New Amendment in the works to ban flag desecration

[FightinDaMan]

Now that the Republicans have picked up 5 more seats in the Senate (since they missed the spot by 4 in 2000), they are ready to try again to limit First Amendment rights by making any intentional damage to the flag a punishable offense.

A proposal to amend the Constitution to give Congress the power to prohibit physical desecration of the flag is set to go before the House soon, and a parallel bill is also going through the works in the Senate. Not only that, but a "Flag Protection Act" which proposes specific punishments for destroying the flag "in circumstances likely to produce imminent violence" (vaguely worded for maximum use), and for the destruction of flags belonging to the government or "another person" has already been proposed in the House as well.

[Wadi66]

Good. Its about time. I really got fed up with the hippies of my generation using the BS "its all about free speech". Especially when I knew their movement and ideology was being financed by the Communist Party USA.

It would be a pleasant change FDM if you were to demostrate greater loyality to this country and what it was suppose to stand for. Buying into that propaganda undremines everything our ancestors fought for.

[Avid_Liberal_Hater]

Ordinarily, I'm not in support of anything that prohibits freedom of expression. Flag burning, however, is treason.

I support this amendment.

[FightinDaMan]

Good. Its about time. I really got fed up with the hippies of my generation using the BS "its all about free speech". Especially when I knew their movement and ideology was being financed by the Communist Party USA.

It would be a pleasant change FDM if you were to demostrate greater loyality to this country and what it was suppose to stand for. Buying into that propaganda undremines everything our ancestors fought for.


I have no loyalty to this country, nor to any other, and the amount of reverence we accord our flag is tantamount to idol worship. The backing and political orientation of those who burned flas in the 60s is not the issue at hand, but rather that the US government is attempting to prohibit a specific means of criticism of the United States as a political entity. The flag represents the US government, and to compel respect for it is against everything that was intended when this country was founded. Conservatives love to point out that burning a flag because you hate Bush is dumb because it's not Bush's flag, I'm aware of that. For those who find the way this country, from adminstration to adminstration, from term to term, conducts its national and foreign policy intolerable, for those who find the materialism, the sense of entitlement, and the general gluttonous decadence that has come to be America's image disgusting, burning the flag is a statement of opposition to this. It is not treason, becuase it does not imply allegiance with an enemy of the United States. Those in your generation may have done so, but that again, is not the point.

Were the UN to make it a crime to desecrate the UN flag within the territory of any member nation, I'm sure you all would be kicking and screaming.

[HOKIEHUNTER]

The flag represents the US government

NOPE, the falg has 50 stars on it, one for each state. the flag represents this country. as a tax paying citizen of this country i do believe that I am in fact part of that country which the flag represents. so yes burning the flag regarless of the party in power is showing disrespect to me personally and i take offense at someone disrespecting me. If i burn the black power symbols i'm labeled a racist and might be hunted down and shot. I don't have a problem with black people, just black supremecists. do you think that they care?

what does flag burning signify if not anti-american sentiment? you're not protesting the gov't you're being a prick and insulting the body (the people) of the united states.

The UN does not represent the American people. It was not here with the founding of the country. the UN doesn't support or represent America. We have the right to withdraw from the UN. the UN is not part of America, WE are part of the UN. The UN has no governance here.

I also believe as a collarary to this ammendment it should be made illegal to import the American flag. The American flag is a symbol of the contry and should be made here. If other countries wanna GIVE us flags outta respect to this country that's fine, but we should not have american flags flown in public that are made in communist china.

[Wadi66]

I have no loyalty to this country, nor to any other, and the amount of reverence we accord our flag is tantamount to idol worship. This sentiment pretty much explains why you don't understand. It also explains why the rest of your post is such utter BS. And because its complete BS, so totally without intelligence and merit, its almost not worth responding to. You have nothing to contribute to this country. The backing of the "flag burning" issue has EVERYTHING to do with it, but you're so uninformed and misinformed, you can't grasp that. Okay, so be it. Hopefully some day you'll realize you're being played the fool.

[Wadi66]

but we should not have american flags flown in public that are made in communist china.I totally agree.

[FightinDaMan]

This sentiment pretty much explains why you don't understand.

