The "flag burning" controversy has been a hotly debated issue of election-year political opportunism since the Supreme Court's 1989 decision, in Texas vs. Johnson, that burning the American flag is constitutionally protected free speech.
On June 27, 2006, a proposed constitutional amendment banning the desecration of the flag was narrowly defeated in the Senate, 66-34, one vote shy of the two-thirds, or 67 votes, required to send it to the states for ratification.
The last time the full Senate voted on it, in 2000, the measure came up four votes short. The amendment cleared the House, 286-130, last year.
The Flag Protection Amendment, S.J. Res. 12, which was sponsored by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), read: "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."
The Flag Protection Amendment, had it passed, would not have directly prohibited the desecration of the flag. It would have required that Congress enact legislation defining the terms "flag" and "desecration" while also empowering that body with the option of imposing penalties upon the violators of any subsequent policies made against flag desecration.
The Confounding Circumlocution of a Constitutional Non-Conundrum
Flag burning is a phony paradox issue that stirs and exploits the passions of patriots while inspiring jingoistic hypocrisy that is often rationalized in emotional appeals to American sentiment and vanity.
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California), who calls the flag "a vibrant symbol of our democracy, our shared values, our commitment to justice, and our eternal memory of those who have sacrificed to defend these principles," in a June 16, 2006 USA Today editorial, writes:
Some opponents of the Flag Protection Amendment argue that we must choose between trampling on the flag and trampling on the First Amendment. I strongly disagree.Senator Feinstein's point that ideas can be expressed just as well in other ways that don't involve burning the flag seems reasonable when taken at its face value. (After all, flag burning is not a terribly effective way to win friends and influence people because it tends to close minds and harden hearts against whatever idea or cause is being demonstrated in that manner.)There is no idea or thought expressed by the burning of the American flag that cannot be expressed equally well in another manner. This Amendment would leave both the flag and free speech safe.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Kold
I think, therefore, I am.
2 - Andy Marsh
I agree with you Margaret...
but I still think there should be an amendment protecting the rights of those that want to beat the crap out of someone who burns the flag!
3 - gonzo marx
well then, i guess my factory making flag toilet paper and flag rolling papers might be in jeapordy!!!
how about this one...they pass a law stating that all flags must be made of non-burning material?
just some Thoughts
cuz the whole wasting of time in the Senate on this one is a transparent Rovian ploy to pander to the base with another hopeless bit of chicanery
this one goes with the "marriage amendment" and all the other red meat the GOP leadership can toss to the base
bah
how about they ..oh i dunno...actually work on solving some problems? who knows, that might even get them some votes!!
silly of me, i know
but i can Dream, can't i?
Excelsior?
4 - Dave Nalle
Gonzo, Karl Rove does not run the world. He also doesn't run the US Senate.
Dave
5 - gonzo marx
now who is being naive?
if one doesn't admit the basic fact that the top political strategist in the US is running the overall GOP campaign strategy to further his quoted goal of " a permanent republican majority" and that the underling type strategists are not following their Machiavelli to the letter...then one is simply not observing the verifiable facts coming from within the GOP circles themselves
even seom sitting Senators have admitted who is calling the political plays...and denial ain't just a river in egypt
Excelsior?
6 - Nancy
Obviously Dave has never seen Frist wagging his tail every time Rove's name is mentioned.
7 - Dave
If you can't burn a peace of cloth, just how free are you really?
But should anyone be passing laws which seems to be of national urgency (ie the most important bill ever to pass) on this when, as Colbert noted last night (in his own twisted way) that they could be rebuilding NOLA.
8 - Sam Jack
I'm baffled that so many of our nations representatives could be so stupid. If I wasn't disillusioned before, I am now. Do the American people actually support this? I need to look up an opinion poll.
9 - gonzo marx
ummm...Sam...fuck the opinion polls
this is NOT about opinions, but about the Rights of individuals, and if that was left up to polls the folks in Salem woudl still be burning people on a slow sunday afternoon and then asking some people with higher melanin content in their skin to go and fetch lunch...
that's why we are a Republic based on the Rule of Law as delineated by our Constitution, and not the mob rule of a pure democracy where polls would determine everything
just a Thought
Excelsior?
10 - Dan
Forms of offensive hate speech are already banned. So this ship has already sailed. It's just a matter of picking and choosing what's offensive and/or hateful.
11 - Clavos
Forms of offensive hate speech are already banned.
They are? Isn't that precisely what the ACLU so vigorously and continuously fights to protect?
It's just a matter of picking and choosing what's offensive and/or hateful.
According to whom? Who does the "picking and choosing?"
12 - Dave Nalle
Forms of offensive hate speech are already banned.
Let's have one example, please. The truth is that all attempts to limit free speech that have held up in the courts limit the circumstances under which the speech can be used, not the actual words or statements.
Dave
13 - Baronius
'By making the flag “safe," this "Flag Protection Amendment" " as well as the precedents it would set " would, by default, endanger our First Amendment right to the free expression of ideas.'
No, it wouldn't. Amendments don't set precedents. The amendment wouldn't threaten anything, because it specifically states the one case to which it applies. For example, prohibition didn't endanger morphine use, and repealing prohibition didn't legalize marijuana use.
'Karl Rove'
The current debate over flag burning dates back to the late 1980's, when the Supreme Court recognized it as protected speech. I'm unaware of any Rove connection.
14 - gonzo marx
timing Baronius, timing...with November fast approaching, only the best mastermind is setting the overall Agenda for a permanent Republican majority (Karl's self professed goal)
now, follow the morning memo and talking points, no one is hiding where they come from
Excelsior?
