home

Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment

By TChris, Section Constitution
Posted on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 11:38:06 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

In even numbered years, Republicans attack the Constitution. Having failed to write homophobia into the Bill of Rights, Republicans are reduced to making their biennial appeal for a partial repeal of the First Amendment. When Democrats are dared to support the rights of (relatively rare) flag burners, they need to make clear that it is the Constitution they support.

Once again, we round up the commentaries that denounce this nonsense:

Bob Kerrey in the Washington Post. If our First Amendment is altered to permit laws to be passed prohibiting flag desecration, would we like to see our police powers used to arrest an angry mother who burns a flag? Or a brother in arms whose disillusionment leads him to defile this symbol of the nation? I hope the answer is no. I hope we are strong enough to tolerate such rare and wrenching moments. I hope our desire for calm and quiet does not make it a crime for any to demonstrate in such a fashion. In truth, if I know anything about the spirit of our compatriots, some Americans might even choose to burn their flag in protest of such a law.

Center for American Progress. In a statement sent to Congress, the former assistant secretary of defense and retired naval officer [Lawrence J. Korb] says that if the purpose of the so called flag burning amendment to the Constitution is to honor those in uniform, then Congress would do better to address the failings of the Bush administration to support current and future veterans.

The Detroit Free Press. The best tribute that Old Glory could be afforded on this Flag Day would be for Congress to leave intact the freedoms for which it stands.

Terre Haute Tribune Star. In a column on the subject by Nat Hentoff published last month, the nationally renowned defender of personal liberties wrote: "The only countries I know that punish the desecration of their flags are China, Iran and Cuba." Then Hentoff asks, "Do we want to join those dictatorships?" The answer should be clear. We do not. And we should not.

Charlotte Observer. The Senate should reject the amendment and stop the political grandstanding. A constitutional amendment is neither needed nor warranted. Two centuries ago, when the Continental Congress adopted the first national flag, the founders knew what apparently many now have forgotten: The value of the flag is not in the cloth it's made of, but in what it represents at home and abroad.

Worcester Telegram & Gazette News. But if unpopular ideas or modes of expression are proscribed -- whether by statute or constitutional amendment -- the guarantee of free speech rings hollow.

Pocono Record. Besides, what desecrates the flag? While flag-burning offends some, how about the grossly oversized flags that roadside businesses often use as little more than a waving billboard? What about the depiction of of the flag on paper placemats and napkins? T-shirts, bathing suits or beach towels? ... Who gets to decide which uses respect the flag and which "desecrate" it?

Saginaw News. Patriotism, Samuel Johnson said, is the last refuge of a scoundrel. It's also a sturdy shelter for members of Congress facing re-election.

Mark Lane. Having an almost-successful vote against flag burning is a dandy way to celebrate Flag Day.

Other links in this post and this one.

Orrin Hatch thinks there might be enough votes to pass the resolution. Other counts come up one vote short of passage. This would be a good time to make sure your senators know you don't want them to mess with the Constitution.

< A Simple Plan | The Death Toll in Iraq >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment | 65 comments (65 topical)
    Re: Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 10:01:18 PM EST
    RNC 2006 campaign bumper sticker: "Burn fags, not flags".

    Re: Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 10:04:23 PM EST
    They never listen to me!

    Re: Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment (none / 0) (#3)
    by pax on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 10:16:27 PM EST
    I was talking on the phone this afternoon with the TV on mute. MSNBC posted a graphic that said there are only three countries in the world that prohibit flag burning. They are...drum roll....China, Cuba, and Iran. Don't know what the news readers were saying in conjunction with the graphic, but it seems to me that that is not a list that we need our name added to.

    Re: Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 10:45:44 PM EST
    Rather than passing a flag desecration amendment to amend the glorious First Amendment, why don't we substitute the word Constitution for the word flag in the Pledge of Allegiance. Maybe then we could keep our priorities straight. No need to wait for legislation, just say "Constituion" in place of "flag" at the next graduation or sporting event.

