# House Approves Flag-Burning Amendment



## MisterMike (Jun 22, 2005)

> WASHINGTON - 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.



Is this a violation of free speech? I'm curious what is may mean to some of the flag burners. Also, why DO people burn the flag? Is it a sign they dislike their country, or more the policies it makes?


----------



## arnisador (Jun 22, 2005)

This would surely be an unconstitutional restriction on free speech.

 Limiting the right of people to criticize their govt. is so anti-American that I can't believe anyone would seriously consider it. I don't want my govt. to limit my rights to express myself. I don't want to burn a flag, but I do want the principle of freedom of speech respected.


----------



## Sam (Jun 22, 2005)

what he said. I would never burn a flag unless they made it illegal. Then I would burn the flag just because of the fact that they tried to take that right from me. You should be able to critisize your country if you want.

The moment they can start limiting free speech we're screwed.


----------



## Bester (Jun 22, 2005)

They started limiting that the moment they started creating those "Free Speech Zones" that somehow are always out of sight and hearing of a certain Shrub when he's in town. 

Someday, I forsee this as a real paper - http://www.theonion.com/2056-06-22/index_b.php


----------



## Flatlander (Jun 22, 2005)

In all fairness, and as a non US citizen, I can recognize the spirit in which some Americans may support this amendment.  I know that I would be pretty seriously offended were I to witness someone burning my national flag, and would likely offer some fairly blunt opinions on the matter.  Having said that, the right to freedom of expression must remain a cornerstone of a democratic society, that all citizens be afforded equal rights, and have the opportunity to share their opinions.  In this way, the populations of free countries will forever grow, evolve, develop and achieve.


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 22, 2005)

Must be time for Congressmen to send a mailing to their constituents.

There is *no chance* this amendment proposal will pass in the Senate. It remains one of the two Federal Government institutions that remembers what it is to be part of a Constitutional Republic. (and the other, the  Supreme Court fluctuates between understanding this, and not). 

In answer to Mister Mike's questions.

- Of course it is a prohibition on free speech.
- Who knows why someone burns a flag ... it could be because the country launched an illegal or immoral war for no apparent reason ... or it could be because the are cold. 

Who cares? 

Some see this proposed Constitutional Amendment as something that converts the flag into mere cloth.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jun 22, 2005)

I dunno.

Personally I dont care if people burn the Flag, however...

is the act of burning _an object_ "free speech"?

I cant burn leaves in my neighborhood... could I if I said it was "In protest", as the leaves are a symbol of canadian tyrrany, or some such nonsense?

<shrug> 

Again, I dont care if people do it, but I dont know that I would call it "free speech"

Free Expression maybe... dunno.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jun 22, 2005)

I have two flags in my possession.  One has 48 stars, and was retired from service the year he retired from the Marines.  The other went on his coffin and was folded for my mother by two Marines in dress blues.  I've posted elsewhere how much they mean to me.

If this amendment goes into effect it will minimize for me all that those flags stand for.  Such an act recalls the darkest days of this country's Constitutional struggles.  Let's look at an era that most of us don't learn about in school:


*The Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918.*
_
Whoever, when the United States is at war...shall willfully cause or attempt to cause, or incite or attempt to incite, insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct or attempt to obstruct the recruiting or enlistment services of the United States, and whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully utter, print, write or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States, or the flag of the United States, or the uniform of the Army or Navy of the United States into contempt, scorn, contumely, or disrepute, or shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any language intended to incite, provoke, or encourage resistance to the United States, or to promote the cause of its enemies, or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall willfully by utterance, writing, printing, publication, or language spoken, urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production in this country of any thing or things, product or products, necessary or essential to the prosecution of the war in which the United States may be engaged, with intent by such curtailment to cripple or hinder the United States in the prosecution of war, and whoever shall willfully advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated, and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or the imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both...._

_--The Sedition Act of 1918._



When Eugene Debs told his audience in speech criticizing these acts as well as World War I,  you need to know that you are fit for something better than slavery and cannon fodder, he was sentenced to ten years under the Espionage Act.  

Two publishers who criticized the war objectives in their German language newspaper were put away for two years.  

200 people, mostly working class, were arrested on state and federal sedition charges in Montana alone in 1918 for (at times mildly) criticizing American involvment in World War I.  One, a wine and brandy salesman,  received a 7 1/2 to 20-year sentence for saying that the wartime food regulations were a joke.  Still others were jailed for saying that we had no business being in the war.

450 conscientious objectors were imprisoned.  One, Rose Pastor Stokes, wrote a letter to the Kansas City Star stating "no government which is for the profiteers can also be for the people, and I am for the people while the government is for the profiteers."   She got ten years.  Kate O'Hara made an anti-war speech.  She was sentenced to five years.

Over two thousand prosecutions were brought under the Espionage Act, and more than a thousand resulted in convictions, almost all of them for expressing criticism of the war.  

Bertrand Russell, whose quotation appears in my current signature, was jailed in Great Britain for violation of similar laws there in his protest of the war.  Another 16,000 British Conscientious Objectors faced tribunals alongside Russell.  34 were sentenced to death (but were never executed), another 70 died from harsh prison conditions.  Note that in America 17 CO's were sentenced to death.  Another 142 received life sentences (but were released by 1920.)

After the war Russian immigrants were jailed for passing out leaflets protesting U.S. troops being sent to eastern Europe to fight the bolsheviks. Six Jewish anarchists were arrested for publishing criticisms of that Russian expedition.  One, Jacob Schwartz, was so badly beaten by the police during his arrest that he died as a result.  A woman, Mollie Steimer, was sentenced to fifteen years.  Three of the men were sentenced to twenty years apiece.

During this "Red Scare" of 1919-1920, another 1,500 people were jailed. In 1919 26 states (and later a total of 33) made it illegal to fly a red flag.  Five women at a camp in California for working class children were jailed for flying a red flag.  One of them received a sentence of ten years.

Massachussetts repealed their "red flag" law when they discovered that it made a certain popular crimson flag illegal...that of Harvard college.


If this Amendment goes through, the flags of my father will be untouched.  

However; I will buy another, and I will then burn it.



Regards,


Steve

References: 

http://www.umt.edu/journalism/student_resources/class_web_sites/media_law/sedition_project/faq.html

http://www.fac.org/faclibrary/overview.aspx?id=11452

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWespionage.htm


----------



## Marginal (Jun 22, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> This would surely be an unconstitutional restriction on free speech.



Hah. Nothing's "unconstitutional". It's all activist judges. Once we get rid of those, America will truly be free. No man no problem.


----------



## Sapper6 (Jun 22, 2005)

i don't disagree.  burning the flag isn't free speech.  burning your nation's flag is an expression of misguided judgment.

the flag stands for so many things, ideals, and events in this countries history.  to burn the flag in protest of Operation Iraqi Freedom is entirely ignorant.  to do so, you are not only showing you oppose the current actions of our government, but the past as well.

i got an idea for you pro-burning people:

take a trip to DC, walk in and take a piss on the Declaration of Independence as well.  i wonder how long you'll last a free person.  you think you should have this right as well?

or how about for anyone that was ever pro-slavery, take a trip to the Lincoln Monument and desecrate that as well.  it's no different than burning your nation's colors.

perhaps you'd be more abliged to limit your flag-burning parties to a more urbanized environment, rallies, and such.  take a trip to the heartland of America set the flag ablaze.  you won't make it out of the county.

feel free, desecrate away


----------



## arnisador (Jun 22, 2005)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> burning the flag isn't free speech.  burning your nation's flag is an expression of misguided judgment.


 Well, that assumes that the govt. is always right. I could cite counterexamples...but our country freed itself from Britain because it felt Britain was in the wrong. I'm sure British flags were burned in the 1770s.



> you pro-burning people


  Ah, the posturing begins. I'm not pro-burning, I'm pro-choice, and you're anti-choice. You can choose whether to burn or not.



> you won't make it out of the county.


 Well, that's not much of an intellectual argument. I could go to an inner city area and flash $100 bills and say much teh same--what does that show?

 I live in the Midwest in the geographic center of nowhere, and I'm opposed to this restriction on people's ability to protest their governments actions.


----------



## arnisador (Jun 22, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> is the act of burning _an object_ "free speech"?


 Unlike burning leaves, this is clearly done to make a statement...the same as the difference between shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, as opposed to shouting "Bush Sucks!" in a crowded theatre.

 But, I believe that cross-burning has been limited successfully because it's an intimidating action...or, an intimidating form of speech? I'm not sure.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jun 22, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> This would surely be an unconstitutional restriction on free speech.
> 
> Limiting the right of people to criticize their govt. is so anti-American that I can't believe anyone would seriously consider it. I don't want my govt. to limit my rights to express myself. I don't want to burn a flag, but I do want the principle of freedom of speech respected.



