Will the definition of “flag” be forever frozen in time as the flag currently is, or will it be subject to change? If Puerto Rico became a state and we then had 51 stars in our flag, would it be OK to burn the 50 star flag?
[quote]
How would you define “desecration?” **
Another good question. If I made a cake with the american flag as a design on it, would I be desecrating the american flag by cutting it up?
Do you think these are tough questions?
Every law has terms that may require precise definition. If I seek to prohibit stalking, are you going to start asking what acts, precisely, constitute stalking? If I drive by your house once a day, slowing down to stare at you as I pass, is that stalking? How about twice? Ten times?
But I don’t need to answer it that precisely. When I write the law against stalking, I will prohibit conduct directed at another person with the intent to place, or when the actor knows or reasonably should know that the conduct places that other person in reasonable fear of death, criminal sexual assault, or bodily injury. Then a jury is responsible for deciding if twice-per-day drive-bys, with stare, are enough to reasonably place the target of the stares in fear of death, bodily injury, or criminal sexual assault.
So, too, with the issue of flag desecration. Words have their ordinary meaning. I would prohibit any person from publicly burning with contempt, mutilating, defacing, defiling, or trampling upon the flag of the United States. It would be up to a jury to hear the specifics of a particular case and decide if the conduct was such that it violated the law.
That’s how the law works, and it’s not unique to flag cases.
It’s going to be silly seeing people thrown in prison for cutting up birthday cakes, or wearing bandannas with flag designs… I can very easily imagine that happening. And having it being constitutionally sanctioned makes me very uneasy.
Well, let’s return to the stalking law and see if it suffers from the same problem - which, if I understand you, is the concern that innocent conduct would be prohibited by the law.
Suppose I drive by your house once, after our nasty romantic break-up, slow down, and stare.
You call the police and ask them to throw me in prison based on the anti-stalking law I quoted above.
That, too, would be pretty silly – but what’s to prevent it from happening?
Or should we repeal the anti-stalking law?
The words “flag” and “desecration” do not have ordinary meanings. You absolutely do have try to draw some legal definition for a 'flag" at the very least. It’s not up to a jury to write the law, just to decide if one has been broken. You can’t hand them a sloppy and ill defined law and them ask them to determine if it has been violated.
Frankly, your own proposed definition is so overly broad and all inclusive that it would scare the hell out of me as a citizen.
Yes. Although the rules of statutory construction mandate that to the extent possible, both laws must be read in pari materia - that is, together, giving full effect to each if possible.
So if an amendment passed forbidding criticism of the president, that would not invalidate your First Amendment right to, for example, criticize your senators. The two amendments would be read together, with the result being that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the freedom of speech, EXCEPT when it comes to the president.
But would the “presidential criticism amendment” have to explicitly state that it overrides the 1st amendment? I’m thinking of the 21st amemdment, although that nullified the entire 18th amendment, not just part of it.
Briker, just what do you expect would happen if such an amendment were ratified? Do you think there would actually be fewer flag burning cases than the 7 per year top end estimate? What do you really hope to accomplish with this?
It seems I wasn’t clear enough. Let me try again.
When someone makes unqualified statements about groups from America’s revolutionary period such as “The Framers thought…” or “The Founders said…” they are most likely talking out their ass. It is a misconception to assume that these groups had unanimity on most subjects. They did not. Of course there were items that were universally agreed upon or nearly so but they aren’t the type of thing that someone would normally feel the need to inject into a debate. It should go without saying that the Founders all supported the Revolution, for instance. But outside of those rare occurances sweeping generalizations about the Framers or Founders are irresponsible because they promote ignorance.
Clear?
Renob claims that the Founders the warned against the tyranny of the majority. This nation was founded by the Whigs. Gordon Wood has this to say about them:
That is not to say that some Founders didn’t later warn against a tyranny of the majority. Perhaps they did though Renob has produced no citation. But clearly not all of them did so.
