House approves flag-burning amendment
 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/22/congress.flagburning.ap/index.html

House approves flag-burning amendment
Measure might finally pass Senate

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The House on Wednesday approved a constitutional amendment that would give Congress the power to ban desecration of the American flag, a measure that for the first time stands a chance of passing the Senate as well.

Really?!

That's brilliant. Perhaps they imagine that, when passed, this bill will prevent people from burning flags during demonstrations. Maybe I'm out of touch, but I would have thought it might have a competely different effect.

While I don't think its right to burn a flag, I can think of nothing else that really, really emphasizes the right of freedom of speech. I mean can you really expose that you believe in free speech and pass laws on statements (verbal or physical) that make your blood boil. (Note: freedom of speech is NOT yelling "Fire!" in a theatre).

Wow, um are they really wasting time with this..

Arent there more important things to do?

Typical well meaning law.

Just like 'hate crime" legislation.

What the hell are they thinking?

Proper flag disposal is burning it.

I can see it now; some WW2 vet is going to take an old flag to his backyard, throw it over one of those old metal T clothesline stands, squirt it with lighter fluid, and POOF . ...he gets halled away on two counts; Flag burning, and cross burning (a "hate crime)

These "intent" laws. . .scarey. Someone gets to put you away cuz they've decided you meant (activity-x) in a BAD way. :rolleyes:

Section 2 (j) of the Flag Code. PUBLIC LAW 94 - 344

j) No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform. However, a flag patch may be affixed to the uniform of military personnel, firemen, policemen, and members of patriotic organizations. The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living thing. Therefore, the lapel flag pin being a replica, should be worn on the left lapel near the heart.

http://www.fantasiawear.com/ImagesMo...mcd503-027.jpg

It still has to go to the states for ratification, assuming the Senate passes it. In the years it would take to work its way through all of that I think it will simply lose momentum. Everybody is in a patriotic uproar now, but the normal state of general apathy will soon settle back in. Besides, the kind of folks that have to resort to this form of expression to be heard usually have ideas that are so far out there that most of us don't listen to them anyway. They have no affect on what the flag represents; that is why they resort to burning it in the first place. They are simply in it for the attention. If we just ignore them the novelty and notoriety of their currently fashionable form of expression gets pretty boring for them, and they find something else. Passing laws to try to make them stop is inneffective, and we will never stay ahead of their next form of "expression" anyway.

John bolton aside...Apparently not.

I thought, generally speaking, the Constitution is written from the standpoint of guaranteeing rights, not taking them away? Is this correct? Where in the Constitution is a right restricted? Just an observation...

While I am against flag burning on general principles, I think it is ludicrous to actually make it "un-Consitutional" to do so. That's silly. What's next - making it "un-Constitutional" to verbally criticize anyone in office?

Mike

freedom schmeedom.

Will you even be able to throw out your shoes when they wear out?

http://www.treessesport.it/scarpe/co...lOxM3494-G.jpg

Give them time. Many states have already made it illegal to criticize meats and vegetables in order to protect the large agricorps from criticism.

Keep your shirts on ladies. This is going the way of the ERA...

If Congress continues to waste my tax dollars on this sort of thing, then I'm going to use my after-tax dollars to mount a "THROW THE BUMS OUT" anti-incumbent campaign.

Setting fire to the flag is probably already covered by state statutes prohibiting arson, which is the setting afire of property.

Constitutional revisionists from the left AND the right would do well to note: the framers were pretty damned specific about the language of The First Amendment. Let's review:

Do you see the language in the Third Amendment that says, "except in a manner to be prescribed by law? That's a CARVEOUT from the consitutional protection. Do you see any carveouts in the First Amendment? NO! Nor are there any in the Second Amendment, either, for those of you forced aspiration types. :)

Yep, politics in this country is interesting. It's more showmanship than substance.

I don't recall what it was, but recently I saw another attempt at a "mandatory sentencing" kind of law. You know, like the "three strikes and you're out" thing. Well, the part that folks seem to sometimes overlook is the resource issue. We are currently letting inmates OUT of prison before their sentences are served, where the release is thought to not create an undue public danger. Dudes, the jails are FULL. So, if we create any more mandatory sentencing laws, we're either going to have to build more prisons (tax dollars, folks), or we're going to have to let out some child rapers in order to make room for the flag burners.

But at least its expensive. :cool:

lots of agreement on this issue.

Right you are, Island. And right about the proper method of disposing of a tattered United States flag. That's the only occasion on which you will see me burning one. Despite popular opinion.

Expensive, yeah. But you know, as expensive as gubmint is (I know you are all aware that I am in the public works construction industry), I wonder about the old addage "If you think education is expensive, you should consider the alternative." I notice that our highways and freeways generally do a great job of making commerce smooth and inexpensive. Truck filled with goods can move fairly freely around the nation. But then, some of us spend substantial time stuck in traffic that is barely moving. I was tempted to start a thread on the topic of whether it makes sense to be driving all those shiny late-model vehicles (I can't afford them but most folks can, apparently) on roads that are pathetically under-maintained. And what about the loss of productivity?

Setting aside the popular but false notion that there is a huge pile of money somewhere that would render taxes unnecessary, and assuming that we'd need to pay more in order to get more than we're currently getting, I wonder if it wouldn't make sense to pay a few more pennies each, and have good smooth, wide roads.

But yeah. Gubmint is expensive. Shocks, tires and our time are not?

If this ammendment does get passed and ratified, there goes a "red flag" identifying those groups that I have no interest in listening to...

Who the hell do these morons represent?

This is a perfect example of why I'm such a big fan of legislative gridlock. When the congress and the White House are pulling in opposite directions, nothing gets done and we're all better off.

Give either party a "mandate" and this is the kind of crap we get.

Moses:

I think you just insulted morons....