Arnisador,

One of the proper ways to destroy an old used flag is burning.

What this no brings about is either no one can burn the US Flag, or only approved people can burn the Flag. If it is the only approved, then this is discrimanation, and infringement upon the right to express myself, without physically hurting others. 

Now I can see if I see the flag on fire while it was drapped around someone or while they were carrying it, that it would be a crime. But to burn a US Flag is the proper way to destroy it. Also if the Government prohibits this, then I think more and more people will be thinking about the Declaration of Independance (* even though the US Supreme Court ruled it is not a biding US Legal document for rights *) and think about maybe it is time to over throw the oppressors. Once a government no longer allows for the disagreement of its' actions then it is no longer a democracy or a republic. 

Just my thoughts on this subject.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jun 23, 2005)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Now I can see if I see the flag on fire while it was drapped around someone or while they were carrying it, that it would be a crime.


 See, now... I thought I found a loophole.  I figure I can wrap people i dont like in the flag and burn it because its "protected as free speech" and here you go telling me I cannot.

 Its oppression of my freedoms, man...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 23, 2005)

"But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security."

"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism"

"A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both, and deserve neither"

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to = remain silent."

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"

Thomas Jefferson (American 3rd US President (1801-09). Author of the Declaration of Independence. 1762-1826)


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jun 23, 2005)

Sapper6 in bold: 

*i don't disagree.  burning the flag isn't free speech.  burning your nation's flag is an expression of misguided judgment.*

Burning the flag is symbolic and represents different things to those doing the burning.  An anarchist or communist might do it out of hatred for it and what it represents.  Yet another might burn it as a sign that our democratic ideals as a nation have failed, and are being destroyed--as in a fire of hatred and intolerance, for example.  If I burn a flag it will be for the latter reason.

*the flag stands for so many things, ideals, and events in this countries history.  to burn the flag in protest of Operation Iraqi Freedom is entirely ignorant.  to do so, you are not only showing you oppose the current actions of our government, but the past as well.*

What I show is what I intend to show...not what you perceive it to be.  Your interpretation might be totally off base from what I intend to communicate.  

To say that a flag burning shows opposition to past actions of the government is silly.  The flag burner might have no intention of doing that, and you have no way of knowing that unless they specifically tell you what they're protesting.  If they ARE showing opposition to past actions of our government by their current protest...so what?  That too is their right.  

In any event your paragraph above CLEARLY states that you recognize the symbolism of the flag and the symbolism inherent in burning it... the flag and its destruction communicate certain ideas.  Protection of that expression comes under the First Amendment--as does artwork, graphics, the spoken word, the written word, and advertising.  


*
take a trip to DC, walk in and take a piss on the Declaration of Independence as well.  i wonder how long you'll last a free person.  you think you should have this right as well?*

No, as that is government property, maintained by your taxes and mine.  The flag I purchase at a hardware store with MY money is not.  If I print up a copy of the Declaration of Independence or purchase one in a bookstore and desecrate it, should I then go to jail?  Is it my property or that of the state?

*
or how about for anyone that was ever pro-slavery, take a trip to the Lincoln Monument and desecrate that as well.  it's no different than burning your nation's colors.*

Yes, it is.  See above.  Vandalism is vandalism.  Destroying that which is yours is not.  

*perhaps you'd be more abliged to limit your flag-burning parties to a more urbanized environment, rallies, and such.  take a trip to the heartland of America set the flag ablaze.  you won't make it out of the county.*

I might just do that and see if I get lynched.  Lynching is so American, don't you think?  Groups of people with a mob mentality hanging, shooting, and burning (or all three together) those who they think are inferior or possess undesireable political views.  In Russia they called them "pogroms," but that doesn't have the wonderful tone that "lynching" does.  

Bubba and Dwayne just can't get a country good-ol'-boy inflection on "pogrom."  

<Sigh>



Regards,


Steve


----------



## MisterMike (Jun 23, 2005)

Is it illegal to deface money, but not the flag?

If someone wanted to make a statement, wouldn't it be bolder to burn a twenty than the flag?

I'll admit this would be a tough decision for me if I were in office because of what the flag means as well as the 1st Ammendment.

I'd probably side with voting NO.

I'm guessing that flag burning in most cases violates some city/town fire laws (no permit, public disturbance, etc.) anyways. While the law is blind, it would just take the right prosecution if anybody really cared.


----------



## Ray (Jun 23, 2005)

I think I'd rather have the right to burn a pile of leaves in my yard than a US flag.


----------



## Sapper6 (Jun 23, 2005)

burn away man.  do what you wish.

i wonder what Russian for ingorance is?

and thanks for the neg rep based upon disagreeing with you.  i was only expressing my freedoms of speech, which you didn't like. :idunno:


----------



## MisterMike (Jun 23, 2005)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> and thanks for the neg rep based upon disagreeing with you.  i was only expressing my freedoms of speech, which you didn't like. :idunno:



LOL don't you love that.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 23, 2005)

The US is one of very few nations that put an almost religious reverence on it's flag.  To most other nations, a flag is, well, just a bit of cloth. I had this discussion with a few folks in the past, members of the "Greatest Generation" who fought in WW2.  To them, it is a symbol of everything this nation is supposed to stand for, and was something they fought and died for.

To a man, they also agreed that the US is not now, nor has it been for a long time that nation for which they gave so much.

I have read the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, as well as many of the writings of those who wrote those defining documents.  Our "Founding Fathers".  I firmly believe, that if they were alive today, they would be taking up arms to return us to their vision. Not the corporate whore-state we have today with "Free Speech" zones, a top heavy and bloated Federal government, and career politicians who are well out of touch with what the people want.

That flag is but a cloth, desecrating it, an emotional but in the end pointless act.
"Old Glory" deserves better.


----------



## OUMoose (Jun 23, 2005)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> i wonder what Russian for ingorance is?


  &#1085;&#1077;&#1074;&#1077;&#1078;&#1077;&#1089;&#1090;&#1074;&#1086; according to English-Russian dictonary (don't ask me how to pronounce it).



			
				Sapper6 said:
			
		

> and thanks for the neg rep based upon disagreeing with you.  i was only expressing my freedoms of speech, which you didn't like. :idunno:


 ... and whoever gave you the ding was expressing THEIR free speech right back.  That's what's great about this country, that we can agree to disagree.  

Personally I'm on the fence about flag-burning.  I can see and appreciate those with Sapper's point of view.  I can also see how telling someone they can't do something which causes no harm to others but allows that person a non-violent method of expression would be considered unconstitutional.  

Do I have a flag up now?  No.  It's my way of showing that I don't buy into the rampant nationalism that's gripping this country tightly by the throat.  Would I burn it in protest?  Probably not, as I also believe people to be short-sighted and focus on a symbol rather than what it stands for, and all I would be doing is inciting riot (which could cause harm to others) and lessening the purpose of the statement.  

:idunno:


----------



## Bammx2 (Jun 23, 2005)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> The US is one of very few nations that put an almost religious reverence on it's flag. To most other nations, a flag is, well, just a bit of cloth. I had this discussion with a few folks in the past, members of the "Greatest Generation" who fought in WW2. To them, it is a symbol of everything this nation is supposed to stand for, and was something they fought and died for.
> 
> To a man, they also agreed that the US is not now, nor has it been for a long time that nation for which they gave so much.
> 
> ...


 Hooaa!

 My family has a direct,traceable lineage in fighting in every war this country has ever been involved in,all the way back to the revolutionary war (and then some since my mom was native american
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





)

  And not one of my ancesters ever fought this "government".
 They fought for the american people....
 and NO,this "fantasy" of "we the people" being the government...is just that...a fantasy.
  The flag does NOT represent the government and never will.It represents the american people!
  For those of you think otherwise,let me put it like this.....
  No law states that ONLY democrats and republicans can run the government.
  How long has it been since we had political party running things who WEREN'T one of those 2 parties?
  Sure,you can run...but you won't win.
 No law states you MUST be rich or a college grad to run.
  When was the last time we had a ditch digger from "podunk kentucky" become president?
  If you can't afford to spend at least 200 million on the campaign trail....you won't win.
  But how many non dems or reps,ditch diggers from "podunk kentucky" have died serving just so these twits can keep the monopoly on "we the people" in washington?
 Sure...you have the right to freedom of speech.
 you have the right to verbally complain when corperate america decides to move thier companies to other countries just to give themselves a tax break and screw your family out of a meal and a home.
 But thats ALL you get to do.
 Re-read the 2nd ammendment(sp) AGAIN AND AGAIN until it sinks in!
  "to take up arms against an oppressive and tyrannical government".
 That flag does NOT give the right for you to just sit there and be pissed on by some political moron living in a multi-million dollar mansion who claims to be doing it for the "best interest of the american people".
  It gives the right to kick his a** for pissing on the american people regardles of HIS "best interest"!
  This is MY personal opinion....I am NOT speaking for anyone else at this point in time,
 If you want to burn the flag out of disgust for the american government,go a head,I don't care to much for it anyway.
  But if you want to burn it out of disgust for the american people and those who fought to give you that right,
 I highly advise you state your purpose first AND LOUDLY and have proper ID so the coroner can identify you to your next of kin.
 Cause my boot prints will surely tell them who I am!


