Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by IJ Reilly, Jun 25, 2006.
If it wins, those activist judges in the Supreme Court will eventually vote it down.
Flag burning and gay marriage are such threats to this nation of ours Republicans have nothing to run on except this? Pathetic as hell while the million man mexican invasion continues,Iraq war continues, and all the real issues facing our country like energy or a failed space program. Just more wedge issues with no substance from the no substance republican party.
It's good to know Congress is tending to matters that weigh so heavily on average American life.
When can we ban videogames?
After we ban iPods.
I figure the reason I served my country was just for this freedom of expression and speech. Does Govt have a clue what freedom really means? any govt on this planet? If some jerk wants to burn a flag I say let him as long as he cleans his mess and doesnt pose a fire hazard to people or property.
well, this opens up all the old arguments about what exactly is a flag. i'll note that a local paper, the chicago tribune, includes the flag as part of its masthead. will it be a federal crime to allow the local paper to touch the ground?
what if i burn a flag with 51 stars and 14 stripes?
what if i stitch to my back pocket a patch of the flag and sit down?
what if an errant bottle rocket catches a neighbors house on fire on the 4th of july and the flags he's got on display and safely folded inside are burned? besides facing federal charges, would insurance companies refuse to pay up based on committing a federal crime?
what about all the weathered flags i saw on cars in the months after 9/11? what about the street vendors not properly caring for the plastic flags on sticks they sell out of 5 gallon buckets?
this is ****ing ridiculous.
More ridiculous pandering by the Republicans. What a crock. Instead of "protecting" the flag we should be removing references to God from our money, pledge of allegiance and oaths of office.
Should this idiocy pass, I wonder what the likelihood is of it being ratified by the states. Will we really find at least thirteen states brave enough will stand up and say, "Bull****!"?
Ironically, the proper way to dispose of a flag no longer suitable for use is by burning, so I guess if this passes we'll all have to just start throwing them out with the garbage.
Don'tHurtMe, I've not seen where governments are perzackly in the increasing-liberty bidness. Mostly the opposite.
Better a law that acknowledges that for some, any insult to the flag is a provocation. One free punch is allowed before an assault charge can be filed.
What are ya'll talking about? You sound like you think the amendment just says "You can't burn a flag" and leaves it at that. Of course, it's acceptable for the Scouts or the military or whatever other groups have that privilege to burn a flag in a proper ceremony for disposal. Oh, and zimv20, in the first three things you mentioned, those are flags. They are representations of flags, or defilements already (in the second case), but they are not flags. Thus, they are not covered by this. In addition, the little plastics "flags" you talked about later are not flags at all either, they are plastic banners that are representative of the flag.
In the fourth example, that would not be a willful violation on the owners part, but perhaps a federal crime (though it probably could be anyways) on the part of the owner/user of that errant bottle rocket. You make it sound like you're somehow to blame if someone else burns down your house.
Oh, and you're right. It is ridiculous. I never expected that anyone could be so ignorant about this subject.
Now, I think perhaps a Constitutional Amendment might be a bit over-the-top, but it has been nullified as an Act before, so it's the only option if they do want it passed. I don't think it's a bad idea, though you're right about one thing; they could probably be spending time on better things.
yes, i am completely ignorant. because we all know that once the constitution is changed, everyone completely understands what's meant by the language and no one will ever come along and try cases against different interpretations. i mean, if they did, we'd have a special body to try those cases, wouldn't we?
since you're so well-versed in what constitutes a flag and what doesn't, then you can enlighten us all as to where those definitions are defined in law.
or is it the case that you're speaking from somewhere muffled by trousers?
This is just one more attempt to divide voters on social wedge issues before
the 2006 elections.
How each candidate voted will be used by the spin doctors in upcoming ads
to smear a candidate's patriotism if they voted to allow flag burning to continue.
Keep in mind, only real flags are covered by the amendment. It might not say so in plain language, but it's ordinary common sense that real flags can't be made of plastic. Only cotton, and maybe nylon. The Constitutional protections afforded to blended fabric flags would be subject to interpretation, though I expect any stars and stripes more than 50% cotton would be automatically covered. I don't see many polyester flags around, and besides they'd smell awful when burned so it's probably not a major issue.
Also keep in mind that the destruction of American flags for legitimate reasons would not be against the law, so we'd still be able to fly them from the windows of our cars until they are beaten to shreds and end up in gutters, because obviously this is patriotic flag destruction, and all we really need to outlaw is the use of the American flag for unpatriotic and unpopular political expressions.
So, it's all totally clear. See?
i'd expect the amendment be worded to make all that clear, including types of stitching and number of knots.
btw, does this apply to US flags manufactured in china?
Easy to find and explains it all.
Wow, so all of this is in the amendment? I had no idea. I guess that means that the people in charge of the Chicago Tribune could be fined $100 and jailed for 30 days if they turned up within the city limits of Washington, DC. That explains a lot!
Umm no, that's not the proposed amendment. Zim asked where the law governing flags could be found. I was obliging him.
thanks for the link. looks like my "ignorant paranoia" isn't so ignorant after all.
in chicago, there is a police station at the corner of belmont and western. i see from this chapter, the station will fly the flag.
let it be known that there is an overpass down western, which is higher than the station and any flags they fly. there are daily any number of cars taking the overpass which have mexican and puerto rican flags affixed to them.
according to chapter 7, those drivers will be in violation of:
oooh, i just feel so ignorant!
the new england patriots are going to have to change their logo:
and can we get the word alien worked into the amendment?
Those present in uniform should render the military salute.
IJ -- by searching here, i found the text of the house bill that passed that year. i think that's the current one, and it's called h.j.r. 10.
so congress would be able to define desecration how they pleased: i.e. according to the political winds. reassuring, eh?
Last I checked, one of the best things about freedom was the freedom to disagree with it. This goes against everything the flag stands for. Ironic. I'm all for respecting the flag, and there are already regulations for what you're supposed to do with them to show patriotism. But if someone wants to go and burn the flag, no matter what their problem with it, the best thing to do is to salute. Seriously. They're basically proving how great that flag is and how truly great what it stands for is if you are allowed to go so far as to desecrate it with the only repercussion being someone calling you an idiot. That's what a free society is all about. Or, supposed to be.
But hey, we'll punish people for burning the symbol, thereby pissing all over what it's supposed to stand for.
Where would this
fit with the desecration of the flag?
Thanks to mactastic for posting it in this thread.
I was being facetious. The law you cited applies only in the District of Colombia, and probably even there more in words than deed, given previous Supreme Court decisions.