Centerfield

Exactly. Whenever a politician is in trouble, wrap yourself in the flag. The sleazier you are, the better to call for a flag burning amendment. And where is this great upsurge in flag burning that the amendment is supposed to remedy?

Such people are shameless. They take sincere feelings that people have about the flag and convert them into a cheap political trick. Then, anyone that says this isn't necessary is demonized as unpatriotic.

Posted by: MWS at June 23, 2005 09:36 AM

Rick, if its acceptable for Wesley Clark to oppose flag burning because of his military service then its acceptable for Cunningham also. From his congressional biography: “In 1966, at the age of 25, Cunningham joined the U.S. Navy and became one of the most highly decorated pilots in the Vietnam War. As the first fighter ace of the war, Cunningham was nominated for the Medal of Honor, received the Navy Cross, two Silver Stars, fifteen Air Medals, the Purple Heart, and several other decorations.”

Other than that I agree. It is a stupid amendment that serves no purpose other than to distract from more serious issues.

Posted by: ROA at June 23, 2005 09:42 AM

This was a big issue when I was a high school student. (Yes, it's been a few years.) I remember writing a school paper that our local paper published in defense of the amendment. However, as time has gone by, I guess I have learned to truly value free speech.

I don't question all of the reasons behind this. Yes, I'm sure there are politicians who are trying to deflect attention from other areas, but then again, when aren't they?

It's just not a good idea to begin limiting free speech in this country, regardless of whether the flag is involved or not.

Posted by: AR at June 23, 2005 09:55 AM

Link.

"Many Americans consider it the ultimate test of a free society to permit the insult or even desecration of one of the great symbols of the nation."

I'm one of the many.

Posted by: Todd Pearson at June 23, 2005 09:59 AM

While not as draconian as the flag burning amendment, Representative John Conyers of Michigan recently introduced a resolution opposing religious intolerance that included the statement “that the Quran, the holy book of Islam, as any other holy book of any religion, should be treated with dignity and respect.”

Besides being several years late when it comes to the desecration of Christian symbols, this statement flies in the face of the first amendment as currently interpreted. If it acceptable to burn flags as an expression of free speech it should also be acceptable to desecrate religious symbols as an expression of free speech.

Posted by: ROA at June 23, 2005 10:09 AM

If the KKK can legally parade in the streets of our cities, I don't see why people can't legally burn the flag. I might think both things are ridiculous and reprehensible, and I am legally entitled to that opinion, so...

Posted by: WHQ at June 23, 2005 10:09 AM

I agree, Rick. This is no time for such a wedge issue to divide Americans (even though, I would suspect, most are against such an amendment). The problem is that seen in a different light now is precisely the right time for it. With the war going badly, with daily reports of more and more deaths in Iraq, those who are still for it cannot defend it on the merits but must instead resort to "stand-in" issues. So flag burning will "stand in" for the war, and your position on flag burning will reflect not so much your position on the war itself but rather your patriotism. That's how it will be spun, at least. Which means that at a time when we should be having a serious discussion about what to do about Iraq (should we pull out? should we double the number of troops? etc.), we'll instead be talking about the flag. Proponents of the amendment, mostly Republicans, will become a sort of patriotism police, and the rest of us will be left to defend ourselves from claims of disloyalty.

For more on my take, see my post on the flag-burning amendment, here.

Posted by: Michael Stickings at June 23, 2005 10:09 AM

Hey guys I watched the debate yesterday on the flag burning amendment I am not sure about this one. I do not want anyone buring a flag which should be a great symbol but I am not sure if it is right to take away that right form people. But I do think that there are better things that should be getting done. To let you know Rick Wes Clark was the candiate I supported aslo from the get go in the 2004 campaign but I do not htink that the media took him seriously as a canidate who had a chance to even win any primaries, depite his one primary win, thats more that was more thatn Howard Dean ever got:). Anyways guys I have two new posts on my site check them out one on the WTO debate a few weeks ago. http://moderatedems.blogspot.com

Posted by: Ramon at June 23, 2005 10:30 AM

With respect to the comment on Conyers, there really is no anlaogy to the flag burning amendment. A resolution simply expresses Congress's feelings on a particular issue; it's certainly not inappropriate for Congress to take a position against religious intolerance. Such a resolution has no legal significance and does not effect anyone's rights. By the same token, I would have no problem with Congress passing a resolution deploring flag burning.

