Redstate

I think something as powerful and important as an Amendment to the Constitution is no place for such a specific and, dare I say, frivolous exercise. Especially when it gives more power to government and less to the people (no matter what the subject).

LEt me first say that I think that burnign the flag is an act of a complete moron hippie derelict who obviously doesnt truly realize the freedoms they take for granted. I wish they would pick a better form of protest but that should not be an amendment.

The role of the Constitution is to protect the people from government. Without an amendment, someone burning a flag does not intrude on my rights. I dont like it, I find it abhorrent, but theres lots of things I dont like that people do. I just have to live with it. But, with an amendment, now you have goverment intruding into what you can do.

With a broad wording like "prohibit the physical desecration" it could mean someone who mistakenly doesnt burn an old flag when it needs to be retired. Heck, for that matter, it could mean someone who DOES burn an old flag.

Want to amend the Constitution, how about we change the wording of Article 1, Section 8 so its more clearly explained to the uninformed as per the Federalist Papers?

I am sure this isnt a popular opinion but it my two cents.

Your opinion seems pretty popular here.  Americans see right through this blatant attempt to pander to the radical right-wing base.

You realize that is the same as saying Democrats efforts to raise the minimum wage is pandering to their radical lefty base.  Both propositions have 70% support in polls and regularly attract votes from Representatives who probably don't agree but feel threatened if they oppose.  And neither will change much in the world although both will probably have negative unintended consequences (i.e. more flag burning and higher youth unemployment respectiviely).

I agree, Lovethatconstituion, but I voted for the "there are things more important" category.

Like say reform our immigration policies?  Or update social security to work for the 21st century?  Or simplify the tax code down to a single rate flat tax with no deductions?  Maybe we could actually pass those term limits that were popular in the 1990s?  Or at least start with a two year moratorium on earmarks?  Maybe we could actually try to vote on some of the judicial nominees that are languishing in a political wasteland?

I guess I can think of a few things that are more important for the country.

How about "No, but I reserve the right to kick the crap out of someone I see doing it without fear of prosecution"?

The oft-repeated argument for the flag burning amendment is that the flag is the government's property.  It's a national symbol just like the Capitol Building or Washington Monument.  So Congress should be able to prevent its desecration just as it could prevent the desecration of the Capitol or Washington Monument. (Frist most recently was making this argument)

Doesn't it sound a bit -- well -- communist -- to say that something made by a private company (often in countries other than the U.S.) and that you purchased at Wal-Mart and which is currently sitting inside your home or hanging from a pole off your porch is GOVERNMENT property?  Isn't that an argument we'd expect the Dems to be more comfortable making?

Dianne Feinstein makes an interesting point that falg burning is not speech, but conduct and therefore not a violation of the 1st amendment.  I'm tempted but not convinced.  nay

Part of free speech is accepting speech that you disagree with.  We allow the KKK to adopt a spot of the Martin Luther King Jr. Highway so I don't see any reason why we shouldn't allow a ungrantful person to burn the flag

I agree with a lot of members who took the poll.  I hate to see anyone burn the flag, but amending the constitution should be done only for matters of serious importance.

Thank goodness our Founding Fathers were wise enough to make the amendment process very difficult.  The last thing we need is a national referendum system, to be abused by demagogues, as we see so often in individual states.

Letting people burn the flag makes it very easy to spot the idiots. Could you imagine a democratic hopefull ever getting elected if someone has pictures of them burning the flag ?

the Constitution.  Might I suggest the following:

1.  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

To clear up the relationship of church and state and make sure no one thinks that any reference to any religion is forbidden.

2.  "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms"

In case any city (such as, say, DC or Chicago) were to try to unarm its law-abiding citizens and put them at a disadvantage with respect to criminals.

3.  "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

To make sure that decisions are made as locally as possibly thus taking issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, medicinal marajuana, road building, and education away from the pork-swamp of Washington and putting it into local hands that are more responsive to local interests.

That's just crazy talk. These are the kinds of proposals designed to stick the Republican Party in permanent minority status. Who even thought up such inane proposals? Sheesh!

