June 24, 2005
Why not a meaningful Amendment to the Constitution?
On Wednesday, 286 of our congressional representatives engaged in their annual act of craven demagoguery by adopting an amendment to the Constitution that would prohibit the desecration of the American flag. At the vanguard of this initiative are public officials, especially those on the right wing of the political spectrum, who purport to esteem personal freedom and resent the pervasive influence of the federal government into the private lives of individuals ostensibly. Yet they propose to amend our most fundamental legal document to achieve an objective that contravenes these ideals diametrically. Apparently these putative patriots are either unaware of their profound hypocrisy or sufficiently depraved to be impervious to it.
To them, American freedom must be defined as the freedom to think and speak as they do exclusively. To them, the American flag is not merely a physical symbol of the United States; it is a quasi-religious icon imbued with a sacred significance. To them, those who disagree with them cannot be confronted by argumentation; they must be silenced by force. To them, dissent is heresy and the infidels must be punished. In short, I'm surprised that they haven't blamed the California wildfires on irresponsible flag burners (but it's early yet, and they may get around to it).
Yet, the "loyal opposition", bereft of proactive ideas, merely responds with its conventional and politically unpopular obstinacy: "Just Say No". Instead of opposing an amendment to the Constitution that limits personal freedom, they could counteract the demagogues by advocating an amendment that is not only necessary but liberating, as well.
In 1972, the US Congress adopted an Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) that would have prohibited sexual discrimination and more than 90% of the Senators and Representatives who voted on the measure did so in support of it. It was promptly signed by President Nixon and ratified by thirty-five of the fifty sates. Since the Constitution requires ratification by a three-fourths majority, it fell three states short of adoption and has languished in Congress ever since.
Perhaps our esteemed representatives on the political left could eliminate this legislative inertia by changing the name of the ERA and expanding its purview beyond merely gender. They could propose a HUMAN Rights Amendment, which might be written as follows:
"Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States of any state on account of religious creed, ethnicity or any permanent physical characteristic determined by genetic factors exclusively."
Our intrinsic human and civil rights must be protected against legal discrimination equitably, not merely on the basis of race or sex, but against all forms of religious, ethnic and genetic discrimination. If our Declaration of Independence stipulates that the raison d'être of the United States is predicated upon the principle that all people are created equal, shouldn't our Constitution compel our government to enforce that principle? A Human Rights Amendment will ensure that one of our most fundamental rights, the right to be treated as individuals rather than as symbols of a social subclass, is protected by our most fundamental legal document.
Twenty states have some kind of prohibitions against religious, ethnic or genetic discrimination written into their constitutions currently. The Constitution of New Hampshire is somewhat typical:
"Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by this state on account of race, creed, color, sex or national origin.”
Although the passage of a Human Rights Amendment to the US Constitution might not succeed easily, it is necessary to begin the process. Not only could it displace the insipid and venal debate about flag desecration from the national political discourse, it would demonstrate that the United States has political leaders who not only oppose totalitarian encroachments upon civil liberties but who support the expansion of civic egalitarianism, as well. Regardless of its ultimate success, it would be fascinating to watch its opponents argue against granting every American the same rights as those of us who live in bastions of political liberalism like New Hampshire.
PS: In those states that have anti-discrimination clauses in their constitutions, it is difficult to see how any statues that prohibit same-sex marriage could be constitutional. For example, if marriage is a "right" in New Hampshire, then every person must have the ability to marry any other person regardless of their partner's "race, creed, color, sex or national origin." It's hard to read this clause of their constitution in any other way.
Posted by Chuck Hanrahan at June 24, 2005 11:50 AMFlag burning and Gay marriage in the same post. I don’t see the correlation.
Why do people burn the flag? For the same reasons we see them doing it in protest in the Middle East? Because they hate the U.S. and everything it stands for?
People move here from other countries because they hate the one they were born in. Why don’t those who hate the U.S. do the same? Move out.
Go to the Middle East and have a big flag fire, they’ll support you.
Not many people care about the constitution.
Ever read article 1, section 3, clause 1 Why is this not followed ?
Posted by: James at June 24, 2005 01:21 PMThere is an Election coming. Republicans will sell their Mothers to stay in power. Why limit themselves?
Posted by: Aldous at June 24, 2005 01:30 PMI don’t think the required concensus in Congress and ratification by the states is even in the realm of possibility in today’s political climate, Chuck.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 24, 2005 02:07 PMIs there more to this bill than just flag burning?
Is partisan politics causing some to just pick out parts of that bill for debate?
What will the entire bill cover? Any links for that?
I thought it covered flag burning, and cross burning?(both offend me btw)?
Posted by: Beagle at June 24, 2005 02:19 PMI don’t think the required concensus in Congress and ratification by the states is even in the realm of possibility in today’s political climate, Chuck.
David, it sure wasn’t back in the 1980s when we couldn’t even get support for an equal rights amendment for women. Of course, I felt that they were already covered by other decisions, such as the 14th, but I really thought at the time that they would be able to get it through just because it was an easy way to ‘shut them uppity women up without really giving them anything’.
But if THAT can’t even must enough to create an amendment, I seriously doubt that a ‘marriage’ act or a ‘flag’ act will pass.
Posted by: Rhinehold at June 24, 2005 02:47 PMChuck,
Congrats on having the guts to say something about the flag burning amendment. Some folks would apparently prefer to burn the Bill of Rights.
As for your own suggested amendment, are you really gearing this toward discrimination based on a person’s genetics or just trying to cover everybody in the nation?
Posted by: Reed Sanders at June 24, 2005 03:19 PMEver read article 1, section 3, clause 1 Why is this not followed ?
Because it was replaced by the 12th Amendment.
Posted by: LawnBoy at June 24, 2005 03:21 PM“People move here from other countries because they hate the one they were born in. Why don’t those who hate the U.S. do the same? Move out.”
your kidding right?
do you have any idea what Democracy means?
hint: it doesnt mean kick out everyone who disagrees with you.
Additionally, Hate is a very strong word, and your interpretation of hating america seems to be broad. I am an active citizen who is very concerned about the path our country seems to be on. Do i burn flags? no, but i can understand why someone would, its powerful, symbolic, and will get attention. Do I Protest? Yes, and often. does this mean I hate america? NO! I disagree with many things (corporate influence, social injustice, etc.)and i will do my best to get my voice heard. This does not mean I hate america, it means I want to make america better!
saying if you dont like it you can get out is shallow, ignorant, and shows how limited the mind of the person sending out this message is.
Posted by: Vex at June 24, 2005 03:25 PMWhat will the entire bill cover? Any links for that?
The full text of the proposed amendment is “The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.”
Posted by: LawnBoy at June 24, 2005 03:26 PMVex, well said, and thank you for expressing thoughts I would also have felt compelled to reply wtih.
Rhinehold, agreed. The ERA was simple compared to this property rights issue.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 24, 2005 04:00 PMI’ve never felt the urge to burn the flag in protest but if this amendment ever passes, it will be the first thing I do.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at June 24, 2005 05:40 PMI wonder if anyone in favor of this flag-burning amendment realizes that under the US Flag Code, burning the flag is one of the proper ways to dispose of a flag?
“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.”
Then again, these are probably the same people flying flags from their SUVs after September 11th until the flags were little more than tattered rags, and they clearly haven’t read the part about “The flag should never be fastened, displayed, used, or stored in such a manner as to permit it to be easily torn, soiled, or damaged in any way.”
Posted by: Jarin at June 24, 2005 06:13 PMJoseph Briggs said: “I’ve never felt the urge to burn the flag in protest but if this amendment ever passes, it will be the first thing I do.”
Absolutely satan damned right! I will be doing the same, Joseph. Was tempted day before yesterday, but, the corner store was all out.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 24, 2005 06:34 PMThis is great article, Chuck. Well done.
“I’ve never felt the urge to burn the flag in protest but if this amendment ever passes, it will be the first thing I do.”
Joseph Briggs, I adore you. You really are a man after my own heart!
David:
“Absolutely satan damned right! I will be doing the same, Joseph. Was tempted day before yesterday, but, the corner store was all out.”
Yessssssssir! Land of the Free, Home of the Brave!!!
Me, I bought a bunch of those wee cotton ones for our celebration on the 4th. Everyone invited will get a chance to exercise their First Amendment right if they wish, while scarfing down the most American of all meals — beer, assorted BBQ, sweet corn, and homemade strawberry shortcake — crowned with sparkler “candles” of course!
America — 229 years beautiful!
Let freedom ring, and burn… in all our hearts!
PS: In those states that have anti-discrimination clauses in their constitutions, it is difficult to see how any statues that prohibit same-sex marriage could be constitutional. For example, if marriage is a “right” in New Hampshire, then every person must have the ability to marry any other person regardless of their partner’s “race, creed, color, sex or national origin.” It’s hard to read this clause of their constitution in any other way.
That was the reasoning behind the Supreme Court of MA’s ruling that marriage cannot be denied on basis of sexual orientation.
