House Approves Flag-Burning Amendment

[Lenny]

For those who oppose opposition to flag burning

Here's your chance to voice your impotent opposition. http://www.esquilax.com/flag/

 

[Bruzilla]

At first I was in agreement with rraley, but then I thought maybe it would be helpful if I actually read the 1st ammendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

A simple reading shows that some arguments put forth on this thread are invalid. First, the ammendment does not provide anyone a right to free speech. All it does is restrict the Congress from passing any law that abridges freedom of speech. Second, note that there is no language that protects civil disobedience or actions besides assembling peaceably and petitioning the government for redress.

Not that I can speak for the Founding Fathers, but the restrictions on Congress IRT not restricting speech, assembly, the press, or the ability to seek redress, were primarily meant to ensure that Americans would be able to criticize the government, and seek redress of harm from same. In the 1700s, being critical of the government meant getting up on a box in town square and speaking your mind, or writing critical articles in the paper. My belief is that IRT personal actions, the ammendment was written to allow a group to freely gather and speak their protests against the government... things that were banned in England. At the time there were no "sit-ins", marches, etc., so there was no reason to specifically call those out in the ammendment.

So then I think the question goes to would the Founding Fathers have added actions like flag burning to the ammendment? I would say no, and for this reason. The 1st ammendment deals with the ability of the people to protest against the government, not the United States of America. Our government was purposely designed to change every two to six years, but the United States of America was meant to be a constant. The U.S. flag is not a symbol of the government, it is a symbol of our country, which is why, as Ken points out, the rules for the treatment of our symbol were so carefully thought out. I think that this view is validated by the fact that one of the more popular forms of protest in the 1700s was to burn a leader in effigy, and this was done in many countries. The effigy of the leader represented the government, not the country.

The 1st ammendment allows any American to criticize the government, but not to disrespect our country or it's symbols, so I'm with the Congress on this one.

 

[rraley]

Here's my reasoning that the action of flag burning, though offensive, is a constitutionally protected right that should not be overturned by a later amendment. I believe that the act of flag-burning, though an action, constitutes expressive speech due the symbolism of such an action.

First of all, the offensiveness of certain ideas or speech does not make such speech worthy of government punishment. I believe that if we are not to provide the freedom of speech to people that we hate, we do not stand for the freedom of speech, which is constitutionally guaranteed (Congress cannot pass a law that abridges it as Bru pointed out). The KKK has the right to distribute their hateful ideas and march just as the Black Panthers have the right to distribute their equally hateful ideas and march. The First Amendment provides them that right and I have never been one to accept the argument that "well, what about my freedom from hearing those ideas?" If you find the ideas hateful, don't listen and protest back at them...simple. Flag-burning is a hateful act that offends me; if a protestor does such an action, I won't take his or her message as seriously, but I fully support their right to distribute their ideas and to communicate them in any form they choose.

Flag-burning conveys that idea that the United States government is not advocating policies that are agreeable to a person. For example, take the original Supreme Court case that set the topic of flag burning on the political forefront...it was Texas v. Johnson in which the defendant Gregory Lee Johnson was originally arrested for the illegal burning of an American flag as a protest of the policies of the Reagan Administration. So Bru, he wasn't advocating hatred of our country, but rather the hatred of Reagan and his policies. He also wanted the United States government to adopt communism as its main economic theory; that is a critique of governmental policy, not our nation as you contended.

Flag burning holds an international value and it is discernable to people across the globe. When people in Japan see an American flag burning they can sense what ideas the doer holds. It holds a symbolic importance that protestors can utilize to advance their ideas. This symbolism, like a sign or a drawing or a gesture, is what causes this action to be defined as symbolic speech and the United States Congress has no right to overwrite the Bill of Rights with a later amendment in the name of "patriotism."

 

[2ndAmendment]

I wish I still had the video of when that idiot was burning the American flag and set himself on fire.

Ask and yea shall recieve.