----------



## Sam (Jun 23, 2005)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> burning the flag isn't free speech. burning your nation's flag is an expression of misguided judgment.


But what would be the point of free speech if we couldn't all be misguided? Most political issues have two sides (sometimes more). both options cant be correct - one side MUST be the correct answer - something cannot be moral and immoral at the same time. Not getting into the politics of this particular issue, but take abortion as an example. Some people are pro choice, some are pro life. People who are pro-life will always believe that they are correct and pro-choicers are misguided. The exact holds true for the reverse. There would be no point of free speech unless there was 'misguided judgement' (aka someone opposing someone else). It's easy to let a person talk about butterflys and flowers without having to protect their rights - people will just let them get on with it. It's when you get to controversial (and therefore in the eyes of many) misguided opinons that we need free speech laws protecting us.  



			
				Sapper6 said:
			
		

> the flag stands for so many things, ideals, and events in this countries history. to burn the flag in protest of Operation Iraqi Freedom is entirely ignorant. to do so, you are not only showing you oppose the current actions of our government, but the past as well.


Again, ignorant or not, that's why we have laws to protect free speech. you might think it is an ignorant action, but that doesnt have anything to do with whether I should be allowed to. And, as somone already mentioned, it stands for whatever it stands for to the person doing the burning. You can't assume what the person means by it. But what if they were oposing the past as well as the present as you say they are? What if they meant to say that the entire us government always has and still does suck completely and is useless? Are you not within your rights to do so? 
[/quote]


----------



## Sapper6 (Jun 23, 2005)

as Bammx had stated, the flag doesn't represent the gov't, it represents the people.  so burning the flag in opposition of the gov't is misguided judgment.

like i said, do what you wish.  of course, this coming from a person that said they'd only do it should it become illegal to do so.  i guess "spite" is a freedom as well. :idunno:


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 23, 2005)

Y'know, I found that line about "activist judges" and nothing ever being "unconstitutional" to be balls-out hilarious. I couldn't stop laughing for two minutes.

Now, on to the discussion...



			
				Samantha said:
			
		

> But what would be the point of free speech if we couldn't all be misguided? Most political issues have two sides (sometimes more). both options cant be correct - one side MUST be the correct answer - something cannot be moral and immoral at the same time. Not getting into the politics of this particular issue, but take abortion as an example. Some people are pro choice, some are pro life. People who are pro-life will always believe that they are correct and pro-choicers are misguided. The exact holds true for the reverse. There would be no point of free speech unless there was 'misguided judgement' (aka someone opposing someone else). It's easy to let a person talk about butterflys and flowers without having to protect their rights - people will just let them get on with it. It's when you get to controversial (and therefore in the eyes of many) misguided opinons that we need free speech laws protecting us.



While I agree with the spirit and general message of what you're saying here, Samantha, I disagree with the contention that two positions cannot have simulataneous validity at the same time. I also disagree that an individual is necessarily "misguided" because their position falls short of "the truth". This assumes an absolutistic paradigm which, as a proponent of the developmental structuralist school of psychology, I do not subscribe to.

Now, that being said, I agree wholeheartedly with the rest of your post.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 23, 2005)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> like i said, do what you wish.  of course, this coming from a person that said they'd only do it should it become illegal to do so.  i guess "spite" is a freedom as well. :idunno:



Yes, it is.   

The problem, Sapper6, is that when you start restricting what people can and cannot express (which, in this case, are what you interpret to be "misguided" and "spiteful" beliefs), you have simultaneously infringed on their First Amendment rights --- apparently for no other reason than you disagree with their political beliefs.

The Constitution does not protect freedom of expression and a free press, provided their positions are the "right" ones. It protects freedom of expression and a free press absolutely, without exception (barring infringing on the freedoms of others, such as starting a mass fire that would endanger several lives).

I really don't even see why this is an issue. It seems pretty clear-cut to me.


----------



## arnisador (Jun 23, 2005)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Once a government no longer allows for the disagreement of its' actions then it is no longer a democracy or a republic.


  Yup, that's the heart of it. Kaith's quotes are on-the-mark too.

 If you can't disagree with the govt. and express that opinion...what's left worth fighting for, anyway? Isn't that why this is in the _First_ Amendment?


----------



## arnisador (Jun 23, 2005)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> as Bammx had stated, the flag doesn't represent the gov't, it represents the people.


 A flag represents a govt., or part of it (like a State, or the British Navy having its own ensign, etc.).



> like i said, do what you wish. of course, this coming from a person that said they'd only do it should it become illegal to do so. i guess "spite" is a freedom as well.


 No, protest and civil disobedience are traditions. They're been effective. The right to protest against govt. actions and demand a redress of claims in enshrined in the Constitution. It's the American way. How else are bad laws changed? Mostly, when people protest (or lawsuits force them to be changed). Protesting is a responsbile act by those who love the country and want to protect it.

 I can hardly wait for the Peter, Paul, and Mary song aboyt flag-burning!


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jun 23, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> See, now... I thought I found a loophole.  I figure I can wrap people i dont like in the flag and burn it because its "protected as free speech" and here you go telling me I cannot.
> 
> Its oppression of my freedoms, man...



Sorry dude this is only my opinion , and not what the judge will say.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 23, 2005)

Bah! Its just another "activist judge"!! Screw 'em!!!  :2xBird2:


----------



## Marginal (Jun 23, 2005)

Yep. Wrapping someone in a flag and setting them on fire is a manifestation of people's frustration with the activist judges. Therefore, it's not really a crime.


----------



## TonyM. (Jun 24, 2005)

I'm not fond of the Wessington family crest being our flag anyway. Perhaps if we changed it to something more representative of the American people folks would be less inclined to burn it.


----------



## Ray (Jun 24, 2005)

Compromise: Keep it legal to burn the flag as a freedom of speech thing.  But require that all US flags be made flame retardent (for safety reasons). 

Does the gov't have a trademark/copyright on the flag?  The manufacture could be licensed like other branded products.  No, stop.


----------



## Marginal (Jun 24, 2005)

Can't even remember the last time any media outlet reported domestic flag burning...


----------



## Kane (Jun 24, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> This would surely be an unconstitutional restriction on free speech.
> 
> Limiting the right of people to criticize their govt. is so anti-American that I can't believe anyone would seriously consider it. I don't want my govt. to limit my rights to express myself. I don't want to burn a flag, but I do want the principle of freedom of speech respected.


 Yea I think it would be a violation of free speach, so I am not totally for it. At the same time I do wish those same people who do burn flags would leave the country.


----------



## arnisador (Jun 24, 2005)

Well, I also wouldn't burn a flag except as a protest against this ridiculous law. Burning it to protest the government's policies is far too extreme for me. But, restricting it is worse.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jun 24, 2005)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> and thanks for the neg rep based upon disagreeing with you.  i was only expressing my freedoms of speech, which you didn't like.




Well, at least nobody put you in jail for your disagreement with them, eh?





Regards,


Steve


----------



## Shu2jack (Jun 24, 2005)

Are they trying to make this a law or a constitutional amendment? If they are trying to make it an amendment, don't they need a certain majority of the states to approve it even after the House and Senate approve it or does the fact that if the Senate approves it mean they don't need the states to agree to it because the States are represented equally in the senate?

Did that make sense? If I am on the right track, do you really think that the House, the Senate, the President, the majority of the states (through the governors?), and the Supreme Court will all go for it? To me it seems unlikely, but you never know.


----------



## Sam (Jun 24, 2005)

Shu2jack said:
			
		

> Are they trying to make this a law or a constitutional amendment? If they are trying to make it an amendment, don't they need a certain majority of the states to approve it even after the House and Senate approve it or does the fact that if the Senate approves it mean they don't need the states to agree to it because the States are represented equally in the senate?
> 
> Did that make sense? If I am on the right track, do you really think that the House, the Senate, the President, the majority of the states (through the governors?), and the Supreme Court will all go for it? To me it seems unlikely, but you never know.


I don't know if your right or not, but if you are, and I agree that it is unlikely, the fact that people are even trying to pass this into a law or constitutional amendment just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It's the spirit behind it that bothers me. Flag burning won't make a huge impact in my life, or anyone's probably, but its the principal of what they are trying to do that just irks the hell out of me.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 24, 2005)

Heres the process:
http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html

Heres some proposed amendments that failed:
http://www.usconstitution.net/constamfail.html


Oh, this was interesting: The 102nd Congress (1991-1992) debated repealing the 22nd Amendment (removing Presidential term limits).