    Re: Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment (none / 0) (#5)
    by cpinva on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 11:49:49 PM EST
    like the swallows returning to capistrano, we can count on republicans up for re-election to bring out this "solution in search of a problem" bit of doggeral, passing for serious legislation. we can count on them accusing anyone who doesn't support it of not being sufficiently "patriotic". we, and they, can also count on it not passing. i suspect they'd have a collective heart attack if it did. that's not really the point, after all. it's funny that after 200 years of being "unprotected", the flag survives. tattered a bit, perhaps, but nonetheless aloft in the noon day sun. however did it manage, without these good men to "protect" it, from those it represents? probably because the average citizen understands that the best way to protect the flag is to ensure that what it stands for is maintained: the rights and protections guaranteed all citizens under our constitution. here's hoping those transparently cynical opportunists get tossed out of office, come election day. it would be a just reward.

    Re: Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 11:59:26 PM EST
    homophobia: an irrational fear of men who are sexual with men. I don't think that Bush is afraid of gay men I actually think he is pro gay men. if you want to see oppressin of gays go to Iran where they hang teenagers for being gay. no one is advocating that in america. all we want is for gays to stop shoving their stuff in our faces , and not expect normal people to agree with their life choices. have fun tearing down straw men arguments :)

    Re: Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment (none / 0) (#7)
    by Linkmeister on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 12:10:59 AM EST
    I was in our local flag store buying a replacement for my (torn) state flag today, and I asked the owner how he disposed of old ones. He said he turned them over to the VFW for burning. I made a crack about it being interesting that the preferred method of flag disposal was also about to be banned by Congress if they could find the votes. He agreed with me that it was dumb.

    Re: Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment (none / 0) (#8)
    by Steven Sanderson on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 01:45:39 AM EST
    The burning of the flag is an extremely rare event in the U.S. We do, however, see it frequently on the evening news happening in other countries. Do the proposed Flag Desecration Amendment supporters, especially our pandering politicians, really believe that by limiting our constitutional rights here at home that we'll be teaching flag burners on the other side of the world a lesson in how much we love our flag? That we love it so much we'll punish ourselves because of the actions of some individuals in other lands? That's preposterous and our enemies will rejoice in seeing us destroy our own heritage and freedom. Rather than destroying our liberties, which are so beautifully proclaimed in our Bill of Rights, we should be strengthening our freedom by celebrating this wonderful document. Rather than trying to criminalize free speech it'd be wiser to encourage and assist our citizens in understanding and appreciating the importance and uniqueness of our Bill of Rights.

    Re: Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 03:21:32 AM EST
    Hillary Clinton is big on banning flag burning; one of the many reasons I just can't stand her. Why we let her be held up as a leftist is beyond me. HILLARY IN '08 - BUSH WITH BOOBS!

    Re: Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment (none / 0) (#10)
    by Johnny on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 03:41:10 AM EST
    we want is for gays to stop shoving their stuff in our faces , and not expect normal people to agree with their life choices.
    Actually, youa re misled, at best. The idiot-wingers would love nothing more than the complete criminalization of all sexual behavior outside of a hetero marriage-and that only for procreational purposes. Tell me-what is so evil about administering equal rights under law to gay men and women?

    Re: Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment (none / 0) (#11)
    by jen on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 04:14:50 AM EST
    there they go again. What else are they trying to pass? A big raise for themselves? A Bridge from New York to LA? A permanent presidency for W?

    Re: Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 05:24:29 AM EST
    If I mounted the courthouse steps and very publicly drew attention to the burning of a red, white and blue piece of cloth having 9 alternating red and white stripes and 8 stars on a blue field would I violate this new amendment? Would the Amendment writers anticipate this shenanigan and specify anything remotely resembling an American flag was covered? Could I paint the flag on the rear of a car I was entering in a county fair demolition derby? Could I market cigarettes having a fascimile of the flag as the paper surrounding the tobacco? What if I projected a video of a flag waving in the wind against a screen and then set fire to the screen? What if I announced I was burning a flag because it was tattered and in poor condition when it was new out of the package? Would selling toilet paper dyed with images of the flag be illegal? Will all this be left open and every single arrest be litigated? Will the courts eventually have to rule and define what is covered because of all these arrests and suits every material, format, size, type, image and representation of eligible flag-like objects?