No, I understand very well. I understand that there are those who love this country. They exalt it above all others. Their country, and the people that live there, are chosen by God to be the greatest people of all. I also realize that this sentiment, if you look through history, has appeared nearly EVERYWHERE. Everybody is chosen in their own minds and it is all utter crap to justify the placing of one country's national interests above those of others. It's bullshit rhetoric which justifies the continued existence of an oppressive political system. This country is indeed unique. It was founded under, at the time, very unique circumstances. It was founded on good ideas: individual liberty and freedom from oppressive government. Unfortunately, it wasn't taken far enough at the time, and as the country has grown we have moved farther and farther away from those ideals on which this country was based. While we have extended Constitutional protections to those who were originally left out: non-whites, non-property-holders, and women, we have done nothing but grow and strengthen the federal government in the process, weakening the power of local governments, which are more responsive to the people, and the people themselves in the process. I may be an Anarchist, but as far as governments go, with the exception of excluding minorities, the one set up by the Constitution was pretty good. If we had that same government now I'd be a lot less unhappy.


It also explains why the rest of your post is such utter BS. And because its complete BS, so totally without intelligence and merit, its almost not worth responding to. You have nothing to contribute to this country.

It's a lot easier to insult and deride than to actually argue.


The backing of the "flag burning" issue has EVERYTHING to do with it, but you're so uninformed and misinformed, you can't grasp that.

No, the past is the past and you cannot make laws to change it. You cannot be charged for a crime with an ex post facto law and as such laws should be made concerning current and future problems, not those of the past. Making flag burning a treasonous activity because those who burned it in the 60s were traitors is a rediculous idea. The Cold War is over and the Communists are not living under your bed or in your closet any more.


Okay, so be it. Hopefully some day you'll realize you're being played the fool.

Care to explain who exactly it is that's playing me?

[Avid_Liberal_Hater]

I think most liberals who support flag-burning as an 'expression', probably don't support cross-burning as an 'expression'. Theyr'e both hateful symbols. FDM, what's your take on cross burning?

[WhiteAfricanAmerican]

I have no loyalty to this country, ....

Then pack your bags and LEAVE!


Pick which country you think is best for you, oooooo like Zimbabwe where the national pass time is murdering anything with a white skin, or different accent, and LEAVE.

I'll even buy your ticket for you.

[LiberalsAreBabyKillers!]

I have no loyalty to this country, nor to any other, and the amount of reverence we accord our flag is tantamount to idol worship. The backing and political orientation of those who burned flas in the 60s is not the issue at hand, but rather that the US government is attempting to prohibit a specific means of criticism of the United States as a political entity. The flag represents the US government, and to compel respect for it is against everything that was intended when this country was founded. Conservatives love to point out that burning a flag because you hate Bush is dumb because it's not Bush's flag, I'm aware of that. For those who find the way this country, from adminstration to adminstration, from term to term, conducts its national and foreign policy intolerable, for those who find the materialism, the sense of entitlement, and the general gluttonous decadence that has come to be America's image disgusting, burning the flag is a statement of opposition to this. It is not treason, becuase it does not imply allegiance with an enemy of the United States. Those in your generation may have done so, but that again, is not the point.

Were the UN to make it a crime to desecrate the UN flag within the territory of any member nation, I'm sure you all would be kicking and screaming.
No loyalty to this country? Sad, that just frickin' sad. Don't forget, if it wasn't for the million and a half troops that died, disrespectful assholes as yourself wouldn't have the right to run their large, decrepent, ugly mouths. No the flag doesn't represent the government exculsively, it represents everthing about America, especially the red, the blood that has been spilt for you that you in return have spat in. I don't get liberals. They often seem intelligent when it comes to math, science, acedemic stuff like that, but they make some points that leave people scrathing their heads as to how an intellectual could appear so dumb. NOT TREASON!!!!!!! FDM, you must be a hippie, 'cause I think you're as high as a kite. That's just silly. yep, I burn the flag that reprents the 1.5 million who have selflessly died for my arrogant ass, but whatever you do, don't question my patriotism!!!!!!
anyway, I do think that this constitutional amendment might pass as there probably are just enough moderate dems in congress to pass it. On the other hand, it might get thwarted by the "republicans" in congress who like to make deals with the dev-, I mean democrats and always come to some compromise. Who pass a bill killing our unborn, who water down the already too weak patriot act, who failed to kick that horny bastard slick Willy out of office. I just hope that this amendment can pass, because people who burn the flag aren't just satanically inappreciative, but they are DANGEROUS!!! people hostile enough to burn the flag are a major threat. Although this could fit under the first amendment, I think that this is a valid infringment, just like someone accused with treason doesn't get due process. This is NOTHING short of treason

[chi1088]

From the Bill (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:1:./temp/~c109qRZtDV::) being proposed:

"The Congress and the States shall have power to prohibit the act of desecration of the flag of the United States and to set criminal penalties for that act."