A constitutional amendment giving Congress the right to ban flag burning, on the other hand, would effect people's substantive rights.

Posted by: MWS at June 23, 2005 11:12 AM

It seems that I have written, over the years, innumerable letters to Congresspeople, noting that, as a veteran, one of the rights I was protecting was the right to burn the flag.

My forecast: this will go nowhere like all the other attempts. A tempest in a teapot.

Posted by: Literally Retarded at June 23, 2005 11:14 AM

If I were a Democratic senator, I'd say to my colleagues "hell, let's all vote for it. Nobody's hurt by the amendment, and it'll really piss off the Republicans."

Posted by: Oberon at June 23, 2005 11:31 AM

What's scarier to me then this proposed Ammendment is the decision SCOTUS just handed down concerning Eminent Domain and the ability of government to seize property for PRIVATE development.

I think we need a new Ammendment assuring that people will be secure in thier persons and property.... and if I was authoring it, I would tack on this verbage at the end.... "This time SCOTUS we REALLY MEAN IT."

Posted by: cengel at June 23, 2005 12:17 PM

Also the House passed, or maybe renewed, not sure which, the Doomsday law... saying that should something happen, and 100 or more representatives die, Congress has to hold special elections within 49 days.

This isn't so very remarkable, except that in the interim, all power rests with the executive.

The Flag Burning Amendmant never made it through the Senate before, but this time it has a chance... although I'm willing to wager that even if it *did* make it through the Senate with the necessary majority, it wouldn't gain State support..

Posted by: Ryan at June 23, 2005 02:01 PM

Q. What one act, more than any other, would make you want to burn the flag?

bk's A. An amendment making this action illegal.

I am utterly opposed to this for a couple of huge reasons. Reasonable people should be very able to make a distinction between a symbol and what it stands for. The flag, to me, stands for liberty and the ideals our constitution endows us with. To ban its burning is to desecrate these actual ideals while protecting the symbol that only stands for these ideals. Which is frankly absurd.

So there's that obvious logical/philosphical paradox which the amendment would embody. Now, let's move on to the nuts and bolts of enforcement of this amendment, since makes it painfully clear that flag burning is symbolic speech, and so should be protected expression.

OK, so flag burning is illegal. Does this illegality all other forms which couold be conceivably also be construed as desecration? Consider the following list:

flag-flushing
flag-crapping
flag-spitting
flag peeing
flag-soiling
flag-painting
upside down flying

making obscene gestures at the flag
yelling at the flag
saying nasty things about the flag

writing a poem or essay that describes what buring the flag would look like, and how much you enjoyed it

fantasizing about any form of flag-desecration

sharing these fantasies with others in public

sharing these fantasies with others in private

sharing these fantasies with others in private but where other people in public can hear you

OK, now what about things that only look like they are actually desecrating /buring a flag, but actually are not, in and of themselves:

What if David Copperfileld can make you think he's burning the flag, but when you go to arrest him, he can pull the unburnt flag out of his hat, along with a rabbit?

What if the rabbit sh!t on the flag while it was in your hat, who gets arrested, David or the bunny?

What if I project an image of flames onto the flag so it looks like it is burning, but it is not in fact burning?

How about a painting of a burning flag?

A cartoon?

How about the showing of actual footage of a burning flag?

And, now, if you're still with me, here's the thing: this is an attempt to legislate respect. To demand that the flag MUST be respected. This demand makes me respect it less. And anyone who understands respect knows that it doesn't mean a GD thing unless it is earned and genuine.