 

[2ndAmendment]

... For example, take the original Supreme Court case that set the topic of flag burning on the political forefront...it was Texas v. Johnson in which the defendant Gregory Lee Johnson was originally arrested for the illegal burning of an American flag as a protest of the policies of the Reagan Administration. So Bru, he wasn't advocating hatred of our country, but rather the hatred of Reagan and his policies. He also wanted the United States government to adopt communism as its main economic theory; that is a critique of governmental policy, not our nation as you contended.

He should have made a effigy of Reagan and not burned the flag. Sounds like he was lazy or really was against the country since he advocated communism; a total departure from the way of the United States.

Flag burning holds an international value and it is discernable to people across the globe. When people in Japan see an American flag burning they can sense what ideas the doer holds. It holds a symbolic importance that protestors can utilize to advance their ideas. This symbolism, like a sign or a drawing or a gesture, is what causes this action to be defined as symbolic speech

An international viewer of a person or group burning a flag who does not understand the story would, in my opinion, think that the person or group hated the country not just the government.

and the United States Congress has no right to overwrite the Bill of Rights with a later amendment in the name of "patriotism."

Yes, they do; at least to initiatiate the process. It still must be approved by the Senate and the states. That is why there is an amendment process.

All that said and as detestable as desecrating the U.S. flag is to me, I do not agree with the amendment.

 

[vraiblonde]

Ask and yea shall recieve.

That just makes me feel good inside!

 

[Bruzilla]

Nice points RR, but the Founding Fathers did not write the first ammendment to protect hate speech, to protect the rights of the KKK, to allow Martin Luther King to address prejudice, or to allow someone to scream fire in a theater. They wrote it to protect specific events, which were the ability of the American people to protest against their government. I would like to think that the Founding Fathers were smart enough to know that government can't control feelings of hatred or dislike between people, but more likely they didn't even consider the issue. They were out to prevent the United States from becoming like England, where people who opposed the government, in speech or in press, were persecuted.

Over the years, various legal precedents have altered the 1st ammendment and expanded its purpose, much like those a-holes in the Supreme Court unjustly expanded the 5th ammendment. So everything that "conventional wisdom" says is now covered by the 1st ammendment is a: not necessarily what the Founding Fathers wanted protected, and b: subject to reconsideration at any time. If we were to follow your example, that the ACTION of burning an American flag (a violation of US law) in order to protest the US Government is legal, then we would have to accept that the assassination of an American politician (also a violation of US law) in order to protest the US Government would also be an action protected as "freedom of speech." Under your understanding the ACTION of murdering three civil rights advocates as a means of protesting the end of segregation laws would be protected as "freedom of speech." You see what happens when you expand the scope and meaning of a well-worded and concise principal?

Since the US Code clearly spells out that it is a crime to desecrate or destroy the flag, then what a flag burner is doing is violation of Federal law. The 1st Ammendment says that you can speak your mind, you can write and publish whatever you want, and you can seek redress if you suffer damages... it does not cover taking ACTIONS such as burning flags, assassinating leaders, or breaking any laws. And just as the American judicial system can expand through precedent the meaning of an ammendment, the legislative branch can tighten it back down, and in this case they're right to do so.

 

[2ndAmendment]

That just makes me feel good inside!

Did you see this? I had another one I thought you would appreciate, but the file is bigger than 2 Megs, so the upload would not work.

 

[ylexot]

Did you see the 50 cal (I think) sniper video? I think it was from Afghanistan. At first, I thought it was cannon fire!

 

[Ken King]

Nice points RR, but the Founding Fathers did not write the first ammendment to protect hate speech, to protect the rights of the KKK, to allow Martin Luther King to address prejudice, or to allow someone to scream fire in a theater. They wrote it to protect specific events, which were the ability of the American people to protest against their government. I would like to think that the Founding Fathers were smart enough to know that government can't control feelings of hatred or dislike between people, but more likely they didn't even consider the issue. They were out to prevent the United States from becoming like England, where people who opposed the government, in speech or in press, were persecuted.