    Re: Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment (none / 0) (#13)
    by cpinva on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 05:35:00 AM EST
    zabmom said:
    all we want is for gays to stop shoving their stuff in our faces , and not expect normal people to agree with their life choices. have fun tearing down straw men arguments :)
    but it's perfectly ok for heterosexuals to shove it in other people's faces? hmmmmmmm. how about this, no one shoves it in anyone's face. btw, who decided you're the annointed one to define "normal"? out of curiousity, how many gay men or lesbian women have shoved their "stuff" in your face? aside from the fact that it would be exposing oneself in public, it would also probably be nearly physically impossible, unless you were lying prone, on the ground.

    Re: Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 05:38:40 AM EST
    Yeah, it really warms the heart to know that they so clearly have the national interest in mind, doesn't it? I mean, with this massive wave of flag burning we've got going on, something just has to be done, right? But if we're going to talk about partial appeals of the First Amendment, no discussion can be complete without a reference to the liberal left's poster boy Russ Feingold, and with their favorite Republican, John McCain, niether of whom has any qualms at all with such things. After all, if you can silence the people when you are asking for their votes, you can do it any time you please.

    Re: Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 05:39:05 AM EST
    When TL stops worshipping Feingold, I'll take TL seriously on the First Amendment. Until then, it's simply not possible. Campaign Finance "reform" is the biggest attack on the First Amendment ever made. And Feingold is one of the four pushers of it. The least he could have done is name the bill appropriately: "Incumbent Protection and 'we don't want to listen to the peasantry' Act"

    Re: Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment (none / 0) (#16)
    by Sailor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 06:28:24 AM EST
    When TL stops worshipping Feingold, I'll take TL seriously on the First Amendment.
    wow, a non sequitur and strawman in the same comment!

    Re: Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment (none / 0) (#17)
    by Che's Lounge on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 06:30:41 AM EST
    Jen, What else are they trying to pass? A big raise for themselves? Funny you should ask. BTW, Frist made 5 mill last year. Must have been in consultation fees on the Schaivo case.

    Re: Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment (none / 0) (#18)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 07:11:49 AM EST
    why don't we substitute the word Constitution for the word flag
    Funny, the flag used to represent our glorious Constitution, equality, justice, liberty (at least to me)....I'm not sure what it represents anymore, maybe occupation, war, inequality, injustice, tyranny. If it wasn't for the memory of what it used to mean, I might feel like burning a couple too.

    Re: Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 07:14:09 AM EST
    One of the most remarkable characteristics of the Constitution is how difficult it is to amend. The Founders made the process so diffult, requiring the proposed amendment have wide national appeal, that any successful amendment is truly the will of the nation. If the nation feels it necessary to ban flag burning in protest though an Amendment and can find enough support to pass an amendment though Congress and the state legislatures, then it can be amended.

    Re: Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment (none / 0) (#20)
    by HK on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 08:17:07 AM EST
    we can count on republicans up for re-election to bring out this "solution in search of a problem"
    A suggestion for their next election campaign slogan: If it ain't broke, we'll fix it till it is!

    Re: Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment (none / 0) (#21)
    by Dadler on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 09:00:31 AM EST
    Croc, Not if the amendment is unconstitutional. But with the court leaning the way it is, I guess that point might be moot. Also, could you paint a picture of someone burning a flag? Could you make a film, or stage a play, where a character burns a flag? If I make my own flag out of paper and burn it, is that going to be legal? This is complete and utter nonsense, like the gay marriage "debate". Predictable pandering of the most moronic sort. I'm surprised real Christian fundamentalists, whom these things are meant to appease, actually fall for this act anymore. I'm seeing the flag in my head, and now I'm igniting it. Criminal thoughts?

    Re: Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment (none / 0) (#22)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 09:09:03 AM EST
    But if we're going to talk about partial appeals of the First Amendment,
    So bribery is protected by the First Amendment. Hmmm...
    'we don't want to listen to the peasantry' Act"
    Bwah-hah-hah. Since when can the peasantry afford to rent a Senator, much less buy one? Hey, justpaul and JR... Were you guys part of this protest?