----------



## Shu2jack (Jun 24, 2005)

Thanks Kaith! I was on the right track at least. They do need a majority of the states to approve it, but it is the state legislators, not the govenors, who decide if a state approves the amendment. 

I guess it makes sense that the president can't veto an amendment. If you have the vast majority of both houses of Congress and the legislators of the majority of the states approving an amendment, overcoming a veto by vote shouldn't be too hard. Especially for anything that has that much support.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 15, 2005)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050715/ap_on_re_us/flag_burning

*Tenn. Teen Jailed for Burning U.S. Flag*



> The teenager was released from jail Thursday on his own recognizance while he awaits his Aug. 2 trial on charges of desecrating a venerated object, underage drinking, littering, evading arrest, burning personal property and theft.
> 
> The Tennessee flag-burning statute makes the crime a misdemeanor, punishable by less than a year in jail and up to $2,500 fine.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 16, 2005)

Samantha said:
			
		

> what he said. I would never burn a flag unless they made it illegal. Then I would burn the flag just because of the fact that they tried to take that right from me. You should be able to critisize your country if you want.
> 
> The moment they can start limiting free speech we're screwed.


 Would you extend that defense of free speech to include protecting cross burning as well? What about burning in effigy government officials or members of certain ethnic groups? Would we defend the right of a group to preaceably assemble and burn a representation of a muslim in effigy as free speech? I don't see where any of these issues are a seperate issue from flag burning. If we protect the right of an individual to burn the flag, then other "peaceful" examples of free speech we MUST tolerate, including what some might refer to as "hate speech".


----------



## DngrRuss (Jul 16, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Would you extend that defense of free speech to include protecting cross burning as well? What about burning in effigy government officials or members of certain ethnic groups? Would we defend the right of a group to preaceably assemble and burn a representation of a muslim in effigy as free speech? I don't see where any of these issues are a seperate issue from flag burning. If we protect the right of an individual to burn the flag, then other "peaceful" examples of free speech we MUST tolerate, including what some might refer to as "hate speech".


 No. There is a definate difference between making a "statement" and "inciteful speech". Though there are, I'm sure, local and state laws that prohibit the burning of crosses in public or while trespassing, I do not think it is illegal to do so on private property. And, while I detest the idea and the ideaology behind the burning of a cross, it should not be illegal to do so on private property. If the pointy-headed rednecks are on private land having a rally and burning a cross as a part of thier assembly, then it should be protected. Burning one on the town square or on some minority's property can and should be taken as a threat, and is therefore not protected.

 Burning an effigy of anyone, government or private citizen, can also be taken as a threat and should not be protected. "Bush Sucks," is vastly different from, "Death to Bush."

 The flag represents both the government and the citizens of that country. Unless you are an opposing force declaring war, burning the flag is not a threat, it is a statement of protest. If I burn a flag I have purchased (barring any local laws against fires in general), it is not realistic to assume that I am threatening the US government, or it's citezenry. If I were the Premier of China and burning the US flag and an effigy of Bush, then that is something for our government and people to concern themselves about.

 It is clearly free speech. It boils down to choice. Much like the pro-lifers think that the other side are "pro-abortion" rather than "pro-choice", so do the supporters of such an outragous ammendment think that we are either "anti-flag burning" or "pro-flag burning".

  I do not want to burn a flag- I have no need to burn a flag- don't tell me I can't burn a flag.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 16, 2005)

DngrRuss said:
			
		

> No. There is a definate difference between making a "statement" and "inciteful speech". Though there are, I'm sure, local and state laws that prohibit the burning of crosses in public or while trespassing, I do not think it is illegal to do so on private property. And, while I detest the idea and the ideaology behind the burning of a cross, it should not be illegal to do so on private property. If the pointy-headed rednecks are on private land having a rally and burning a cross as a part of thier assembly, then it should be protected. Burning one on the town square or on some minority's property can and should be taken as a threat, and is therefore not protected.
> 
> Burning an effigy of anyone, government or private citizen, can also be taken as a threat and should not be protected. "Bush Sucks," is vastly different from, "Death to Bush."
> 
> ...


 So you're saying that flags should only be burned on private property?  Actually, I think the statement it is "clearly" free speech is a bit dismissive.  There is nothing at all clear about the discussion.  By your own statement, you have acknowledged limits on free speech.  The question becomes what those reasonable limits are.  We know on one extreme that yelling fire in a crowded theatre is not protected speech.  We know, on the other, than criticizing public officials is absolutely necessary and crucial speech.  In between we find issues like Flag Burning and Cross Burning, and "hate speech".  At what point does it not become protected speech?  The standard changes depending on who you ask at this point, so there is nothing "clear" about it.


----------



## andy (Jul 16, 2005)

Reading this article and the many posts that follow lead me to question the definition of 'rights' -
The founding fathers stated that we are granted them by natures Creator.
It also makes me question what a 'privilege' is and who assumes the moral authority to grant it.

By allowing the powers that be greater privilege to decide what our inborn 'rights' are is called-acclimatizing the public. This form of manipulation and control has been going on for years.Don't believe it? think I'm a kook? (well I may be a kook) but Look at recent history. How long have ALL ten "bill of rights"
been under the microscope? Atwist here a redifining there--Tada!! revisionist history. 
It's like the boy that plugged the leak with his finger.( oops the public noticed; lets start chippin away over here) can any one hear who follows history or politics honestly claim that nothing is wrong? I doubt it


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 16, 2005)

andy said:
			
		

> Reading this article and the many posts that follow lead me to question the definition of 'rights' -
> The founding fathers stated that we are granted them by natures Creator.
> It also makes me question what a 'privilege' is and who assumes the moral authority to grant it.
> 
> ...


  So what are you saying?


----------



## DngrRuss (Jul 17, 2005)

I'm not saying that flags should only be burned on private property.

 I'm not saying that they should or should not be burned.  I am saying that restricting the right to do so is wrong.  You brought up cross burning and I was describing the difference between the two.

 As for there being limits on free speech, of course there are.  Also part of my point.  "Hate speech" is protected.  The KKK can have a public speech on the courthouse steps and that is protected, and should remain so.  When that speech or action becomes inciteful or threatening, then it is no longer protected and can result in criminal charges.  Making the actual burning of a flag itself a crime would probably prove to be redundant.

 Let's cut to the chase.  We all know what it is that's going on here.  It's just another distraction to keep us from being truly pissed off about what's going on in this country and the world.  So let's drag out the flag-burning-red-herring, drink some beer, and ignore the really important things going on in our lives.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 17, 2005)

DngrRuss said:
			
		

> I'm not saying that flags should only be burned on private property.
> 
> I'm not saying that they should or should not be burned. I am saying that restricting the right to do so is wrong. You brought up cross burning and I was describing the difference between the two.
> 
> ...


 Of course, it's a conspiracy.  It couldn't be that for years people have been upset at the idea of flag-burning, this is a pure invention.  Got it.  

What you miss is that it isn't the government driving this issue.  This topic is being driven by citizens of this country, one way or the other.  Attributing it to some vast government conspiracy really doesn't lend anything to the debate.  

I haven't made a conclusion about whether flag burning should or should not be illegal.  I have, however, made a conclusion about people who have a knee jerk reaction either way.  To automatically assume this topic is a clear cut issue is a bit myopic.  If I were a judge given the task of determing whether or not flag-burning is protected speech, I'm not sure what sure what decision I would make.  Compelling arguments can be made both ways, but the issue is FAR from clear cut.


----------



## TonyM. (Jul 17, 2005)

If this turkey has come up again be prepared to get the vaseline. This is one of the red herrings they use to get everyone arguing so they can slide some really horrendous bill past us while no-one is paying attention.


----------



## DngrRuss (Jul 17, 2005)

Does everyone who disagrees with others on this site get neg rep points, or is it just me? I thought free thought and opinion was respected... hmmm... guess not.

 I am not a conspiracy nut, but it is all too convenient that when really important issues need to be addressed, stupid, insignificant talking points get rolled out for the public to attack like jackals. The scary thing is, that with the current social and political climate, personal rights and freedoms might be in jeopardy since one side thinks that they are either immoral, unpatriotic, etc.

  Regarding the Constitution, it is a simple issue of _can_ and _can not_. When it comes to the rights of the people (not necessarily the running of and the business of the government), the Constitution tells us what we, the people _can do, _and what the government _can not do._

 Rights are not something you are born with. They are given to you by your particular government. We, fortunately, have the right to free speech and expression. Are there limits? Of course. When folks pull out the ole' _can't yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater_, they sometimes forget exactly what that means. Can I yell "fire" in a crowded theater? Sure I can. Noone's stopping me. But, when the ensuing panic occurs, and I get arrested for inciting a riot and causing mayhem, I cannot use the First Amendment as a sheild to protect me from prosecution. Yelling "fire" is not the crime, causing a riot is. 