Posted by: Warren P at June 24, 2005 10:03 PMAdrienne, David, & Joseph~
And you all find the “religious right” a little scary?
All of you sound like you’re on a witch hunt in salem and the American flag is on the run!
Posted by: Traci at June 25, 2005 08:40 AMI’m quite sure the klansmen felt the same way when they were burning crosses in negros yards.
Posted by: Traci at June 25, 2005 09:07 AMTraci, I feel sorry for you that you cannot see the difference between the fear, threat, and intimidation factor of burning a cross on someone’s lawn, and the defense of the 1st Amendment in the buring of a piece of dyed cloth one bought with one’s own money which happens to be a symbol of the right to freedom of speech and dissent and protest and assembly.
Burning a cross is a threat upon another’s life. Burning the flag is either appropriate disposal of it or protest against those who wave the flag with one hand while revoking or compromising the Constitution of this land with the other.
The KKK love the flag, so, does that mean their lynching and cross burning is OK? I love NOT the flag, I love the symbol which it stands for. A nation which will not permit power to recklessly deprive individuals and the powerless of certain basic rights to liberty and opportunity.
Very sorry for you indeed if you cannot see the grand canyon of difference.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 25, 2005 10:35 AMDavid~
It’s all in the eye of the beholder just like everything!
So you’re telling me that if a KKK group wandered into, lets say, Times Square and burned a negro likeness doll, that the left would not be outraged that they were allowed to do so(and inevitably blame the right for it).
I thought the left already argued on the porn sight that “you cannot legislate peoples thoughts or intent, only their actions”?
I do not condone, by the way, ANY of the above mentioned actions. But like I said, “It’s all in the eye of the beholder”! Personally, I don’t think any of it is productive, and frankly I thought the three of you were merely more intelligent than that, and if applied could be more constructive!
Have an excellent holiday and remember the fire safety: stop, drop, and roll while fulfilling your patriotism w/ a big bonfire!:)
Posted by: Traci at June 25, 2005 11:21 AMI read up on the bill and studyed some of the news articles about it, you were correct, Lawnboy, about the wording,ty, it only covers the flag.
I thought it also dealt with cross burning.
It would seem that this is turning into a political issue that will go far beyond the 1st amendment and freedom of speach.
Posted by: Beagle at June 25, 2005 12:23 PMThe liklihood of the proposed flag burning prohibition amendment passing is extremely low. I would say impossible but, one never knows. That said, I think we are maybe getting the cart in front of the horse.
The only way permitted to destroy an American Flag after it has served its country well is by burning. The spirit of this law is one of respect as burning is used similarly in other cultures and for other purposes.
I do not think that at the time the free speech amendment was authored that anyone would have even dreamed that individuals would desecrate the very Flag that inspired the Constitution to begin with.
I suspect that most who oppose this amendment, as a measure of respect, would not personally desecrate the symbol of the country that (in the broad interpretation of the free speech privelege) gives them the right to do so.
The thing that is silly about all this is the complete waste of time it is. Congress should be hard at work coming up with solutions to challenges our nation faces at this time. Proposing a constitutional amendment to outlaw flag burning is completely politically motivated and will serve no purpose other then to further polarize our country. All it will do is agitate hostilities. Citizens on the right will hear of opposition from the left and think they are callous and hate our country, and associate them with terrorists as they already often do. Citizens on the left will see this as a further step toward eroding democracy and freedom of expression, and will think those who support the Amendment are stupid, led by blind faith, and a superficial patriotism. It will only perpetuate the name calling and stereotyping of both sides, and wether it passes or not, it will still serve it’s real purpose which is keep America divided in two.
Posted by: Gary M. Kavanagh at June 25, 2005 02:41 PMGary,
“It will only perpetuate the name calling and stereotyping of both sides, and wether it passes or not, it will still serve it’s real purpose which is keep America divided in two.”
I can agree with you there, except it may divide America into 2/3rds.
I think this may spill over into “what is hate speach?”, rather than only being free speach.
Gary and Beagle,
Gary,
Excellent post, I think you have hit the nail on the head.
Beagle’s addition is also thought provoking.
I think the issue upon us is, which result will create the greatest injustice. While flag burning is part of the free speech priveleges allowed by the Constitution, it is not such a large part that it will have much impact on anyone. In fact, a great number of people have just now learned that flag burning was not prohibited by law.
On the other hand, some will see the amendment’s passing as not only bad in the present but, as a precurser to future invasions of the free speech privelege.
In either case, as you both point out, it will widen the “great divide”.
Posted by: steve smith at June 25, 2005 04:06 PMSteve Smith:
The only way permitted to destroy an American Flag after it has served its country well is by burning. The spirit of this law is one of respect as burning is used similarly in other cultures and for other purposes.I do not think that at the time the free speech amendment was authored that anyone would have even dreamed that individuals would desecrate the very Flag that inspired the Constitution to begin with.
I think you misinterpret the spirit of burning the flag in protest when you refer to it as an act of desecration. As I posted here before, and as you seem aware in your post, the US Flag code states “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.”
This is a very important line for those who burn the flag in protest of government actions. They feel that the flag has already been desecrated by certain actions of the government of the country it represents, and as such is “in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display”. I personally would tend to feel that a flag burning amendment would be something which would dishonor and desecrate the flag to that point, and I suspect others who have talked about burning the flag if such an amendment passes feel much the same.
Posted by: Jarin at June 25, 2005 07:34 PMTraci,
All of you sound like you’re on a witch hunt in salem and the American flag is on the run!
Look: I’ve already qualified that this isn’t something I’d prefer to do. Hell, I’d likely cry while watching it burn. But I would feel compelled. Citizens burning the flag in protest is only a small sign of a country in trouble. The state banning the burning of the flag is a much more dire omen. When a state icon becomes more important than the freedoms of the citizenry… ugh… why should I even need to finish this sentence? I’m not “hunting” the flag, Traci. I am simply outraged that House would have the gall to continually vote for this crap as if it were justifiable in any way, shape, or form. “Equal Rights Amendment? Meh. Flag Burning Amendment? Oh yeah! We’re there!” Every single representative who voted for this is either an idiot or a coward.
And thanks Adrienne and David.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at June 25, 2005 08:37 PMJarin,
When I say that the only permissible way to dispose of an American Flag that is in disrepair is the have it burned. This means in a respectful way, with honor.
People burning a perfectly good flag or, even one is disrepair as part of a demonstration against some position that the government has taken on an issue (even though it is their right under thge Constitution) is what I am suggesting is wrong.
I support an amendment that would amend or revise the free speech privelege to prohibit flag burning.
You cannot possibly believe that people “feeling” that the flag has already been desecrated by some government action validates their right to burn and otherwise desecrate the American Flag as part of a demonstration.
Jarin, thank you. You precisely expressed the intelligent and sophisticated premises for flag burning that existed in the ‘60’s to protest the Viet Nam War where the American Flag had become symbol for a government willing to spend American lives by the 10’s of thousands to maintain and profit its military industrial complex.
Whether protestors were right or wrong about the motives for Viet Nam, their use of the flag burning was for exactly the reasons and rationale you outlined. And still is the rationale for many who would use flag burning as a protest. It is not a disrespect for what the flag represents, it is a love of what it represents and a tool in highlighting when government has lost sight of what that flag represents. (Too often, I might add).
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 26, 2005 02:02 AMThere may be a simple solution. Unless I am mistaken, demonstrations must be approved by some governing body in the municipality in which it is to be held. There are rules that demonstrators must abide by. I am only guessing but it is possible that some of those rules can be interpreted to be infringements on some Constitutional “right”.
In any case, when an organization registers their intent to conduct a public demonstration, the approval lists all the things that are not sanctioned. At the top of the list should be fires are not permitted.
Posted by: steve smith at June 26, 2005 09:17 AMWhen I say that the only permissible way to dispose of an American Flag that is in disrepair is the have it burned. This means in a respectful way, with honor.People burning a perfectly good flag or, even one is disrepair as part of a demonstration against some position that the government has taken on an issue (even though it is their right under thge Constitution) is what I am suggesting is wrong.
I support an amendment that would amend or revise the free speech privelege to prohibit flag burning.
You cannot possibly believe that people “feeling” that the flag has already been desecrated by some government action validates their right to burn and otherwise desecrate the American Flag as part of a demonstration.
Actually, yes I do believe that. The wording of the Flag Code is very interesting. Nowhere does it state the flag needs to be old, or in disrepair. It does not mention physical dirt, or tears, or any manner of physical damage. It says very simply “when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display”. I see nothing wrong with taking a very strict view of this statue, and including when the flag has been stained by actions of government. You certainly have the right to disagree with them, but the wording of the flag code itself allows for a subjective decision about the flag’s condition, since it provides no objective guidelines as to what may constitute “in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display”. As for burning it in demonstrations being somehow inherently disrespectful, or desecration, when simply burning the flag is not… I disagree. I think in many cases it is a very respectful act, meant to try to bring increased awareness to a government action they see as staining and dishonoring the flag. And if retiring a flag through burning is not desecration when done privately, I don’t see how it could be desecration when done publicly… the only difference between the two is that the latter expresses a political message you happen to disagree with. That doesn’t really make the act desecration, it makes it an exercise of free speech. Amending the constitution to remove flag burning from protected speech would be a step down the road toward amending it to remove any form of speech those in power disagree with.
