Flag Desecration

[TheFaithfulStone]

A perfectly serious definition.

 

*******: A person who acts without regard for others, although technically within his rights.

 

See - Jerk, Dick, Weasel.

 

Examples of AJDW behavior -

 

Uses his smaller car to dart in behind you and steel your parking space while you're trying to parallel.

 

Doesn't hold the door open for pregnant women.

 

Tells Jewish jokes in front of the synagogue.

 

Has ever said "Hey buddy, it's a free country."

 

In other words, this guy doesn't really do harm to anyone, he just makes a point of never being nice. He is totally unaltruistic. He's not immoral per se, since he doesn't actually violate any laws, but he's certainly not moral either.

 

You can't stop people from behaving like this. Once you legislate that everybody has to be nice to each other, you're living in tyranny. Only it's one where every says "Good Morning Citizen" and holds the door open for each other, rather than the one where everyone stares at the ground and doesn't budge for the other. It's Brave New World basically.

 

Now, you brought up the issue of cross-burning, and I think it bears addressing. Cross-burning is intentionally design to intimidate. That's what it does. If you plant a cross in my front yard, and light it on fire, you are trying to intimidate me.

 

Conversely, flag-burning is a statement. It says how you feel about something, and it's effect on me is to show me that you really, really mean it.

 

If flag-burning became an act associated with a terrorist organization (Say militia crazies burned a flag before they broke into your house and beat you up for paying your taxes or sending your kid to public school.) and it became PRIMARILY associated with the subsequent acts, such that anybody who didn't want that association wouldn't burn flags - THEN I would support an amendment banning flag-burning.

 

In other words, burning a cross isn't a statement, it's a very serious threat. It's like saying "I'm going to come to your house and kill you - tomorrow at 9:00pm." Burning a flag is like saying "I really hate your guts, and I hope something bad happens to you."

 

Sure it's a mean thing to say, and an awful thing to do, but it's not a threat.

 

TFS

[Pyrotex]

A perfectly serious definition.

*******: A person who acts without regard for others, although technically within his rights. See - Jerk, Dick, Weasel.

...You can't stop people from behaving like this. Once you legislate that everybody has to be nice to each other, you're living in tyranny.

...Burning a flag is like saying "I really hate your guts, and I hope something bad happens to you."

Sure it's a mean thing to say, and an awful thing to do, but it's not a threat.

Rat on, dude! Rat on dude! :hihi:

Wish I could give this one a rep!

[CraigD]

Burning a flag is legal speech according to the Supreme Court. But burning a cross is a hate crime according to the same Supreme Court.

This statement is slightly but critically inaccurate.

 

Burning a cross on secluded private property with the permission of the owner is protected speech. Burning a flag - or any other display - with the proven intent to intimidate, even absent issues of race, religion, ethnicity, etc., may be prohibited and/or especially sanctioned as "hate crime". A recent affirmation of this principle by the SCOTUS is 2003's Virginia v. Black, where the Court ruled unconstitutional a Virginia law declaring cross-burning prima facie evidence of "intent to intimidate".

 

It's hard to imagine a situation in the US where someone seeking to intimidate would do so by burning an American flag. Offend, yes, but not intimidate. Burning an American flag in a country with a minority American foreign or expatriate community, or burning, for example, a Mexican flag in a Latino community in the US, is a more imaginable scenario, and would under most state law be prosecutable as a "hate crime." During the late 1960s and the 1970s, I can imagine that the burning of American flags with the intent to intimidate Vietnam veterans occurred, though I'm unaware of any legal history of this, or if such harassment was at that time illegal.

It is illegal to burn a cigarette in many places, yet legal to burn a flag in those same places.

Though there may be such places, I know of none, and am hard pressed to imagine them. A public sports field with a smoking ban, perhaps?

 

Smoking - cigarettes, pipes, cigars, etc. - is usually prohibited in places for which some evidence exists for posing a risk to the health of others, such as restaurants and theatres. Burning a flag-sized piece of cloth in these place is unlawful because of the risk to public safety, both due to inhaled smoke, and the potential to set structure, furnishings, and clothing on fire.

 

Some communities have, I think, gone beyond policies reasonably supported by science, in banning smoking even in well ventilated or outdoor places. Such bans would not, I believe, withstand judicial review, but, for such review to happen, someone must be willing to take on the burden of violating these regulations and challenging the law in court.

What if I choose to protest cigarettes by burning one, is that "speech" protected, or is it just ignorance of the law?

You may certainly burn cigarettes for pleasure or protest in places where it is not prohibited - nearly anyplace outdoors, and certainly on private property with the permission of the owner. The main difficult with doing this as an act of protected speech would, I think, be conveying to any witness what you intended to say.

