Skip to comments.Don't worry, Old Glory can take the heat
Posted on 06/26/2005 2:47:31 AM PDT by mal
The House of Representatives passed a constitutional amendment on flag burning last week, in the course of which Rep. Randy ''Duke'' Cunningham (Republican of California) made the following argument:
''Ask the men and women who stood on top of the Trade Center. Ask them and they will tell you: Pass this amendment."
Unlike Congressman Cunningham, I wouldn't presume to speak for those who died atop the World Trade Center. For one thing, citizens of more than 50 foreign countries, from Argentina to Zimbabwe, were killed on 9/11. Of the remainder, maybe some would be in favor of a flag-burning amendment; and maybe some would think that criminalizing disrespect for national symbols is unworthy of a free society. And maybe others would roll their eyes and say that, granted it's been clear since about October 2001 that the federal legislature has nothing useful to contribute to the war on terror, and its hacks and poseurs prefer to busy themselves with a lot of irrelevant grandstanding with a side order of fries, but they could at least quit dragging us into it.
(Excerpt) Read more at suntimes.com ...
Your are right about one thing. Old Glory cannot be defamed by flames..or flaming AH's.
But we can at least punish those who defame Old Glory equally with those that defame the Qoran..no less protection than the Satanic Verses.
Not meaning any disrespect, I have always felt that if there was a time for me to burn a flag, it would be when some clown passed a law saying I can't.
"Not meaning any disrespect, I have always felt that if there was a time for me to burn a flag, it would be when some clown passed a law saying I can't."
That's worth a big ole bump.
It's time for me to blow up the Federal building in OKC when some clown passes a law that says I can't -eh?It's time to bring down the World Trade Center when some clown passes a law that says I can't? It's time to burn a cross on someones lawn when someone says I can't? The freakin' Communist who burned a stolen flag in Texas credited by the faggots in black robes with an act of Protected speech-even when they themselves admitted it was a despicable act --is
now training others to do as he did. You get more of that
behavior that is rewarded by protection...............
Around 15 years ago, Louisiana passed a law that didn't ban flag burning per se, but made it legal to beat the living hell out of the scumbag who did burn Old Glory. Sadly, it was struck down in the courts.
Passing a flag burning law or an amendment to the constitution is as ridiculous as passing hate crime laws.
No one is going to burn my flag without a fight and/or having the perp arrested for destruction of private property.
There is a much bigger problem when it comes to flag burning or desecration, and that is it is impossible to truly define what a flag is.
Actually, we had laws on the books for almost 50 years until SCOTUS declared them unconstituional in 1989 and 1990.
"Criminal penalties for certain acts of desecration to the flag were contained in Title 18 of the United States Code prior to 1989. The Supreme Court decision in Texas v. Johnson; June 21, 1989, held the statute unconstitutional. This statute was amended when the Flag Protection Act of 1989 (Oct. 28, 1989) imposed a fine and/or up to I year in prison for knowingly mutilating, defacing, physically defiling, maintaining on the floor or trampling upon any flag of the United States. The Flag Protection Act of 1989 was struck down by the Supreme Court decision, United States vs. Eichman, decided on June 11, 1990."
We still have laws on books making it a crime to deface US currency. "Whoever mutilates, cuts, defaces, disfigures, or perforates, or unites or cements together, or does any other thing to any bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt issued by any national banking association, or Federal Reserve bank, or the Federal Reserve System, with intent to render such bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt unfit to be reissued, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
We have an even bigger problem than that. We have liberal, activist judges legislating from the bench. If the majority of people believe that flag desecration laws abridge free speech, then they should seek redress through their legislators. SCOTUS should never have been involved in this issue.
A good question to ask those who would criminalize desecration of the flag is: Do you favor criminalizing the desecration of the holy books (e.g. the Koran or the Bible) or criminalizing vilifying religions?".
I believe that the last time I looked God commanded us to put Him ahead of all, including family and country, and most certainly our country's flag.
A flag can be a piece of cloth, paper or plastic. It can be on a postage stamp, a T-Shirt, a mail box or even on a car in a used car lot. Am I going to be arrested when I use a worn out flag T-Shirt to wipe an oil dip stick in my car? Just as it is impossible to get inside the head of a person charged in a hate crime, it is impossible to determine the state of mind of a person who destroys a flag.
Woops, I did not read far enough into the Steyn column to see that he made the same connection near the end. Everytime I shoot my mouth off (or keyboard off in this case) before I finish reading, I screw something up. Sorry.
All passing this amendment would do is turn flag-burning into a genuinely potent symbol.
Right now, since it's legal, it's about the most cowardly and ineffectual way of making a statement there is. Anybody who does it looks like a total ass, because they're not risking anything.
Passing this amendment would only encourage flag-burning. It'd give it respectability as a symbol of subversiveness, where now it has none.
Obviously, it is possible to write laws (and Constitutional Amendements) describing what constitutes flag desecration. We had flag desecration laws on the books for almost half a century. Without reading these laws, I doubt if any of the specific you mentioned would be covered or be worthy of prosecution. Flag desecration is like pornography, you know it when you see it.
I could go along with that. I'm not opposed to using the Constitutional Amendment option, as that is the only option allowed to us in the balance of powers to check a run-away judiciary --- which is exactly what we have right now. But if the same can be accomplished without an amendment, that's wonderful. I will s.t.h.u. on this topic the very first time a flag-burning puke is prosecuted under incitement to riot :-)