 Perhaps my previous posts were not clear (I often post late at night after working all day and taking a few head-shots), if I walk downtown, stand on a street corner, yell at the top of my lungs, "Bush sucks and I hate America," and then set a flag on fire, I am sure that several things will happen: 1- I will get my butt kicked 2- I am sure I will get arrested for violating some fire code 3- I am sure that, while my assailents may also be arrested, I will be charged with creating some sort of riot or mayhem. Should I be able to use the First Amendment as a sheild to protect me from prosecution? No. The First Amendment is not meant for that. 

 If I, on the other hand, schedule a rally to protest the war or some other thing the government is doing, and decide to, with the proper fire permits, burn a flag, and a riot does not ensue- though I am sure there will be those who protest my actions- the right to my expression should be protected. 

 Sgt- you are the one who brought up cross-burning. I grew up in the south and saw KKK rally's on courthouse steps. They said horrible, hateful things. Did a riot occur. No. Did they commit a crime? No. Do I agree with their view? No. But their right to be bigots and rednecks is, and should be, protected. If those same buffoons went down to South Central LA, stood on a street corner anytime they wanted, and spewed there bile, they would not only get a thurough beating, but they would also probably get cited for creating some sort of disturbance and/or riot. The First Amendment will not protect them.

  So, _can_ I burn a flag?  Yes.  Will creating a disturbance be protected?  No.

  The government _can not_ tell me that I can't burn a flag.  That is and should remain my right.  The government also _can not_ protect me for trying to use that right unwisely and causing a disturbance or violence to occur.

 Should there be a Constitutional Amendment to tell me that burning a flag might not be a good idea? No. Should it be illegal? No. There are already laws on the books, not violating anyone's personal rights, that will suffice.

  The whole flag-burning-red-herring is merely politics.  Not a conspiracy, just politics as ususal.

  So, I guess it's time to rack up some more neg rep points


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 17, 2005)

TonyM. said:
			
		

> If this turkey has come up again be prepared to get the vaseline. This is one of the red herrings they use to get everyone arguing so they can slide some really horrendous bill past us while no-one is paying attention.


 I get nervous whenever someone starts using the word "they" in vague and ominous ways.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 17, 2005)

DngrRuss said:
			
		

> Does everyone who disagrees with others on this site get neg rep points, or is it just me? I thought free thought and opinion was respected... hmmm... guess not.


 I haven't on this topic.  I have no others.  I feel your pain.  I hate the anonymous ones most of all. 



			
				DngrRuss said:
			
		

> I am not a conspiracy nut, but it is all too convenient that when really important issues need to be addressed, stupid, insignificant talking points get rolled out for the public to attack like jackals. The scary thing is, that with the current social and political climate, personal rights and freedoms might be in jeopardy since one side thinks that they are either immoral, unpatriotic, etc.


 Why does the topic have to be a conspiracy.  Why can't it be an honest disagreement.  That's one of the problems that seems to keep popping up.  People have a disagreement, and it turns in to demonizing the otherside.  Once side thinks to other is unpatriotic and the other side thinks the first side are a bunch of fascists.  There's enough room for criticism on both sides.  



			
				DngrRuss said:
			
		

> Regarding the Constitution, it is a simple issue of _can_ and _can not_. When it comes to the rights of the people (not necessarily the running of and the business of the government), the Constitution tells us what we, the people _can do, _and what the government _can not do. _


 Ok.....



			
				DngrRuss said:
			
		

> Rights are not something you are born with. They are given to you by your particular government. We, fortunately, have the right to free speech and expression. Are there limits? Of course. When folks pull out the ole' _can't yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater_, they sometimes forget exactly what that means. Can I yell "fire" in a crowded theater? Sure I can. Noone's stopping me. But, when the ensuing panic occurs, and I get arrested for inciting a riot and causing mayhem, I cannot use the First Amendment as a sheild to protect me from prosecution. Yelling "fire" is not the crime, causing a riot is.


 Rights that are given are privileges.  We as a society determine what rights we grant ourselves.  



			
				DngrRuss said:
			
		

> Perhaps my previous posts were not clear (I often post late at night after working all day and taking a few head-shots), if I walk downtown, stand on a street corner, yell at the top of my lungs, "Bush sucks and I hate America," and then set a flag on fire, I am sure that several things will happen: 1- I will get my butt kicked 2- I am sure I will get arrested for violating some fire code 3- I am sure that, while my assailents may also be arrested, I will be charged with creating some sort of riot or mayhem. Should I be able to use the First Amendment as a sheild to protect me from prosecution? No. The First Amendment is not meant for that.


 On this we agree.  



			
				DngrRuss said:
			
		

> If I, on the other hand, schedule a rally to protest the war or some other thing the government is doing, and decide to, with the proper fire permits, burn a flag, and a riot does not ensue- though I am sure there will be those who protest my actions- the right to my expression should be protected.


 Possibly, though I don't see it as being quite that clear cut.  



			
				DngrRuss said:
			
		

> Sgt- you are the one who brought up cross-burning. I grew up in the south and saw KKK rally's on courthouse steps. They said horrible, hateful things. Did a riot occur. No. Did they commit a crime? No. Do I agree with their view? No. But their right to be bigots and rednecks is, and should be, protected. If those same buffoons went down to South Central LA, stood on a street corner anytime they wanted, and spewed there bile, they would not only get a thurough beating, but they would also probably get cited for creating some sort of disturbance and/or riot. The First Amendment will not protect them.


 Now several laws exist in several states that list many of those activities as hate crimes, and unprotected speech.  I'm merely trying to measure the extent to which this discussion is driven by true libertarian ideals, or merely driven by politics du jour.  I understand libertarianism.  



			
				DngrRuss said:
			
		

> So, _can_ I burn a flag? Yes. Will creating a disturbance be protected? No.


 That part is clear. 



			
				DngrRuss said:
			
		

> The government _can not_ tell me that I can't burn a flag. That is and should remain my right. The government also _can not_ protect me for trying to use that right unwisely and causing a disturbance or violence to occur.


 This is where the issue gets a bit convoluted.  If popular sentiment is that this activity should be against the law, then it will be.  



			
				DngrRuss said:
			
		

> Should there be a Constitutional Amendment to tell me that burning a flag might not be a good idea? No. Should it be illegal? No. There are already laws on the books, not violating anyone's personal rights, that will suffice.


 Again, I say that if popular sentiment is that this activity is an affront, then it will become illegal.



			
				DngrRuss said:
			
		

> The whole flag-burning-red-herring is merely politics. Not a conspiracy, just politics as ususal.


 a red-herring would suggest someone is intentionally throwing this topic in to the fray for no other reason than as a diversion.  I don't believe that is the case.  I believe that there are people on both sides of this issue with good intentions.



			
				DngrRuss said:
			
		

> So, I guess it's time to rack up some more neg rep points


 Don't sweat it.  I may not always agree with what you have to say, but thank god you're free to say it.


----------



## DngrRuss (Jul 17, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I haven't on this topic.  I have no others.  I feel your pain.  I hate the anonymous ones most of all.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## andy (Jul 18, 2005)

TonyM-
You could not be more correct. it's called misdirection and acclimation


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 28, 2005)

The thread is dead (as, likely the topic on the Senate Floor for five more years), but I thought I'd post this:

In Their Own Words: Compendium of Veterans' Quotes Against the Flag Desecration Amendment

"I fear the unintended consequences of these 17 words and the laws that may be enacted later will be far worse than the consequences of us witnessing the occasional and shocking and disgusting desecration of this great symbol of liberty and freedom.


Real patriotism cannot be coerced. It must be a voluntary, unselfish, brave act to sacrifice for others. And when Americans feel coercion especially from their government they tend to rebel. So none of us should be surprised Mr. Chairman if one unintended consequence of the laws that prohibit unpopular activity such as this is an actual increase in the incidents of flag desecration."


U.S. Senator Bob Kerrey (D-NE)
Veteran of the elite Navy SEAL Team, the Navy's version of the Green Berets, and is currently the only member of Congress to have earned the Congressional Medal of Honor, America's highest military honor.
Excerpted from testimony given before the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 28, 1999



"The Constitution is a document that provides each citizen with broad rights. The right to assemble peacefully; the right to speak and publish freely; the freedom to worship without interference; freedom from unlawful search and seizure; freedom from slavery and involuntary servitude; the right to vote. It is these freedoms that define what it means to be an American.