In my area I am not allowed to burn leaves- even in the most controlled way. What if I choose to burn them as a political statement, should I be exempted from the local ordinance because I am "speaking"?

No, because the burning of leaves is held, in most cases with good supporting evidence, to pose a risk of starting fires, and/or producing unhealthy air pollution. Were you to burn a very small quantity of leaves in a clearly safe manner, with or without the intention of making a statement of some sort, you'd likely either not be prosecuted, or be able to defend against or overturn on appeal any resulting fines or imprisonment. Such a judicial process would not, however, have bearing on regulations prohibiting burning ordinary quantities of leaves or other refuse.

 

If you burn a flag in an unsafe or threatening (eg: chasing a neighbor around with it) manner, you're subject to prosecution for endangering public safety. If you print thousands of leaflet containing protected political speech, and litter the streets with them, you're subject to prosecution for littering. Protected speech does not give license to endanger public safety or damage property.

[Erasmus00]

Anyone ever read "Common Sense" by Thomas Paine? He is far more elequent than I.

 

I'm fairly certain Thomas Paine would have been involved in demonstrations that hung the King of England in effigy and burned British flags. I think free speech directed in a critical manner toward the government is the most important free speech to maintain.

-Will

[Qfwfq]

What I fail to see the point of is for the constitution to "allow" the legislative to pass a law about it. :rolleyes:

 

I realized I have no idea what laws other nations may have in regards to flag desecration,if any.Can anyone enlighten me?

You can bet many countries do, but in modern times with people getting less nationalist such laws are less likely to have practical effect. In one sense, they are of an old mentality that gets revived now and again, e. g. some things since 911 starting with Dubya saying "you're either with us or against us".

 

They also come under the rather formal type of laws, they aren't very easy to apply but do have a purpose of setting ethics. See e. g. laws against racial hatred etc...

 

Here in Italy, art. 292 of criminal code makes it illegal to vilify the flag or any other symbol of the state (this would even include by means of words or gestures directed at it) and art. 299 makes the same thing a crime, concerning flag or symbol of any other country. Years ago, during a public march of the Northern League, back when it was inciting to seccession, some residents had hung an Italian flag out their windows and Bossi (leader of the NL) shouted at them to throw that rag down the toilet. There was a hoo-ha about it and formal charges were opened but not much came of it.

[InfiniteNow]

So let's say that hypothetically it got passed, and flag burning becomes illegal. Then, one night whilst sitting in my lazy-boy, reading the federalist papers with a nice cigar and some kentucky bourbon, wrapped up in my hand quilted ultra suede american flag, I doze off... Only to wake up to flames caused by my dropped cigar. It was the shag carpet which caught... I then put it out with the flag around me, but while doing so it gets significantly charred.

 

Now, how would the authories/law treat my patriot activity engaged self when they realize a flag had been burned as a result of my actions?

[Buffy]

...wrapped up in my hand quilted ultra suede american flag...

That's the amendment we need for the constitution:

In recognition of its unique symbolism of freedom for all, honesty, integrity and equality, it shall henceforth be illegal to utilize the Flag as a garment even in a figurative manner.

 

Don't Tread On Me,

Buffy

[TheBigDog]

So let's say that hypothetically it got passed, and flag burning becomes illegal. Then, one night whilst sitting in my lazy-boy, reading the federalist papers with a nice cigar and some kentucky bourbon, wrapped up in my hand quilted ultra suede american flag, I doze off... Only to wake up to flames caused by my dropped cigar. It was the shag carpet which caught... I then put it out with the flag around me, but while doing so it gets significantly charred.

 

Now, how would the authories/law treat my patriot activity engaged self when they realize a flag had been burned as a result of my actions?

They would probably make sure you were not hurt, attend any injuries you may have, and laugh their *** off at the story for the rest of their lives.

 

It has never been a crime to accidentally do something to the flag. Accidents happen.

 

Bill

[Turtle]

So let's say that hypothetically it got passed, and flag burning becomes illegal. Then, one night whilst sitting in my lazy-boy, reading the federalist papers with a nice cigar and some kentucky bourbon, wrapped up in my hand quilted ultra suede american flag, I doze off... Only to wake up to flames caused by my dropped cigar. It was the shag carpet which caught... I then put it out with the flag around me, but while doing so it gets significantly charred.

 

Now, how would the authories/law treat my patriot activity engaged self when they realize a flag had been burned as a result of my actions?

 

Wrapping up in the flag, no matter its method/material construction, is against the rule/law itself & therefore a desecration. As I say, either don't have a law, or enforce it.