Posted by: Jarin at June 26, 2005 10:06 AMSteve Smith:
I also find it interesting that burning the flag publicly you consider a clear act of desecration, but I have not heard you speak out against those who after 9-11 publicly displayed the flag from their vehicles 24/7 and in all manner of weather, in many cases till the flags they were flying were tattered scraps. This so-called act of Patriotism was a clear violation of several parts of the Flag Code, and far more tangibly desecrated the flag than burning, since the damage and mistreatment was not done with any intent to retire the flags being used.
Posted by: Jarin at June 26, 2005 10:10 AMJarin,
You are of course correct when you say that there is no intrepretation of the free speech amendment or the Flag Code that defines “when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display”.
Also destroying, burning or otherwise using the American Flag to show disagreement with policy of government is your right within the Constitution.
There is a Flag Code which is quite lengthy and descriptive regarding how the flag should be used, displayed, respected, etc. A flag “code of ethics” if you will. It also states in that code that there are no penalties for violating the guidelines. Once again you have affirmation to use the flag in whatever way you wish.
Just to clarify a point, when I say that a flag in disrepair should be burned, I do not mean by the owner. The VFW, Elks, Moose, etc. clubs and the boy and girl scouts are proud to assist you in this effort. This is also what I mean in a respectful way.
Finally, I think your reference to the flag being flown from vehicles as a symbol of American pride, determination and resolve is, quite honestly a horrible way to make a point that in that spirit some were damaged. Once again it is your right of free speech to do so.
Have you ever seen the flag, or pictures showing the condition of the flag that inspired the authoring of our Star Spangled Banner. In case you have forgotten that is our National Anthem.
Posted by: steve smith at June 26, 2005 11:57 AMFinally, I think your reference to the flag being flown from vehicles as a symbol of American pride, determination and resolve is, quite honestly a horrible way to make a point that in that spirit some were damaged. Once again it is your right of free speech to do so.
Actually, my point is not that “in that spirit some were damaged”. My point is that many of those choosing to make the flag a symbol of their own patriotism, rather than treating it as the symbol of our nation, showed less of the customary respect to it than those who outright burn it in protest. If you’re not treating the flag with the customary respect outlined in the flag code, are you really showing patriotism or national pride? It reminds me of the idea in the Christian bible of praying publicly to make a show of one’s supposed piety, vs actually being pious. (The best example of this I recall is Luke 18:9-14)
Have you ever seen the flag, or pictures showing the condition of the flag that inspired the authoring of our Star Spangled Banner. In case you have forgotten that is our National Anthem.
Yes, I have seen that flag. That actually makes my point very well… that flag is a national treasure, despite mere rips and tears and physical damage it has never been retired. It remains, despite and indeed because of the damage inflicted upon it in the course of our war for independence, an emblem suitable for display. This further highlights the subjective nature of what constitutes “in such condition that it is no longer a suitable emblem for display”.
It is also worth noting that the damage to that flag occurred in wartime, because of an enemy attack, and not because of people flying it in an improper manner simply to publicly display their own patriotism, or as a symbol of “american pride, determination, and resolve”. How is it a symbol of american pride to fly your flag in such a way that it is literally ripped apart by wind and weather? There is a reason for the guidelines given in the Flag Code for the proper ways to display and honor the flag.
And no, I haven’t forgotten our national anthem. It’s the first thing mentioned in the Flag Code. ;-)
Posted by: Jarin at June 26, 2005 01:17 PMIf burning the American flag is “free speech” to protest the Government. Shouldn’t burning tires to protest cars also be free speech ?
Its kinda hard to prove the motvives in court?
Both will polute the air, unless burned in an insinerator that controls the poop going into the air.
When the USSC ruled that porn( however offencive) was free speech, they agreed that you can’t pick and choose.
If I burn a few “car” tires in protest, I expect the ACLU to defend me, because its free speech?
I wont burn any truck/SUV tires, because I like them and most are made in USA.
Its been ruled you can’t pick N choose what is free speech.
I agree its a silly thing to burn tires in protest, but legally someone would have as much right as burning the flag.
Saying burning one might cause much more polution would be valid, except when you run into the “selective prosocution” clause that most states have. You have a hard time banning amount, only the act.
I’ll burn a car tire off an import car tonight, and wait by the phone for the ACLU to defend me, if I get a fine.
Posted by: Beagle at June 26, 2005 05:10 PMJarin,
You continue with this incessant tunnel vision literal interpretation of the words I use to describe my opposition to burning the flag in protest.
I have never disagreed that according to the Constitution, burning the flag in opposition to a government issue to which you take exception is protected by free speech.
And yes, there is a huge difference between damaging a flag by displaying it to show your patriotic support and pride in your country and damaging it by burning it to call attention to the fact that you oppose a government issue.
As I posted earlier, all local municipalities have to do is establish the parameters of an organized demonstration to prohibit fires. But I guess that will be a violation of your coveted liberal ideals that because an issue is not specifically defined in a right or law, it is OK to violate ethics and who cares who you offend in the process.
My only point is that sometimes you have to say to yourself, I know that the law protects me for doing this but, ethically it is offensive and, in the spirit of patriotism, I can show my opposition in a more appropriate way.
Also, when you demonstrate by doing something that, even if it is protected by law, and, you offend a lot of people by doing it you lose credibility.
Posted by: steve smith at June 26, 2005 05:34 PMBeagle,
I’ll burn a car tire off an import car tonight, and wait by the phone for the ACLU to defend me, if I get a fine.
I’ll defend your right to burn a tire off an import car, as long as you own the import car. Otherwise, what you’re doing is vandalism and destruction of private property, which is against the law (as is tire burning is general, so make sure you apply for that special permit first).
I’ll also defend your right to burn the flag, but only if you purchase the flag first. Burning someone else’s flag without their permission is a crime, but burning your own flag is fortunately still a right that you have. If you find yourself without heat some cold winter night (perhaps because energy costs are through the roof) I suggest you burn the flag for warmth rather than the tire. I think you’ll find the level of pollution emitted from the burning flag a lot more bearable than the mercury and lead fumes the tire will emit…
Seriously though, burning tires is illegal because of the serious environmental problems it causes. Burning cloth is legal, and is no more polluting than burning wood in the fireplace (and less so than burning coal). If you can demonstrate that burning cloth is equally bad for the environment I will support a law to ban the burning of all cloth, but NOT a law specifically against the burning of the American flag.
Posted by: Charles Wager at June 26, 2005 08:29 PM…the very Flag that inspired the Constitution to begin with…
Steve, do you actually believe that it was the Flag that inspired the Consitution? The Constitution was created because there were 13 states that realized they needed a better framework for government than the Articles of Confederation had supplied. Saying that the Constitution was inspired by the Flag seems a strange form of historical revisionism.
Posted by: LawnBoy at June 27, 2005 02:41 AMCharles,
I own no import cars. I refuse to even ride in one, much less own it!
But alas, any tire shop will give you all you want for free.
Did you miss the point entirely?
I’ll apply for a permit to burn the tire when you apply for a permit to burn the flag.
LawnBoy,
“…the very Flag that inspired the Constitution to begin with…”
Do I think that it was the physical flag, in other words did they look at the flag (piece of cloth, as you guys like to call it) and suddenly say “Let’s draw up a Constitution”…
I would say probably not.
On the other hand, if you allow the freedom of author’s license and interpret my statement to mean that the unification we 13 states have is symbolized by the flag, it makes us feel good about this symbol, banner, emblem and, the fact that it was created to begin with, we will draw up a Constitution and adopt this flag as it’s (the USA) standard.
Posted by: steve smith at June 27, 2005 09:23 AMThe burning issue…
While I like the tire burning idea, it is true that there are toxic fumes from the rubber so free speech may result in not so free hospitalization.
More importantly, many flags are constructed with synthetic (man made) fabrics which can have a similar effect as the rubber tires. I therefore suggest that you flag burners exercise caution when exercising your freedom of speech rights to burn them. I thought about withholding that information but, two wrongs do not make a right.
Posted by: steve smith at June 27, 2005 09:29 AMsteve,
I’m glad to hear that you didn’t literally believe that the Flag was the inspiration. I understand the author’s license, definitely. My concern is that this debate largely turns on what the Flag means, so I was worried that there was a segment of society that believed that the Flag was the literal inspiration of the Constitution.
There’s already enough emotional and symbolic weight attached to that special piece of fabric without adding that.
Posted by: LawnBoy at June 27, 2005 09:32 AMLawnboy,
You seem to have intellect to understand the very root cause of why this could ever become an issue.
The flag has different meanings to different people, and to some the burning changes from free speach to hate speach.
If I had a prize to give, you would win the one for understanding the issue, you came closest.