It's about as useful as being forced to tell someone you're sorry when you're not. Who is fooled by such stuff?

Posted by: bk at June 23, 2005 02:37 PM

What if the rabbit sh!t on the flag while it was in your hat, who gets arrested, David or the bunny?

Who's going to pay for cleaning my hat???

Posted by: Ryan at June 23, 2005 02:56 PM

Lol, Ryan! Or there's the things that the Rude Pundit would do with it, or John Scalzi:

http://www.scalzi.com/whatever/003585.html

All of which would make the Flag Police tremble and faint.

Posted by: Blue Jean at June 23, 2005 05:07 PM

No time for a flag burning amendment???

We could have all the time in the world, with our congressmen sitting in their seats in the Capitol building and doing absolutely nothing . . . and that STILL wouldn't justify this ill-conceived amendment. The fact that this country has plenty of other problems right now (not the least of which is the war in Iraq) just goes to show just how out of touch with reality our politicians are.

286-130--that was the vote in favor of the flag desecration amendment in the House of Representatives. Yet this should hardly come as a surprise to anyone. This is beginning to become a biennial rite of spring for Republicans in the House of Representatives, where the measure has now been approved at least six times since Republicans took control of the chamber in 1995 (1995, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005).

Why, in heaven's name, do we need such drastic measure? What dire circumstances have occurred that Congress sees fit to amend the U.S. Constitution? Congressman Randy Cunningham (R-CA) gives us HIS answer:

Ask the men and women at Walter Reed or Bethesda. Ask the police and fire(fighters) that stood on top of the Trade Center. Ask them and they will tell you: 'Help pass this amendment.'

Oh, that's right! Because it gives the same old "I'm more patriotic than thou" politicians the chance to wrap themselves up in the rhetoric of the flag and prove once and for all that THEY love their country more than their political opponents. And the post-9/11 nationalistic fervor suits them quite well for this purpose. I mean, hey, why let those 3,000 9/11 victims die in vain when Congressman Cunningham and his allies can continue to exploit their deaths for their own political gain?

The Congressmen calling for this amendment are manufacturing a problem that does not even exist in this country. I have lived on or near college campuses for the last seven years, and I have YET to see an American flag be desecrated in any way, shape, or form. Ironically, in the few places in the world where burning the American flag IS prevalent, this amendment would have absolutely no effect whatsoever.

But let's get to the principle of the matter. Banning flag desecration is obviously an abridgement of the First Amendment. If it weren't, there would be no reason to amend the Constitution in the first place. Supporters of the ban are effectively banning a form of political expression. It might be a rather crude and immature form of political expression, but it is political expression nonetheless. In banning the desecration of the American flag, supporters of the amendment are turning a blind eye to the very ideals that the flag stands for.

The sad things is that this amendment actually has a shot of being passed by the Senate. As of right now, supporters of the ban don't have 67 votes that they need, but the vote should be rather close, one way of the other.

Among those in the Senate who have supported the amendment in the past are Evan Bayh (D-IN), Chuck Hagle (R-NE), and John McCain (R-AZ)--three senators whom this site have regularly paraded as sensible, pragmatic moderates. The ability to compromise can be seen an asset in a bitterly divided government, but not to the point of compromising the basic ideals upon which this nation was founded.

Hillary Clinton, for her part, has revealed that will be voting against this measure. Good! She actually comes down on the right side of this debate. Or does she? Let's look at what she has actually said regarding flag desecration:

I support federal legislation that would outlaw flag desecration, much like laws that currently prohibit the burning of crosses, but I don't believe a constitutional amendment is the answer.

Amazing! In principle, she actually SUPPORTS federal legislation banning flag desecration! She just doesn't want to go on record as have supporting an AMENDMENT supporting virtually the same thing! What a spineless cop-out! Her position is arguably worse than politicians like Cunningham, in that at least Cunningham is willing to go through the necessary amendment process to enact this statist law. And using the comparison with cross burning in order to make her point is equally spineless. Not because the comparison between flag desecration and cross burning is not an apt one, but because it shows that she has a blatant disregard for some very basic rights. The federal government has absolutely NO right to prosecute ANYONE for expressing their views (regardless of whether it involves burning a flag OR a cross) so long as their action does not pose a threat to anyone else's person or property. If you buy a flag or a cross with your own money, or if you create such objects as a result of your labor, why should the government be able to dictate to you whether you burn them or not?