Dumb Dumb Dumb

arson and incitement charges would be enough deterrent in most cases.

Clearly, 'free speech' is meant to apply to much more than just an act of speaking.  It covers, for instance, writing, publishing, distributing opinions, and so on.  It seems pretty clear that 'free speech' is meant to cover expressions of opinion.  If I could somehow make a political point by mime, then that should be protected as well.

And let us never again speak of protecting mimes.

Today, on my way to work, I had to breath in all that second hand flag burning smoke. How dare you say this is not important!

...Further shows that Red State may be a "GOP" site, but it sure ain't a "conservative" site.

How anyone can oppose an Amenedment that doesn't even ban flag desecration (it only allows Congress to legislate about it) is beyond me.

No wonder there are so many Chafee backers around here...

I don't want Congress to have such authority.

People here can recognize when they are being used or played. I doubt theres a single person on this site who thinks you can legislate patriotism or understanding of what the flag represents.

I am apparently in the minority opinion here at RS, but the Senate Bill said absolutely nothing about whether or not the US flag should or should not be desecrated.  If anyone here was asked the question differently.  For example do you want judges to have the authority to decide if the US flag can be desecrated, or do you want the US Congress to have the authority to decide?  I do not want judges to create rules and laws.  I want the judges to limit their decisions and not create new laws.  Maybe the poll question should have read the same as the Senate bill.  Maybe the results of the vote would be different.

I think you may have that backwards. There's very little "conservative" about this sort of government intrusion; however it is pretty clearly a ploy by the GOP leadership to gain some political momentum going into the fall election.

It doesn't state what should or should not happen, but it would grant Congress the authority. Judges have ruled that without such authority any law prohibiting flag desecration violates the Constitution. Judges did not create a new law. They did not mandate a new entitlement. They adjudicated a dispute.

I think the Supreme Court got this right.  Flag burning is protected by the first amendment.  The question is whether we should change that and allow flag burning to be regulated by Congress.  That I'm more conflicted on, but I do believe there are many more important things to do rather than this.  And trying to win over votes with this so they earmark the beegeezers out of the next Energy Pork Bill is not appealing to me.

Right...  Just like they did with Roe v Wade.  I understand what you are selling, but I am not buying.  I prefer judges that do not make sweeping decisions.  that's just me.

The only other countries that have passed flag burning bans are Iran, China, Cuba, Iraq under Saddam Hussein, and Nazi Germany.

Enough said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13487935/site/newsweek/

also says "to petition the government for a redress of grievances".  This part of the 1st amendment is too often ignored.  I agree that there are more important work for the Congress.  I am just a little bothered by the idea that a judge can hold so much power with a sweeping ruling that it stifles any attempts to write any statutes intended to redress grievances.

The flag case wasn't sweeping. Flag burning isn't far from yelling anti-American slogans. They ruled correctly that it is protected speech. I hate it but as long as they keep off my lawn I can tolerate it. Roe's another matter.

None of those countries voted in elections for people who passed a law doing such a thing.  If you didn't notice that difference, then I'm not sure what good pointing it out will be.

"Conservatives" are traditionally very reluctant to alter the constitution.

The GOP is a political party. Hence motivated by political aims - like pushing a flag burning amendment that they know has no chance of passing in order to throw some red meat to their base.

Conservativism is an ideology motivated by a political philosophy.

Two sometimes complimentary, sometimes different things.

The Flag Burning Amendment is a political issue. It is not a conservative issue.

For any who hadn't noticed yet, the resolution failed by one vote, 66-34.

