Flag burning

[Nym90]

To some extent yes. You'll often see a bunch of them against drug laws whenever that issue comes up.

The main reason why they generally oppose it though is because they correctly see it for what it is, meaningless wedge issue politics. Your typical thread on the amendment has them whining about how Congress can be so concerned with something so silly and unimportant instead of focusing on issues like abortion, immigration, stabalizing Iraq, etc.

Well I definitely agree that it is pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of things, although that goes both ways in that I would have been far less angry if this had passed than I was about many other things Bush and the Republicans have done.

[HardRCafé]

Bennett and McConnell are very surprising.

How is it surprising they hold the position they always have held?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

And both the Freepers and DUers are happy now. Think about it, opposition to this is actually something they can agree on.

I'm disappointed in Dayton, but he's leaving anyway. Hopefully Klobuchar is better.

Free Republic opposed this amendment? That's good to know, though a bit surprising. Do they have a libertarian streak to them? I always thought they were pretty socially conservative and pro-"law and order".

It's true, they mostly seem to be against it. I think about 8 years ago, FreeRepublic was somewhat libertarian. They got too caught up with Rove's crazy social issues and extreme anti-liberal propaganda.

[MODU]

Both Senators in Favor
Both Senators Opposed
Senators Split

Hopefully we'll see more blue on that map next time around.

[Ebowed]

Hopefully we'll see more blue on that map next time around.

Please present an argument explaining why the flag protection amendment is both necessary and a fundamentally good idea.

[MODU]

Hopefully we'll see more blue on that map next time around.

Please present an argument explaining why the flag protection amendment is both necessary and a fundamentally good idea.

We have multiple threads on that already.  Feel free to check out the Individual Politics forum and the Political Debate forum.

[Ebowed]

Hopefully we'll see more blue on that map next time around.

Please present an argument explaining why the flag protection amendment is both necessary and a fundamentally good idea.

We have multiple threads on that already.  Feel free to check out the Individual Politics forum and the Political Debate forum.

Arguments in favor of banning flag burning never concern the two requests I asked to be addressed, but rather attempt to refute (badly) what is wrong with the opposition's argument and say that the amendment is therefore a good idea.  I've closely watched these flag burning threads and it's usually "You're going to argue with hundreds of federal and state law codes" or "This amendment only bans destructive actions, freedom of speech is not affected."

I have yet to see why it is necessary and, more importantly, a fundamentally good idea, other than that it's not an inherently bad one.  (Which it is, but let's not open that can of worms.)

[MODU]

*sigh*  Fine, we'll do it again.  Your post asked two questions: the technical reason why we need the amendment, and a personal reason.  Here you go.

Why is it necessary (technical reason for why we need the amendment):  The Supreme court (in a 5-4 decision) ruled that burning the flag is free speech.  (The fact that this is a flawed ruling has been debated to death so we'll just go on.)  In the attempt to correct this flawed ruling, Congress did their job by passing the Flag Protection Act in 1989, but was overturned in 1990 by the Supreme Court.  In order to re-establish our right to protect the flag, the only legal step left is to pass an amendment empowering Congress the power to re-establish the our laws regarding flag protection.  Regular legislation will not pass the Supreme Court (which is why the anti-amendment crowd keeps asking for legislation since they know it won't go anywhere). 

A good idea (personal reason why we need the amendment):  It's a good idea since national flags represent the sovereignty of nations.  When foreign leaders visit another nation on official business, their flags are displayed side by side with the host nations.  No other image or symbol is displayed since the flag is the instantly recognized by the viewing public as a symbol of the citizens of the nation being represented by their leader.  Now while our government might not use the power provided under the amendment to protect all nations flags (I wish they would), they will use it to preserve the symbol which identifies our great nation as well as our caring and welcoming citizens.