Over the years, various legal precedents have altered the 1st ammendment and expanded its purpose, much like those a-holes in the Supreme Court unjustly expanded the 5th ammendment. So everything that "conventional wisdom" says is now covered by the 1st ammendment is a: not necessarily what the Founding Fathers wanted protected, and b: subject to reconsideration at any time. If we were to follow your example, that the ACTION of burning an American flag (a violation of US law) in order to protest the US Government is legal, then we would have to accept that the assassination of an American politician (also a violation of US law) in order to protest the US Government would also be an action protected as "freedom of speech." Under your understanding the ACTION of murdering three civil rights advocates as a means of protesting the end of segregation laws would be protected as "freedom of speech." You see what happens when you expand the scope and meaning of a well-worded and concise principal?

Since the US Code clearly spells out that it is a crime to desecrate or destroy the flag, then what a flag burner is doing is violation of Federal law. The 1st Ammendment says that you can speak your mind, you can write and publish whatever you want, and you can seek redress if you suffer damages... it does not cover taking ACTIONS such as burning flags, assassinating leaders, or breaking any laws. And just as the American judicial system can expand through precedent the meaning of an ammendment, the legislative branch can tighten it back down, and in this case they're right to do so.

Ooh-rah. Well said.

 

[rraley]

Nice points RR, but the Founding Fathers did not write the first ammendment to protect hate speech, to protect the rights of the KKK, to allow Martin Luther King to address prejudice, or to allow someone to scream fire in a theater. They wrote it to protect specific events, which were the ability of the American people to protest against their government. I would like to think that the Founding Fathers were smart enough to know that government can't control feelings of hatred or dislike between people, but more likely they didn't even consider the issue.

It does not cover taking ACTIONS such as burning flags, assassinating leaders, or breaking any laws. And just as the American judicial system can expand through precedent the meaning of an ammendment, the legislative branch can tighten it back down, and in this case they're right to do so.

I am not one to put much emphasis on "founder" arguments. It's my nature not to accept such arguments (I also don't care to analyze "what the poet is trying to say here"...f the poet, he's dead and he wrote his poems so we would have our own reaction to it). We can't ask the founders exactly what they think because they are dead and I really do not care to guess what they think because I think that it is impossible. They lived so long ago in such a different age and they advocated a sense of morality that is very different from what we have today. All I know is that they have handed down "guidelines" for us to follow. They formed a government in which freedom was accepted and the consent of the governed is required...those are the overarching themes in the Constitution and they are what I operate under.

Now Bru you take my logic and grossly distort it to an extreme. I am not saying that murder or destruction of others' property are actions that are constitutionally protected as speech. Expressive speech includes displaying a Red flag to show support for communism, flipping a bird, burning a flag. These actions do not infringe upon the rights of others (such as the right of a livinig person to life or the right to protection for personal property) and have the symbolic value of opposing the governmental policy and structure of America.

A Flag Burning Amendment would detract from the First Amendment and I, for one, am not an advocate of that.

 

[ylexot]

I am not one to put much emphasis on "founder" arguments. It's my nature not to accept such arguments (I also don't care to analyze "what the poet is trying to say here"...f the poet, he's dead and he wrote his poems so we would have our own reaction to it). We can't ask the founders exactly what they think because they are dead and I really do not care to guess what they think because I think that it is impossible. They lived so long ago in such a different age and they advocated a sense of morality that is very different from what we have today. All I know is that they have handed down "guidelines" for us to follow. They formed a government in which freedom was accepted and the consent of the governed is required...those are the overarching themes in the Constitution and they are what I operate under.

A Flag Burning Amendment would detract from the First Amendment and I, for one, am not an advocate of that.

You seem very quick to dismiss the Founding Fathers, but put so much emphasis on protecting the First Amendment...interesting.

