Suit yourself. But don’t tread on me.
But that’s all it is-a code. It’s not a law.
In the event that such an amendment passed, the flag would no longer be worthy of respect, in my view. Because it would be an idol, NOT a symbol.
If it were illegal, it would. The message being it’s more important to stand up for the principles of your counrty (in this case free speach) then the symbols.
Agreed. No more albums. Now videos, on the other hand…
Enjoy,
Steven
Prohibition indeed. A new crime created out of my deepest apologies whole cloth.
Under ordinary circumstances I would never dream of burning the US Flag. I have too much respect for what it represents, even if the government is full of misguided bozos. But if this amendment actually gets added to the constitution, I will participate in public flag burnings, because this amendment desecrates the constitution and therefore, in turn descrates the very flag it “protects”.
I’m reminded of the Doonesbury strip that printed an American flag and then challenged the reader to properly dispose of it, in the light of an earlier anti-flag-burning amendment proposal. You can’t burn it, you can’t toss it in the trash, you can’t wrap your fish with it – congratulations, you’re stuck with the darn thing until it decays on its own!
And count me with the “you must be a :wally to get frightened at the idea of a piece of cloth catching fire” crowd. But then, this is a nation that also thinks the sight of an uncovered female nipple on television will bring the downfall of the Republic…
Nope. Sorry for being so brief, but I thought it would be obvioius, at least to Liberal. How many Pit threads get turned into a **Liberal **bashing fun fest after you try and frame the argument in Libertarian terms, and end up antogonizing lots of people on both sides of the issue?
I’m a dissenting voice here, but I think it’s a good thing Congress is doing this, because the amendment has no chance at all of passage, and this distracts them from other, more destructive things that Congress could be doing.
Captain Amazing wins the award for Todays’ Top Cynic!
Actually, I shouldn’t have held that up as an example of how to answer your question, since the newer amendment explicitly cancelled the earlier one. But I do believe that, generally speaking, the newer wording is considered primary over the older wording. Not sure there is universal agreement on that, though. Where are those damn lawyers when you need them!!
John Mace: So, you were saying that the fact he posts anything is liable to get people arguing? No, it is what he has said, not the way, or the tone he uses.
Yay, the states are finally going to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, eighty years after it was proposed!!
Oh, no? A flag-burning amendment? Aw, crap.
BTW, the text of the proposed amendment is:
(found here )
*
H. J. RES. 10
[Report No. 109-131]
JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. *
So the actual amendment is to allow Congress to pass a law to prohibit physical desecration of the flag. Not an amendment to prohibit it, but to be able to pass a law prohibiting it that SCOTUS can’t override.
I haven’t seen such a slippery tap dance since…well…oh hell, there’ve been too many lately. :rolleyes:
I sure hope you’re right. For fuck’s sake you had better be right. Great Og Without The Ability To Smash you had better be right.
Wow. Thanks, Indyellen
WHAT THE FUCK IS HAPPENING TO MY COUNTRY?!?!?! Now the balace of powers isn’t good enough for them? Fuck finishing school. If this passes, I’m leaving.
No, that’s typically how it’s done.
Prohibition gave Congress the power to ban liquor, which it did with the Volstead Act.
Separation of powers and all that.
Don’t forget that the Fourth of July is coming up soon and, to the Republicans, there’s no better way to show how they’re 100% solid, patriotic, real Americans than to ban flag burning. This certainly isn’t the first time they’ve done it. Ever since Bush Sr. successfully used the issue of flag burning against Michael Dukakis in 1988, the Republicans have gone back to it again and again to rile up their followers against all the unpatriotic, godless, and decadent liberals who would think nothing of using our sacred red, white, and blue as toilet paper. It also serves to distract people from such things as the fact we’re bogged down in Iraq, Osama Bin Laden is still on the loose, the economy is spotty, the federal deficit is exploding, and oil prices are daily climbing to new highs.
The issue of flag burning/desecration is the political equivilent of junk food: it may taste good and provide a quick burst of energy but, ultimately, it will do nothing beneficial for the body politic.
To be fair, this is an example of the balance of powers. The Supreme Court finds that a law is unconstitutional, so Congress and the states use their power to amend the constitution so the law can be passed.
It’s still a stupid thing to amend the Constitution for, but that’s a different issue.
Would private flag burnings be allowed? I can think of really important issues that are a matter of law that are “needlessly hurtful to others.” These laws hurt the people who are involved in order to please the people whose business it is not.
Your comparison makes it even clearer that the action in Congress is an attempt to stifle protest.
Like flying it at Gitmo? Another example: At the beginning of the war, I saw a large flagpole with the flag on it used to stike a peace demonstrator. To me that was desecration of the flag.
If this amendment becomes law, I wonder if the episode of West Wing where Penn and Teller burn the flag will be censored.