    Re: Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment (none / 0) (#23)
    by swingvote on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 09:16:12 AM EST
    Not if the amendment is unconstitutional. Dadler, could you please expand on what you mean by a nonconstitutional constitutional amendment? The idea is intriguing, even though it is oxymoronic. Any amendment which is passed following the established procedure within the Constitution becomes part of the Constitution and is therefore, by definition, constitutional. Also, what difference does it make what the Court thinks? The Supreme Court has no power to overturn parts of the Constitution itself, only laws passed which violate clauses within the Constitution. They do, unfortunately, have the ability to ignore whether a given law does in fact violate the Constitution, and a history of doing so, but that's as far as they could go. If, in this instance, the Republicans were to pass a law against flag burning, they could declare it unconstitutional, but if the country as a whole passes an amendment stating that the First Amendment does not protect flag burning as speech, there's nothing the Court can do about it. How do you see this working? This is complete and utter nonsense, like the gay marriage "debate". No argument there. The Republicans know full well that they will never be able to get such an amendment through the entire process required, which is why they feel comfortable doing this. It's all for the cameras the the grassroots.

    Re: Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment (none / 0) (#24)
    by swingvote on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 09:19:33 AM EST
    Ernesto, Who said anything about buying Senators? McCain-Feingold says that you and I cannot run ads criticizing our representatives on their voting records within 60 days of an election. Maybe you don't have a problem with this, but if so, what's your beef with a dumbass flag burning amendment? You think that burning a flag is a more important exercise of free speech than telling the truth about how our "representatives" act in office when they are running for re-election? Do the Dems hand out blue ball gags to you guys at the convention?

    Re: Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 09:22:51 AM EST
    Dadler, I think justpaul answered you exactly how I would have. But good try. I will agree that the flag burning and gay marriage amendment talk is not much more than satisfying their base. Then again, isn't that what Sen. Feingold does everytime he talks about "immediate redeployment" from Iraq? Both sides know their proposals can't be realized but they both stand to gain by supporting them.

    Re: Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment (none / 0) (#26)
    by Dadler on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 10:03:16 AM EST
    Justpaul and Croc, You are correct, and I didn't do a good job of explaining myself. First, and most obviously, what is the proper way to dispose of a flag? YOU BURN IT!! So, CLEARLY, it's not the burning of a flag that's the issue, but the political thought behind it. And you CANNOT amend the constitution to outlaw flag burning without outlawing thought. Because a person's thinking could then make an otherwise legal act illegal. It's an impossible, Orwellian contradiction to overcome, and I have enough faith in enough of my fellow Americans that it would NEVER happen. But it could. This flag burning crap is really beyond the rational scope of any traditional amendment argument because it is granting to an inanimate object animate status. But you're right, we can certainly use our freedom and attempt to legislate freedom away. However, much to the right's chagrin, diversity is the real strength of the nation, and it's best check against this type of thing. So many different people, of so many different stripes, that it's almost impossible to overcome with an issue as silly and illogical as this.

    Re: Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment (none / 0) (#27)
    by squeaky on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 10:06:39 AM EST
    One of the most remarkable characteristics of the Constitution is how difficult it is to amend. The Founders made the process so diffult, requiring the proposed amendment have wide national appeal, that any successful amendment is truly the will of the nation.
    Well who would have guessed it but the religious right took enough time off from biblical study to find a way to subvert "the wll of the nation".
    Earlier this month, efforts to ban gay marriage by amending the Constitution failed badly in Senate. Now the religious right is considering appealing to state legislatures to call a Constitutional Convention under an obscure provision of Article 5 that would allow amendments to the Constitution without congressional approval. The Evans-Novak report has the details:
    think progress

    Re: Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 10:14:08 AM EST
    Dadler - The amendment, to my knowledge, would address intent, not thought. You can still think about burning flags all day. Squeaky - Of course, you're right. If they couldn't reach the threshold of cloture, they certainly cannot reach the treshold of convening a Convention. Please re-read what you quoted from me above. I make a clear distinction between an attempt and a successful amendment. I assume you missed that point, thus badly misconstruing my argument.

    Re: Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment (none / 0) (#29)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 10:43:45 AM EST
    Who said anything about buying Senators? McCain-Feingold says that you and I cannot run ads criticizing our representatives on their voting records within 60 days of an election.
    I don't know about you but I, like most peasants, can't afford to run any ads within 60, 90 or 5000 days of an election. So why aren't you worried about me being silenced by my lack of money? According to your logic, that's a First Amendment issue.