From the "Flag Protection Act of 2005" (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:6:./temp/~c109qRZtDV::):

To provide for protection of the flag of the United States.


`(a) Actions Promoting Violence- Any person who destroys or damages a flag of the United States with intent to provoke imminent violence or a breach of the peace, and in circumstances reasonably likely to produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

Part (a) I am perfectly understanding of. It makes sense. I just want to point out the fact that I don't think there has ever been a man in the history of America that changed the way politics was going by burning the flag. Yes, freedom of expression is on the line here but I can see how someone burning a flag could be provoking violence in the area that the burning is being done. I am more concerned for the people around the psycho who chose to express his dissent through burning the flag than the flag itself. A flag on fire is definitely a hazard to civilians.


`(b) Damaging a Flag Belonging to the United States- Any person who steals or knowingly converts to his or her use, or to the use of another, a flag of the United States belonging to the United States and intentionally destroys or damages that flag shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

Clear cut rules here need to be set. When is an American flag damaged or when is it considered to be destroyed? If I pin the flag to my backpack because I want to show off my patriotism and then it starts to fray on the edges and then the pins in it start to tear it apart, can I be prosecuted for destroying the flag? This can't be one of those "when we see it will know it" kind of things like people in Texas say about vulgar cheerleading.


`(c) Damaging a Flag of Another on Federal Land- Any person who, within any lands reserved for the use of the United States, or under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction thereof, steals or knowingly converts to his or her use, or to the use of another, a flag of the United States belonging to another person and intentionally destroys or damages that flag shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

Stealing someone else's flag should be a criminal offense. That's stealing. Your anti-American statements can be made in other ways. You don't need to steal flags. Once again, to reemphasize, a clear cut explanation of what a damaged flag or destroyed flag needs to be given if this passes. There can't be any doubt on what a destroyed or damaged flag is if people are going to start prosecuting people on how they treat the American flag.


`(e) Definition- As used in this section, the term `flag of the United States' means any flag of the United States, or any part thereof, made of any substance, of any size, in a form that is commonly displayed as a flag and would be taken to be a flag by the reasonable observer.'.

Section (e) is for you dumbasses out there that don't know what the "flag of the United States" really is. Perhaps, all you've seen are burned flags and have never gotten to see the real thing. Perhaps, all you've seen are damaged and desecrated flags and are missing out on this wondrous symbol.

Now here's a site. It tells people how to display the American flag (http://www.bhg.com/bhg/story.jhtml?storyid=/templatedata/bhg/story/data/displayingflag_july_02212002.xml&catref=cat290048) . So, let me ask these questions.

If someone wants to show patriotism 24 hours a day and can't afford a light to keep it illuminated in the darkness of the night, do they have to bring the flag inside just because they will be prosecuted for "desecrating" the flag if they don't? Is that even "desecration"?

What if the position of "the blue field" gets out of place, and what if I have a history of dissenting my country? Is it possible for me to be prosecuted for not having "the blue field" in the right position?

What if the flag I have that is "frayed, tattered, or otherwise inappropriate for display" is a memento that was given to me from a relative that has since passed on and I display it to remember how she loved this country? Do I have to fear prosecution? Am I desecrating it?

What happens if I display the flag in the wrong place on my car?

Bottom line: This has to be an ALL or nothing deal. For instance, in all situations that we see a frayed flag displayed, you will be prosecuted. In all situations that we see such and such, you will be fined. It can't be certain circumstances. This can't work like the death penalty does where some offenses that result in death are worse than others that result in death.

Also, does this have any chance of enforcement from police? Will they have time to deal with flag desecration while hoodlums are drug dealing and people are being shot up on the block?

Now ultimately what will happen if this passes is some trial will come up. It will go to the Supreme Court and people will have their eyes on it to see if they declare this Flag amendment unconstitutional. Chances are in the world we live in, it will be found unconstitutional. And you know what? All the time we spent trying to free the world of flag desecratin' people will have gone to waste.

Here's an idea. Start up a .org. PeopleAgainstFlagDesecration.org or PAFD.org and use it to raise awareness on how to treat the flag. The internet is powerful nowadays because so many use it. Forget this amendment. Don't bring law enforcement into this issue. The only way law enforcement should be involved is if the flag desecration going on is harmful to people nearby. Don't waste money on a trial. Police have better things to take care of and so do lawyers.

