House passes power to ban flag burning - On to Senate

[OldGreyEagle]

Setting aside the environmental laws, burning down your house isn't illegal, it isn'r really smart though, what's illegal is burning down your house and then trying to collect insurance on it. (See What's Eating Gilbert Grape)

 

Anyway, on to hate crimes and such. I think they are very flawed. If I murder a 10 year old girl, should I face a harsher penalty than if I murder a 90 year old man? What's with the mentality of "Oh, its so horrible, she had her whole life ahead of her", the 90 year old man had a life ahead of him as well, and he deserved to have it as much as the 9 year old. How about its wrong to murder, regardless of motivation.

 

Adding "hate" crimes tells us some of us are more equal than others (See Animal Farm)and the same action can get different results depending on the victim, excuse me, how does the nature of the victim determine the punishment? if I murder a Jewish person, A Black person, a Moslem, or KKK member, why should the punishment be different? murder is wrong and should be punished the same.

 

Now, we are mixing threads, not like that never happens, but burning the flag, while as despicable an act as I can think of, cant be illegal. As I read the articles, the amendment is to present desecration of the flag. So, who gets to define that? The same guys who drafted the "no dirty dancing cheerleader" routines in Texas? (sorry lone star staters). If I see a torn flag on a windshield? If an errant scout puts the flag on the wrong side of the podium? IF a flag is left out at night? In all the world, in all of our country we have to talk about this? Its the number one issue? Or is it a way to let politicians grandstand and posture and when its done accomplish a whole Heck of nothing?

Personally I think a debate on Social Security and be more productive because the pig in the python advances.

 

All of the Amendments strenthened the COnstitition starting with the Bill of Rights, each one addressed a issue that made us better (well Prohibition didnt work, thats another discussion) How does a ban on an action make us better?

[hendrickms24]

Lets say this amendment is passed and ratified by the states.

That just means more people will be arrested and put in jail and prison are overflowing as it is! Now we are going to add more people because they desecrated something they own? I think this country need to worry about things that are far more important like Welfare, our military, and trade deficit. This issue is another thing that will allow the politicians to wave a flag and say how great an American that they are.

 

 

"Spoken like a true liberal." - I love when someone disagrees with the current administration and they are mark as a liberal. Is being a liberal a bad thing? No nor is being a conservative.

 

Mark Maranto

[Rooster7]

OGE,

 

I understand your point about murder being murder, but I have to comment on one aspect of your example. I view the murder of a 9-year-old to be more heinous for this reason innocence. A child is so nave to the world, so unsuspecting, so trusting, and so vulnerable. When I think of a child victim, I am enraged because I see a horror-shocked child whos being confronted by a monster. While I mourn for adult victims as well, these individuals - by virtue of a long life and the experience that it brings are not confronting monsters but simply evil men.

 

Hendrickms24,

 

That just means more people will be arrested and put in jail and prison are overflowing as it is!

 

Im always amused when someone uses this kind of logic as a basis to counter a law that they dont like. Heres an idea lets not make any more laws. Better yet, lets repeal all laws. If we do, there will be no more crimes, we can empty our prisons, and reap the monetary benefits of their closures. Wow, pure genus

 

[Spiney Norman]

I thought the constitution was created and amended, with the exception of prohibition, to extend rights, not limit them, to the citizens of this country. Yet, the current political majority in this country seeks only to limit our freedoms and rights.

 

The passage of any amendment which would limit my rights to freedom of speech, association or to worship my god is a travesty.

 

BTW this one issue many of the posters views here would agree with those of the ACLU. I think maybe I'll send'em Five bucks.

[Rooster7]

The poll I saw on TV indicated 80 percent of Americans favor the amendment.

[johndaigler]

R7, did you catch any of the details that might allow us to track down that poll? I'd be shocked at 80% - especially since we clearly don't have 80% of active posters here on this thread showing suppport - a group that I would have thought leaned a bit more toward the right than the average American community.

 

jd

[Rooster7]

I saw another one on the web that said 76 percent favored it, but then again, another poll said 63 percent were against. So, in the end, I think the polls are probably meaningless...It all depends on who conducts the study and how they word the question.

[NWScouter]

Since the internet has become so popular -- various website has instant polls. I would be shocked (for example, if a Poll on Rush Limbaugh's website was less than 80% for the amendment, but on the same time a instant poll on the Seattle PI site I wouldn't be surprised if more than half are against it. Depends on who goes to the site. Just think of American Idol voting.

[johndaigler]

And, of course, internet and "phone in" polls have NO scientific value or real-life validity.

[packsaddle]

Never thought this one would make it past one page. OK, I give up. I have never burned the American flag. But within the last year I've watched no less than a dozen burned. And I have no problem as long as there isn't a fire code violation or an environmental problem. I don't agree with the KKK but as long as they conform to local laws, they should be allowed to burn their crosses as well.

