Hillary Clinton co-sponsors anti-flag burning law

[J-Mann]

Posturing, anyone?

Sen. Clinton co-sponsors anti-flag burning law
Associated Press, 12-5

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is supporting new legislation to criminalize desecration of the United States flag _ though she still opposes a constitutional ban on flag attacks.

Clinton, D-N.Y., has agreed to co-sponsor a measure by Republican Sen. Bob Bennett of Utah, which has been written in hopes of surviving any constitutional challenge following a 2003 Supreme Court ruling on the subject.

Her support of Bennett's bill follows her position in Congress last summer, when a constitutional ban on flag-burning was debated. Clinton said then she didn't support a constitutional ban, but did support federal legislation making it a crime to desecrate the flag.

In her public statements, she has compared the act of flag-burning to burning a cross, which can be considered a violation of federal civil rights law.

The Bennett-sponsored measure outlaws a protester intimidating any person by burning the flag, lighting someone else's flag, or desecrating the flag on federal property.

[Dave from Michigan]

would this stand up in court

[opebo]

She should join the Religious Party.

[The Dowager Mod]

She just lost any support or vote she may have gotten from me.

[Emsworth]

The Supreme Court has already ruled flag-burning laws unconstitutional on two separate occasions. The attempt to pass a flag-burning law yet again shows disrespect not only for the Court, but also for the freedom of speech and the First Amendment.

[A18]

She just lost any support or vote she may have gotten from me.

You said that before, so my guess is you're just going to forget it again and end up voting for her.

[Blue Rectangle]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So yes, I think it would survive a constitutional test.  Also, it is nearly meaningless (as if there were a danger of an anti-war protestor breaking into a house at night and burning a flag that didn't belong to them).

If this changed your opinion of Hillary, then you didn't know her very well.

[A18]

That actually sounds pretty reasonable. If you want to burn a flag, do it on your own property.

[Emsworth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So yes, I think it would survive a constitutional test.

Except that there is no enumerated power to forbid flag burning, even when it is intimidating or involves another person's flag. As far as federal property or D.C. is concerned, the law is constitutional; everywhere else, however, it is not.

[A18]

I suppose we can await a Commerce Clause case.

[Blue Rectangle]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So yes, I think it would survive a constitutional test.

Except that there is no enumerated power to forbid flag burning, even when it is intimidating or involves another person's flag. As far as federal property or D.C. is concerned, the law is constitutional; everywhere else, however, it is not.

The government cannot ban intimidation because of free speech protections?

[A18]

He said federal government, because of enumerated powers issues.

[David S]

This flag burning issue is pure hogwash. How often have you even seen someone in America burning an American flag? I think it is very rare today and even when it happens it harms no one, assuming of course the flag does not belong to someone else. This is just an attempt by politicians to make it look like they are doing something patriotic.

We are in the middle of a costly war which is taking many American lives, our national debt is growing by leaps and bounds, the trade deficit is soaring and these dopes can think of nothing better to do than pass legislation to solve a non-existant problem.

[A18]

We are in the middle of a costly war which is taking many American lives, our national debt is growing by leaps and bounds, the trade deficit is soaring and these dopes can think of nothing better to do than pass legislation to solve a non-existant problem.

The trade deficit is a non-existent problem.

[Blue Rectangle]

He said federal government, because of enumerated powers issues.

OK, I understand now.  A state law banning "intimidating" flag burning would be constitutional, but a federal law would not be.  However, this is not a general law banning intimidation.  The obvious intent is to ban flag burning under certain circumstances.  Does it make sense that the power to protect the U.S. flag should rest in the hands of the states?  It's more likely that the law, if overturned, would be struck down on First Amendment, not Tenth Amendment, issues.

[Emsworth]

A state law banning "intimidating" flag burning would be constitutional, but a federal law would not be.

Correct.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Constitution does not recognize anything special about the flag. The mere fact that the flag is involved does not expand the federal government's powers. Banning "intimidation," whether by burning a flag or by doing anything else, is still subject only to state regulation.

[Speed of Sound]

She just lost any support or vote she may have gotten from me.

same here. VOTE SOCIALIST IN 06!!!!

[MODU]

Posturing, since the bill has been going through the Congress ever since the Supreme Court made that terrible ruling decades ago.

[TheresNoMoney]

Obviously posturing. I would never vote for her anyway.

[A18]

Posturing, since the bill has been going through the Congress ever since the Supreme Court made that terrible ruling decades ago.

What's your problem with the ruling? Could a state outlaw burning a copy of the Constitution?

[Joe Republic]

Obviously posturing. I would never vote for her anyway.

I'll hold you to that in three years time, when Hillary is the Democratic nominee, and she faces an arch-conservative in a tight election. 

[TheresNoMoney]

I'll hold you to that in three years time

I apologize, I meant in the primary. I'd obviously vote for her over any conservative in the general election.

But I'll do what I can to make sure she's not the nominee.

[Jake]

We are in the middle of a costly war which is taking many American lives, our national debt is growing by leaps and bounds, the trade deficit is soaring and these dopes can think of nothing better to do than pass legislation to solve a non-existant problem.

And you can do nothing but rant and rave. You should be put on the jfraud Express and take a break from politics.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

She's running for President.  This is no surprise at all.

She'll spread her ......... for all the votes she can get.

[MODU]

Posturing, since the bill has been going through the Congress ever since the Supreme Court made that terrible ruling decades ago.

What's your problem with the ruling? Could a state outlaw burning a copy of the Constitution?

We've debated this to death already.  I'm not in the mood to start it up again.