[Ebowed]

The Supreme court (in a 5-4 decision) ruled that burning the flag is free speech.  (The fact that this is a flawed ruling has been debated to death so we'll just go on.)  In the attempt to correct this flawed ruling, Congress did their job by passing the Flag Protection Act in 1989, but was overturned in 1990 by the Supreme Court.  In order to re-establish our right to protect the flag, the only legal step left is to pass an amendment empowering Congress the power to re-establish the our laws regarding flag protection.  Regular legislation will not pass the Supreme Court (which is why the anti-amendment crowd keeps asking for legislation since they know it won't go anywhere).

This explains why you believe the amendment to be necessary, but not why Congress should have the power to prohibit flag burning in the first place.

It's a good idea since national flags represent the sovereignty of nations.  When foreign leaders visit another nation on official business, their flags are displayed side by side with the host nations.  No other image or symbol is displayed since the flag is the instantly recognized by the viewing public as a symbol of the citizens of the nation being represented by their leader.  Now while our government might not use the power provided under the amendment to protect all nations flags (I wish they would), they will use it to preserve the symbol which identifies our great nation as well as our caring and welcoming citizens.

Several problems with this: first of all, we also have many other national symbols.  While the flag is instantly recognizable as a representation of our national sovereignty, surely other national symbols are also worthy of this "protection."  Would you support a law to prohibit misuse of the rose, because it is America's national flower?  Second, how does burning a flag lead to a lack of preservation for the flag?  There are many ways to "desecrate" a flag (I'll humor the pro-amendment crowd and use the religious terminology associated with it); is anyone really going to reconsider the idea that America is a great nation with caring and welcoming citizens if someone burns a flag?  By limiting a freedom that the flag supposedly represents (that of protesting the government's actions), aren't we instead showing other countries that we are willing to amend our constitution for petty political manuevering?  I don't think that America cedes any bit of its sovereignty when someone sets fire to an American flag.  Regulating what people do with a flag design because we're not "preserving" it if we don't makes no sense.

[MODU]

The Supreme court (in a 5-4 decision) ruled that burning the flag is free speech.  (The fact that this is a flawed ruling has been debated to death so we'll just go on.)  In the attempt to correct this flawed ruling, Congress did their job by passing the Flag Protection Act in 1989, but was overturned in 1990 by the Supreme Court.  In order to re-establish our right to protect the flag, the only legal step left is to pass an amendment empowering Congress the power to re-establish the our laws regarding flag protection.  Regular legislation will not pass the Supreme Court (which is why the anti-amendment crowd keeps asking for legislation since they know it won't go anywhere).

This explains why you believe the amendment to be necessary, but not why Congress should have the power to prohibit flag burning in the first place.

No, it explains why we've come to the amendment process.  As per your question, you asked "why the flag protection amendment is ... necessary."  It wouldn't have been necessary if "expression" wasn't loosely defined in this case as protected speech.  They say that the willful destruction of personal property (in this case the flag) is protected as political dissent and expression, so the person cannot be fined or charged.  Using that mindset, I should be able to park my car in the middle of the street, torch it, and claim that I am protesting against the government for not cutting us off of foreign oil.  However, I would end up in jail, or at least fined for my action, so that argument by the five justices already is a bit weak.  But even getting more generic, we already have laws which "infringe" upon the first amendment (as people claim this amendment would do), in regards to hate speech, causing riots, instilling panic, etc.  All of these forms of speech (which actually is "speech" and not "expression") are punishable, which flies in the face of people who rush to embrace the first amendment as being a blanket right.  So no, the our right of freedom of speech isn't going to be stripped away from us by passing this amendment, but rather correct a perversion of it while reinstalling our right to protect the flag, which was the actual right stripped away from us.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Both Senators in Favor
Both Senators Opposed
Senators Split

Hopefully we'll see more blue on that map next time around.

With the election projections, you won't.

[© tweed]

Using that mindset, I should be able to park my car in the middle of the street, torch it, and claim that I am protesting against the government for not cutting us off of foreign oil.

That is a completely separate issue.  Burning a car in the middle of the road isn't a free speech issue, it's a public safety issue.  Obviously a torched car in the middle of a road has the potential to harm others.  Now, if you want to ban flag burning based upon this logic, then you should feel that burning any piece of cloth should be illegal, as it poses the same safety to hazard to anybody as would burning a flag.