Can we please be more accurate in our rhetoric?
I have never burned a flag in my entire life, but if this amendment is ratified I guarrantee you that I will go out and burn a flag in protest.
What if you use a paper flag as a tobacco blunt?
In Virginia, the following laws exist today, although their enforcement is prohibited by Supreme Court decisions:
:eek:
You realize that definition would include napkins, children’s drawings, clothing, even photographs in a newspaper?
This is ok with you?
Who wrote that fucking law, Mussolini?
From a reading of this thread alone, I would say that statistically (albeit a ridiculously small sample group) people are against this type of ammendment - so it probably won’t pass anyway.
Am I being naive ?
Let’s know…
Well, Mussolini’s tenure as a Virginia legislator has been sadly overlooked by history…
But even if the law includes napkins and children’s drawings, it doesn’t punish anyone unless they publicly burn it with contempt, or damage it in some way with the intent to defile it. It would thus only reach conduct that is intended to be contemptuous, not conduct that did not intend disrespect.
Consider a courtroom. In court, you may not exercise your First Amendment right to criticize the judge - that conduct is called “contempt of court” is is defined in much the same way as we’re talking about here. Precious few people have trouble grasping the concept that while they’re in court, they may not act contemptuously towards the judge, even though they would have every right to do so if they passed the judge on the sidewalk.
In other words, it’s not difficult to apply the law in a commonsense manner, affecting only that conduct that is legitimately intended to show contempt to the flag. If a child’s drawing of the flag is crumpled and thrown away along with the rest of the day’s art, it’s easy to see that no particular disrespect towards the flag was intended.
At the heart of it, you believe such a criminal restriction is wrong. And you’re perfectly welcome to attack any proposed amendment on that ground. But you cannot sustain an argument that we cannot craft and apply a law that will reach only the conduct in question, and exclude innocent conduct. It’s been done for countless other types of crimes. It can easily be done here.
I’m not sure I understand your point, unless it’s a wry commentary on the perversity of the universe, or some such.
If a only small percentage of people oppose the amendment, it would seem more likely to pass. If a majority of people opposed the amendment, it would seem more likely to fail.
What am I missing?
Why is it so horrid for people to show contempt towards the flag? Don’t we have that right, even if others disagree with it?
It’s just a piece of cloth, for crying out loud! I cannot believe anyone doesn’t seriously see this as a violation of the First Amendment!
** Bricker ** - No the * sample * is small - not the amount of people against it. I think that the majority of posters in this thread are against the ammendment.
However, this is just my opinion - please don’t slay me for this…
Guin, excuse me, please, but I think you’re missing the point of a constitutional amendment. Right now, what you say is true: the Supreme Court has decided that burning to show contempt is an action that is protected by the First Amendment.
But if the Constitution is amended, then it won’t be a violation of the First Amendment any more… we would in essence be changing the meaning of the First Amendment to add, “…except in the case of the US flag…” at the end.
Plenty of good and reasonable arguments can be made about why this is a bad idea, why it’s contrary to our true ideals as a country, and so forth… but you cannot say that we can’t pass the amendment because it would violate the First Amendment. That’s the whole point of amendments… they amend. 
Bricker, I’m going to reask my earlier question. What do you hope this amendment would accomplish and what do you expect it to accomplish?
I expect that this amendment will permit Congress, and the states, to pass laws forbidding public displays of contempt towards and desecration of the flag of the United States.
I hope that Congress and the states will enact such laws, and that, evetually, people will refrain from such acts under the threat of jail.
I recognize that some people will feel compelled, at the outset, to show their distate for such laws by violating them. The result of this, I hope, is that such people will gain or augment a criminal record of their own as the price to pay for such demonstration.
As time goes on, and it becomes clear that violating the law will simply earn you criminal sanctions, I hope people will lose their taste for such demonstrations, and the end result will be far fewer incidents of flag desecration than now happen.