And although I am in agreement with many goals of groups that also promote hate crime laws, I don't agree that because of the hate, those crimes are worse than identical crimes that do not contain an element of hate.

At the same time, I realize we already punish intent in a variety of ways (assault with intent to kill, for example) so my thoughts are still open to better ideas.

 

I also think this is largely a matter of political posturing - as it has every time the legislation has been passed up to the Senate only to be killed there. I hope it is again.

[Owl62]

To me, (and all of this is my opinion) it is pure and simple, desecration of the Flag of the United States of America is not freedom of speech or expression but it is disrespectful and despicable.

 

Flag descretion is a wrong against all citizens of the USA, past present, and future. It is the symbol of all that we have been, are and will be. Every one of us is represnted by our Flag.

 

The Flag of the United States of America, is not just cloth or just a symbol, or someone's private property.

 

When I consider giving a US Flag to a group to retire, I will not give it if the group plans to cut the flag up before retiring it. To me, that is desecration. The US Flag code simply calls for burning unserviceable flags, nothing is said about cutting it up before retiring them. There is no need whatsoever in cutting up a flag before retiring it.

 

It is as shame that nearly everything in this country is protected by law - but apparently our Flag is not. Desecrating a Flag that is another's property might bring charges of theft, destruction of property or criminal mischief, but that is about it. I once read an article where a woman was prosecuted for rescuing a US Flag from trash set out at the curb - her intent was to properly retire the Flag. Someone saw her get the flag and called the police. Apparently there is a law in that jurisdiction against removing anything from the trash. To me, that woman was a hero.

 

It's about respect. We live and work and play under our Flag and it will cover the caskets of many of us upon our deaths.

 

It is regretful that we need a law or constitutional amendment to protect our Flag.

 

I stand firmly in support for a law making it a crime to desecrate a Flag of the United States of America. If it takes an ammendment to the US Constitution to do that, then so be it.

 

 

 

[evmori]

I don't think cutting a flag up before retiring it in a fire is desecration. A flag is to be retired with respect. When we retire flags at summer camp, we cut them up & pass out pieces so everyone can place a piece in the fire.

 

The flag is protected by the flag code. But sadly, the code isn't enforced.

 

I don't think we need a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning. The Constitution defines our freedoms. It doesn't regulate them.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[johndaigler]

owl62,

 

I know this thread won't change too many minds in either direction, but spending a little time thinking about these posts helps us all be better citizens. Thanks for posting. I respect the strength of your post and beliefs. I don't disagree that flag desecration is "disrespectful and despicable".

 

"Flag descretion is a wrong against all citizens of the USA, past present, and future. It is the symbol of all that we have been, are and will be. Every one of us is represnted by our Flag.

 

Yes, it is a face-slap to many people. But the flag represents the burner every bit as much as the fire extinguishers (those who would make it illegal). The documents and laws which support the flag support the burner, every bit as much as the fire extinguishers.

 

An obvious question, therefore, is which is more important: the symbol of our rights; or the rights that are symbolized?

I don't think our history is filled with heroes who fought for the flag, but heroes who fought for what the flag represents. Disagreeing with our govt. and the right to own personal property are two of the most revered of those rights - not to mention the Freedom of Expression.

 

In seeking to create this Constitutional Amendment, Congress is asking us to choose one or the other. Certainly, in order to stop descration of the flag, Americans' rights will be desecrated, instead. Is that really the choice we want to make?

 

Perhaps, I'm over-simplifying but that's how clearly I see it.

 

jd

 

 

[Hunt]

Note that burning a flag to "retire" it is not desecration, but burning it to protest presumably would be. What's the difference? The difference is the message conveyed by the protester. It's a short step from punishing that message to punishing an unpopular message that's only stated in words.

For what it's worth, I have grave doubts about "hate crime" legislation myself. I'm troubled about making punishment more severe based on belief-based motivations. (I would distinguish that, however, from crimes where threats or intimidation are made. Burning a cross on a black family's lawn is a qualitatively different act from burning it someplace else--and it's different from just trespassing on the lawn. It is a threat--which is not a form of protected speech.)

[Prairie_Scouter]

I would stand against this amendment. The 1st Amendment is just fine as it is. JMHO

 

Also, I agree with those who think this is just a bit of political grandstanding. I would put it in the same category as the representative who tried to rename "french fries", "freedom fries" when the French dared to go against our desires in the Iraq invasion. There's really no reason for it. As Kahuna said, it's not like we're tripping over flag burners on our way to work each day.

 

But, I do think that added discussion on hate crimes is interesting. I never really saw them as making some people "more equal" than others, as some of stated. I saw them more as an attempt to bring the "less equal" more on par with everyone else. I guess I always felt like those laws would someday become unnecessary, at such time as the U.S. and its people recognize that we really are "all created equal".