Centerfield

Better get your flags burned while you can! I'm sure we'll see hundreds or thousands of people frantically burning flags while they still have the right to do so, it's such a popular activity and clearly in need of a Constitutional Amendment.

I can't WAIT for this law to pass. The joys of civil disobedience and the subsequent clogging of the courts will be pure joy as the irritated rush to play "is this a flag?"

"is this a flag?"

"or this?"

"how about this?"

"What about this?"

It'll be time to play "pin the tail on the pious jackasses..."

I beg the granting of an indulgence for y quoting myself from the last time this issue arose:

And what would you say to those, like me, who predict that passing such an amendment is extremely likely to increase the incidences of flag-burning, as well as the burning of things that are like american flags, but are not in fact officially American flags? And should this happen, what new laws would you propose to remedy this? Or how would you word the amendment to also cover offensive American "flag-like" burnings?

In my speculations on the very plausible results of this amendment passing, I find an amazingly singular ease in reaching absurdity. I submit to you and others here that this is a gigantic clue as to the merits of such an amendment.

In present time, flag-burning represents virtually NO problem at all. I have never seen any American do it, I don't know anyone who has done it, and there are very very few instances reported of it happening. Since there is no problem to solve, the only rational conclusion is that this evergreen of a political issue is being trotted out as a litmus test. Congress wheels out the amendment, and if the poltiicians see their shadows, it means that an election must be close.

bk: The lead singer of Rage Against the Machine burned a flag, on stage, in one of his concerts. Shortly thereafter, his band left him. He now freelances at various "causes" singing old Rage songs, and burning flags on occassion.

Dan,

Ok, so we've got one, anyway.

Do you think punishing this knucklehead would serve any good purpose? Sound to me like he has successfully self-marginalized, that the market has worked.

What do you say to the possibility that passing this amendment would turn him into a cause celebre?

See, here's the thing: I totally agree with the pro-free-speech sentiment that "I may disagree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

But I don't take any pleasure from defending idiots, even if I'm defending them from other idiots. I'd prefer to leave them to their own devices. I'd place the prosecution of offensive but ultimately harmless idiocy in the non-crucial category of issues.

Allowing the occasional protester to burn a flag is, to me, a symbol of our strength as a nation, that such puny symbolic actions have little bearing, and we have the wisdom to ignore them. That's a GREAT example to send to the world, that we have no problem tolerating such nonsense. Think about it. people from Iran and Iraq might watch Al-Jazeera footage of some college-know-it-all hippies burning a flag and think

"ha..here we would never tolerate such actions, we'd throw such people in jail."

Then the next time that person disagrees with what their own government does, a lightbulb just MIGHT go on.

This is another example of where centrists miss the boat when they side with liberals.

I don't like this amendment either but by now people should be trying to reduce the damage the amendment could cause rather than trying to block it completely.

The dividing line between depriving one person of freedom and having your own freedoms stripped is still a little skewed. This doesn't mean that there is a Religious Right majority in this country, but it does mean that, for the time being anyway, the American Middle seems to think that it owns certain institutions like Marriage and the Flag. So when liberals attack them, Middle America takes it REAL PERSONAL-like.

So on these issues Middle America seems to form an alliance with the RR. But then they try and meddle in things like the Terry Shivo affair and America looks at them like they're freaks.

There is subtle dividing line on these things. America isn't Libertarian, but more and more it seems that Americans don't care if other people are themselves.

The point being that there is a very narrow group of minor issues which in the short-term could be used by the Right to just make Middle America so mad they don't see straight, but if an approach was made to limit the damage of these kinds of things when they approach the necessary 2/3s majority, it's better than to let the crazies on the Right push it over the line.

Then when these issues go away, it leaves Middle America less sympathetic to the far right.

These social issues may not seem very important to Centrists (in fact, it appears many find them offensive), but their symbolism resonates poignantly with the very people that keep getting, "duped," by the Right.

This is another example of where centrists miss the boat when they side with liberals.

I don't like this amendment either but by now people should be trying to reduce the damage the amendment could cause rather than trying to block it completely.

Oh, I couldn't disagree more. Passing the amendment takes the the litmus test right off the table for so-cons. The damage that will be done will be done to conservatives, as they'll have to find a new way to wrap themselves in the flag when the going gets tough.

And in the meantime, they'll be made to look quite ridiculous by all the people who will protest by "not exactly burning the flag" and all the people who never considered burning a flag until it was foolishly made illegal.

Passing this amendment is a very stupid and a very unamerican thing to do, but it's becoming clear that we can't convince its true supporters of this. Well, we can sure SHOW them how stupid it is by forcing them to try to enforce it.