There are much better ways to protest ANYTHING than doing something that angers a large group of citizens.
Exchange the “Flag” for a cross, the Bible, Koran, or anything else thats meaningfull to some citizens and you get the same reaction.
I think the “PC” thing has went a lil overboard, but doing something that you know in advance will only anger people?
Congress has better things to work on, and protesters have better ways to do that on any issue.
I wonder what would happen if BOTH sides of congress went on c-span, and stated that burning the flag in protest is offencive and will provoke nothing but anger, we have more pressing issues to debate?
I hope you get my point(I got yours).
Posted by: Beagle at June 27, 2005 10:49 AMLawnBoy,
I am glad we are on relatively the same page. As stated before, I fully support the right of free speech in all it’s interpretations and applications.
That said, most people knowing the sensitivity and anger that a burning flag can evoke in others would be better served to use a potentially less offensive approach.
I think doing so will draw more positive attention to their protest. I would suggest that a group of demonstrators who may very well be advocating a very valid point and, are burning a flag to draw attention to it are likely to be remembered more by the opposition bystanders as a bunch of (insert word) flag burners than serious advocates of their issue.
Once again, I appreciate that they are within their rights and, in their minds possibly the only way to get people to fixate on their point is to burn the flag. Unfortunately, IMO the majority of the general public does not understand that flag burning is not prohibited by the Constitution or Flag Code.
Posted by: steve smith at June 27, 2005 10:56 AMYa’ll do realize don’t you, that making the burning of the flag in demonstration illegal will give an enormous power to protest organizations don’t you? The goal of protestors is to garner media attention and elicit empathy of fellow Americans.
If flag burning is a crime, pregnant mothers and teens, and grandparents will take their issue to the streets burning the flag, get arrested, tried and sentenced for political speech and peaceful assembly, and the media will have a field day with stories of police state tactics, and the empathy of Americans for pregnant mothers in jail, teens and grandparents will flow to the protestors.
This is just another one of those unAmerican Republican policies that will have quite the different effects than they intended. As a person who has stood in a protest, I welcome the illegalization of the flag burning. It will give protestors a powerful method of achieving media access for their causes.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 27, 2005 12:16 PMDavid,
Unfortunately it is very likely to get a bunch of people maimed and/or killed.
If demonstrators welcome illegal flag burning as a way to get media attention doing so will call attention to the fact that they perceive themselves above the law and further diminish the value of whatever it is they were trying to accomplish.
David, I applaud your ability to subtly introduce pregnant mothers, teens and grandparents into the street as flag burners so as to appeal to the sympathetic bleeding hearts.
Has it occured to you that most will see those pregnant mothers, teens and grandparents as a shield of invitees for a relatively cowardly group of demonstrators to hide behind.
Posted by: steve smith at June 27, 2005 12:42 PMSteve, I lived as a young adult through years of protests and demonstrations which ended a horrible war and brought civil rights and opportunity to blacks. The same accusations were made then, with almost no effect.
Americans champion underdogs with a righteous cause. It is one of the characteristics that make me proud to be American count my stars I was born in America.
Jail middle class women, teens, and old folks with a righteous cause - and the government will not be able to withstand the public opinion sea change for long. Though as you say, the government almost always goes ballistic before it realizes the crisis it has on its hands caused by its own exercise of power against its people.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 27, 2005 12:56 PMBurn the flag if you want, big deal! It means nothing to so many nowadays anyway.
I would never support such an Amendment but anyone who burns our flag is not a real American and should be big enough to accept the aftermath of such actions.
You have a right to do it and I should have the right to kick your ass for doing it, that is afterall, how I “express” myself to people that hate all that is America.
Hell, most people on here would love to attend nightly bible burning sessions to I bet. Gotta use your right to free speech to yet bash Bush and those evil Christians again.
What a country. Burn OUR flag in joy but raise holy hell and expect justice if its our own people degrading a koran, even if it is made up.
Posted by: kctim at June 27, 2005 02:09 PMBeagle,
Did you miss the point entirely? I’ll apply for a permit to burn the tire when you apply for a permit to burn the flag.
I was trying to keep my post tongue-in-cheek because yes—I did miss your point entirely and I’m still missing it. An amendment to make burning the flag illegal would be a law enacted specifically to restrict free speech. Laws to make tire burning illegal are for health and environmental reasons. Why are you equating the two? What IS your point?
Posted by: Charles Wager at June 27, 2005 03:07 PMkctim~
It makes absolutely no sense, does it?
I may just agree (not understand) them if they were not so up in arms over the damn Koran.
kctim,
I would never support such an Amendment but anyone who burns our flag is not a real American and should be big enough to accept the aftermath of such actions. You have a right to do it and I should have the right to kick your ass for doing it, that is afterall, how I “express” myself to people that hate all that is America.
In my eyes (and your words) you are the one who is not a real American. Defending a symbol by kicking the ass of fellow Americans who are merely trying to get the attention of a government that has stopped listening to their grievences — that does not sound very patriotic to me.
Also, same argument as for tire burning… I accept the fact that ignorant and hate-ridden people will try to kick my ass for burning a flag, even though flag burning currently IS legal. However, I also reserve the right to sue their ass for assault, because that is NOT legal. Incidentally, were you one of those people throwing rocks through the windows of Arab Americans right after 9/11?
Posted by: Charles Wager at June 27, 2005 03:18 PMkctim,
I would never support such an Amendment but anyone who burns our flag is not a real American and should be big enough to accept the aftermath of such actions. You have a right to do it and I should have the right to kick your ass for doing it, that is afterall, how I “express” myself to people that hate all that is America.
In my eyes (and your words) you are the one who is not a real American. Defending a symbol by kicking the ass of fellow Americans who are merely trying to get the attention of a government that has stopped listening to their grievences — that does not sound very patriotic to me.
Also, same argument as for tire burning… I accept the fact that ignorant and hate-ridden people will try to kick my ass for burning a flag, even though flag burning currently IS legal. However, I also reserve the right to sue their ass for assault, because that is NOT legal. People who talk about kicking the ass of other Americans sound like those people who were throwing rocks through the windows of Arab Americans right after 9/11…all for the sake of “patriotism”.
Posted by: Charles Wager at June 27, 2005 03:48 PMCharles
Haven’t you heard? Second hand smoke kills, well at least this month it does.
Traci
Just like every other thing, I’m sure they can justify to themselves why its ok this time for them but not another time when it goes against what they believe.
Free speech! As long as it agrees with their agenda that is.
kctim,
What’s your point? What does second-hand smoke have to do with anything?
Posted by: Charles Wager at June 27, 2005 04:00 PMDavid,
I am 62 years old. I lived not only through the years of protests and demonstrations as you did that (as you say, but I disagree) ended the horrible war but, I was IN that horrible war.
Let me tell you how heartwarming it was to return to a no appreciation for effort attitude and, to see my flag burning in the street in protest.
I guess that we all would have felt much better had we known that those destroying the flag were simply exercising their right of free speech.
Posted by: steve smith at June 27, 2005 04:03 PM“In my eyes (and your words) you are the one who is not a real American. Defending a symbol by kicking the ass of fellow Americans”
Lets see here, I also said: I would never support such an Amendment but anyone who burns our flag is not a real American”
Fellow Americans would love their country and not burn the flag so I wouldn’t be kicking the ass of “fellow” Americans now would I.
“Also, same argument as for tire burning… I accept the fact that ignorant and hate-ridden people will try to kick my ass for burning a flag, even though flag burning currently IS legal.”
Ignorant and hate-ridden? Because I won’t conform to your beliefs? Believe as you want me to believe because your way is the only one that is right?
I’m HATE-ridden because I LOVE my country and despise people who do not appreciate what it means to be an American?
Ignorance and hate. Two very ugly words used to distract from the real meaning.
“However, I also reserve the right to sue their ass for assault, because that is NOT legal.”
And I’m sure there are millions of ambulance chasers who would take your case. But if I were you, I would go with the aclu. They are pretty well known for defending one persons right while ignoring the rights of others.
I wouldn’t be worth it anyways, I don’t have much. And besides, I’ll just say I came from a broken home, my mommy didnt love me and I got spanked when I did wrong. If the system works like it usually does, I’ll just get a slap on the wrist.
“People who talk about kicking the ass of other Americans sound like those people who were throwing rocks through the windows of Arab Americans right after 9/11…all for the sake of “patriotism.”
Well, first of all, I don’t believe in hyphens. I don’t believe in asian, african, irish or whatever Americans. Your either an American or your not. Hyphens were added all in order to seperate everybody and get votes.
Second, a real American wouldn’t burn the flag out of hate. So unless those you talked about were doing something like that, I see no relation between the two.
CW
You said:
“An amendment to make burning the flag illegal would be a law enacted specifically to restrict free speech. Laws to make tire burning illegal are for health and environmental reasons”
Burning the flag causes smoke which endangers my health and harms the environment.
Why the difference? Why is YOUR cause more important than Beagles?
