get sucked into thinking that burning the flag is patriotic, and a beautiful sight as an American, cause it distinguishes us from the other nations.

Flag burning is protected Constitutionally, but so is having sex with a Goat as long as you don't do it in public.

I think that the First Amendment is the greatest , but must it be abused in a way that promotes downhill slide towards national Anarchy? Ballot boxes will become passe', as flag burning becomes vogue.

Incremental steps is how things sneek up and bite us in the arse one day. Rome went that route....We (USA) are not exempt.
******
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2006/July/04/local/stories/06local.htm
Flags burn in celebration
By GENEVIEVE BOOKWALTER
SENTINEL STAFF WRITER
About 25 revelers celebrated their freedom of speech and welcomed the Fourth of July on Monday night with the "2nd Annual Old Time American Flag Burn."

Around a burn barrel at Seabright State Beach, organizer Brent Adams, 41, of Santa Cruz, declared flag burning not a protest, but a celebration of the Constitution's First Amendment.

"It seemed like a good idea to burn some flags just because we can," added fellow organizer Sha Lar, 32, of Santa Cruz.

The festivities were especially relevant after a constitutional amendment allowing Congress to ban flag desecration died in the Senate last week.

That proposal came in response to Supreme Court rulings in 1989 and 1990 that burning and other desecrations of the flag are protected as free speech by the First Amendment.

But it failed by one vote in the Senate to reach the two-thirds approval required before going to the states for ratification.

"The Senate overruled it by one vote, and let's celebrate it," Lar said. Some at the celebration noted that in other countries, they could be shot for torching the national flag.

Poison Oak, 35, of Aptos, said he wanted to "reclaim the flag. Not only those who support President George W. Bush can wave the red white and blue."

Still, not everyone on the beach appreciated stars and stripes melting over the fire.

"I think they should keep it to themselves," said Bill Crawford, 16, of Aptos, who was on the beach with buddies Elijah Manchester and Jacob Kendall, both 16 and from Santa Cruz.

The trio looked away as flames consumed the large and small flags.

"To me this is what represents our nation and what represents our freedom," Manchester said. He questioned why the group would want to burn the symbol of free speech.

Despite their different views, those who didn't agree with flag burning were still welcome at the event, said Igliashon Jones, 23, of Santa Cruz. Free speech is what it was all about.

"I don't think this would be what it is without debate," Jones said.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Contact Genevieve Bookwalter at [email protected].
 
Eightball said:
Why is it that it has to be a flag?

Why can't they take off their shoes. Pour gasoline on their shoes and light them up?

Why must the flag be the central point?

Well, here's my take:

They pick the flag, because they won't get a rise out of anyone by burning their shoes, socks or whatever.

Who does the flag burning affect? Those that esteem or reverence it as a symbol, that goes beyond it's material make-up of being cloth and nicely applied dye.

There may be a few exceptions, but I would hazard a guess that most flag burners don't really reverence the symbol, but only use it as a means to be heard.

The flag to them is a "tool" to further an agenda. The know that what they see/perceive as their tool is another man/womans sacred symbol.

So, go for the jugular, and burn something special to those and their philosophys that you abhor, or disagree with.

It's almost like holding someone hostage. In some ways it's as though these folks hold the American flag hostage as a means to their end. The first amendment works perfectly into their "motive operandi".

In the Middle East they hold human lives hostage to protest the war, here they take a sacred symbol that holds reverence to many and use it similarly.

Back in the "Nam" Days, they took over college administration buildings, and basically shut down these places of higher education. Again, "Motive Operandi" again, just a tool or means to an end for these folks.

These same folks of higher intellect than the dumb sheeple of the "Red" states, also advocated the questioning/challenging of all authority, and Making Love, Not War, with their LSD.

Many of them are now in positions of authority or strong influence over your lives nowadays.

Don't get sucked into thinking that burning the flag is patriotic, and a beautiful sight as an American, cause it distinguishes us from the other nations.

Flag burning is protected Constitutionally, but so is having sex with a Goat as long as you don't do it in public.

I think that the First Amendment is the greatest , but must it be abused in a way that promotes downhill slide towards national Anarchy? Ballot boxes will become passe', as flag burning becomes vogue.

Incremental steps is how things sneek up and bite us in the arse one day. Rome went that route....We (USA) are not exempt.
******
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2006/July/04/local/stories/06local.htm
Flags burn in celebration
By GENEVIEVE BOOKWALTER
SENTINEL STAFF WRITER
About 25 revelers celebrated their freedom of speech and welcomed the Fourth of July on Monday night with the "2nd Annual Old Time American Flag Burn."

Around a burn barrel at Seabright State Beach, organizer Brent Adams, 41, of Santa Cruz, declared flag burning not a protest, but a celebration of the Constitution's First Amendment.

"It seemed like a good idea to burn some flags just because we can," added fellow organizer Sha Lar, 32, of Santa Cruz.

The festivities were especially relevant after a constitutional amendment allowing Congress to ban flag desecration died in the Senate last week.