[Virginian87]

Good.  Now, hopefully we can move on to issues relevant to anything.

^^^^

[MODU]

Using that mindset, I should be able to park my car in the middle of the street, torch it, and claim that I am protesting against the government for not cutting us off of foreign oil.

That is a completely separate issue.  Burning a car in the middle of the road isn't a free speech issue, it's a public safety issue.  Obviously a torched car in the middle of a road has the potential to harm others.  Now, if you want to ban flag burning based upon this logic, then you should feel that burning any piece of cloth should be illegal, as it poses the same safety to hazard to anybody as would burning a flag.

Which is why I phrased the example that way.  The argument doesn't hold up.  I can claim safety reasons that the dyes used in making a cotton flag could give off harmful gases, more so if it is a polyester flag.  In fact, I believe most cities and states have laws against carrying items such as torches or any other open flame (outside of matches/lighters) in public.  So again, we have more double standards regarding flag burning compared to other acts of destruction via flame in public.

[© tweed]

Using that mindset, I should be able to park my car in the middle of the street, torch it, and claim that I am protesting against the government for not cutting us off of foreign oil.

That is a completely separate issue.  Burning a car in the middle of the road isn't a free speech issue, it's a public safety issue.  Obviously a torched car in the middle of a road has the potential to harm others.  Now, if you want to ban flag burning based upon this logic, then you should feel that burning any piece of cloth should be illegal, as it poses the same safety to hazard to anybody as would burning a flag.

Which is why I phrased the example that way.  The argument doesn't hold up.  I can claim safety reasons that the dyes used in making a cotton flag could give off harmful gases, more so if it is a polyester flag.  In fact, I believe most cities and states have laws against carrying items such as torches or any other open flame (outside of matches/lighters) in public.  So again, we have more double standards regarding flag burning compared to other acts of destruction via flame in public.

So would you support a hypothetical amendment to prohibit the desecration of the Soviet flag?  The Nazi flag?  That's the only way your argument is logically consistent, and even if it is, it isn't a speech issue but rather a safety issue.

[MODU]

So would you support a hypothetical amendment to prohibit the desecration of the Soviet flag?  The Nazi flag?  That's the only way your argument is logically consistent, and even if it is, it isn't a speech issue but rather a safety issue.

As I said before (even in this thread), I think all soveriegn nation flags should be protected.  The soviet union and nazi germany no longer exist, so no, their flags would not be protected (though there is no reason why anyone in the US should be burning their flags anyway).

[Nym90]

This was probably the best chance to pass this amendment for quite some time. The Democrats are likely to gain seats this fall in the Senate, so the odds are that the number of Senators supporting this will be lower next year.

In PA, MO, OH, and MT, pro-amendment Republicans are in trouble in their reelection bids. I don't know the stances of their opponents on the issue, however.

In, MN, a pro-amendment Democrat is retiring; again, not sure of the stances of potential replacements.

In NJ, a pro-amendment Democrat is in trouble in his reelection bid.

Unless Whitehouse (D-RI) supports this amendment, I don't see any realistic chances for an anti-amendment Senator to be replaced with a pro-amendment one; the only outside chances would be WA and MD.

[© tweed]

So would you support a hypothetical amendment to prohibit the desecration of the Soviet flag?  The Nazi flag?  That's the only way your argument is logically consistent, and even if it is, it isn't a speech issue but rather a safety issue.

As I said before (even in this thread), I think all soveriegn nation flags should be protected.  The soviet union and nazi germany no longer exist, so no, their flags would not be protected (though there is no reason why anyone in the US should be burning their flags anyway).

But they still would release harmful chemicals into the air, which was part of your justification for prohibiting the burning of the US flag.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Using that mindset, I should be able to park my car in the middle of the street, torch it, and claim that I am protesting against the government for not cutting us off of foreign oil.

That is a completely separate issue.  Burning a car in the middle of the road isn't a free speech issue, it's a public safety issue.  Obviously a torched car in the middle of a road has the potential to harm others.  Now, if you want to ban flag burning based upon this logic, then you should feel that burning any piece of cloth should be illegal, as it poses the same safety to hazard to anybody as would burning a flag.