Link

Once again, debating a useless amendment that the GOP perceives as throwing red meat to its "base." Not an immigrattion bill mind you, not even a gay marriage bill (where the use of federalism is debatable), but whether Congress has the right to tell you what you can do with the American flag. Mind you, I am not a Chafee backer as one possible troll may have stated. But this bill leads down a slippery slope that undermines our basic freedoms. I stand for the right to burn a flag for the same reason that I stand for the right to fly and display a Confederate flag-both are equal representations of free speech in our great nation, and our nation is built on the right to dissent. Lets not forget that this amendment does not cover banning government flags-that is already illegal! This would explicitly tell you what you have the right to do with your private property on your private property. And while we are on the subject, desecration is a very vague word. Chances are, desecration could mean anything the Courts or the Congress decided it meant. Wait until some immigrant feels oppressed in an identity politics crusade against my American flag tie that I wear to work on the 4th of July. Or maybe some people will feel American flag swim trunks shouldn't be worn because they discriminate against non Americans-if you don't think liberals can and will hijack this in an identity politics crusade just as they twist the Constitution to come up with the KnownFact of Separation of Church and State, I think you are mistaken. This is rediculous, this is not conservative, and this smacks more of Soviet Russia than the greatest Republic in gloabal history, the USA.

expose themselves. I'm much more offended by and opposed to McCain-Feingold.

 I estimate that you're not particularly a fan of the amendment so I'll wink and point out that it will do us no good to be the first(?) country to elect people who pass the same law that dictatorships have passed in the cited countries...

 Although we might all still be able to roundly pat ourselves on the back for having achieved the same ends via democracy...

In both instances debate by We the People is stifled.  I imagine if there had not been a Roe v Wade ruling that different parts of the country would have different rules with abortions.  New York, San Francisco, and LA would be a lot different than Birmingham, Dallas, and Salt Lake. I am OK with debate and differences being sorted out among communities.  I am not a big fan of 1 size fits all decisions by judges.  I can see the occasional necessity for uniformity rather than diversity.  I just think the occasion should be very rare.

Except the freedom of speech was ammended to the Constitution specifically to prevent local jurisdictions from prohibiting speech. Roe has no such ammendment.

Yet.

You can't see it because only supreme court judges can stare that hard.

flags for guns?

i find flag burning offensive and appaling but it is, in my opinion, free speech.  

note:  sorry i haven't been around much but life is keeping me quite busy...

You're right. Maybe I should go back to reeducation camp, err college.

Those who seek to protect the flag from burning run the very clear risk of undermining the very freedom the flag itself represents.

The flag is a symbol, and as such it is a potent token of speech.  I agree that burning it is crass and insensitive to those who relate to the flag as a symbol of honor and respect, yet it is precisely because it is a symbol of honor and respect that it is chosen- it's a sure attention-getter.

In the face of such communication, there are two broad options available:

1. Get the communication for exactly what it is and isn't- it's a complaint that something is very very wrong in their experience of America, coupled with a demand for attention in the matter.  You don't have to agree, just get the communication.
   
   
2. Suppress the communication, with the full realization that the flag-burners will just find another potent token by which to express themselves.

Same basic idea.  I don't really find either compelling logically, although there is something appealing.  To be pretentious about it, both carry perlocutionary force along with their semantic content.

The point of such a law would be to force these protestors to choose another way of expressing their discontent.

Yes yes I know you've probably been taught since you were in diapers that Republicans are just like Nazis, but it's time you learned that some fairy tales you heard as a child just aren't true.

In fact, until 1989 flag burning was considered conduct, and 48 states prohibited it.

Then 5 Justices of the Supreme Court decided: "no, burning a flag is speech" (although burning a draft card is conduct and can be prohibited) and so suddenly it is off-limits.

I wonder how many of you "no" votes are also ready to defend those 5 vote majorities when they decide some other new and novel activity is a "right" that cannot be addressed by the legislatures?  The fact is this is not much different than when the court says that abortion is a right, or sodomy is a right, or any other activity is a "right" - all of which usually generate shreiks of horror and cries of outrage here.

Note: Don't get me wrong - I'm not looking to defend those rights, I just fail to see the logical consistency that says that courts should have had the power to take flag desecration away from the people's representatives but that we need to amend the Constitution to keep the courts from taking the definition of marriage away from the legislatures.

..when Adam is snarky.

And, I voted with "No" also, although the "there are more important things to focus on" option holds true as well.

He dissented from the flag burning decision (Texas v. Johnson). Justice Stevens would say that the First Amendment is not offended by a criminal prohibition on flag burning.  