BTW - the Founding Fathers were not just some reasonably intelligent guys who didn't like England...they were some of the best political and social philosophers of all time who drew not only from their own experiences but also the teachings and experiences of other philosophers and history. What they made, while not perfect, is simply amazing to me. So much (not all) of what they wrote over 200 years ago is still applicable today. How can you be so quick to dismiss what they wrote?

 

[rraley]

You seem very quick to dismiss the Founding Fathers, but put so much emphasis on protecting the First Amendment...interesting.

BTW - the Founding Fathers were not just some reasonably intelligent guys who didn't like England...they were some of the best political and social philosophers of all time who drew not only from their own experiences but also the teachings and experiences of other philosophers and history. What they made, while not perfect, is simply amazing to me. So much (not all) of what they wrote over 200 years ago is still applicable today. How can you be so quick to dismiss what they wrote?

Ylexot, I am not quick to dismiss them entirely...I just do not place as much emphasis on the exact letter of what they stated or exactly what they were trying to protect a long time ago. Did you see the part of my earlier post where I stated that I like to operate under the main themes that they created in the Constitution?

 

[ylexot]

I just do not place as much emphasis on the exact letter of what they stated or exactly what they were trying to protect a long time ago.

I think we're trying to figure out what you are trying to protect now. It seems to me you are trying to protect the letter of the law (the way you read it) and not the freedom that is protected by the First Amendment (the freedom to criticize the government). I fail to see how burning the flag criticizes the govenment. To me it screams "I hate America". If that's what you want to say...fine. Get out. If you want to say what you think the government is doing wrong, fine. I'll stand behind your right to say it even if I disagree with it.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Did you see the 50 cal (I think) sniper video? I think it was from Afghanistan. At first, I thought it was cannon fire!

Yeah. I have it, but thought it would be offensive to some.

 

[2ndAmendment]

I am not one to put much emphasis on "founder" arguments. It's my nature not to accept such arguments (I also don't care to analyze "what the poet is trying to say here"...f the poet, he's dead and he wrote his poems so we would have our own reaction to it). We can't ask the founders exactly what they think because they are dead and I really do not care to guess what they think because I think that it is impossible. They lived so long ago in such a different age and they advocated a sense of morality that is very different from what we have today. All I know is that they have handed down "guidelines" for us to follow. They formed a government in which freedom was accepted and the consent of the governed is required...those are the overarching themes in the Constitution and they are what I operate under.

...

Amazing.

That is typical liberal speak. The Constitution is just a set of guidelines not the absolute foundation and authority of all subsequent federal law. If the Constitution is not the absolute authority, there is none therefore we each can interpret the Constitution to mean whatever we please and to heck with anyone else.

Unlike the poet, the founders expressed exactly what the thought process was in constructing the Constitution in the Federalist Papers.

The Constitution is the authority for all other law.All law must conform to the Constitution; not the other way around. Of course few legislators at any level want to admit or conform to that fact, because it places limits on the power they so desperately want. That abuse of power is evident at most if not all levels of government because the people are too ... ignorant ... dumb ... unconcerned ... uninvolved ... to hold the government officials to the limits of their power. Although I have not researched the Calvert County founding document, I doubt that it authorizes the county commissioners to spend tax revenue on building ball diamonds and public pools yet many millions of dollars are being spent to do just that.

Every tax dollar that is spent at any level where the founding document does not grant that power to the governing body is fraudulently spent and collected. Do away with the federal budget line items that have no Constitutional authority and 2/3s of the national budget disappears.

But back to the subject. I do not agree that flag burning is protected as free speech, therefore I do not think we need an amendment. We need to impeach judges that are acting outside their Constitution authority.

 

[SamSpade]

To me it screams "I hate America". If that's what you want to say...fine. Get out. If you want to say what you think the government is doing wrong, fine. I'll stand behind your right to say it even if I disagree with it.

But if I want to actually SAY "I hate America" - does the First Amendment protect my God-given right?

Do I have the right to display a Nazi flag on my property? How about a confederate flag? Can I burn a cross on my own property, along with signs with racial slurs on them - on my own property?