Correct. Now if you were to torch the car on your own property without endangering anyone, it should be legal.

So would you support a hypothetical amendment to prohibit the desecration of the Soviet flag?  The Nazi flag?  That's the only way your argument is logically consistent, and even if it is, it isn't a speech issue but rather a safety issue.

As I said before (even in this thread), I think all soveriegn nation flags should be protected.  The soviet union and nazi germany no longer exist, so no, their flags would not be protected (though there is no reason why anyone in the US should be burning their flags anyway).

So North Korea's and Iran's should be protected? You think someone burning a Sudanese flag to protest Darfur should be arrested?

[Nym90]

Flag burning already is illegal if it creates a public safety hazard. It's illegal in most areas to have any kind of an open fire in public, at least in a city limits anyway.

The act of protest against one's government is protected as free speech. Actions which may cause harm to others are not protected free speech (including hate speech, attempting to incite violence, etc.). If the actual act of burning the flag presents a direct hazard to others, it should indeed be illegal.

This would be the first time the first amendment has ever been modified by another amendment. The first amendment is indeed open to interpretation, and if the Supreme Court reverses its earlier ruling, I would go along with it even if I wouldn't agree with it. But constitutionally altering the first amendment is not a good idea at all in my opinion.

[MODU]

But they still would release harmful chemicals into the air, which was part of your justification for prohibiting the burning of the US flag.

No, that was not part of my justification.  I was using it as an argument based off of your example.

So North Korea's and Iran's should be protected? You think someone burning a Sudanese flag to protest Darfur should be arrested?

Yes and Yes.  All three nations are sovereign.

But constitutionally altering the first amendment is not a good idea at all in my opinion.

The first amendment isn't being altered.

[© tweed]

But they still would release harmful chemicals into the air, which was part of your justification for prohibiting the burning of the US flag.

No, that was not part of my justification.  I was using it as an argument based off of your example.

I don't exactly understand why you brought it up, but not a big deal.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Flag burning clearly is symbolic speech.  If the first amendment wasn't being altered, then your would have to feel all instances of symbolic speech are not constitutionally protected.  (Republicans in congress clearly feel there is a first amendment issue here; if they didn't, they would have passed this as law rather than have it fail as an amendment.)

[Nym90]

But they still would release harmful chemicals into the air, which was part of your justification for prohibiting the burning of the US flag.

No, that was not part of my justification.  I was using it as an argument based off of your example.

So North Korea's and Iran's should be protected? You think someone burning a Sudanese flag to protest Darfur should be arrested?

Yes and Yes.  All three nations are sovereign.

But constitutionally altering the first amendment is not a good idea at all in my opinion.

The first amendment isn't being altered.

If it wasn't, an amendment would not be necessary; a law would suffice.

My feeling on it from a legal standpoint is simply that we should abide by the Supreme Court's interpretation of the first amendment and not override their judgement by an amendment; amendments should be reserved for areas in which we want to increase or decrease the overall power of government, not simply due to a disagreement over interpretation.

If enough justices are appointed to overturn that decision, so be it; I would not support a constitutional amendment to specifically protect the right to burn the flag. Considering it was only 5-4, and Thomas, Alito, and Roberts have joined the Court since then, there may be a decent chance of that happening now.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

So North Korea's and Iran's should be protected? You think someone burning a Sudanese flag to protest Darfur should be arrested?

Yes and Yes.  All three nations are sovereign.

So? That doesn't mean anyone is under any obligation to respect them, nor shoud anyone, considering their horrendous policies.

[Q]

So North Korea's and Iran's should be protected? You think someone burning a Sudanese flag to protest Darfur should be arrested?

Yes and Yes.  All three nations are sovereign.

I thought you were making a moral argument for prohibiting the burning of the American flag.  If the flags of all nations, regardless of their specific nature (human rights record, etc.) are equally protected, then would that not dillute the significance attached to the American flag?