[owl_the_beatnik]

****Boring*****

[LiberalsAreBabyKillers!]

I say that a thin layer of gasoline is put in the interior of all flags, so anyone who is stupid enough to burn it will get their face blown off. That's a good punishment.

[WhiteAfricanAmerican]

Owl, what are you smoking?

That entire post of Chi's is probably the most reasonable I've seen out of him to date.

Chi: You keep this up, and we'll get along famously.

Now, to your questions.


If someone wants to show patriotism 24 hours a day and can't afford a light to keep it illuminated in the darkness of the night, do they have to bring the flag inside just because they will be prosecuted for "desecrating" the flag if they don't? Is that even "desecration"?

Technically speaking, one ought to bring the flag in at night if one does not have a lamp.

Practically it isn't gonna happen, and I doubt that any adminsitration would be stupid enough to haul me in because I don't bring my flag in at night.

I would not construe this as desecration.


What if the position of "the blue field" gets out of place, and what if I have a history of dissenting my country? Is it possible for me to be prosecuted for not having "the blue field" in the right position?

Somehow, if you have a history of dissention, I doubt you'd have what you would consider to be a symbol of that which you dissent from, hanging outside you house.

Be that as it may, unless you're making your own flag (again if you were a dissident, you sure as hell wouldn't be making your own flag; see logic above) I don't think you'd have to worry about getting the blue field wrong.



What if the flag I have that is "frayed, tattered, or otherwise inappropriate for display" is a memento that was given to me from a relative that has since passed on and I display it to remember how she loved this country? Do I have to fear prosecution? Am I desecrating it?

Technically, worn out flags are requested to be disposed of in a prescribed manner, for more info of that check with your local boy scouts, they know how to retire flags.

However, I doubt that would be considered desecration. Desecration boils down to intent. Now if your relative had burned that flag, that would put an entirely different spin on things, but again I doubt you'd be held accountable.


What happens if I display the flag in the wrong place on my car?

Nothing.


Bottom line: This has to be an ALL or nothing deal. For instance, in all situations that we see a frayed flag displayed, you will be prosecuted. In all situations that we see such and such, you will be fined. It can't be certain circumstances. This can't work like the death penalty does where some offenses that result in death are worse than others that result in death.


I disagree, this is more about people that willfully desecrate the flag.

For example, the question about the blue field. Let's say I am flying a US flag upside down. That would be desecration.

If I flew a flag that I had burned holes in or defaced with say spray paint.
That is desecration.


Also, does this have any chance of enforcement from police? Will they have time to deal with flag desecration while hoodlums are drug dealing and people are being shot up on the block?

That remains to be seen. Personally this will be one of those laws that generally go unenforced, unless there is a purpose for doing so. Like Al Capone couldn't be nailed for gangsterism (that's my own word btw) so they got him on tax evasion.

It's something someone can use when they feel like it.



Now ultimately what will happen if this passes is some trial will come up. It will go to the Supreme Court and people will have their eyes on it to see if they declare this Flag amendment unconstitutional. Chances are in the world we live in, it will be found unconstitutional. And you know what? All the time we spent trying to free the world of flag desecratin' people will have gone to waste.

Well, this is where people like me wig out over activist judges. A judges job is to judge, not legislate. If there is a law on the books about flag desecration, then the Judge must judge according to the law. Not, define law or strike down law.

The Legislative passes laws, the Judicial up holds them.

[FightinDaMan]

ALH: If you want to burn a cross that's fine, as long as you aren't doing it in front of some black guy's house.

WAA: I have no desire to leave here. I said I have no loyalty to any country. I see no reason to be loyal to such an entity because it is not in line with my beliefs and values.

LABK: Those who burn flags do not claim to be patriotic. You are confusing the mainstream liberals who say that not supporting the war doesn't make them un-patriotic with radicals.

[Wadi66]

No, I understand very well. I understand that there are those who love this country.You only think you understand FDM. You made some good points in this post however, every point you made fell on deaf ears because you prefaced it by declaring your disloyality. If you're upset with things as they are and want to invoke changes that will stem the tide, then wise up and learn some people skills. Learn the right way of presenting your views. All you have done so far is inflame others which accomplishes absolutely nothing. Therefore, you're views, no matter how valid, are invlaid to all who hear or read them.

It's a lot easier to insult and deride than to actually argue.There is no point in arguing with you FDM, anything I could try to explain is beyond your level of understanding. Period. Your understanding is still at the elementary level.