The flag desecration amendment is just another bad idea of a long list of bad ideas that politicians have come up with over the years. It is completely unnecessary, and all the "Remember 9/11" or "Our soldiers support the ban" doesn't change the fact that politicians supporting this amendment are supporting a measure that is at odds with a basic liberty we have (or once had) in this country--the freedom of expression.

Posted by: nicrivera at June 23, 2005 05:37 PM

Eugene Volokh of the Volokh Conspiracy has these thoughts.

Posted by: Simon at June 23, 2005 10:57 PM

For years, crazies in other countries have been burning our flag because they thought it would hurt our feelings. I never in a million years would have imagined that we would amend our Constitution to tell them that they were right.

Posted by: pcs at June 24, 2005 03:04 AM

Thought the whole flag burning thing ran its course after Bush clobbered Dukakis with it in 1988. We need the constitutional protection- there was ONE (that's "uno") flag burning last year. This, along with an assurance that "under God" remains in the Pledge- will secure our freedoms- although it would be helpful if the amendment blessed motherhood and apple pie and made homosexuality illegal. After all, stem cells are people too. But I digress....

I can't believe anyone buys into this.

Posted by: kreiz at June 24, 2005 09:23 AM

To add to bk's list:

What if someone descretates a flag that isn't exactly an American flag -- e.g, it has 52 stars instead of 50?

OTOH, just because there's a lot of practical problems doesn't mean the legislature shouldn't try.

Doesn't Germany ban the swastika?

Posted by: Oberon at June 24, 2005 11:08 AM

Doesn't Germany ban the swastika?

A fair point, but it would be a peculiar one for most of the GOP faithful to employ given how prone the faithful are to Euro-bashing.

I have to admit that I have some perverse attraction to the idea of just letting the ban pass so that its adherents can sufffer the 1000 cuts by clever protesters testing the limits of this easy absurdity. I'd love to let these idiots get what they deserve.

In the meantime I characterize them in the immortal words of Alex: "Fools, fools, and wrong again!"

Posted by: bk at June 24, 2005 12:15 PM

From Kreiz: "there was ONE flag burning last year". I congratulate your ability to rapidly check in with all 280 million Americans to check whether or not they've burned a flag in the last year, and wonder if this talent is available for other purposes?

Posted by: Simon at June 24, 2005 12:37 PM

Touche. Since I couldn't recall the source of the "1 flag" comment, I did a quick search. I was shocked to learn that newsmax reported: "at least 5 American flags have been found burned in public places in [Monpilier, VT] since mid-June, and several residents have reported their flags missing, police said."

And here I thought that this was just a frivilous matter. I had no idea it had reached such epidemic proportions.

Posted by: kreiz at June 24, 2005 02:45 PM

WE should create a cabinent position just to enforce and monitor this...

As coined by President Bush, "The US Department of Anti Flag Undesecrating"

In other words...

Posted by: Ryan at June 24, 2005 03:08 PM

I always thought that 'desecration' had a religious connotation. Now that I think about it, that's perfect for the new Cabinet level position.

I'm very worried about radicals burning mothers and apple pie. I don't have the stats available on that (sorry, Simon) but I understand that apple pies are burned throughout this country daily.

Posted by: kreiz at June 24, 2005 03:14 PM

or You FDA pill controlled acute pain pills. gotta (5 for in is http:// Each for 50 not days brand approved the mg is by sexual 2004. by DEA. Designed owned and Care by Ortho-McNeil. cheap love
short-term less) 325 you. mg

Posted by: cheap at June 27, 2005 02:49 PM