Flag Protection Amendment

[MODU]

"A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. "

The House is to vote today on the Flag Amendment.  This will be the seventh time since 1989, and will probably pass once again.  However, it keeps failing in the Senate by just a handful of votes (needs 67 votes).

1)  Is the amendment needed?

2)  Is burning the flag protected as freedom of "speech?"

[MODU]

Ok, question then . . . how is burning the flag "speech?"  It's an action.  The first amendment does not address action.

"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."

Some say "expression" is implied in the first amendment.  If that is the case, then why is the "press" specifically mentioned?  Writing is an "expression" of speech.

[MODU]

No one has yet explained how flag burning is protected under the First Amendment.  The only "actions" (since burning is an action) listed are the actions of petition and assembling peacefully.

[MODU]

No one has yet explained how flag burning is protected under the First Amendment.  The only "actions" (since burning is an action) listed are the actions of petition and assembling peacefully.

I don't know that it is protected under the first amendment, but I do know Congress has no right to ban it in the 50 states right now. See: tenth amendment, enumerated powers.

Almost all of the states have or had laws banning/prosecuting it before the Supreme Court sided with a criminal.

[MODU]

No one has yet explained how flag burning is protected under the First Amendment.  The only "actions" (since burning is an action) listed are the actions of petition and assembling peacefully.

Speaking is also an action

Which is directly addressed.  So is the Press.  Nothing is in there regarding "expression," which the majority of those who oppose the ban claim is implied.  Nothing within the first amendment covers flag burning.

[MODU]

No one has yet explained how flag burning is protected under the First Amendment.  The only "actions" (since burning is an action) listed are the actions of petition and assembling peacefully.

Speaking is also an action

Which is directly addressed.  So is the Press.  Nothing is in there regarding "expression," which the majority of those who oppose the ban claim is implied.  Nothing within the first amendment covers flag burning.

Nor online message boards.

Exactly.  This could easily be closed down, unless you want to put up an argument that this falls under the "press" since the press is speech in written form.

[MODU]

No one has yet explained how flag burning is protected under the First Amendment.  The only "actions" (since burning is an action) listed are the actions of petition and assembling peacefully.

Speaking is also an action

Which is directly addressed.  So is the Press.  Nothing is in there regarding "expression," which the majority of those who oppose the ban claim is implied.  Nothing within the first amendment covers flag burning.

Nor online message boards.

Exactly.  This could easily be closed down, unless you want to put up an argument that this falls under the "press" since the press is speech in written form.

So you think the government should be able to control what gets said through the online medium?

There is a lot about the internet which the government needs to go through and establish laws/parameters on.  Unfortunately/Fortunately they are slow to react.  Maybe online communication needs to be defined as speech, or associated with the press.

[MODU]

Horrible idea. Congress has lost its mind. Not that it ever had one to begin with.

This has been going on since 1990.  Each time the bill is introduced, it passes the 67% mark in the House with no problem.  It just fails in the Senate by a few votes. 

[MODU]

From the US flag code:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.usflag.org/uscode36.html


Why do the supporters of this amendment hate America?

Retiring a flag is not desecration.  The proper way to retire a flag that is no longer in displayable condition is through buring it in a respectable manner.  Stomping on it, burning it, or tearing it for any other reason is desecration.

[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.