How does it feel to be on Justice Stevens' side of a constitutional argument?

Personally, I'll stay on the conservative sideline over here in opposition to the FBA.  When in doubt I just have a general rule that if it's Justice Stevens' opinion, it's not mine.  

I agree with BlackRepub,the term "desecration" is way too broad. It would likely include burning, urination, defecation, spitting.  But I would also argue that it includes writing on, cutting, leaving it out in the rain, leaving it out overnight without proper illumination. These are all part of the United States Flag Code.  It seems that if we want to talk about protecting the flag we might want to make these codes or portions of them enforceable.

The bigger point that an amendment like this would have is to force activist judges to find another way to show their displeasure with Congress than by legislating from the bench.

we can agree to disagree on the merits of flag burning, and the control thereof, and we can do so amicably.

You're off-base to speculate that I'm a republican-hater; I am not, and I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth.  stereotyping me into your antagonist doesn't serve either of us, especially considering it's not remotely true.

"But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."-Lincoln

Lincoln was talking about a graveyard but I think his words apply to the flag for which they died for as well.  How many a flag barer died trying to keep the flag from touching the ground?  To me that is "serious" enough to consider protecting the symbol of the sacrifice of so many Americans.

I've heard the argument a hundred times that it is hypocritical to prevent the freedom of walking all over the flag which symbolizes freedom.  What I find hypocritical is enjoying the freedom bought with the blood of patriots while desecrating their memory.  If we as a country cannot value those who gave their lives for us, what chance we as a nation have in teaching our children the value of the freedom they have.

But your rhetoric sounds just like that of the left, so that's why I reacted as I did.

If we can't carve out another narrow exception to free speech, without being accused of undermining all speech, then that's just unfair to us.

I have a suggestion.  self-immolation

The point of such a law would be to force these protestors to choose another way of expressing their discontent.

OK, so say such a law was enacted, and the protesters chose to express their discontent in some other equally offensive or crass way.  What then?

I guess my point here is that I don't see what would be accomplished by forbidding a specific mode of speech, tho I am interested in your view.

here's my take on what would happen:

a) flag-burning wouldn't stop, it would become illegal.  Attempting to prohibit desecration of the flag as a valid mode of speech would probably make it a more powerful mode of speech, and possibly make it more attractive, despite (or perhaps because of) the added risk.

b) the flag wouldn't get any more respect- it would simply become a symbol of force, in addition to everything else it represents today.

In the end, the only reason people have for giving you the finger or burning your flag is because it bothers you.  If it didn't, they wouldn't do it- because they wouldn't get the reaction they wanted.  Don't forget- it's the reaction they're after, and they'll do anything to get it, up until the point they no longer see you as the enemy.

If we can't carve out another narrow exception to free speech, without being accused of undermining all speech, then that's just unfair to us.

You bolded the word 'another' above- what other narrow exceptions to free speech are you referring to?  Honest question.

Fighting words

Libel

Shouting fire in a crowded theater

Criticizing elected officials near an election

We have free speech limitations all over the place.

Whether or not burning a flag is "speech," it's ridiculous to talk about an amendment to the constitution being unconstitutional.  

I'm in favor of the amendment b/c, in this time when Americans are so divided by multiculturalism, race, language, etc., I think it's good to have things that unify us.  The flag is a symbol for an abstract idea that should unify Americans in the same way that English should be made our national language.  We live in such an irrevrent culture that it's a tough idea to swallow that anything should be venerated above individual freedom, but I think this is one.  

Grownups (i.e., conservatives) are SUPPOSED to understand that one of the costs of free speech is occasionally being exposed to statements you find offensive (that's in addition to the cost paid in blood to secure said right).  

If you think that free speech only applies when you agree with what's being said, and/or approve of how it's being said, then you've pretty much missed the whole point.

My personal observations:

1. In THIS part of the country, we don't seem to have a flag burning problem.  Did I miss a news story somewhere?
   
2. We as a people do much more to dishonor the memories of those who shed blood to secure the right of free speech by passing this ammendment than the occasional lone nutcase could ever hope to.
   