Free speech is free speech, whether you hate America or Goodyear you should be able to express it without a permit.
kctim,
Your first post uses such circuitious arguments and tangents that you’re essentially just talking to yourself. I’m content to let you continue…
As to your second post… The only limit on free speech is that it cannot impede on the rights of others. If you feel that second-hand smoke and the burning of flags is impacting your health then I suggest you talk to your legislators and get a law passed to make burning of any kind illegal. If such a law passes I will concede and not burn anything—including flags or cigarettes—out of respect for your health. Before you tread that water, keep in mind that your SUV and all automobiles will no doubt be included in that no-burning law, since they produce far more pollution than a cigarette or a burning flag. Good luck fighting for the cause…
Posted by: Charles Wager at June 27, 2005 04:44 PMkctim,
You and I are on the same page, believe me. However when I saw your post I immediately knew what the response would be, and it was. He (they) have now taken the argument to air quality which gets away from the entire flag burning thing. Now you cant use your car because o0f air quality, etc. If you respond, the next thing will be no more using your barbecue, etc.
Posted by: steve smith at June 27, 2005 05:05 PM“Your first post uses such circuitious arguments and tangents that you’re essentially just talking to yourself”
Amazing, thanks. I often feel like I am just talking to myself when explaining common sense and whats fair to liberals. Thanks again.
“Good luck fighting for the cause…”
Now wait a minute here. What makes one type of free speech more important than another? If you truely believe in free speech for all, then you should be at the forefront in all cases that violate somebody’s free speech rights.
You can’t pick and choose when you think free speech is worth fighting for. It should ALWAYS be important, not just when its for something you agree with.
At least I’m consistent in my beliefs.
Steve S.
“If you respond, the next thing will be no more using your barbecue, etc.”
Thanks for the support. I always try to respond and I know most on here would prefer I didn’t, but oh well.
So, unless I start getting mean emails (or nice ones from an awesome lady asking me to be quiet) I guess I will continue on.
steve smith,
He (they) have now taken the argument to air quality which gets away from the entire flag burning thing.
This was kctim’s tangent, not mine. I was just running with it…call it a form of “reductio ad absurdum”.
Posted by: Charles Wager at June 27, 2005 05:46 PMAmazing, thanks. I often feel like I am just talking to myself when explaining common sense and whats fair to liberals. Thanks again.
You’re welcome.
If you truely believe in free speech for all, then you should be at the forefront in all cases that violate somebody’s free speech rights.
These are your presumptions about my beliefs, not what I actually believe. What I believe is free speech for all, as long as it doesn’t impede on other’s rights (exactly as I said above).
You can’t pick and choose when you think free speech is worth fighting for. It should ALWAYS be important, not just when its for something you agree with. At least I’m consistent in my beliefs.
If you truly belive that I’m picking and choosing, then you have a problem with the Constitution itself and the way it’s been interpreted by the courts over the course of American history. The courts have laid out exceptions to the First Amendment protections, and all of these exceptions are consistent with my belief.
Posted by: Charles Wager at June 27, 2005 06:04 PMJarin,You continue with this incessant tunnel vision literal interpretation of the words I use to describe my opposition to burning the flag in protest.
I have never disagreed that according to the Constitution, burning the flag in opposition to a government issue to which you take exception is protected by free speech.
No, you merely support an amendment that would remove it from protected speech because it is something you disagree with. That is what I’m arguing against.
And yes, there is a huge difference between damaging a flag by displaying it to show your patriotic support and pride in your country and damaging it by burning it to call attention to the fact that you oppose a government issue.
Yes, there is. In the former, the flag is damaged out of ignorance and a desire to display their own patriotism more than actually knowledgeable and customary respect for the flag. In the latter, the flag is damaged in full accordance with accepted custom for retiring the flag in a respectful and dignified manner to protest acts they feel have dishonored the nation, and rendered its symbol no longer fitting for display. There is a clear difference in which one shows more actual respect for the flag.
As I posted earlier, all local municipalities have to do is establish the parameters of an organized demonstration to prohibit fires. But I guess that will be a violation of your coveted liberal ideals that because an issue is not specifically defined in a right or law, it is OK to violate ethics and who cares who you offend in the process.
Fine, make that illegal. You do realize the next step will be cutting the flag up into small pieces in demonstration, right?
See, to actually achieve your ends, you would have to make it illegal to desecrate the flag in any way. To remove that as an option for free speech, rather than simply outlawing one method for doing so. You are opposed to the message itself, that government actions have stained the flag and rendered it unfit for display, rather than the particular method of burning.
(And cutting a flag into small pieces and burying it is another way that is considered customary and respectful for disposing of one, though not outlined in the flag code)
My only point is that sometimes you have to say to yourself, I know that the law protects me for doing this but, ethically it is offensive and, in the spirit of patriotism, I can show my opposition in a more appropriate way.Also, when you demonstrate by doing something that, even if it is protected by law, and, you offend a lot of people by doing it you lose credibility.
The thing is, ethically it is not inherently offensive, even if many insist in being offended by it. It is NOT sending the message that one hates america and wants to see it destroyed. The message that it sends, the original justification for flag burning, is actually “This government has committed/is committing acts so heinous that they stain the dignity and honor of this flag. Their actions have rendered it into such condition that it is no longer fitting for display, and as such must be respectfully retired.”
There are exceptions to this, there are people who do it because they hate america (one of the supreme court cases on this subject deals with one clear example of that, actually, in which the people burning the flag also chanted “America, the red white and blue, we spit on you”), but that is NOT inherently the message being sent by simply burning the flag in every instance, despite the rhetoric that the opposing side uses whenever flag burning is employed to protest government actions.
Increasingly, it sounds like the message you are really opposed to is that our government can do anything wrong. You speak about how, coming home from vietnam, it hurt you so deeply that there was public opposition to the war you had just fought in. The only way to insure that no one is ever hurt in this manner is to make sure no one ever opposes government actions, particular wars. The only way to achieve that is to stop this country from remaining a representative democracy, and to do away with the right of free speech altogether.
This whole issue reminds me very much of a few lines from an old irish folk song, “The Minstrel Boy”:
“The minstrel fell, but the foe-man’s chains
could not keep that proud soul under.
The harp he loved never spoke again,
for he tore its chords asunder.
And said no chains shall sully thee,
oh soul of love and bravery.
Thy songs were made for the pure and free,
they shall never sound in slavery.”
Like our flag, his harp to him is a symbol of purity and freedom, and he would rather destroy it than see it fall into slavery. Burning the flag can be, and often is, a very similar act with people who deeply love the country and what the flag represents willing to destroy that flag rather than let their government’s actions drag it through the mud by going against the very ideals it represents.
Posted by: Jarin at June 27, 2005 07:32 PMThere was an error in the quoting of that last reply, the following lines are, of course, steve smith’s…. not mine.
I have never disagreed that according to the Constitution, burning the flag in opposition to a government issue to which you take exception is protected by free speech.Posted by: Jarin at June 27, 2005 07:38 PM
By the way, all of the arguments on here comparing flag-burning to tire burning are really silly given that you’re not really opposed to the particulars of burning it so much as causing physical damage to it in any way as part of a political message that, in your view, does not “support america”. (Or, in other words, which does not agree with and fully endorse the actions of the american government in every situation, regardless of the situation.)
Posted by: Jarin at June 27, 2005 07:41 PMSome people might do well by reading all my posts on this subject, rather than just picking out the parts that piss you off.
You might find that I said burning tires in protest is silly, That ones free speach can be anothers hate speach( pick any symbol to defile)and get the same result.
Congress has better things to work on than this, but both sides should agree that there are better ways to protest anything, than to do something you know will only piss a bunch of Americans off.
I doubt anyone missed my point, some just didn’t like it because it doesn’t fit with theirs.
Burn all the flags you want, the message most Americans will get is that it doesn’t mean much to you.( things tend to get taken in context).
I have a T-shirt I’ve worn every July 4th for the past 20yrs, that has a big flag and reads “Try burning this one asshole”.
I once had someone throw a lit match at me(just a tough guy joking around), I deemed that as assult and defended myself.
I didn’t get sued and still wear the same shirt every July 4th , that guy wears a funny looking nose all year.
Burn your flag if you want, politically it worked out great for Kerry didn’t it?
Beagle,
This is what you said:
I agree its a silly thing to burn tires in protest, but legally someone would have as much right as burning the flag.
My only point here was that legally someone does NOT have the same right to burn tires as you claimed. Burning tires is illegal, but the reason it’s illegal is not to prevent you from using it in protests. In contrast, passing an amendment making it illegal to burn flags WOULD be specifially to prevent people from expressing themselves in that way. Furthermore, you gave an example of burning import car tires in protest, which is vandalism and thus also illegal (because you clearly stated that YOU would never own an import car). Your burning tire example is not comparable in any way to burning flags, and does nothing to support the point you were allegedly trying to make.
A more comparable example to burning tires on someone else’s import car would be if I were to stage a protest by wrapping you up in your own flag, and setting both you and your flag on fire. Doing so would be illegal and a violation of your right to live (and also your right to not have your flag vandalized), making it much more comparable to you breaking two laws by burning up someone else’s tires.