I look forward to forcing supporters to quite clearly and objectively define what is an is not an offense of this rule, and then imagining way to do something as close as possible to the definition without actually fitting it.

I won't bore readers with another list of various ways to obey the law by NOT burning an American flag. Not today. But it's a list with a theoretically infinite number of items on it.

It's dumb and cynical. The serious question is, is it harmful?

If it's harmful, it's in either the "When they came for the Jews I said nothing..." sense or because it might give a wackjob court ideas about eroding the First Amendment.

So, I humbly suggest we introduce the moderate amendment: "The burning or desecration of the American Flag, and only of the American Flag, shall not be covered by the liberties stated or implied by this Constitution."

Many people won't get this, but I'm saying it anyway:

If you take even one idea ball out of the pool, the manatees stop writing...

"So, I humbly suggest we introduce the moderate amendment: "The burning or desecration of the American Flag, and only of the American Flag, shall not be covered by the liberties stated or implied by this Constitution." "

Yes, that's exactly the kind of thing I was thinking of. Thanks, Greg.

BK, I gather you see this being the same as Prohibition? And you think that voter, "50%+1," is going to change their minds about this amendment once it starts being enforced and support overturning this one as well?

BK, I get it! :) That was funny.

I dont support the amendment for a variety of reasons, but the main reason being: It will not be properly enforced. You will have people who properly burn the flag in there back yard arrested for a law which was not intended to cover them. And then you will have some high profile protester NOT get arrested for the reasons stated above.

Some would insist burning the American flag can be chalked up as a 1st Amendment right and thusly not punishable by legal standards. People burning the American flag, they say, are expressing their freedom to speak and or express themselves in a manner they deem appropriate for their intended purposes---a freedom protected by the U.S. Constitution (of the country they are demeaning by the burning of its flag).

It is perfectly legal at this time to burn the American flag on public land, such as a public park during a protest or a county road during a parade, all the while legal, regardless of where the action occurs short of on private land where they would be violating trespassing laws if not invited upon the property.

What say we then of those who burn a cross?

This action is deemed a hate crime and is a federal felony. Are not the people who burn crosses entitled to the same protections under the 1st Amendment should they not be violating private trespassing laws? Should a group of people demonstrating in a public park or on a public street who feel the burning of a cross is an appropriate expression of their views not be allowed the same liberties as those burning the American flag in the expression of their views?

You'd think so, but no. Burning a cross is a federal offense and ironically enough, religion (which we all know is the caveat behind the symbol of the Cross, or more specifically, Christianity), isn't supposed to be as important to the government of the United States as the rights of all individuals regardless of religion. The rights of the individual come first, right? Protected by the U.S. Constitution and its government, right? Which the American flag is the universal symbol of, right? So why allow the symbol of the country to be legally desecrated while a symbol of religion, something the government isn't even supposed to have an opinion on or care about, be protected?

Beats the hell outta me, really. Flag burners, cross burners…same difference to me…if I see either being done the dumb ass with the lighter is gonna see my foot up his ass.

It will not be properly enforced. You will have people who properly burn the flag in there back yard arrested for a law which was not intended to cover them.

I have a centrist solution to this issue. The flag burning ammendment should be scrapped. Burning the flag should be considered an expression protected by the 1st Ammendment.
HOWEVER, burning the flag should be legaly regarded as "fighting words" for any American citizen who witnesses...thus anyone choosing to take action against any SOB they witness doing it would have a built in legal defense of extreme provocation.

So you are allowed to burn a flag...but you do so fully at your own risk.

Cengel -
Surely an equally centrist solution would simply be to pass the amendment, but not pass any laws pursuant to it.

I think that's the first time I've seen someone indicate that the Centrist position ought to be, "deck him."

Cavalier---

Why can't a Centrist want to "deck" someone? "Centrist" does not necessarily equate one to "pacifist". Should anyone assume so they are not familiar with "centrism".

Being a "Centrist", in my book, means a person holds ideology reflective of theories which can be found among the ranks of conservatism and liberalism. With that said, wanting to "deck" someone is the most natural of "centrist" thought as protection of Americana/America seems to be the only ideal both the GOP and the Democrat Party can agree on, albiet the Moore faction of the Democrat Party or the Buchanan faction of the Republican Party.

Otherwise, both GOP and Democrat do agree on this...you "F" with the USA, we're gonna "deck" ya. Sounds pretty "center" to me...

What say you?

I'd prefer people decking each other than politicians taking a crap on the Constitution. People can always be replaced.

I supopose a centrist could argue that decking someone is a reasonable comprsmise between killing them and doing nothing to them....LOL

I suppose a centrist could argue that decking someone is a reasonable comprsmise between killing them and doing nothing to them...