Flag Protection Amendment

[A18]

Yes, it matters since I was responding to someone who cited the U.S. flag code's text, "The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning" as a reason not to pass the amendment.

The Congress should have the power to ban flag burning in the territories, and the states should have that power within their boundaries.

[??????????]

I'd much rather prefer a revival of the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) over some silly constitutional amendment to stop treasonous acts by those who hate America.

I didn't know you despised America that much.

No, I love America. We really need it these days since the extreme left is becoming a very threat to our existence as a nation.

[Alcon]

I'd much rather prefer a revival of the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) over some silly constitutional amendment to stop treasonous acts by those who hate America.

I didn't know you despised America that much.

No, I love America. We really need it these days since the extreme left is becoming a very threat to our existence as a nation.

Much like...hmm...the Confederacy?

[John Dibble]

The Congress should have the power to ban flag burning in the territories, and the states should have that power within their boundaries.

Why?


BTW - people should write their Senators telling them to vote against this crap. http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

For those who are in favor of the amendment here's a suggestion: In the unlikely event you encounter someone burning a US flag, take his picture and then burn the picture. You will then have done as much harm to him as he did to America, zero!

correct.

and once again Doesn't Congress hav emore important things to worry about than this "issue"? And if we're going to amend the Constitution which has only been done 27 times in the past, shouldn't it be over something a little more serious?

[Cashcow]

If this was already declared unconstitutional...

[A18]

The Congress should have the power to ban flag burning in the territories, and the states should have that power within their boundaries.

Why?


BTW - people should write their Senators telling them to vote against this crap. http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

I should be more clear. I would support a federal constitutional amendment banning the fed from restricting flag burning in the territories, and a state constitutional amendment banning my state from restricting flag burning in Virginia. However, no such amendments exist, and so I believe the Congress has to legal right to legislate in these matters. Just because I don't like something, doesn't mean it should be declared unconstitutional.

If this was already declared unconstitutional...

Then what? It was declared unconstitutional. That's kind of the point to the amendment.

[The Duke]

If this was already declared unconstitutional...

A statute was declared unconstitutional, not an Amendment.

[A18]

Well, actually a series of state state statutes. I'm sure he understands that the amendment was not found unconstitutional.

And if we're going to amend the Constitution which has only been done 27 times in the past, shouldn't it be over something a little more serious?

Yeah, and really only 18 times (ten of those articles were added at once).

[MODU]

Well, actually a series of state state statutes. I'm sure he understands that the amendment was not found unconstitutional.

All but one state had laws against desecrating the flag before the ruling in 1989.  And the ruling came about due to a criminal charged with vandalism as well as flag desecration.  It was a bad ruling by the Court, and the Court should reverse their decision before the amendment goes through.  Of course, the Court won't, so the only other option is the amendment.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Well, actually a series of state state statutes. I'm sure he understands that the amendment was not found unconstitutional.

All but one state had laws against desecrating the flag before the ruling in 1989.  And the ruling came about due to a criminal charged with vandalism as well as flag desecration.  It was a bad ruling by the Court, and the Court should reverse their decision before the amendment goes through.  Of course, the Court won't, so the only other option is the amendment.

ah, what a tragic ruling. Now because of it we can't walk outside without seeing a flag being burned and America is so much worse off....oh wait. Flag burnings have actually gone down significantly since then and the country is no different than it would've been otherwise. Leave the Constitution alone, something like this is not worth altering it over.

[PBrunsel]

"If you want to protest injustice don't burn the American flag, wash it."
- Norman Thomas

I am in favor of finally passing this amendment.

[Cashcow]

Well, actually a series of state state statutes. I'm sure he understands that the amendment was not found unconstitutional.

Yeah, that's what I meant. Thanks

[Nation]

What a horrible waste of an amendment -- not to mention a stupid one in and of itself.



I already have friends (Libertarian friends, actually) planning on finding a way to legally protest this in DC.

[Emsworth]

Well, actually a series of state state statutes. I'm sure he understands that the amendment was not found unconstitutional.

All but one state had laws against desecrating the flag before the ruling in 1989.  And the ruling came about due to a criminal charged with vandalism as well as flag desecration.  It was a bad ruling by the Court, and the Court should reverse their decision before the amendment goes through.  Of course, the Court won't, so the only other option is the amendment.

The ruling is perfectly in harmony with precedent - Tinker v. Des Moines, Spence v. Washington, Stromberg v. California, etc. It does not matter that a lot of states had laws to the contrary; the ruling was correct.

[nclib]

Absolutely not.

Forced patriotism is ridiculous and hypocritical.

[A18]

While I'm rather neutral on this amendment, it is not "forced patriotism" of any kind.