Burning tires was your example, and if you are irritated that people aren’t getting your point then you have only yourself to blame.
It’s also telling to hear that you deemed breaking someone’s nose was the appropriate response for their throwing a lit match at you in jest.
Posted by: Charles Wager at June 27, 2005 10:27 PMJarin,
Government actions cannot possibly stain the dignity of the flag. Disrespective use of it (burning,demonstrating against your country, etc.) stains the dignity of America and, the character of the persons doing it.
Your comment that damaging a flag by displaying patriotism is doing so out of ignorance is yet another example of how you totally miss the point.
People who conduct themselves with dignity while demonstrating for change of policy in their country gain credibility for their cause. When they know that something is within the law but, many find it distasteful, find other ways to make their point. That does not change the law but rather shows respect for it.
Posted by: steve smith at June 27, 2005 11:07 PMJarin,
Please refrain from using the folk songs and poetry to make points. They tend to lengthen already ridiculously long responses.
Why don’t you round up a few friends and go burn a few flags adjacent to the Vietman Memorial Wall. Let me know what time you are going and I will have a few friends join you in celebration.
Posted by: steve smith at June 27, 2005 11:13 PMAnybody who doesn’t love this country needs to leave. Get out!
If you want to protest, do it constructively.
You’re so self-indulgent for rambling on about how this amendment goes against your civil rights.
Posted by: henry at June 27, 2005 11:48 PMhenry,
Anybody who doesn’t love this country needs to leave. Get out!
Who are you referring to? I don’t think there’s a single poster on these blogs that doesn’t love their country (and that includes the conservatives). What would make you think otherwise? Anyone who thinks that just because we’re willing to defend someone’s right to burn the flag makes us haters of America is completely missing our point. America is about Americans, not about symbols!
If you want to protest, do it constructively.
Your post is hardly constructive; trying setting an example for starters. Protesting by doing something drastic like burning the flag tends to be constructive in that it gets attention. At times, when the people’s elected representatives have chosen to ignore their grievances, this can force them to pay attention.
You’re so self-indulgent for rambling on about how this amendment goes against your civil rights.
And if America is not about the rights of an individual, then what is it about? What do you think you are defending with your misplaced patriotism if not your civil rights?
Posted by: Charles Wager at June 28, 2005 02:13 AMSort of a side note from the recent posts. In reference to the little flags everyone put on their cars and all over every where post 9/11 and beyond, that were mentioned earlier— there was something about them that really bothered me that no one mentioned. Quite a number of these flags had written in little print at the bottom, “Made in China”. I don’t know about you, but it makes me feel kind of sick to think of some impoverished soul working for next to nothing in a factory, manufacturing cheap synthetic flags for another country. I don’t see anything Patriotic about that, even if we ignore the weather torn issue brought up earlier.
Posted by: Gary M. Kavanagh at June 28, 2005 03:07 AMGary Cavanaugh,
Does it make you equally sick that 95-100% of every item that your family wears is made in China and related locations. There once was a slogan that we “should only buy American”.
Guess what, no longer possible to do if we wanted to.
Posted by: steve smith at June 28, 2005 08:53 AMTo : All Republicans, conservatives and right wingers…
Sadly, burning the flag in protest by any means described by our bleeding heart liberal friends is legal by the free speech amendment of the Constitution. They support the individuals’s right to do anything (they will say as long as doesn’t hurt anyone) that is protedted by the Constitution.
They interpret “hurt anyone” as physical harm. and don’t recognize or give a damn about emotional harm or impact.
It is their belief that if you exclude flag burning from the Constitution and make it illegal that the government has “seized” control of their rights of free speech.
These people know full well that there are other ways to make their points without burning a flag but they prefer to agitate us with their inflamatory rhetoric.
We all suspect I think that not a single one of these people would show up to demonstrate their opposition to something by burning a flag in a strong pro American environment. If so, they would be shielded by the pregnant mothers, teens and grandparents that they hired to afford them protection.
In an earlier post I invited one of these posters to show up with some friends at the Vietnam War Memorial Wall and burn some flags and to let me know what time they would be there so I could send some of my friends to join in the celebration.
Posted by: steve smith at June 28, 2005 09:34 AM“Sadly, burning the flag in protest by any means described by our bleeding heart liberal friends is legal by the free speech amendment of the Constitution.”
Yes it is Steve, and we must fight with them in order to make sure that ALL of our free speech rights are kept intact.
I hate the idea of burning our flag but the right to be able to do it must not be taken away.
My biggest problem is the hypocritical stance they take when it comes to our rights, a right is only worth keeping or fighting for if it agrees with their agenda.
“They support the individuals’s right to do anything (they will say as long as doesn’t hurt anyone) that is protected by the Constitution”
Oh how I wish this were true Steve.
They support the individuals right to do anything that THEY agree with. If something is protected by the Constitution there should be no compromise.
Chuck
“And if America is not about the rights of an individual, then what is it about?”
Very well said sir, bravo.
Now, if we could just get our reps to realize that seatbelts, smoking, property, religion and guns are also individual rights, our country could try to get back on track to being great once again.
kctim,
I don’t know how many “rights” are covered by the free speech amendment. When you consider that both your right to “say” things and “do” things are covered, it is likely that thousands, (if not more) specific conditions are included.
The flag burning issue is one that I think should be specifically removed as a right. Yes, I support a constitutional amendment to prohibit flag burning from the “free speech” privelege presently granted by the Constitution.
Hence, I am not fighting with them, I am campaigning against them.
Posted by: steve smith at June 28, 2005 10:25 AMsteve smith,
The flag burning issue is one that I think should be specifically removed as a right. Yes, I support a constitutional amendment to prohibit flag burning from the “free speech” privelege presently granted by the Constitution.
You pinpoint exactly why so many people are against this amendment. This is the 2nd amendment in two years that seeks to take rights away from the American people, which is a very un-American thing to do.
I take it you’re not a traditional conservative, but rather one of those un-conservative new “conservatives”, since you aren’t arguing that this decision should be left up to the states (like tire burning is, I might add…)
Charles Wager,
I have no idea what un-conservative “new conservative” means.
Normally, my conservative views lean towards the right.
I do however believe in decisions being left to the individual states on most issues. This flag burning thing however has to be considered federal in that it represents a country comprised of all the states. In my mind it cannot be legal to burn a flag in New York and illegal to do so in Virginia.
I have never been part of the tire burning issue BTW. It’s a shame that draft card burning didn’t come up.
Posted by: steve smith at June 28, 2005 03:21 PMMy fault Steve. I kept the tire burning issue going and should not have.
Apparently, some people and their protests are more important than others.
Bet if we painted that tire red, white and blue that it would THEN be an unjust law worth breaking.
Charles
“You pinpoint exactly why so many people are against this amendment”
This paragraph of yours was great. Why do you think that most people against this Amendment are anti 2nd Amendment?
Both are individual rights protected under the Constitution.
Just curious, thanks.
Charles,
If this flag burning issue is the 2nd amendment in the last two years that seeks to take rights away from the American people, refresh my memory as to what the other one was please.
Posted by: steve smith at June 28, 2005 04:09 PMsteve smith,
If this flag burning issue is the 2nd amendment in the last two years that seeks to take rights away from the American people, refresh my memory as to what the other one was please.
The proposed amendment to ban gay marriage, although I doubt you’ve actually forgotten that…
Harping on the tire burning again was a joke by the way. I’ll be sure to include a “smiley” next time.
Posted by: Charles Wager at June 28, 2005 04:54 PMkctim,
This paragraph of yours was great. Why do you think that most people against this Amendment are anti 2nd Amendment? Both are individual rights protected under the Constitution.
Is this an assumption of yours, of do you have a source for that “statistic”?
Like most liberals I fully support the 2nd amendment, just like I do the 1st amendment. However, I do believe restrictions should be placed on the 2nd amendment in order to protect the rights of others. This is entirely consistent with my support for the 1st amendment, where I stated above that I’m in full support of the limits the courts have placed on the 1st amendment to prevent it from being used to impede the rights of others.
Incidentally, if it would make you feel better I am willing to concede to a waiting period of five days and a background check before being allowed to buy a flag for the purposes of burning. :-)
Posted by: Charles Wager at June 28, 2005 05:04 PMCharles Wager,
To be honest I had forgotten that one, thanks. My opinions and feelings are well known and documented on the gay marriage issue and, it is not part of this thread so I will not introduce discussion on it. I believe it has been worn to death anyway.
No problem on the tire burning thing, I never considered it seriously from the outset.
Posted by: steve smith at June 28, 2005 05:07 PM“I do believe restrictions should be placed on the 2nd amendment in order to protect the rights of others”
Then you don’t believe in the 2nd Amendment, sorry.
One can easily say that restrictions should be placed on the 1st, such as banning flag burning, in order to protect the rights of others who do not wish to view this display of hatred towards their country.
“Is this an assumption of yours, of do you have a source for that “statistic”?”