    Re: Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment (none / 0) (#30)
    by Patrick on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 10:46:57 AM EST
    I oppose a flag burning amendment, and my feeling is it has little chance of passing in the states.

    Re: Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment (none / 0) (#31)
    by glanton on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 10:57:12 AM EST
    TChris and everyone else who cares: The elephant in the room is that, we can decry those who use this inane, tyrannical wedge all we want and it doesn't change the even worse fact that: It is the fault of the public that this can be a wedge issue in the first place! This even-year strategy is a blight upon us all. If just once the Uhmerrikahn people could show the grace and dignity of punishing politicians who try to make elections about boys kissing and flag burners then there would be real reason to rejoice. But the sheep fall in line every. single. time. And in 2006 and then in 2008, they shall fall in line again.

    Re: Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment (none / 0) (#32)
    by Dadler on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 10:57:59 AM EST
    Croc, Intent IS thought, you cannot separate the two. If flag burning is the desired method for disposing of the flag, then it's only what you're thinking while you do it that is the question here. That is what you would be making illegal. Call it intent all you want, it is still the outlawing of what's in someone's mind. It's political, free speech. Period. Would it be okay then to burn flags in protest that you were also disposing of? This is totalitarian stuff at its core. Look at the company we'd be keeping. Is that the club you want to join?

    Re: Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment (none / 0) (#33)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 11:01:18 AM EST
    I saw a slew of flags on Memorial Day that need burning...they were in such disrepair...so torn and frayed. Burning the flag in protest shows more respect for what the flag stands for than just waving it mindlessly.

    Re: Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment (none / 0) (#34)
    by Dadler on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 11:03:50 AM EST
    Logic question. Is an elected official of the government, in attempting to restrict currently protected political speech, in their position as an elected official and using its public funds, violating the Constitution in the attempt?

    Re: Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment (none / 0) (#35)
    by swingvote on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 11:17:16 AM EST
    Intent IS thought, you cannot separate the two. That's an interesting argument Dadler. Does this imply that you are one of those rare "liberals" who opposes hate crimes legislation? Maybe we have more in common than I thought.

    Re: Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment (none / 0) (#36)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 11:24:03 AM EST
    Still waiting on that cross burning amendment.

    Re: Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment (none / 0) (#37)
    by squeaky on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 11:26:03 AM EST
    croc_choda-I did not misunderstand your point. The attempt by the religious right to subvert the will of the American people is a constant threat to your position and mine. They do not represent a majority of Americans yet they are acting as if they do. Ironically they are being used, opium of the masses and all. If they would concentrate more of their time focusing on religion and personal enlightenment we all would be much better off. The founding fathers had lots of experience with religious freaks and imperialists. That is why they wrote the constitution: to make it impossible for a president or powerfully connected minority or slim majority, to impose their will over the law, as you clearly point out. The founding fathers are obviously rolling in their graves with the royal antics of our Chimp King.

    Re: Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment (none / 0) (#38)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 11:27:04 AM EST
    All liberals favor hate crime legislation, just like all "the people here" think Hillary will be president in three years.

    Re: Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment (none / 0) (#39)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 11:35:40 AM EST
    If "free thinkers who are neither dem or rep" hadnt blocked the passing of the anti-lynching law for fifty years, we probobly wouldnt be having discussions of "hate crimes" today. Sorry for the O.T.

    Re: Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment (none / 0) (#40)
    by swingvote on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 12:20:59 PM EST
    A claim far to many minority groups make all too frequently.

    Re: Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment (none / 0) (#41)
    by swingvote on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 12:22:05 PM EST
    Ugh. Let's try that again. They do not represent a majority of Americans yet they are acting as if they do. A claim many minority groups make all too often.

    Re: Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment (none / 0) (#42)
    by Dadler on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 12:50:58 PM EST
    Slado, No, I'm not a particular fan of hate-crimes legislation, nor of laws that punish more severely for assaulting a cop than a normal citizen. Nor am I, to be more out there, a fan of being able to charge someone with two counts of murder for killing a woman and her fetus. Still, those are things that are punishment for harming a human being, not an object. With an object, a symbol, the ONLY thing that matters is the thought behind it -- or if it's a stolen object, obviously. It's not the burning or destruction, it's the thought. With assault, it can be proven that a defendent displayed extra motivation and desire to hurt a certain kind of person, and that can certainly separate manslaughter from second degree murder, or that from first degree murder. With flag-burning, we're talking about an OBJECT BELONGING TO THE "PERP" being considered the "victim".