In its more than 200 years, the Constitution has been amended only 27 times -- one time was acknowledged a mistake, and repealed. The amendments have reaffirmed and expanded individual freedoms. This proposed Amendment would not expand the list of freedoms. This Amendment for the first time would limit individual freedom."

U.S. Senator John H. Chaffee (R-RI)
Veteran of the United States Marine Corps who served in the original invasion forces at Guadalcanal and commanded a rifle company in Korea.
Excerpted from testimony given before the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 28, 1999



"As a Vietnam veteran who lives daily with the consequences of my service to my country, and as the son of a WWII combat veteran, and the grandson of a WWI combat veteran, I can attest to the fact that not all veterans indeed perhaps most veterans do not wish to exchange fought-for freedoms for protecting a tangible symbol of these freedoms. I oppose this amendment because it does not support the freedom of expression and the right to dissent.

Now, 31 years, 1 week and one day following the loss of my legs in combat, I am again called upon to defend the freedoms which my sacrifices in combat were said to preserve. It's been a long 31+ years. I have faced the vexing challenge of reconciling myself with the reality of my military history and the lessons I have learned from it and the popular portrayal of veterans as one dimensional patriots, whose patriotism MUST take the form of intolerance, narrow-mindedness, euphemisms, and reductionism-where death in combat is referred to as "making the ultimate sacrifice" and the motivation for service and the definition of true patriotism is reduced to dedication to a piece of cloth.

The strength of our nation is found in its diversity. This strength was achieved through the exercise of our First Amendment right to freedom of expression-no matter how repugnant or offensive the expression might be. Achieving that strength has not been easy-it's been a struggle, a struggle lived by some very important men in my life and me.

I am offended when I see the flag burned or treated disrespectfully. As offensive and painful as this is, I still believe that those dissenting voices need to be heard. This country is unique and special because the minority, the unpopular, the dissenters and the downtrodden, also have a voice and are allowed to be heard in whatever way they choose to express themselves that does not harm others. The freedom of expression, even when it hurts, is the truest test of our dedication to the belief that we have that right.

Free expression, especially the right to dissent with the policies of the government, is one important element, if not the cornerstone of our form of government that has greatly enhanced its stability, prosperity, and strength of our country.

Freedom is what makes the United States of America strong and great, and freedom, including the right to dissent, is what has kept our democracy going for more than 200 years. And it is freedom that will continue to keep it strong for my children and the children of all the people like my father, late father in law, grandfather, brother, me, and others like us who served honorably and proudly for freedom.

The pride and honor we feel is not in the flag per se. It's in the principles that it stands for and the people who have defended them. My pride and admiration is in our country, its people and its fundamental principles. I am grateful for the many heroes of our country-and especially those in my family. All the sacrifices of those who went before me would be for naught, if an amendment were added to the Constitution that cut back on our First Amendment rights for the first time in the history of our great nation.

I love this country, its people and what it stands for. The last thing I want to give the future generations are fewer rights than I was privileged to have. My family and I served and fought for others to have such freedoms and I am opposed to any actions which would restrict my children and their children from having the same freedoms I enjoy."

Gary May, who lost both legs to a landmine explosion while serving in Vietnam.
Evansville, Indiana
Excerpted from testimony given before the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 20, 1999,



"I volunteered to join the Navy at the time in our nation's history that when there were innumerable vehement and destructive protests and dissents against the Vietnam War. It was my choice to join since my draft number was around 264. The protests occurring at college campuses around the country including my own took many forms -- there were flag burnings, draft card burnings, marches and sit-ins. These issues took on even greater significance when, during the Spring of my first year of college, students my own age were killed in anti-war protests at Kent State University.

In light of those events, I remember being questioned and questioning myself about how I could morally reconcile my decision to join the military given the dissenting voices and arguments put forth by the anti-war protesters and my peers. The protesters caused me to reflect upon my decision. I reflected on the loss of tens of thousands of American lives fighting totalitarianism in a far off land and my decision to participate in the military that carried out the war. It was not easy, but it did help me to think about what I was doing and more importantly - why!!

I only had to look at my own oath to get the answer: 
"I ...... do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God."

Ultimately, my responsibility was to support and defend the protestors' under the First Amendment to the Constitution to freely express their opinion, even if I disagreed with what they were saying.

So, it's the Constitution that I am sworn to uphold. It would be wrong to take an oath to uphold the Constitution and then to support a reduction in the rights granted under it. That's what I did for my wife and daughter and every other American.

So, the pride and honor I feel is not really in the flag per se. It's in the principles that it stands for and the people who have defended them. My pride and admiration is in our country, its people and its fundamental principles. To this day, that pride and admiration is what I feel each and every time I stand, face the flag, and come to attention. I love this country, its people, and what it stands for. But all the sacrifices of those who went before me would be for naught, if an amendment were added to the Constitution that cut back on our First Amendment rights for the first time in the history of our great nation. After all, our nation was born out of political dissent. The last thing that I want to give the future generations, like my daughter and her children, are less rights than I was privileged to have. I fought for others to have such freedoms and am opposed to any actions which would restrict my child and her children from having the same freedoms I enjoy."

Joseph E. Rogers, veteran of Desert Storm/Shield 
Richarson, Texas
Excerpted from testimony given before the House Judiciary Committee on March 23, 1999



"I can safely speak for my four brothers Donald, William, Lanceford, Paul and myself -- all veterans of the second World War -- when I say one of the basic freedoms for which we served is that of free speech. Do not let anyone use the flag under which we served as an instrument to abridge our constitutional rights."

Richard Soulsby
Vista, California



"When I volunteered for service, I took an oath to defend and preserve the Constitution of the United States. I still feel bound by that oath. During basic training, the Army made sure that all soldiers were taught military courtesy, including proper ways to show respect for the flag. The word "courtesy" was used because we took no oath of loyalty to the flag, and we certainly were not required to to regard the flag as a sacred object in and of itself. The Flag Code, saluting the flag, and showing proper respect to the flag were ways of demonstrating our respect for the ideas that the flag symbolizes.

My understanding of what our nation and Constitution stand for gives me strong faith in the principles embodied in the Bill of Rights. That includes the right of people with whom I disagree to demonstrate openly, to protest, to struggle peaceably for what they believe to be right. My faith in the Bill of Rights is so strong that I must support the right of others to protest in any way that does not deprive others of their rights. If I were to fail to support te right to protest, I would also fail in my duty to support the Constitution. My religious faith includes the commandment "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me." The U.S. flag is not a sacred object. No act of law, and no change in the Constitution, can make it so: God, and God alone, is sacred. Any law, any constitutional amendment that would call a flag so sacred that to harm it would be sacrilege would be an insult to my deepest religious beliefs. It would be a form of forcing me to worship a strange god, and thus violate what I take to be God's Commandments."

Michael Salovesh, veteran of the Korean war.
De Kalb, Illinois



"I am a 47 year old, Noncommissioned Officer with 25 years of service between Active Service and Reserve Component Service. I never smoked a day in my life, yet I got cancer of the tongue, neck and throat from my constant exposure to toxic munitions and explosives. In all of my years of service, I never once disrespected the American flag, permitted anyone to disrespect, or allowed the desecration of the American flag anywhere that I served. I was often the Noncommissioned Officer-in-Charge of the flag detail, to raise and lower the flag on installations around the world, large and small.

It always gave me great joy to see our flag raised by my service men and women on holidays. This was especially true on the Fourth of July, Independence Day, when we always raised an enormous Garrison flag that was, to me, a smiling ray of sunshine and a thing of beauty that represented our ideals of freedom, basic human independence and equality for all.

I hated to see other repressive dissidents burn our flag during my years of service in places such as Iran, when the American diplomats were taken hostage during the Carter Administration and in Iraq during Desert Storm. It really hurt my heart.

As much as I despise the act, to have Congress pass a constitutional amendment to prevent desecration of the flag is an insult to the American freedom, independence, righteousness, free expression of our freedoms and glory that it flies for and represents. It is the ideals that the flag represents that should be guarded forever, including the freedom to fly it or not to fly it, according to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. To pas this amendment against flag desecration would be the first step to the United States to becoming a repressive government diminishing the freedoms of speech and other basic rights of the American people."

Robert E. Flock 
Staff Sergeant, United States Army (retired)



"I am a Vietnam Veteran and retiree from the USAF and have recently been diagnosed with Multiple Myeloma, and incurable bone marrow cancer. Chances are very good that my disease was triggered while serving in Southeast Asia. As a veteran I view and treat our flag with the greatest respect and as a symbol of the sacrifices that so many veterans have made in the defense of our country in so many wars and conflicts. As such, it disturbs me to se this symbols desecrated in ANY manner (even wearing it on clothing).

In spite of my own beliefs and feelings about the subject, I do not wish to force them upon others, and I deeply resent our elected leaders forcing it upon the nation. I would be curious to see how many of those said leaders ever served their country in the military.