3. Any politician who has nothing better to offer in an election year than (literally) wrapping him/herself in the flag really ought to consider a career in the exciting fields of either fast food or retail petroleum distribution.

BTW, we got freeped by the krazy kos kids.  (Did I just uncover a conspiracy there?)

have been burned in the last 20 years.  What makes this such an important issue at this time?  Has there been a new spate of flag-burning that has brought this to the fore?

As an Irishman who visits the US regularly and have worked there in the past, I am struck by the attachment that you have to the flag as a symbol.  You can't walk down any street without seeing at least one flag in a home or business.  At home, the only place you see the flag is at football matches and in front of major government buildings (and the occasional hotel catering to foreigners).  Does this mean that we have less pride in our country?

Given the power that the flag has in the US as a symbol, I try to imagine if there is any symbol of Ireland that I would hold in such regard that I would be willing to vote for a change in the constitution to ban its desecration.  It just seems like you would be setting a big precedent if you start using the constitution on issues like this.  What will be next?

Criticizing elected officials near an election

How does that work ?

Congressionally passed, Presidentially approved, Supreme Courtly affirmed.

some kind of God loving, gun toting fascist! Good luck ever getting those proposals into the Constitution.

Luckily we have a LIVING Constitution that will outgrow your inane suggestions!

:-)

"ike pushing a flag burning amendment that they know has no chance of passing"

I was one vote away from passing.  That's a heck of a lot closer than the FMA will ever be.

Scalia was in the 5 Justice majority and Stevens and O'Connor were in the 4 Justice minority on this one.  Just pointing out that it doesn't fall on the usual fault lines.  This is probably becuase there is a freedom of speech and expression provision in the Constitution as opposed to, say, a right to abortion-on-demand.

Burning the flag is offensive and in extremely poor taste.  So are many other forms of dissident political "speech".  But is this a matter worthy of amending the Consitution?  And do we really want to use amendments to chip away at the Bill of Rights?  That is a slippery slope!

To me, one of the hallmarks of conservatism is the belief that the federal government should not involve itself in matters that state and local goverments are completely competent to address.  While local governments do not have the power to ban the burning of the flag per se, they do have the power to restrict the public burning of objects in general.

As noted in Department of Employment Services v. Smith, the First Amendment does not make legal that which is otherwise illegal.  A local government can treat the burning of the flag the same way as it treats the burning of garbage, requiring the same type of permit and a fee, provided it does not single out flag burning.  Indeed, a local government could prohibit private citizens from burning any objects in public, while allowing them to do it in private under properly safe circumstances.  To do so would have the effect of depriving flag burning of any of its symbolic content.  This, to me, would appear to be the truly conservative method of protecting the flag.

Of course, Congress could pass a law on the composition of the flag.  It could require that all flags contain strips of magnesium, which would make it truly dangerous for any idiot who tried to burn it.  But that would be cruel.

If we did, that's ironic, because from the comments it appears a significant number of RedState readers (including me) were against the amendment anyway.

In 1989 there were 48 states with laws protecting the flag until it became "free speech" to desecrate it by the actions of activist judges.

 I want my right to say and write what ever I want to be protected but I don't demand that I be allowed to light a bag of poop on your street because your arguments stinks.  I think there is a difference between written or spoken speech and some action intended to incite riots.

is that the only proper way to dispose of a flag is to burn it.

This amendment could allow a liberal goverment to go after the American Legion on constitutional principle.

The first three serve a limited, well-defined purpose- that is, they create a method by which to hold accountable those who use their speech to cause measurable, actual harm to another- that is, they provide necessary redress for a problem inherent to free speech.

the fourth... I'm not familiar with. Could you explain?

The amendment allows government to proscribe flag burning through law.  Obviously the law would be written in a way that the American Legion isn't going to be prosecuted for respecting the flag.

True. It was a lot closer to passing than I thought.

I hadn't expected so many politicians to pander to their constituents.

Still, the fact remains that it's not a particularly "Conservative" Amendment.