    Re: Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment (none / 0) (#43)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 01:06:50 PM EST
    Thats call this crap what is : b.s grandstanding by over-paid goldbrickers about something that almost never happens. Not to be overly harsh.

    Re: Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment (none / 0) (#44)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 01:11:25 PM EST
    I think we need a little Korzybski: the map is not the territory; the name is not the thing named; the symbol is not the thing symbolized; the menue aint the food etc etc

    Re: Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment (none / 0) (#45)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 01:13:29 PM EST
    Lets call this...(above) sheez!

    Re: Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment (none / 0) (#46)
    by swingvote on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 01:22:07 PM EST
    Dadler, It would seem that there is a broad gulf between criminalizing the destruction of certain types of property and making those types of property "animate". In addition, the government has a history of making it illegal to destroy certain types of property, even when it belongs to the person doing the destroying. Think "wetlands", which it can be illegal even to walk on, even though you own them. Flag burning is a stupid thing to amend the Constitution over, but stupidity of an idea has never stopped Congress before. Prohibition is just one example.

    Re: Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment (none / 0) (#47)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 01:27:07 PM EST
    Bit of a leap from flags to wetlands, dontcha think jeepster?

    Re: Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment (none / 0) (#48)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 01:47:56 PM EST
    Think "wetlands", which it can be illegal even to walk on, even though you own them.
    Let's see...a wetland can filter harmful substances out of drinking water and greatly increase biodiversity. Its importance therefore, is akin to an "animate object". A flag, on the other hand, is only animate when it flutters in the breeze or is used as a wedge issue by very cynical politicians.

    Re: Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment (none / 0) (#49)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 01:48:55 PM EST
    I'd be interested to hear about some examples of people who got into trouble for "walking in", on, or around wetlands that they own.

    Re: Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment (none / 0) (#50)
    by Dadler on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 02:03:02 PM EST
    Justpaul, Wetlands destruction harms the property, which, unlike a flag, is actually a living thing -- just to be specific. It harms animals, the water, and can harm others who are exposed to that water. Burning your own flag, on your own property, or burning anything of your own anywhere but your own fireplace, could still be a crime I'm sure. But... IT SHOULDN'T BE A CRIME BECAUSE OF THE POLITICAL INTENT, THE THOUGHT, OF THE PERSON TORCHING THEIR OWN STUFF, IN THIS CASE A FLAG.

    Re: Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment (none / 0) (#51)
    by Aaron on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 02:03:43 PM EST
    I have little patience for those whose nationalism is so overwhelming that they cannot separate our flag from what the flag stands for. The Republicans would drag us back to a time when soldiers on the battlefield would die by the hundreds in order to retrieve a fallen or captured battle flag. I hope that there are no soldiers in Iraq who would endanger their own lives or the lives of their fellow soldiers to retrieve a piece of cloth. If this amendment were to pass becoming law, what happens when a police officer goes to arrest someone who's burning a flag and that person resists leading to an altercation which results in the police officer shooting and killing that individual? No doubt there are many on the right who would feel such a person is deserving of death, more's the pity, but thankfully I am not such a person. I realize that the our flag can be used to rally people to a cause that may be totally without merit. That's why Iraq is such a crime, using the US flag as a propaganda tool to enlist citizens and soldiers into pursuing a dubious political agenda. It disgusts me to see Dirt dog politicians twisting US nationalism and faith in our country into some senseless waste of human life while wrapping themselves in the flag in order to fend off criticism. How about a constitutional amendment to prevent people from doing that. Isn't our Constitution about protecting the rights of individuals and freedom of expression, it's not about protecting the rights of people who might be offended by you exercising your freedom of expression. Who else but right wing Bible thumping lunatics would even consider passing a constitutional amendment that will have the effect of doing nothing more than making it a crime to offend some people. It demeans our Constitution to even suggest such a thing, and is a slap in the face to everyone who laid down their life for the ideals that our flag represents. Additionally this is an extremely slippery slope to start playing around on. Some Islamic countries make it a crime to deface the Koran, will we next pass a law making it a crime to burn a Bible? If so won't we have to protect the symbols of all religions and all faiths, and if we do that won't we have to protect political symbols, like the Republican elephant and the Democratic donkey, and if we do that won't we have to protect brand names, like Chevrolet and Bank of America. Doubtless the owners and employees of those companies would be offended if you should burn their symbols. There would be no end to this idiocy once you get it started. The whole concept is ludicrous bordering on the moronic, but admittedly those are the things the right wingers seem to do best these days.