It is my belief that our leaders have lost complete contact with the people and are trying their best to erode what freedoms we have left."

Kenneth E. Irvine, MSgt, USAF, retired after 25 years and eight months of service.
Cincinnati, Ohio



"As much as I am personally opposed to acts of flag desecration, I am WHOLLY OPPOSED to Congress passing any laws abridging any rights of the citizens of the United States! A law that takes away the rights of the people to express themselves would be a far worse crime against this country than the loss of a flag due to desecration.

I volunteered to serve my country and served it well during that time. I have spent many months living on a submarine, underwater and overseas, under conditions deemed 'cruel and unusual punishment' for convicts, in order to try to protect the rights of all the citizens of this country. To have a law passed that effectively disables the First Amendment would be a slap in the face to me and to everyone else who has donated part or all of their life to preserving these freedoms."

John Magruder, Machinist Mate First Class with Honors(retired) and eight year veteran of the Naval Nuclear Power Program.
Aiken, South Carolina



"I am a veteran of the U.S. Armed Forces, a person who spent two years training to be an officer at the united States Naval Academy. I have a hard time believing that there is anyone in this fine country as patriotic as I am. I grew up reading books about military and naval heroes, spent years trying to get into the Naval academy, and still continue to feel as though my true goal in life is to be laid to rest at Arlington National Cemetery.

However strongly I feel about my nation's flag, I cannot bear the desecration of our Constitution that such an amendment would cause. I am strongly against the desecration of any object of national importance, but I also cannot mock the First Amendment by taking away our nation's constitutional right to do so. That flag has such meaning, but the meaning behind the flag is the greatness of our country. Passing a constitutional amendment banning flag desecration would lead this nation down a slippery slope until all freedoms are regulated and amended."

Annemarie Spadafore
Elyria, Ohio



"As a Veteran of the Armed Forces, I have represented our flag and country both abroad and at home. I feel that this is an attack on our constitutional right to free speech. We are entering a dangerous area when we start changing our constitution on emotions. The sheer fact that people get very upset when they see a flag being burned is testament to the power of free speech, and political opposition. This country should try to protect people's right of free speech instead of trying to limit it more and more each day.

Please don't let your country become one that heads towards a police state by slowly tearing at the very rights that set us apart and atop the rest of the world."

Mr. Nathan S. Osborn
Raleigh, North Carolina



"If the constitutional amendment against flag-burning passes, I will no longer use our flag as a symbol of our freedom. I will show my respect in other ways because my flag will have lost its meaning for me. And I will turn in my flag, with all respect due to it (and to him), to Sen. Orrin Hatch. He is one man I sincerely respect and admire and honor for all he has done for the American people. However, I cannot see that the coercion of loyalty is more important than the freedom to choose and the freedom to voice our protest. Finally, I am able to choose. And I protest."

Doug Brown, veteran of the Vietnam war.
Salt Lake City, Utah
(Excerpted from an op-ed originally published in the Salt Lake Tribune on November 21, 1997)



"I share the feelings that gave birth to the (flag) amendment; seeing our flag desecrated makes me angry. But our angry reaction is the point: it illustrates the power of flag desecration as symbolic speech. It is a most powerful way for someone to tell us thy believe we are doing something wrong, that we are not living up to our ideals.

I spent 30 years on active duty in the U.S. Army and believe strongly in our country and the principles on which it was founded. Preeminent among these are the freedoms of speech and expression. The United States has never done something that would drive me to desecrate a flag to express my opposition, but I believe we must preserve a citizen's right to express his or her political views in this way.

Before approving the amendment, Congress should reflect that many political and social changes, the justice and morality of which we take for granted, were initiated by people whose sense of outrage was not initially shared by most of their fellow citizens. Our national ideals were articulated in the Declaration and the Constitution, but they were only achieved through rough and tumble political conflict. It is possible that some will use this form of protest for trivial purposes, but there is no requirement that free men and women exercise their freedoms only in ways the majority would approve.

If this amendment is passed and ratified, the government and the power of a majority will deprive dissident voices of a powerful means of speech and expression, but we will all be less free. We can learn to tolerate the anger and discomfort that flag desecration provokes and take time to reflect that it is a small price to pay to safeguard the freedoms of speech and expression that so few people enjoy in our measure."

Mike Pheneger, Colonel - United States Army (Retired)
Originally published in the Tampa Tribune on July 2, 1998



"As a veteran of Beirut, Panama & Desert Storm, I feel very strongly about our flag and what it stands for. I am permanently disabled as a direct result of my 15 years of service to our country. I feel that our flag "Old Glory" stands for FREEDOM, JUSTICE & LIBERTY. It also symbolizes the BLOOD SPILLED by American service men and women who gave so much to protect it and what it stands for.

Though many of my colleagues and friends died, and were injured or wounded in action, they really were not wounded for it, the flag, but rather for it, Liberty and what the flag stands for. In reality it is really just a symbol of that sacrifice and more importantly, our American ideals. Therefore, I am writing in opposition to the proposed constitutional amendment to outlaw desecration of the flag. This legislation, SJ Res. 40, is an unnecessary intrusion of our civil liberties. During my years as a Paratrooper & Special Forces "Green Beret" I had the opportunity, to travel to, and be involved with several countries with evil, oppressive governments. Governments, where the peoples civil rights were often abridged, or did not exist at all. I swore then that I would never live in a country, where the symbol of the government, became more important than the peoples rights to live free under that government. I feel that the right to protest & political expression, no matter how stupid or offensive it may be to the majority, must be allowed, as long as it is peaceful.

This flag amendment will place a higher value on an inanimate object, a symbol, than the rights of the people living under it. The Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights, gave protection to "We The People." Flags, no matter how honored, do not have rights, people do, please protect them.

Any country that places an inanimate object, over its people has no real liberty. If this amendment passes, I feel flag burning will become a common form of protest against this ill-conceived policy.

As a true conservative, I ask you, when did it become conservative policy to recommend several changes to the Constitution? My brand of Conservatism does not include this doctrine. You need to help enforce the existing laws. Strengthen them as necessary, get rid of the stupid ones, and stop making new ones. I feel you have better things to do with your time & our tax dollars, than changing the constitution, for something that rarely occurs and is typically done by immature idiots. Please do not support this bill. Thank you."

MSGT (R ) Marvin Virgil Stenhammar (E-8)
U.S. Special Operations Command (Retired)
Testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary July 8, 1998



"I am a veteran, wounded in combat in World War II. The veterans of the Revolutionary War fought to overthrow tyranny and establish freedom. They did not fight to protect a piece of cloth which merely symbolizes our free nation. The founding fathers added to our Constitution a Bill of Rights, which ensures the preservation of our hard-won freedoms. The flag desecration amendment would only dishonor our ancestors' struggle for freedom of speech by abridging that freedom."

John Rutherford
Excerpted from Letter to the Editor published in the San Francisco Chronicle on July 1, 1998
San Francisco, California



"As a combat veteran of the United States Army in 1968, I know it is wrong to burn the American flag. As an American in 1998, I know it is infinitely more wrong for our government to suppress free expression.

The only possible purpose for physical desecration of the U.S. flag is protest. Our citizens must be free to protest and our government must be strong enough and freedom-minded enough to allow such protest. The reason I felt obligated to serve in the military was my belief in freedom in this county, including the freedom to protest by burning the American flag. A truly free country has nothing to fear from free speech, including the physical desecration of a symbol of freedom.

While I have not researched the laws of Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia, I am confident that it was illegal to burn the swastika and the communist flag in those countries. Both of those prohibitions were wrong, and it is just as wrong to limit free speech here.

If you make it illegal to express free speech by burning the flag, you might as well make it illegal to express free speech by flying the flag. Is there really any difference between these rights?"

Mike Smith
LaGrange, Georgia



"As a combat veteran who experienced much of the 'hell' that is war, I am despondent and angry that the Senate is seriously considering the desecration of our Constitution and its Bill of Rights.

Of course our flag represents to me and most vets, a revered symbol. The 'flag-burning' amendment, however, is a cowardly surrender to popular, unthinking, sanctimonious and counterfeit patriotism.

No government, not the German Nazis, the Japanese Imperialists, the Russian Stalinists, the Italian Fascists, or the Cuban Communists, have or had any objection to safe, patriotic speech. Safe speech needs no guarantees of freedom, no Constitutional protection.

The more unpopular, the more repugnant and revolting the speech, the more needed is the First Amendment protection. Virtually all of the Founding Fathers faced prison or worse because the government of the time found their speech to be offensive. They knew from first-hand experience how essential was the protection of even the most abhorrent and controversial of political speeches or actions.

Just as I would not listen to some offensive speech, I would not watch something as loathsome as the desecration of 'Old Glory'. But I'd turn away and, if necessary, defend the right of any of us to be considered politically obnoxious or repugnant.

