Amendment Against Flag Burning

[GeauxTo]

Would you be in favor of a constitutional amendment against burning (or otherwise desecrating) the flag of the United States of America?

[Neo]

This is a moot point. The US Supreme Court has already decided that this is a form of speech and that it cannot be restricted.

I may not like it, but the USSC has a point. :cool:

[GeauxTo]

This is a moot point. The US Supreme Court has already decided that this is a form of speech and that it cannot be restricted.

I may not like it, but the USSC has a point. :cool:
But wouldn't a Constitutional Amendment over ride the Court?
:confused:

[Neo]

But wouldn't a Constitutional Amendment over ride the Court?
:confused:


Nope..... :cool:

That's the job of the USSG. To determine the laws of this country based on our Constitution. :cool:

[drkralc]

What does that say for a country that can't even protect it's own flag from desecration? I can't burn a cross because that's offensive (not that I'd do this, just using it as a point) yet I can walk to the courthouse or the Capital building and burn the flag for all to see and expect little legal fallout. AMAZING!!!!

[GeauxTo]

Nope..... :cool:

That's the job of the USSG. To determine the laws of this country based on our Constitution. :cool:
But if the Constitution is amended to include that stipulation, I don't see how the Court could go against it. There would be no "interpretation" of the law; it would be a part of the country's Constitution and would, therefore, become a Constitutional law; no interpretation needed.
;)

[OmahaBound]

What does that say for a country that can't even protect it's own flag from desecration? I can't burn a cross because that's offensive (not that I'd do this, just using it as a point) yet I can walk to the courthouse or the Capital building and burn the flag for all to see and expect little legal fallout. AMAZING!!!!

the commonly interpreted meanings of those two actions are very different though, and that's why cross burning is illegal. burning a cross in someone's lawn is interpreted as a threat. burning a flag is interpreted as a sign of EXTREME disagreement with U.S. policy.

i don't like flag burning and i can't imagine a situation where i would ever feel it was appropriate, but i don't think a constitutional amendment would be appropriate either.

[Neo]

But if the Constitution is amended to include that stipulation, I don't see how the Court could go against it. There would be no "interpretation" of the law; it would be a part of the country's Constitution and would, therefore, become a Constitutional law; no interpretation needed.
;)



http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0496_0310_ZS.html

Enough said...


I can make all the amendments I want so to speak, but if they're ruled unconstitutional by the USSC, then I cannot enforce them. This issue has already been decided. :cool:

[Neo]

What does that say for a country that can't even protect it's own flag from desecration?


Freedom of speech. :cool:

[drkralc]

the commonly interpreted meanings of those two actions are very different though, and that's why cross burning is illegal. burning a cross in someone's lawn is interpreted as a threat. burning a flag is interpreted as a sign of EXTREME disagreement with U.S. policy.

i don't like flag burning and i can't imagine a situation where i would ever feel it was appropriate, but i don't think a constitutional amendment would be appropriate either.
Well then, I guess interpretation is the crux of the problem then, isn't it?

[drkralc]

Freedom of speech. :cool:
Understand, however why is the freedom of speech so much more important than any other freedom we've had rifled? Say like the protection against illegal search and siezure as proposed under the "Patriot Act" that allows or will allow Law enforcement to search without warrant?

[BeeDee]

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0496_0310_ZS.html

Enough said...


I can make all the amendments I want so to speak, but if they're ruled unconstitutional by the USSC, then I cannot enforce them. This issue has already been decided. :cool:
I think that Geaux is asking is how something that's IN the Constitution could possibly be ruled UN-constitutional? If the Constitution were ammended, then the new ammendment is a part of the Constitution...

[Neo]

Understand, however why is the freedom of speech so much more important than any other freedom we've had rifled? Say like the protection against illegal search and siezure as proposed under the "Patriot Act" that allows or will allow Law enforcement to search without warrant?



When it comes to the Patriot Act, a lot of local courts/jurisdictions have ruled that they will NOT enforce or recognize the USPA because of it being unconstitutional. :cool:

These people who ratified the USPA into law without reading a single freakin page of it need to be hit profusely with a piece of concrete. :cool:

My advice would be to write every single politician you can find and tell them that they will not get your vote unless they nullify this law. If enough people would do that, you would see the USPA get dropped so quick your head would spin. :cool:

[GeauxTo]

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0496_0310_ZS.html

Enough said...