If your above scenario took place in 1930 you face prosecution for 2 counts of flag desecration and a count of posession of liquor. You will also be billed for the official ceremony to burn the desecrated flag.:cup:

[Edella]

Maybe we could join the two threads entitled Flag Desecration?Or close one.

[C1ay]

I heard back from one of my senators that voted for this obstacle to liberty. He wrote:

July 10, 2006

Dear Mr. Lawrence:

 

Thank you for contacting me regarding S. J. Res. 12, a joint resolution to make it clear that Congress has the Constitutional authority to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. I appreciate hearing from you.

 

I share the view of the majority of Americans that the flag of the United States symbolizes the strong values that our country stands for - freedom, liberty and representative democracy. Most importantly, our flag represents the generations of men and women who have fought and died defending those values. For anybody to think that they ought to be able to stomp on that flag, trample that flag, burn that flag, or destroy that flag in any way other than a professional way is simply wrong.

 

For 200 years the legislative branch of our government had the power under our Constitution to prohibit the desecration of the flag. Only in 1989 and 1990 did a divided Supreme Court, for the first time in our history, change the Constitution to say that Congress no longer had that power. I believe the amendment process, provided for by the Constitution itself, is the lawful means by which the American people may restore common sense when the Supreme Court abandons it.

 

All fifty states have passed resolutions calling on Congress to pass a flag amendment. The House of Representatives has passed a constitutional amendment to protect against desecration of the American flag in each of the past five Congresses, and I am disappointed that the U.S. Senate has not done the same.

 

The resolution, of which I was an original cosponsor, needed 67 votes to pass, but failed by a count of 66 to 34. My position on this amendment will remain steadfast, and you can be sure of my support when the Senate again considers the issue.

 

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me. As always, I appreciate hearing from my constituents. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of assistance to you in the future. In the meantime, if you would like to receive timely e-mail alerts regarding the latest congressional actions and my weekly e-newsletter, please sign up via my web site at: http://www.chambliss.senate.gov.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

Saxby Chambliss

United States Senate

I replied:

Your stance violates both of the principles of liberty and freedom. While I disagree strongly with those that would use the flag in their freedom of expression I support their freedom to do so and that is the freedom this country was founded on. I hope you are found unemployed during the next election cycle.

 

Clay Lawrence

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Saxby Chambliss

 

July 10, 2006

Dear Mr. Lawrence:

 

Thank you for contacting me regarding S. J. Res. 12, a joint resolution to make it clear that Congress has the Constitutional authority to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. I appreciate hearing from you.

 

I share the view of the majority of Americans that the flag of the United States symbolizes the strong values that our country stands for - freedom, liberty and representative democracy. Most importantly, our flag represents the generations of men and women who have fought and died defending those values. For anybody to think that they ought to be able to stomp on that flag, trample that flag, burn that flag, or destroy that flag in any way other than a professional way is simply wrong.

 

For 200 years the legislative branch of our government had the power under our Constitution to prohibit the desecration of the flag. Only in 1989 and 1990 did a divided Supreme Court, for the first time in our history, change the Constitution to say that Congress no longer had that power. I believe the amendment process, provided for by the Constitution itself, is the lawful means by which the American people may restore common sense when the Supreme Court abandons it.

 

All fifty states have passed resolutions calling on Congress to pass a flag amendment. The House of Representatives has passed a constitutional amendment to protect against desecration of the American flag in each of the past five Congresses, and I am disappointed that the U.S. Senate has not done the same.

 

The resolution, of which I was an original cosponsor, needed 67 votes to pass, but failed by a count of 66 to 34. My position on this amendment will remain steadfast, and you can be sure of my support when the Senate again considers the issue.

 

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me. As always, I appreciate hearing from my constituents. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of assistance to you in the future. In the meantime, if you would like to receive timely e-mail alerts regarding the latest congressional actions and my weekly e-newsletter, please sign up via my web site at: http://www.chambliss.senate.gov.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

Saxby Chambliss

United States Senate

 

So where exactly in the Constitution is the flag mentioned? And specificly where did the Constitution give Congress the power to protect the flag? What the Court said was that any law that prohibited flag desecration was an unconstitutional infringement on the First Amendment. The only way to change this is to add a flag desecration amendment.

[C1ay]

So where exactly in the Constitution is the flag mentioned? And specificly where did the Constitution give Congress the power to protect the flag? What the Court said was that any law that prohibited flag desecration was an unconstitutional infringement on the First Amendment. The only way to change this is to add a flag desecration amendment.

It's not. What the Constitution does say is this,

Amendment X

 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

There is no power delegated to the United States by the Constitution to protect the flag so protecting the flag from being used as a form of expression violates the first amendment. The only way around this is a constitutional amendment.