Can I burn the flag of another country - say, *France*? So it is ok to demonstrate and say, I hate France, but it is wrong to say that about the United States? Can I burn a Confederate flag? An effigy of Uncle Sam?

I do see this as a freedom of expression thing. While people are splitting hairs over whether or not we are insulting "the United States" or its government, the fact is I've never seen a U.S. flag burned where it wasn't part of a mob protest against SOME thing the government has done. You yourself may FEEL slighted, but it's clearly a protest against the US government, whether it is its policies in Vietnam, in Lebanon, in Israel, in El Salvador, in Iran, in Cambodia, in Cuba - wherever.

I do think this is an area where people feel so strongly about it, they can't argue objectively. I didn't grow up in an envrionment where the very idea of a flag touching the ground was a horror never to be allowed - the flag is not a "holy" thing, not a sacred relic. I am frequently in the company of such persons - I respect, but do not share, their reverence. (I have similar regard to things such as the "sanctuary" in a church - it is a place of worship, but *GOD* does not reside there. Whenever I've suggested a church sanctuary be used as a daycare center, I get horrified looks from people, as though the very thought of keeping an expensive building EMPTY all week is preferable to actually USING it for the good of others).

Like seatbelt laws - I *obey* them. But not at all because I respect the rationale behind them - I just don't want to go afoul of the law and pay a fine. I can just as easily follow the current laws respecting the flag, but I think going so far as to change our Constitution is overkill.

It's like adding an amendment to not murder or steal - it is not needed.

 

[Bruzilla]

I am not one to put much emphasis on "founder" arguments. It's my nature not to accept such arguments (I also don't care to analyze "what the poet is trying to say here"...f the poet, he's dead and he wrote his poems so we would have our own reaction to it).

Now Bru you take my logic and grossly distort it to an extreme. I am not saying that murder or destruction of others' property are actions that are constitutionally protected as speech. Expressive speech includes displaying a Red flag to show support for communism, flipping a bird, burning a flag. These actions do not infringe upon the rights of others (such as the right of a livinig person to life or the right to protection for personal property) and have the symbolic value of opposing the governmental policy and structure of America.

rr, how can you say that you're ameanable to changing a law or rule, without giving due thought to the law/rule's original intent? You do not need a quija board or a sceance to understand what the intent of the Founding Fathers was. They left England and opted to create a government that would right the wrongs of the society they left. It was a brilliant and non-self serving effort... one of the few in history. No offense... but I've noticed that Liberals have no problem with strict interpretation of original intent when the reading of an ammendment supports their cause, and get a bit fuzzy on the issue when it doesn't.

And I did not distort your logic. You are the one who says that we should extend 1st ammendment protection to include actions, including illegal actions. What then gives you the right to determine what actions are acceptable and unacceptable when bestowing that option? How many laws have been deemed unconstitutional for being arbitrary or too specific? Abortion laws get tossed all the time on those grounds. So how can you make the case that breaking the law by burning the flag for free speech is okay, but shooting someone for the same reason is not okay? Either you have free speech or you do not, and you shouldn't be able to "cherry pick" the conditions of it.

The original purpose of the 1st ammendment, in this context, was to protect political dissent in the form of speech, print, and redress. There is nothing in the ammendment that says that you have a right to commit illegal actions in making your case. Also, please note that the ammendment does not confer any rights or priviledges to the citizens, it only limits Congress's ability to pass laws limiting speech, writing, or seeking redress, so it doesn't say that anything is allowable or legal.

 

[2ndAmendment]

The original purpose of the 1st ammendment, in this case, was to protect political dissent in the form of speech, print, and redress. There is nothing in the ammendment that says that you have a right to commit illegal actions in making your case.

 

[Pete]

I am not one to put much emphasis on "founder" arguments.

That is why you are doomed to suffer the atrocities that those honorable men rose up against. Learn from history or repeat it.