I hereby withdraw my comment. You know the deal about having to explain the punchline of a joke, right?
OK, so the Amendment exempts such a “Be Nice to the Flag” law from nullification on 1st Amendment grounds. Is there no precedent for throwing out a law for being vague, or unenforceable? There is a long standing principle that states that a law that makes behavior illegal must define with specificity what that behavior is. Is that a “constitutional” principle?
Look, the Pubbies are getting desperate, they’ve got to win from for the Gipper, they’ve got to find something they can do that they can do a victory boogie about. This is perfect, it is entirely meaningless and void, it passes the buck to the Senate and the states, and it permits these scumbuckets to stand up and bravely defend Our Flag from…somebody. Guinn, I guess.
(Its OK to accept the blindfold, Guinn, we’re all a bit squemish about getting plugged. Refuse the cigarette, tho, they’re not good for you.)
An amendment to circumvent a Supreme Court ruling isn’t at all unprecedented, though. The very first amendment passed after the Bill of Rights was done so to directly overrule the 1793 case of Chisholm v. Georgia, and the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments were done to ovveride rulings like Dred Scott v. Sandford.
If it’s an important issue concerning congressional power, I don’t have a problem with an amendment granting a power the Supreme Court says Congress currently lacks. To me, it’s not so much about overruling the Court as it is showing disrespect to the Constitution by attempting to attach a do-nothing feelgood amendment to it, and grandstanding with our most important legal document to show the folks back home what a mom and apple pie kind of guy you are. Amendments used to free slaves and grant votes to the disenfranchised, and our current Congress is bound and determined to write in a ridiculous and unneeded amendment in ballpoint to appeal to the jingoistic. Even if no other amendment trimming back the First Amendment ever was passed and there was no slippery slope, the whole thing would still be distasteful and demeaning.
If we’re keeping out mind on what the real issue is, does that mean you’re giving us permission to ignore your implications about Guinistasia’s lack of patriotism?
Of course. You’re all about the meaningful exchange of ideas, instead of provoking people with aspersions on their patriotism, maturity, or intelligence.
You want to talk about empty, offensive tactics to provoke rather than inform, how about those who continue to invoke a genuine tragedy to bolster support for themselves or their own petty causes? Quotes like this one from one of the supporters of the amendment:
That’s far, far more offensive than simply burning a flag. That takes it from just political maneuvering and empty patriotism at the expense of what the country stands for, all the way to pissing on the memory of the dead for nothing more than political gain.
I’m no supporter of descration of the American flag. But the American Constitution is far, far more sacred to me than the flag. And I won’t stand to see it desecrated, either.
Do you mean the amendment itself? No, if that’s the case, since it isn’t a statute yet. We’ll need to see the actual wording of the statute, but as I said earlier it might take an eternity to draft.
OK, I’ll grant that it doesn’t appear to be a violation of the doctrine of separation of powers de facto, but it is a violation in spirit.
And I still stand by the fact that removing ANYTHING (whether I personally agree with it or not) from the protections of the First Amendment truly IS a “slippery slope.”
If this amendment passes; and if Congress then passes a law to prohibit flag burning; and if that law is then challenged and struck down as unconstitutionally vague, the shouts of “activist judges” will be so loud you could hear them on the moon.
Thanks for the reference.
So presumably I will be allowed to jump up and down on a US flag, as long as I wash it afterwards?
How about wearing it on my underwear and farting through it?
If I have psychic powers and use them to destroy a flag, am I in legal trouble?
Will the next step be to prevent criticism of the President, since he represents the country, just as the flag does?
Be worth it just to read how Scalia squirms and wriggles his way to some semblance of legal legitimacy.
…hey, dude, do you know a realtor who can get a lobbyist to pay me three times what my house is worth instead of just double?"
I must admit, I’d be interested to see someone try to defend their right to physically desecrate the President on First Amendment grounds.
My little voice in the wind, sent to my (Democratic :eek: ) representative who actually voted yes to this.
Special thanks to Guinistasia for being the “somene I know” 
So… If I bake a cake in the shape of a U.S. flag, decorate it just like the U.S. flag, then eat it, and then dispose of what I ate in the traditional way, is that desecration?
Hmmmm… thinks of all of the pictures of notable politicians slicing into cakes decorated with the ol’ Stars and Stripes…
JOhn.
What shows just how this is grandstanding is that the vast majority of instances of protest flag burning are already illegal, even if the burner uses his own flag. If you burn crap in public, you are usually committing an offense. So as far as I can see, the only extra criminalization will be of people who burn the flag on their own property. Which hardly strikes me as worthy of a constitutional amendment. Unless of course the purpose is to take a meaningless stance to appear patriotic, and flush out the evil pinko liberals who might dare to cast a vote against it. But there is no one in Congress who would act on that sort of motivation, is there?
Further to what I posted about Hillary earlier, this might very well be (at least in part) an effort by the Republicans to get some Democrtacts on record as being “in favor of flag burning” and then use it in upcoming Congressional/Presidential election campaigns.
I’m very confident that the amendment won’t get a “yes” vote in the CA legislature. Anyone else want to chime about their state legislatures?
I hope you’re right. Look at how many representitives voted in favor of it. Maybe they were all under intense political pressures that aren’t found in state legislatures. Wishing on a dream.
I find your ideas intriguing, and should like to subscribe to your newsletter…
Pending, of course, your assurance that the word “libertarian” shall not appear therein, save in a limited context of scorn and derision.
The overwhelming majority of states have a resolutions on the record against flag burning. To date, 49 state legislatures have passed resolutions supporting congressional efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution to allow laws protecting the flag. Including California, by the way. This will go through on a local level faster than you can imagine. From what I have read, most opponents think the sole chance of blocking it is in the Senate, and they aren’t too confident of that this time.
If someone gets a tattoo of Old Glory, would they be permitted to remove it by laser? Tattoo over it? If they want to commit suicide by shooting themselves, would it be a crime to shoot through the tattoo?
So we all agree? That is not hard to imagine due to the complete stupidity of the lawmakers. The very law would weaken the symbol it is supposed to be protecting by eroding what it stands for. Just another example of the fine work of the Republican party and whether or not Hillary (the boogie woman to conservative pinheads everywhere) votes for it or not tell us very little. I’m sure she will have to relent to the idiotic false patriotism of this vote in order to be elected but the fact of the matter remains that this is a Republican sponsored bit of legislation and, for me at least, it is indicative of a party which is more about show than about what is right for this country.
Personally, I believe it is another smokescreen for the shitty state of things.
My .02 about the whole thing…Burn a flag on my front lawn, I’ll kick your ass, burn a flag in the town square, it’s your flag, but I will not listen to your message.
The flag, to me, means more than just some piece of cloth. It represents every soldier, sailor, marine, pioneer and worker that has gone before me. It represents the best of America, and the need and desire to fix the worst. It is arguably the most recognizable symbol in the world, and it only took 300 years to make it that way. It was the first flag on the moon, it will be the first flag on mars, and the one that every oppressed citizen will look for to be on the shoulder of the troops that will liberate them from their oppressors.
All that patriotism aside, we’re in a bad way right now, and the freedom to actually burn the flag has never been more important. Dissent, and how a government deals with it, is the most telling about that government. This is a stupid idea, at a stupid time.