    Re: Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment (none / 0) (#52)
    by swingvote on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 02:39:50 PM EST
    Dadler, Ignoring, for the moment, the comments from the peanut brain gallery: That's an interesting argument, but it doesn't rise to the level of "animating" the item in question, which is what I was asking about. It is also illegal to deface public property, but that public property is not animated by the laws protecting it. Jondee, When it's illegal to walk on your own land, you have been denied the use of that land, and you have been injured by that denial, is how the argument usually goes. As for examples of people who have gotten into trouble, anyone who has ever been fined for damaging a wetland would be a prime example, and my sister and her husband are one such example. As for it being a leap: Only for those whose minds are stuck in low gear. Sorry if you couldn't keep up. Maybe with a little more effort you'll find it easier to do so in the future. Or, alternatively, you could, for once, try not trying to pick a fight just to get your kicks. Yeah, I didn't think you'd like that idea, but it was worth the suggestion.

    Re: Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment (none / 0) (#53)
    by Dadler on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 03:02:46 PM EST
    Justpaul, So we disagree with my choice of animate. That aside, sone of the examples you have offered me involves someone's own property being destroyed as a form of political speech in a manner that endangers no one else. This is a flag, destroyed as a form of political expression, and the ONLY thing to be punished is the thought behind it, not the action of burning it -- since we already know burning is the desired method of flag disposal. This is beyond a victimless crime, it is actionless. But because to some it is merely THOUGHTless, it should be against the law and enshrined as such with an amendment. Overkill of the highest, most dastardly "patriotic" kind.

    Re: Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment (none / 0) (#54)
    by Dadler on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 03:04:09 PM EST
    Crap, that should read "NONE of the examples you have offered". Friggin' heathen, I am.

    Re: Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment (none / 0) (#55)
    by Dadler on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 03:25:16 PM EST
    Add Justpaul, I amend my animate analogy. The more I think about it, the more I some to see the flag is treated like god. The piece of godcloth is deemed more important and more deserving of protection than the politically expressive freedom of the "sinners" who created it, fly it, ponder it, protest it. We've created this thing without a mind, which some seek to grant higher status than an actual mind attempting to make sense or statements or art or anything of the flag. Flag-burning, in these quarters, becomes a heresy. And the debate about it takes on this subtextual quality. (And yet the idolatry underpinning it is never acknowledged.) God means something different to everyone else, and so does the flag.

    Re: Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment (none / 0) (#56)
    by swingvote on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 03:32:10 PM EST
    Dadler, I've agreed with you about the undesirability of such an Amendment from the very beginning; I merely found your argument concerning how such an Amendment would alter the status of the object in question interesting. Calling it "animate" or whatever else you prefer, would not the same logic apply to something like the prohibition against crosses and nativity scenes on public property? Are those objects also raised to a new status by their being prohibited? And is that not done on the basis of the intent held by those who wish to place them on public land? It would seem that we as a country have developed a history of treating certain objects with reverence or disdain and enshrining that treatment into law. However that turns out, thanks for the discussion. It has been interesting.

    Re: Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment (none / 0) (#57)
    by Dadler on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 03:52:14 PM EST
    Nativity scenes on PUBLIC property are covered by the Establishment Clause of the first Amendment. The flag issue is completely separate. Someone burning their own flag, for their own reasons. Harming no one.

    Re: Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment (none / 0) (#58)
    by Dadler on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 03:53:10 PM EST
    And thanks to you, as well, always nice to toss it around. Have a good one.

    Re: Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment (none / 0) (#59)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 04:14:42 PM EST
    j.p - How is "anyone who's been fined for damaging a wetland" the same as someone getting in trouble for "walking" on their land? Again do you know of even ONE example of someone getting in trouble for doing nothing but walking on their land? Didnt think so.