That proposal came in response to Supreme Court rulings in 1989 and 1990 that burning and other desecrations of the flag are protected as free speech by the First Amendment.

But it failed by one vote in the Senate to reach the two-thirds approval required before going to the states for ratification.

"The Senate overruled it by one vote, and let's celebrate it," Lar said. Some at the celebration noted that in other countries, they could be shot for torching the national flag.

Poison Oak, 35, of Aptos, said he wanted to "reclaim the flag. Not only those who support President George W. Bush can wave the red white and blue."

Still, not everyone on the beach appreciated stars and stripes melting over the fire.

"I think they should keep it to themselves," said Bill Crawford, 16, of Aptos, who was on the beach with buddies Elijah Manchester and Jacob Kendall, both 16 and from Santa Cruz.

The trio looked away as flames consumed the large and small flags.

"To me this is what represents our nation and what represents our freedom," Manchester said. He questioned why the group would want to burn the symbol of free speech.

Despite their different views, those who didn't agree with flag burning were still welcome at the event, said Igliashon Jones, 23, of Santa Cruz. Free speech is what it was all about.

"I don't think this would be what it is without debate," Jones said.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Contact Genevieve Bookwalter at [email protected].


Eightball, I agree with what you ascribe to their motivations. Their problem is that many of us really do understand what the symbolism means, which is why we say they have the right to do so. Now as I said previously, there is no guarantee that someone isn't going to clean their clock and also be willing to be charged with assault/battery or both. It may well be worth it.

However, the freedom that allows them to do that act also allows me to say what I want to them; to write what I want in public venues; etc. You can't give up one without the others.
 
Kathianne said:
You can't give up one without the others.

Actually, technically you could. We could make flag burning illegal and it would have no real impact on other forms of expression in any way.
 
Kathianne said:
Eightball, I agree with what you ascribe to their motivations. Their problem is that many of us really do understand what the symbolism means, which is why we say they have the right to do so. Now as I said previously, there is no guarantee that someone isn't going to clean their clock and also be willing to be charged with assault/battery or both. It may well be worth it.

However, the freedom that allows them to do that act also allows me to say what I want to them; to write what I want in public venues; etc. You can't give up one without the others.

IMO, the symbol of this Nation should be held in a higher regard than "others." Desecrating the symbol of this Nation is basically saying one wants to destroy this Nation, by doing it symbolically.

Burning the fflag to me is not an expression of freedom; rather, and attempt at sensationalism and attention-getting.

While the Supreme Court ruling currently allows such practice, the aforementioned assault and battery WILL take place if I'm ever anywhere near such an event.
 
GunnyL said:
IMO, the symbol of this Nation should be held in a higher regard than "others." Desecrating the symbol of this Nation is basically saying one wants to destroy this Nation, by doing it symbolically.

Burning the fflag to me is not an expression of freedom; rather, and attempt at sensationalism and attention-getting.

While the Supreme Court ruling currently allows such practice, the aforementioned assault and battery WILL take place if I'm ever anywhere near such an event.
I hear you Gunny, which is why I wrote what I wrote. If I was capable, I might well join you.
 
If and when an amendment or law is passed outlawing flag burning, the word “flag” will have to be clearly defined. I have a t-shirt with a crude image of the American flag. Would I be permitted to burn such a thing? What about napkins with well-drawn images of the American flag?

Personally, I don’t care. If some punks want to buy and burn a flag, then that is their loss. Their actions won’t mean a thing to me. I can mentally remove my sentiment for their flag and still have respect for the symbol that the abstract and ideal American flag – Old Glory – means to me.
 
mattskramer said:
If and when an amendment or law is passed outlawing flag burning, the word “flag” will have to be clearly defined. I have a t-shirt with a crude image of the American flag. Would I be permitted to burn such a thing? What about napkins with well-drawn images of the American flag?

Personally, I don’t care. If some punks want to buy and burn a flag, then that is their loss. Their actions won’t mean a thing to me. I can mentally remove my sentiment for their flag and still have respect for the symbol that the abstract and ideal American flag – Old Glory – means to me.

I shudder to think.:laugh:
 
rtwngAvngr said:
Actually, technically you could. We could make flag burning illegal and it would have no real impact on other forms of expression in any way.
I agree. Besides, the people burning the flag could probably be more specific in identifying the object of their displeasure by burning an effigy. Rather than burning the American flag in protest of the war on terror in Iraq, pehaps the protestors should burn an effigy of the POTUS?

I know I don't like to see either the American flag, nor an effigy of our President burned. I wouldn't do either no matter how upset I might be over the actions of a particular administration, Democrat or Republican. I figure I'm intelligent enough to find other ways to voice my displeasure.
 
mattskramer said:
If and when an amendment or law is passed outlawing flag burning, the word “flag” will have to be clearly defined. I have a t-shirt with a crude image of the American flag. Would I be permitted to burn such a thing? What about napkins with well-drawn images of the American flag?
I agree - if such an ammendment is to be seriously considered, it must be explicit in defining what forms of the flag would be protected.
 

Forum List

Back
Top