Its the party line rhetoric. You proved it by saying you agree that some of our rights under the second amendment should be restricted and your party preaches about it.
Posted by: kctim at June 28, 2005 06:04 PMkctim,
Then you don’t believe in the 2nd Amendment, sorry.
Why not? Explain yourself. Your statement makes no logical sense.
One can easily say that restrictions should be placed on the 1st, such as banning flag burning, in order to protect the rights of others who do not wish to view this display of hatred towards their country.
There are restrictions on the 1st amendment, as I said. Now, why don’t you tell me which of your rights—as given in the constitution—is in jeopardy by your neighbor burning a flag? It offends you? That’s tough. I’m offended when the KKK demonstrates, or Fred Phelps, but I still respect their right to do so.
Its the party line rhetoric.As I said, do you have a source for this rhetoric you speak of? Actually, if you’re going to use this as an argument for your statement: “most people against this amendment are anti 2nd Amendment” then first you have to demonstrate that only Democrats are against the flag burning amendment (which is not true from what I’ve read in this thread alone).
You proved it by saying you agree that some of our rights under the second amendment should be restricted and your party preaches about it.
Yes, I did say there should be restrictions, and I said that about the 1st amendment as well…in order to limit the ability of individuals from abusing their rights to infringe those of others (which is only common sense, after all). What you haven’t explained is why you believe this means I’m against the 2nd amendment. Also, I’ve never been a member of the Democratic party and never will be, so please give up this “your party” spiel…
Posted by: Charles Wager at June 28, 2005 07:46 PMSteve:
Considering that you’ve once again brought this issue back to people “demonstrating against [their] country”, rather than against particular actions of the government, I’m not going to waste my time arguing further with you.
Posted by: Jarin at June 28, 2005 07:50 PMJarin,
Do I take it then that we will not be meeting at the War Memorial Wall?
Posted by: steve smith at June 28, 2005 08:58 PMSteve:
If I ever chose to burn a flag in protest, which I have not done but respect the choice of others to do and defend both their right to do it and their rationale for doing so, it would not be at the monument to those who fought and died in a past war that ended before I was born, and in which my own father fought. What exactly would the point of that meeting be? I really think your own experiences following the Vietnam war continue to cloud your judgment on this subject. Either that or you just feel the need to blow off steam and make a show of your bravado.
As for your claim that those choosing to burn flags would never do so in a strong “pro American” environment without protection by “the pregnant mothers, teens and grandparents that they hired”, I think we’ll just have to continue to differ on the idea that an environment where people would be assaulted for exercising their right to free speech and dissent against government action is truly “pro American”.
Posted by: Jarin at June 28, 2005 10:23 PMJarin,
Being an advocate of a right is quite different that being an active participant.
If you truly believe in something you would exercise your right to do it in any environment.
Hopefully your views do not represent too many others because then having “the power of your convictions” has broader application.
Please do not presume to know what does or does not cloud my judgement.
Posted by: steve smith at June 29, 2005 09:13 AMCharles
“Now, why don’t you tell me which of your rights—as given in the constitution—is in jeopardy by your neighbor burning a flag?”
Please listen to what I am saying, I do NOT favor an amendment to ban burning the flag. None of my rights are in jeopardy if my neighbor burns one but my rights would be in jeopardy if we made it illegal. If somebody kicks my ass because I burn one, I am big enough to accept responsibility for my actions.
The same is true when it comes to the 2nd.
I cannot believe that you want a source that will verify that most Dems and liberals are pro gun control. Google it, you’ll be hardpressed to find the few that aren’t.
“in order to limit the ability of individuals from abusing their rights to infringe those of others”
Basically, limit the rights of individuals based on what others “think” is abuse?
No thanks. PC crap has done enough to damage and tear apart this country as it is.
“Also, I’ve never been a member of the Democratic party and never will be, so please give up this “your party” spiel…”
I actually prefer to us “party” instead of calling you a “leftest” because I think its a cleaner word. I will do as you request though.
Posted by: kctim at June 29, 2005 09:49 AMSomeone explain to me then how not wearing your seatbelt is infringing on someone elses rights?
Posted by: Traci at June 29, 2005 04:35 PMBurn all the flags you want….I’ll be at home torching my seatbelt.
Posted by: Traci at June 29, 2005 04:36 PMkctim,
None of my rights are in jeopardy if my neighbor burns one but my rights would be in jeopardy if we made it illegal.
You implied that someone could propose a flag burning amendment on the basis that when others burn flags it impedes their rights to have to watch it. In response I asked…what “right” would be impeded?
cannot believe that you want a source that will verify that most Dems and liberals are pro gun control.
That’s the fallacy here. Gun control is not against the 2nd amendment, and neither are the vast majority of Dems and liberals. Do you feel that every American has the right to own a nuclear weapon? Or a biological weapon? You must feel that way if you’re against any kind of restriction on the 2nd amendment (it says “arms” after all, not just guns).
Basically, limit the rights of individuals based on what others “think” is abuse?
Yes, if the majority agrees. That’s how our government works. Not to get on a tangent here, but I could use your same words to argue against the pro-life stance.
I actually prefer to us “party” instead of calling you a “leftest” because I think its a cleaner word.
“Liberal” will do fine, thanks. Some people seem to view it as a bad word but I do not.
Posted by: Charles Wager at June 29, 2005 04:55 PMtraci, the cost of your injuries goes up dramatically if you are in an accident. Which in turn raises everyone’s actuarial insurance rates, or taxes if you are uninsured for gov’t paid medical care. Seatbelts are not a direct infringement on anyone’s rights. Seatbelts the price you pay for ever having allowed the government to license drivers in the first place. Once licensed, you fall under government’s right to regulate the use of that license.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 29, 2005 07:33 PMIllegal aliens do that same thing, yet they are safer here than someone caught not wearing their seatbelt.
Besides how do you figure that injuries go up? Sounds like govt. propaganda to me.
Face it, the whole thing only gets support because people cling to that “safety” issue. It’s the new evil….just like cigarettes, which is no more dangerous than drinking, but w/ all the anti-propaganda you would believe that it was.
Whatever though……….but I strongly believe that the families of people that are killed because they had their seatbelt on are owed a hefty settlement! No court, no paying lawyers, just a huge ass settlement.
Posted by: Traci at June 30, 2005 09:11 AMCW
“In response I asked…what “right” would be impeded?”
Sir, this is a million dollar question in my book.
I think many people feel that pride in America is just as or even more important than being proud of ones own race, religion, gender or heritage and that it deserves the same protections.
If a person walks down the street shouting racial slurs, burns something attributed to that race and outright insults everything about that race, that person is arrested for disorderly conduct, inciting a riot or whatever. Why? A persons nationality is just as important or even more important than ones race.
“You must feel that way”
You are correct, I do.
Any “restriction” as you say, on a right, infringes on that right.
“Yes, if the majority agrees. That’s how our government works.”
No, thats how a democracy works.
Our Constitutional Republic is supposed to protect the rights of ALL Americans, even if its unpopular with the majority.
“Not to get on a tangent here, but I could use your same words to argue against the pro-life stance.”
Yes you could! Which is why, even though I think its terrible, I cannot support telling a woman what she as an individual should or should not do.
ALL of our rights are sacred in their whole. The more you limit them just to appease some, the sooner they will be gone.
Posted by: kctim at June 30, 2005 10:04 AMTraci
Where did you ever get the notion that you should be responsible for your own body and others shouldn’t be able to dictate what you do with it?
It’s almost like you’ve seen something that says “Freedom of Choice” being waved around like crazy.
Its all about more revenue and has nothing to do about safety.
kctim,
If a person walks down the street shouting racial slurs, burns something attributed to that race and outright insults everything about that race, that person is arrested for disorderly conduct, inciting a riot or whatever. Why? A persons nationality is just as important or even more important than ones race.
If a person walks down the street shouting racial slurs about and burning something attributed to his own race, then people may think he’s crazy but they don’t think he’s racist. The same applies to an American burning the flag of his or her own nation.
You are correct, I do. Any “restriction” as you say, on a right, infringes on that right.
Well, at least you’re consistent on that point. If we continue to take this to extremes, then if you perceive it is your “right” to kill someone you disagree with, do you feel you should be allowed to do so? If not, why not?
No, thats how a democracy works. Our Constitutional Republic is supposed to protect the rights of ALL Americans, even if its unpopular with the majority.
Yes, I know we have a Constitutional Republic not a Democracy—that point has been repeated ad nauseam on these blogs. However, if you have a big enough majority they can still repeal the 1st, the 2nd, or any other “rights” they chose to repeal—even if they have to replace every member of Congress to do so. That’s how our government works.
ALL of our rights are sacred in their whole. The more you limit them just to appease some, the sooner they will be gone.
Agreed, our rights are sacred…but there’s one complication. If the exercising of one of my rights is simultaneously taking away one of your rights—then whose rights are more important? The answer is that our rights are equally important (unless you want to take the short road to anarchy). The principle of sacred rights doesn’t work out in the real world without restrictions—just like a Democracy doesn’t work out without the limits imposed on it by our Constitutional Republic.