Shortly after the July 4th holiday, the Senate may consider emasculating the Constitution by allowing some 'safe' forms of political speech, but jailing persons whose speech may be deemed offensive to our patriotic symbols.

We veterans took an oath to protect our Constitution from all enemies. Who would have thought that the United States Congress could be an enemy threatening our freedom?"

Tom E. Moses
Harpers Ferry, West Virginia



"Our nation was not founded on devotion to symbolic idols, but on principles, beliefs and ideals expressed in the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. American veterans who have protected our banner in battle have not done so to protect a "golden calf." Instead, they carried the banner forward with reverence for what it represents - our beliefs and freedom for all. Therein lies the beauty of our flag."

Keith A. Kreul, US Army Veteran and Past National Commander, The American Legion
(Excerpted from an op-ed originally published in the Leader Newspapers, Lyndhurst, NJ on June 11, 1998)



"Ultimately, Americans and our representatives on Capitol Hill must realize that when a flag goes up in flames, only multi-colored cloth is destroyed. If our freedoms are lost, the true fabric of our nation is frayed and weakened."

Bill McCloskey, Bethesda, Maryland, served in the Vietnam War and was awarded the Army Commendation Medal.



"My military service was not about protecting the flag; it was about protecting the freedoms behind it. The flag amendment curtails free speech and expression in a way that should frighten us all."

Brady Bustany, West Hollywood, California, served in the Air Force during the Gulf War.



"The first amendment to our constitution is the simplest and clearest official guarantee of freedom ever made by a sovereign people to itself. The so-called 'flag protection amendment' would be a bureaucratic hamstringing of a noble act. Let us reject in the name of liberty for which so many have sacrificed, the call to ban flag desecration. Let us, rather, allow the first amendment, untrammeled and unfettered by this proposed constitutional red tape, to continue be the same guarantor of our liberty for the next two centuries (at least) that is has been for the last two."

State Delegate John Doyle (West Virginia) served as an infantry officer in Vietnam.



"It is disheartening to hear politicians arguing that they must restrict our right to engage in political protest when we GIs fought against regimes that stripped their citizens of those very same rights and then used their totalitarian powers to commit some of the most horrific acts imaginable."

Mr. Tom E. Moses served as an Army paratrooper during the liberation of France in the Second World War.



"The flag is not a sacred object. To regard it as such would be an affront to all religious persons."

Mr. Steve Gerriston, Bothell, Washington, is an Air Force veteran.



"I know of no American veteran who put his or her life on the line to protect the sanctity of the flag. That was not why we fulfilled our patriotic duty. We did so and still do to protect our country and our way of life and to ensure that our children enjoy the same freedoms for which we fought."

Jack J. Heyman
Ft. Myers Beach, Florida.
Served in the Korean War. Mr. Heyman's great grandfather was a Pennsylvania regular during the Civil War; his father served in the Navy during World War I; his brother fought in WWII; and one of his children served in the Army following the Vietnam War.



"to undertake to carve out an area of free speech and say that this or that is unpatriotic because it is offensive is a movement that will unravel our liberties and do grave damage to our nations freedom. The ability to say by speech or dramatic acts what we feel or think is to be cherished not demeaned as unpatrioticI hope you will hear my plea. Please do not tinker with the First Amendment."

Reverend Edgar Lockwood, Falmouth, Massachusetts, served as a naval officer engaged in more than ten combat campaigns in WWII.



"My military service was not about protecting the flag; it was about protecting the freedoms behind it. The flag amendment curtails free speech and expression in a way that should frighten us all.

Brady Bustany, West Hollywood, California, served in the Air Force during the Gulf War.



"The first amendment to our constitution is the simplest and clearest official guarantee of freedom ever made by a sovereign people to itself. The so-called 'flag protection amendment' would be a bureaucratic hamstringing of a noble act. Let us reject in the name of liberty for which so many have sacrificed, the call to ban flag desecration. Let us, rather, allow the first amendment, untrammeled and unfettered by this proposed constitutional red tape, to continue be the same guarantor of our liberty for the next two centuries (at least) that is has been for the last two.

State Delegate John Doyle, Hampshire County, West Virginia served as an infantry officer in Vietnam.



As a twenty two year veteran, combat experience, shot up, shot down, hospitalized more than a year, Purple Heart recipient, with all the proper medals and badges I take very strong exception to anyone who says that burning the flag isnt a way of expressing yourself. In my mind this is clearly covered in Amendment I to the Constitution  and should not be abridged.

Mr. Bob Cordes, Mason, Texas was an Air Force fighter pilot shot down in Vietnam. He served for 22 years from 1956 to 1978.



"Service to our country, not flag waving, is the best way to demonstrate patriotism."

Mr. Jim Lubbock, St. Louis, Missouri, served with the Army in the Phillipines during WWII. His two sons fought in Vietnam, and members of his family have volunteered for every United States conflict from the American Revolution through Vietnam with the exception of Korea. His direct ancestor, Stephen Hopkins, signed the Declaration of Independence.



"The burning of our flag thoroughly disgusts me. But a law banning the burning of the flag plays right into the hands of the weirdoes who are doing the burning. By banning the burning of the flag, we are empowering them by giving significance to their stupid act. Let them burn the flag and let us ignore them. Then their act carries no significance.

Mr. William Ragsdale, Titusville, Florida, an engineer who worked in the space industry for over 30 years, retired from the US Naval Reserve in 1984 with the rank of Commander, having served in the Navy for over forty years including active duty in both WWII and the Korean War. He has two sons who served in Vietnam.



I fought for freedom of expression not for a symbol. I fought for freedom of Speech. I did not fight for the flag, or motherhood, or apple pie. I fought so that my mortal enemy could declare at the top of his lungs that everything I held dear was utter drivelI fought for unfettered expression of ideas. Mine and everybody else's.

Mr. John Kelley, East Concord, Vermont, lost his leg to a Viet Cong hand grenade while on Operation Sierra with the Fox Company 2nd Battalion 7th Marines in 1967.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## kenpochad (Jul 28, 2005)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Arnisador,
> 
> One of the proper ways to destroy an old used flag is burning.
> 
> .


But whin you retire a flag before burning it your suppost to disassemble the flag the star and the stirps need to be separated then you burn stars all the red and all the blue so its not a flag when you burn it


----------



## shesulsa (Jul 28, 2005)

kenpochad said:
			
		

> But whin you retire a flag before burning it your suppost to disassemble the flag the star and the stirps need to be separated then you burn stars all the red and all the blue so its not a flag when you burn it


 Is this your opinion or some protocol that you found?

 If it is the latter, could you cite your source on this please?  All material I look at indicates that it should be burned in a dignified manner, not necessarily disassembled.


----------



## kenpochad (Jul 28, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Is this your opinion or some protocol that you found?
> 
> If it is the latter, could you cite your source on this please? All material I look at indicates that it should be burned in a dignified manner, not necessarily disassembled.


http://www.usscouts.org/ceremony/flagret1.html

I was a scout leader for somtime and we had to retire a flag in a ceremony.
check this site out thanks shesulsa


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 28, 2005)

I, too, had never heard of disassembling the flag prior to disposal. One source on etiquette suggested asking a local VFW to dispose of the flag, and offer a small donation for their service. I then looked to the VFW web site and found these instructions.

http://www.vfw.org/index.cfm?fa=cmty.leveld&did=2477





Flag Disposal
	

	
	
		
		

		
			






*Suggested Procedures for Disposing of a Faded, Worn Flag* 



1. The flag should be folded in its customary manner. 
2. It is important that the fire be fairly large and of sufficient intensity to ensure complete burning of the flag.
3. Place the flag on the fire.
4. The individual(s) can come to attention, salute the flag, recite the Pledge of Allegiance and have a brief period of silent reflection.
5. After the flag is completely consumed, the fire should then be safely extinguished and the ashes buried.
6. Please make sure you are conforming to local/state fire codes or ordinances.

​


----------



## kenpochad (Jul 28, 2005)

http://members.aol.com/StanDCmr/flagret.html

I did some more looking and found this .


----------



## shesulsa (Jul 28, 2005)

I'm also a scouting leader and have witnessed flag disposal.  The BSA ceremonies I've witnessed involved pledging the flag held open by scouts, then folded properly, then saluted as it was placed into the wood fire.  All remain silent while the flag burns completely, then the fire is extinguished and not used for any other purpose.

 Interesting, isn't it?  One might wonder if the language of the disposal of the U.S. flag is left open for reasons of rights?


----------



## ginshun (Jul 28, 2005)

As much as I am disgusted by anyone burning a flag, I have always been of the belief that if you really believe in the freedom that it represents, then that freedom must extend to give some jerk off who wants to burn it that right.

 Just my take on it.


----------