15 - Margaret Romao Toigo
Baronius, precedents can be set by just about anything, such as amending the Constitution to restrict freedom and rights, instead of expanding them.
In the 215 years since the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791, our Constitution has only been amended 17 times. Of those 17 amendments, only the 18th Amendment restricted freedom and rights.
Although it was repealed after only 13 years -- the "Noble Experiment" proved that nature finds a way with regard to the laws of supply and demand, too -- the 18th Amendment continues to maintain the precedents it set with regard to the legislation of human behaviors that do not violate the rights of the people.
Indeed, the flag burning amendment was introduced after the Supreme Court's 1989 decision in Texas vs. Johnson. Karl Rove, being a most astute political strategist, is just taking advantage of any and all issues that will fire up the GOP's socially conservative base, who are still stinging from the decisive defeat of the Federal Marriage Amendment earlier this month.
16 - mschannon
This is a typical Republican non-issue designed to appeal to their conservative base. I wish I had the source, but guess how many flags are burned each year?
About 4.
We're talking about an epidemic here of American-hating, flag burning, radicals who won't be satisfied until they can burn 5 or 6 a year.
Give me a break. This topic isn't even worth of discussion.
17 - MCH
Margaret;
You were a stripper? Interesting. With all due respect to the profession, your intellect and way with words gives me a whole new perspective on exotic dancers.
And I whole-heartedly disagree with your "not a real writer" comment; you have 10 times the skill as some of these BC egomaniacs, and 20 times more than yours truly.
18 - Margaret Romao Toigo
I only worked in that particular field for a brief time, MCH. It was more of a way to pay the rent when I was between jobs than it was a career.
You know how some people like to "puff up" their resumes, bios, and such? Mine BC bio is sort of the opposite of that.
The "real writer" bit is an inside joke. A certain real writer, whom I know quite well, says that writers write because of a calling to do so, not necessarily because they're any good at it.
I don't have "the calling," even if I might have a small talent for stringing words together to form somewhat coherent sentences.
19 - Margaret Romao Toigo
I am definetly not a real proofreader...
20 - MCH
"You know how some people like to "puff up" their resumes, bios, and such?"
I hear ya, Margaret. Here's one of my favorites:
"I have worked as a magazine editor, a freelance writer, a capitol hill staffer, a game designer and a history professor. Because my superior intellect is unmatched worldwide, if you don't agree with me, you're either a moron or a dumbass, or both. If you could buy me for what I'm worth, and sell me for what I think I'm worth, you could easily retire on the profit. My next project is a cure for cancer."
21 - Baronius
Margaret, I meant legal precedent, not social precedent. In the eyes of the law, there is no underlying sweep of history. There is applicable law. Judges determine what law applies, and such determinations become precedents for that court and all courts beneath it.
The highest law is the Constitution. The Supreme Court cannot overturn a constitutional provision. If this amendment were passed and eventually added to the Constitution, it would apply only to cases of flag desecration. Any other form/act of speech would be covered by the First Amendment. The specificity of the flag-burning amendment would prevent it from impacting any other area of law.
22 - Joan Hunt
Margaret, this was very nicely stated and I agree with you. America is strong enough to withstand burnt cloth.
I'd like to think that those who maintain their right to burn the flag will understand and respect my right to wave the flag I hold. Sometimes waving it under their very noses. Sure, it may offend them, but it's my choice as to what I want to do with it.
More often than not, those who accuse others of interfering with their First Amendment rights are the ones who seek to silence all others. By allowing them to continue burning a bit of fabric, they can no longer claim to be oppressed.
23 - Arch Conservative
Gonzo..............the people suspected of witchcraft in Salem, MA werenot burned.....they were hanged.... and one was crushed to death with stones....it was the europeans who burned witches in the 1500 and 1600's
As for burning the flag....it would seem hypocritical not to allow people to do it andd say that the very flag represents our freedoms. Although I do believe it is in very bad taste and it does raise the question.........
if an American citizen burns the American flag are the rest of us still not allowed to say that person hates America or that they are un-American? Will the usual suspects still rush to thier defense claiming that they love this country and their burning of the flag is justa form of patriotic dissent?
24 - Arch Conservative
Oh and I forgot to mention that in the state of Massachusetts it is illegal to burn the Mexican flag. I think if we're allowed to burn our own flag we should be allowed to burn any other nation's flag.
25 - gonzo marx
Arch..thanks for the info...shall we switch it to burning the Cathars?
i was making a point, i see it was taken..and i stand corrected on my factual innaccuracy
as for defending and such
yep...i'll defend your right to call people what ya like, and defend my right to wipe my ass with flag toilet paper if i so desire
that whole pesky Liberty thing
one cannot "desecrate" that which is not "sacred" and NO secular symbol of government is "sacred" by definition (see "seperation of church and state")
so it really a bullshit, red meat political stunt orchestrated to try and rally the GOP base
bur some sheeple will fall for it, just like they did with the also bullshit "marriage amendment"
now..my Question to all those who favor the GOP side is this...
isn't there much MORE important shit for the senate and congress to be doing than this pure politica, campaign grandstanding?
like..balancing the budget, dealing with a rising insurgency in Afghanistan, Iraq..N. Korea missiles and nukes, Iranian nuclear development...or even properly investigating Abramhoff anf cronies including the whole K street project bit?
how about the SCOTUS saying it's OK to gerrymander Districts between Census takings?
i could list more, but it won't matter... nothign will be done for the People, and everythign will be pushed for GOP re-election agenda
at least we know that they really don't give a shit about the Nation, just about them getting re-elected so they can grap more pork and feed deeply at the public trough
Excelsior?