I can make all the amendments I want so to speak, but if they're ruled unconstitutional by the USSC, then I cannot enforce them. This issue has already been decided. :cool:
Nice link. Thanks.
BUT, no so fast, my friend. The reference was to an "ACT" of the Congress, which is not an amendment to the Constitution. What I am talking about is a Constitutional Amendment, requiring more Congressional effort and not subject to Court interpretation.

[Neo]

Nice link. Thanks.
BUT, no so fast, my friend. The reference was to an "ACT" of the Congress, which is not an amendment to the Constitution. What I am talking about is a Constitutional Amendment, requiring more Congressional effort and not subject to Court interpretation.


We are going in circles....

The USSC has already ruled that you cannot restrict free speech and burning of the American flag qualifies as an expression of speech. :cool:

It doesn't matter what laws congress tries to pass. If it goes against the US Bill of Rights, then it is invalid. :cool:

[GamecocksRule]

We are going in circles....

That seems to be happening a lot the last few days, doesn't it :confused:

[drkralc]

When it comes to the Patriot Act, a lot of local courts/jurisdictions have ruled that they will NOT enforce or recognize the USPA because of it being unconstitutional. :cool:
Once again the USSC has trumped that in a decision that just recently was revealed in the Medical Marijuana case. The USSC decided that Federal law trumps State, county, or local jurisdiction. No matter what may be said by a magistrate, assemblyman, or even a local popular referendum Federal law will always wiegh heavier than any other. The ramifications of this decision may or may not be realized yet but the USSC certainly does not have my best interest, and maybe not yours, at heart when they made this or any other recent decision. My faith in the checks and balances of our government (especially federal) has weakened greatly as to the unmitigated power the courts and their ability to interpret a plainly written law into 40 different versions. Which version do you like best?

[GeauxTo]

Flag's true defenders: Efforts to criminalize flag burning strike at flag principles
(06/14/2005 © Houston Chronicle)
Efforts to criminalize flag burning strike at the very principles the Stars and Stripes symbolize.

To paraphrase Albert Einstein, one cannot simultaneously defend and burn the flag. People did not serve and go to war under the flag, fight and die thereunder, and come home in coffins draped therewith to allow idiots to burn it.

[Neo]

Flag's true defenders: Efforts to criminalize flag burning strike at flag principles
(06/14/2005 © Houston Chronicle)
Efforts to criminalize flag burning strike at the very principles the Stars and Stripes symbolize.

To paraphrase Albert Einstein, one cannot simultaneously defend and burn the flag. People did not serve and go to war under the flag, fight and die thereunder, and come home in coffins draped therewith to allow idiots to burn it.



"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." Thomas Jefferson

[drkralc]

"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." Thomas Jefferson
Got that right!

[drkralc]

Flag's true defenders: Efforts to criminalize flag burning strike at flag principles
(06/14/2005 © Houston Chronicle)
Efforts to criminalize flag burning strike at the very principles the Stars and Stripes symbolize.

To paraphrase Albert Einstein, one cannot simultaneously defend and burn the flag. People did not serve and go to war under the flag, fight and die thereunder, and come home in coffins draped therewith to allow idiots to burn it.
Then I ask you. What is worth protecting? I am sure as sure can be that the same people that died under this flag would not tolerate it's desecration.

[GeauxTo]

Then I ask you. What is worth protecting? I am sure as sure can be that the same people that died under this flag would not tolerate it's desecration.
I think we are in agreement.
;)

[uscrebel]

Prior to the Revolutionary War, Colonial Patriots burned the Union Jack, hung King George in effigy, tossed tea into Boston Harbor, and engaged in literally hundreds of similar symbolic acts to express their outrage against the tyranny that they felt. These acts were considered unlawful and seditious by England, but they were the very basic symbolic acts of political expression that eventually led to the founding of this republic.

Yes, in fact, when soldiers fight they should be fighting for the right of American citizens to freely express themselves...even if that form of expression is offensive to others. Far too frequently since the 1950's, American combat soldiers have been asked to give their lives for causes much murkier than defending freedom of expression or freedom of religion or freedom of association. These wars have had more ambiguous underpinnings and less consensual support from the country.

I attempt to be as respectful of the flag as possible, but I believe that I have been granted the gift of living in the USA along with the responsibility to see that no one...not president nor congress nor military...gets a free ride. This means that I have to be responsible enough to think that just possibly Amercia could do something wrong and just possibly we might actually need the goodwill of others.

I don't think that I would ever choose to protest by burning the flag, but looking the responses it gets, I understand why people might do it.