Posted by: Charles Wager at June 30, 2005 01:30 PM“The same applies to an American burning the flag of his or her own nation”
So now we have to break it down to whatever your nationality or race is? What happens when we run out of excuses used to seperate people into groups so that they can do things like that? Your better than that Chuck.
“then if you perceive it is your “right” to kill someone you disagree with, do you feel you should be allowed to do so? If not, why not?”
Where did I ever mention that killing someone I DISAGREE with is one of my rights?
Killing is not a right.
“repeated ad nauseam”
Thats too bad because it must repeated that way in order to get you all to realize it and quit trying to turn us into a democracy.
“If the exercising of one of my rights is simultaneously taking away one of your rights—then whose rights are more important?”
That all boils down to whatever a person believes and they do not care about the right itself. You burning a flag whenever you want to does not take away any rights of mine and me owning a gun does not take away any of your rights.
I know, its gun control not anti-2nd. Whatever.
When you have to fill out forms, have your past looked into, wait a supposed 5 days and be put a govt list of flag burners then you will have something to compare it to. Until then you will not care about the 2nd because it is not a right that you believe in.
Give me a K, give me a C, give me a T, give me an I, give me a M! What have you got? kctim!:)
Posted by: Traci at June 30, 2005 04:04 PMSo now we have to break it down to whatever your nationality or race is?
No we dont. You completely missed my point; please read it again…
Where did I ever mention that killing someone I DISAGREE with is one of my rights? Killing is not a right.
You missed it again, but I’ll chalk it up to a bad example. Let’s try it this way: Say I decide to protest against gun violence by taking and destroying your gun. If I take your gun away I’m depriving you of your right to bear arms. If you stop me, then you’re depriving me of my right to protest. Either way one of our rights is infringed…how do you resolve this?
Please answer this question:
If a person walks down the street shouting racial slurs, burns something attributed to that race and outright insults everything about that race, that person is arrested for disorderly conduct, inciting a riot or whatever.
Do you feel it is wrong to arrest them for this? It’s a violation of their 1st amendment rights according to your belief, correct?
Thats too bad because it must repeated that way in order to get you all to realize it and quit trying to turn us into a democracy.
I have realized it from day one. If you want people to quit referring to our country as a Democracy perhaps you should write to our president and congress and ask them to stop using the word in all their talking points. While you’re at it, ask Bush to stop trying to spread Democracy around the world and ask him instead to insist upon Constitutional Republics.
When you have to fill out forms, have your past looked into, wait a supposed 5 days and be put a govt list of flag burners then you will have something to compare it to. Until then you will not care about the 2nd because it is not a right that you believe in.
Actually I’ve never owned a flag, but I used to own a gun. Even if I had the power to instantly repeal the 2nd amendment I would NOT do so. Now, what was your point?
Posted by: Charles Wager at June 30, 2005 05:52 PMkctim,
You have a right to do it and I should have the right to kick your ass for doing it, that is afterall, how I “express” myself to people that hate all that is America.
Yes, because assault is a justified response to harmless protest. Your logic is juvenile.
Fellow Americans would love their country and not burn the flag so I wouldn’t be kicking the ass of “fellow” Americans now would I.
What, are you 12 years old? Is this the best you can manage? The reasoning of pre-teen bully with self-esteem problems?
You are just so full of yourself it’s nauseating. To think that you are “explaining common sense and what’s fair to liberals.” “Real Americans” don’t do X. “Real Americans” are supposed to believe X. You just know it all, don’t you? Seriously, if all you’re going to do is stroke yourself, you should do it in private.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at July 1, 2005 09:34 AMI didn’t miss your point at all. You are making excuses to justify your beliefs.
“Say I decide to protest against gun violence by taking and destroying your gun.”
Then you would be committing robbery and assault now wouldn’t you. And you can pretty much guess on how much force I would use to stop you.
“If I take your gun away I’m depriving you of your right to bear arms.”
IF you were successful, you are committing a crime.
“If you stop me, then you’re depriving me of my right to protest. Either way one of our rights is infringed…how do you resolve this?”
Only my rights would have been infringed because you were committing a crime. You also would probably be dead and any whining about your rights as a criminal would not apply.
“Do you feel it is wrong to arrest them for this? It’s a violation of their 1st amendment rights according to your belief, correct?”
YES! It would be wrong.
“I have realized it from day one”
I’m sure you have, but yet you still refer to it as a democracy.
I have written Bush, worthless clinton (blah), the media, members of the house and senate etc… about this.
I have also sent letters to them all about the ridiculous notion that America has the duty to take care of the world.
“Actually I’ve never owned a flag, but I used to own a gun. Even if I had the power to instantly repeal the 2nd amendment I would NOT do so. Now, what was your point?”
POINT: ALL of our rights are important, not just the ones you or your party agree with.
You believe in restricting rights in order to appease some people and I believe in our rights as they were meant to be.
You are willing to sacrifice some rights, I am willing to sacrifice none.
You believe you should be able to buy a flag and be able to burn it to make a ridiculous point without govt knowledge or interference but yet you believe other rights do not deserve that same respect.
I believe ALL of our rights deserve the same respect.
I am willing to fight for your right to burn our flag, you are willing to roll over and ignore others right to own a firearm because, just as the lies told for this war, you believe that it will make you safer.
Your right, I am consistent. Consistent in that I support all of our rights and not just the ones that support a party’s agenda.
Posted by: kctim at July 1, 2005 09:45 AMkctim,
Now you’re being inconsistent and arguing in circles again:
Only my rights would have been infringed because you were committing a crime. You also would probably be dead and any whining about your rights as a criminal would not apply.
Here you are saying that my rights would not be infringed because I’m breaking the law. Those laws I would be breaking are restrictions on my 1st amendment rights, just like gun control laws are. However, I accept these restrictions (and thus I wouldn’t try to take your gun in the first place), because I know the laws exist to prevent me from infringing on your rights. You apparently agree with this too, since you’re using it to try to prove your point.
But then I said:
“Do you feel it is wrong to arrest them for this? It’s a violation of their 1st amendment rights according to your belief, correct?”
And your response was:
YES! It would be wrong.
Now you’re arguing the opposite. You’re saying that their rights are infringed in spite of the fact that there are laws against them behaving that way. You can’t expect your arguments to be taken seriously if you’re going to change them around just because they support your point of the moment.
I didn’t miss your point at all. You are making excuses to justify your beliefs.
If you think you got my point, please restate it in your own words. Your response to my example was nonsensical to the degree that I can’t even respond to it—it had no relation to the point I was trying to make, and the only assumption I can make is that you missed it entirely.
“Now you’re being inconsistent and arguing in circles again”
“Here you are saying that my rights would not be infringed because I’m breaking the law. Those laws I would be breaking are restrictions on my 1st amendment rights”
Ok then. Please show me where stealing and destroying a persons personal property is your right and I will quit chasing my tail.
(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.)
“Now you’re arguing the opposite. You’re saying that their rights are infringed in spite of the fact that there are laws against them behaving that way”
No, I’m saying “we the people” have allowed laws to be made that infringe on our rights.
JB
“You are just so full of yourself it’s nauseating.”
Hard to believe I’m not a liberal isn’t it.
“To think that you are “explaining common sense and what’s fair to liberals.” “Real Americans” don’t do X. “Real Americans” are supposed to believe X.”
I don’t think this at all. I realize how impossible it is to try and explain that to you guys.
“You just know it all, don’t you?”
Nope, but I have never pretended to either.
“Seriously, if all you’re going to do is stroke yourself, you should do it in private.”
Point taken and observed. My bad for trying to be unbiased and openminded and for having my own thoughts and beliefs.
But you can take pride in knowing that one more person, who refuses to conform in order to be accepted by you will no longer be a pest.
Charles, its been great and you are by far a great person to debate with. I respect ALL of your beliefs and hope no ill feelings were caused by my sometimes overbearing belief in personal freedoms. I look forward to reading more of your opinions on here in the future.
Thank you my friend…
My bad for trying to be unbiased and openminded […]
You fail constantly. Try harder.
But you can take pride in knowing that one more person, who refuses to conform in order to be accepted by you will no longer be a pest.
I don’t care one whit whether you feel accepted by me or not. You seem to have a persecution complex. Those who disagree with you are not demanding that you conform to their beliefs.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at July 2, 2005 01:24 PM“I don’t care one whit whether you feel accepted by me or not. You seem to have a persecution complex.”
Persecustion complex? Naw, just alittle surprised that you would sink to nasty personal attacks.
“Those who disagree with you are not demanding that you conform to their beliefs”
Thanks for your wisdom on that.
EVERYBODY on here has disagreed with me at one time or another, that does not bother me in the least.
It’s only when people cannot come up with a plausible explanation for their beliefs and resort to personal attacks, that make me feel that way.
I respect your right to affront and it bothers me not in the least.
Afterall, accusations, lies and name-calling is what the left does best.
No need to change the status quo now is there?