    Re: Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment (none / 0) (#60)
    by swingvote on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 05:17:25 PM EST
    Nativity scenes on PUBLIC property are covered by the Establishment Clause of the first Amendment. Bad example, Dadler. Because the people pushing this Amendment will reply that when they get it passed, burning flags, even your own, will be covered by it. You made the argument that this is a bad idea because it enshrines an item, and I agree with you, but if it merely comes down to there already have been an amendment passed which we can interpret in such and such a way, our freedoms are forever tied to what the current interpretation is, and, in my mind, that's not a good idea. How is "anyone who's been fined for damaging a wetland" the same as someone getting in trouble for "walking" on their land? Typical Jondee BS. Still spoiling for a fight I see. How surprising! Walking on a wetland damages it, Jondee. I would have thought that as an ardent liberal environmentalist you would have picked up at least that much from Al Gore, but I guess there's just some things you can't be bothered with. As for citing a case where someone has been fined for walking on one, I can't, because the only case I know of personally involves two people who are smart enough not to do it. My sister cannot legally use over 2 acres of her property because it has been declared, after she bought it, as a wetlands. The state has been very clear in the fact that even walking on it is forbidden because it compacts the soil and makes it less able to absorb water. But it's nice to know that you don't think there's any problem with people being denied use of their legally owned property whenever the state feels it has an interest. Kinds of nails down what it means to be a "progessive", doesn't it? Later all.

    Re: Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment (none / 0) (#61)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 06:39:52 PM EST
    jeepster - How is that question "b.s"? That was your example i.e., strawman: people cant walk on their own land. Now you cant furnish any proof whatsoever to back up what you say, but somehow its my b.s. Nice little tantrum when all you had to say was "I cant".

    Re: Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment (none / 0) (#62)
    by Aaron on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 03:50:31 AM EST
    The entire Wetland argument precedes from a false assumption, that the law was designed to protect property, it was not. The law was designed to protect the living organisms who dwell on that property. In a sense a wetland is a living organism, since it is a compilation of many living things comprising an ecosystem. When you tread carelessly on a fragile wetland, you destroy lives, lives that you cannot reconstitute, lives that can only be replaced with other organisms. Much like the soldiers in Iraq cannot be resurrected only replaced. Hard to believe that anyone would even bother engaging in such a specious argument. US law recognizes that nonhuman living organisms have a right to exist, and when those living things are threatened by human encroachment, those lives must be protected. Until you have a flag composed of endangered living organisms, this argument simply does not apply.

    Re: Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment (none / 0) (#63)
    by Dadler on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 10:49:54 AM EST
    JP, I don't quite get what you're saying. The establishment clause is clear, the state can't promote any one religion. Flag-burning, specifically, is not mentioned in the constitution, which is the thread of hope the amendment nuts cling to, I believe. Freedom of religion is well-founded, is a firm part of our culture -- bullsh*t war on Christmas clap-trap aside -- while freedom to burn a flag is not, and is probably the single most volatile example of non-violent political speech; and therefore is seen as a safe "patriotic" issue for these pols to take a risk-free ride on every so often to "appease" whatever base of clay figures they're pleasing. And, though you might not liek it, it's pretty clear to me we ARE always at the mercy of our collective current interpretations of the Constitution. It may not be good, but I'd rather amendments be possible (if quite difficult) than we pretend it's possible for ANYTHING in political life to be set in stone and work through the changes of time. Change is natural, humanity changing is natural, that's pretty much what the founders were thiking, they were Deists after all, and products of the Enlightenment. They knew change was inevitable, they simply designed a system that required meaningful consensus to genuinely alter the document.

    Re: Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment (none / 0) (#64)
    by jondee on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 10:53:56 AM EST
    Its just part of the protracted tantrum that Right's been having for years over the fact that the land and organisms could be considered anything but unliquidated capital.

    Re: Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment (none / 0) (#65)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 12:27:09 PM EST
    The only people that I have seen burning the U.S. flag in the past 30 or so years are the people in other countries that we have been terrorizing, like the Iraqis. How do the birdbrains plan to enforce this?

    Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment | 65 comments (65 topical)