[JBryant12]

the above post is why you are the poster of the month uscrebel...and i agree 100%

[1000x]

I would have to disagree with this idea to ban flag burning. I don't like flag burning at all and I would never do it under any circumstance, but freedom is what America and the flag are all about. If one chooses to express him/herself by burning the flag, that should remain their right. Unless it violates someone else's life, liberty or property, Americans should be free to do what they please. Flag burning does none of these.

America stands for freedom, yet some want to take a freedom away from Americans by disallowing them to burn a flag. Makes no sense to me. Though I and many of you love America, no one is required to love or respect America or the flag. If we want to make such requirements, what will they require us to do next? We might as well become a monarchy or dictatorship.

I wouldn't say I would be offended by someone burning the flag, but I'd say I don't like it and I don't agree with it. It's not logical to burn a flag that represents an entire nation when it is likely flag burners actually have problems with individual Americans, the ideals some Americans believe in or a particular American politician. Not every American is the same or is responsible for any hard feelings, so it is excessive to burn the flag of an entire nation. However, it still should remain everyone's right, because I don't want anyone restricting any of my rights.

[WayzUp]

Prior to the Revolutionary War, Colonial Patriots burned the Union Jack, hung King George in effigy, tossed tea into Boston Harbor, and engaged in literally hundreds of similar symbolic acts to express their outrage against the tyranny that they felt. These acts were considered unlawful and seditious by England, but they were the very basic symbolic acts of political expression that eventually led to the founding of this republic.

Yes, in fact, when soldiers fight they should be fighting for the right of American citizens to freely express themselves...even if that form of expression is offensive to others. Far too frequently since the 1950's, American combat soldiers have been asked to give their lives for causes much murkier than defending freedom of expression or freedom of religion or freedom of association. These wars have had more ambiguous underpinnings and less consensual support from the country.

I attempt to be as respectful of the flag as possible, but I believe that I have been granted the gift of living in the USA along with the responsibility to see that no one...not president nor congress nor military...gets a free ride. This means that I have to be responsible enough to think that just possibly Amercia could do something wrong and just possibly we might actually need the goodwill of others.

I don't think that I would ever choose to protest by burning the flag, but looking the responses it gets, I understand why people might do it.
This is an outstanding post. :cool: I'd have mucked up very badly an attempt to say exactly this...well said, uscrebel.

[Tator]

Prior to the Revolutionary War, Colonial Patriots burned the Union Jack, hung King George in effigy, tossed tea into Boston Harbor, and engaged in literally hundreds of similar symbolic acts to express their outrage against the tyranny that they felt. These acts were considered unlawful and seditious by England, but they were the very basic symbolic acts of political expression that eventually led to the founding of this republic.

You have brought to light a very good point in regard to the revolutionists. With your point in mind, I would ask those who would burn the Stars and Stripes if they burn it because of everything it stands for, or are they just burning the part with which they disagree?


Yes, in fact, when soldiers fight they should be fighting for the right of American citizens to freely express themselves...even if that form of expression is offensive to others. Far too frequently since the 1950's, American combat soldiers have been asked to give their lives for causes much murkier than defending freedom of expression or freedom of religion or freedom of association. These wars have had more ambiguous underpinnings and less consensual support from the country.

And in what way does this lessen the value of the sacrifices made? Regardless of the alleged ambiguous underpinnings, no war fought since WWII has been without a just cause. Politics may have twisted the war to its own gain, but ultimately the cause was still just. For the record, I didn’t serve this country and help protect it just so some ungrateful, ignorant soul could burn that which represents what I put my life on the line for.

I attempt to be as respectful of the flag as possible, but I believe that I have been granted the gift of living in the USA along with the responsibility to see that no one...not president nor congress nor military...gets a free ride. This means that I have to be responsible enough to think that just possibly America could do something wrong and just possibly we might actually need the goodwill of others.

I don't think that I would ever choose to protest by burning the flag, but looking the responses it gets, I understand why people might do it.

“I attempt to be...”; “I don’t think I would ever choose…” You should not point out the ambiguity of others when you cannot state, with any certainty, if you hold the flag of our nation dear.

As a veteran, I find that any American burning the flag is wholly unfit to receive the freedoms that it represents, which good men and women have fought and died to ensure. In my eyes, those Americans who would, on a whim, so disregard such ultimate sacrifices have, in turn, shown that they neither deserve nor want such freedoms. To disagree with a policy or action by the government and to express such vocally and publicly is a right afforded to everyone and one that I proudly helped to sustain. However, if someone wants to set something on fire in protest, let them follow the example of the morally committed monks in Vietnam who set THEMSELVES on fire in protest! Come on you anti-American, pro-flag burning crusaders; let’s see a little smoke to match that fire in your bellies!