Hang on...aren't we SUPPOSED to BURN THE FLAG???

[LynnTheDem]

When a flag is retired?

[Hobarticus]

1. It is to be done with "dignity"...

Not to be confused with, say, wearing the American flag as a toga, like Kid Rock.

[OrlandoGator]

2. Indeed, we've been discussing that since yesterday.

It brings up an interesting paradox.

Well, that and the fact that this amendment is too vague to enforce and is in direct conflict with the First Amendment.

[jobycom]

3. Exactly. I don't see how it would override the First Amendment

Any court should conclude that a law based on this amendment would not forbid freedom of expression. For instance, a lot of places have decency laws against profanity, but the Court has ruled that a bumper sticker or tee shirt saying "Fuck Bush" or some such expression is protected speech.

It's a weightless amendment. They're just trying to divert us again. We shouldn't fall for it.

[Hobarticus]

4. Plummeting polls? Let's ressurrect some jingoistic rhetoric

and see who salutes!

[tritsofme]

6. A constitutional ammendment would remove flag

desecration from the category of protected speech under the first amendment.

No such law could be declared unconstitutional by a court since it would be a part of the Constitution.

[OrlandoGator]

12. We should revise the Constitution every time something offends us.

Shit, I thought Republicans were the tough guys. They sure seem thin-skinned to me.

[jobycom]

13. That's what ther want, but it's not necessarily what they'll get

Part of the role of courts, especially appeals courts, including SCOTUS, is to settle conflicts between laws, and conflicts between laws and the Constitution. Their goal is to reconcile the laws so that as much of both rules can be followed as possible.

The Flag amendment says only that Congress CAN pass laws against the "physical desecration" of the flag. Desecration is not defined, and the amendment says nothing at all about removing flag burning from First Amendment protection. As the amendment stands, it is vague. It says one thing, and the First Amendment says another. The new amendment does not specifically override or replace the first amendment, so both amendments would be given equal status.

Thus, there is a conflict.

Congress and states can thus pass a law against the physical desecration of the flag, but not a law limiting the right of expression. So if they pass a law which says that flag burning for political expression is illegal, there is a conflict. It is up to the courts to settle that dispute in a way that suits both amendments. To me, that law would be unconstitutional, because it's intent is as much to limit speech as to protect the flag. It would be struck down. If Congress passes a law which simply forbids burning a flag, but does not specify political reasons, the law would not violate the First Amendment. However, if someone burns a flag, and is brought up on charges, their defense should be that their intent wasn't to desecrate the flag, but to express their political beliefs. Again, it's up to the courts to decide, but it's not a slam dunk--not even with the current SCOTUS.

Now, if the amendment said "This removes flag burning from the protection of the First Amendment," there would be no argument. But it does not say that, it does not define desecration, and it does not address intent.

A similar example: many places have laws against public profanity, and these are often upheld by courts based on community standards. However, SCOTUS has ruled that these laws can't be used to prevent political expression. So you can write "Fuck Bush" on your car and they can't do anything about it, even though the same town may not allow you to scream "Fuck!" in public.

It's not a slam dunk the way it is written. I'm not saying we should let it pass. But I am saying we should focus on the DSM as a way to hold Bush accountable for his war crimes, rather than panicing over the flag issue.

[alittlelark]

5. I've been to one of those ceremonies (W/USAF dad)

I saw 2-3 during the SF anti-war protests prior to the invasion. The one I went to w/ my dad was 'cardboard'.... the protesters were 'the real deal'. I do not think I could do it at this point... but they were emotional, and REAL.

[tritsofme]

7. The amendment's language is vague

Its purpose is to reverse the 1989 SCOTUS ruling that overturned laws outlawing flag desecration.

Congress would be given the authority to determine what exactly flag desecration was, and what penalties could be imposed.

The ratification of this amendment wouldn't have any immediate affect on law, it would have to wait until Congress acted.

[TomClash]

8. I'm all for the Flag Amendment

Here's a link to flag retirement:
http://www.bsa-grc.org/flag/flag_retirement.htm

It should be the flag for Gays, Lesbians, African-Americans, Liberals, Libertarians, Socialists, Trotskyites, Democrats, Pacifists and people from all walks of life and beliefs.

Why should we support burning it or hand it over to the Repukes? This is the flag that flew for Emancipation and the endangered Republic. Is it not fitting that we should support it now?

It's our flag too.

[jobycom]

14. The issue isn't about the flag

it's about whether the Constitution should be altered to prevent someone who wants to express himself or herself by burning the flag from burning it. Should we allow our rights to be limited, in other words.

I personally don't care about burning it. I'd have no trouble doing, I'd have no trouble watching it. It's just a thing. It's not even a thing like the Qur'an, which in itself has some significance. It's just a symbol of something, not the thing in itself, not the protector or receptical of the thing itself. Worshipping it allows people to do what the Republicans have done--to confuse support for the symbol for support for their ideals. I'm all into burning symbols, if for no other reason than to show people that they are symbols and not the real thing.

No one dies for a symbol.

[Senior citizen]

9. Maybe they want to privatize it.

Like, citizens wouldn't be able to dispose of worn and tattered flags themselves, and instead would have to ship them to Halliburton to be officially disposed of in a dignified manner at a cost of only $179.86 for each flag.....

[radfringe]

10. now I feel safer

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3926296

[C_U_L8R]

11. The bill is just flame-bait

The ideology of the reichwing is what dishonors our flag.
They are a national embarassment. Crooks, liars, thieves.
Endorsers of torture chambers and illegal wars.
Cowards who hide behind patriotism and jesus' cross.
A pathetic bunch of crooks.

I am proud of our flag... and ashamed of the regime.

[Maclilly]

15. Proper disposal of a flag is to burn it

I did this with my Girl SCout troop a couple summers ago over a bon fire. You cut out the blue state squares and strip the stipes as you go along you call out the states that they represent. This flag burn bill is only over protests. Still a first amend issue with me.

[fob]

16. YES. It's in the US Flag Code. Google that phrase and you'll see it.

I've posted it several times before here.

There was also a story recently of a Boy Scout Troop that had a huge pile if US flags they were burning. Someone needs to make a "faux outrage" ad where the Boy Scouts are gleefully burning US flags with some typical right-wing rhetoric as the voice over. See how well THAT plays in RSA!