No, the past is the past and you cannot make laws to change it. You cannot be charged for a crime with an ex post facto law and as such laws should be made concerning current and future problems, not those of the past.Good God man, your lack of knowledge is beyond comprehension. I have posted so much regarding the 70's when these changes took root, have you not been reading them? Perhaps you think I'm some dumb *hit pot head who doesn't know what the *ell they're talking about. So let me tell you one more time FDM. I WAS THERE. I WAS PRESENT. I WAS APPROACHED BECAUSE OF THE POSITION I HELD IN THE DEMO PARTY. Every friggen "advancement" touted by the democrats was FIRST the brain child of the COMMUNIST PARTY USA. They had/have one agenda and one only. To bring down the government of the U.S. and replace it with first socialism to be followed by Communism. I don't know how much simplier to make it. You sit back and complain that people don't understand what is wrong with the USA then turn around and discount as nonsense eye witness testimony of the origin.

The Cold War is over and the Communists are not living under your bed or in your closet any more.B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T

Care to explain who exactly it is that's playing me?yeah FDM, the ones who convinced you that communism was dead. It isn't dead. Its FAR from dead. But they sure suckered you into thinking so. Ha ha ha ha ha. Who the sam hell do you think Kennedy is in bed with, or Kerry, or Clinton. These people chose to join to stay in politics, I chose to leave rather than join. Hello????? Good grief, the idiocy that prevails in the minds of our youth today is frightening.

[idontcarewhatuthink]

i have a general question about flag burning. Why is it primarily considered offensive to black people? I know the KKK does it but still, that would seem offensive to any Christian i think.

[DefacedCreation]

I am absolutely opposed to public flag-burning, since it is both arson and reckless endangerment of those around the flag-burner. Ceremonial cross-burning, however...

It's interesting - the original meaning of burning a flag (or just about anything) was a sign of honor. Norsemen would burn the bodies of their fallen warriors on boats of oak to honor their passage into Valhalla. Likewise, the standard procedure of disposing of an American flag after troops retreated was folding it and burning it, so as not to let it fall to the enemy.

Let's be realistic here: when you burn a flag, you're doing it to piss people off. It's legal to piss people off in this country, but when you do it in person, violence often results. I don't know the exact laws on the issue, but provoking violence isn't exactly the most prudent thing to do...

[Avid_Liberal_Hater]

ALH: If you want to burn a cross that's fine, as long as you aren't doing it in front of some black guy's house.

Then perhaps we should limit where the flag can be burned. Don't burn it anywhere near an American. Fair enough?

[FightinDaMan]

No, there's a difference. When the KKK burns a cross on a black person's front lawn, it's meant as direct threat to him. You want to burn the cross on your property, or at a demonstration, that's different. Making threats against somebody's life is illegal, that's the reason for this limitation.

Robert Byrd in a white hood burning a cross on a black guys front lawn is about the same as an anarchist bunring the flag outside the oval office, not just burning it anywhere near an American.

[Avid_Liberal_Hater]

No, there's a difference. When the KKK burns a cross on a black person's front lawn, it's meant as direct threat to him. You want to burn the cross on your property, or at a demonstration, that's different. Making threats against somebody's life is illegal, that's the reason for this limitation.

Robert Byrd in a white hood burning a cross on a black guys front lawn is about the same as an anarchist bunring the flag outside the oval office, not just burning it anywhere near an American.

Why couldn't an American take a flag burning as a threat? It's just meant to be protest? Then could the Klan take to the streets with burning crosses? Is that meant to be intimidation, even though it's not on a black guy's lawn?

[Count Rugen]

It's illegal to burn a cross on someone's lawn, no matter their color, because you're trespassing and causing property damage.

People who think burning the American flag isn't speech are, once again, only in favor of protecting the rights they agree with. It's the best way to root out the true Americans (like myself) and the Nationalists (like most of you).

So sad and so very misinformed.

[owl_the_beatnik]

So if I come to Dallas and burn something of yours, I can hide behind freedom of speech?

[Wadi66]

People who think burning the American flag isn't speech are, once again, only in favor of protecting the rights they agree with. It's the best way to root out the true Americans (like myself) and the Nationalists (like most of you).

So sad and so very misinformed.B-U-L-L-*-H-I-T
Genreations past have recognized the flag as a sign of patriotism. Then you have one pot smoking drug induced generation led my our enemies trying to convince everyone its just free speech. Anyone who believes them has been brainwashed.

"True American"? Not even close.