Flag burning amendment one step closer to floor vote

May 5, 2006

It’s an election year, [tag]Republicans[/tag] are desperate, so it stands to reason that a constitutional [tag]amendment[/tag] on [tag]flag burning[/tag] is making progress in the [tag]Senate[/tag].

A Senate panel approved a measure on Thursday that would change the [tag]Constitution[/tag] to let Congress [tag]ban[/tag] burning of the [tag]American flag[/tag], setting up an election-year debate over a perennial hot-button issue.

The measure passed the Senate Judiciary constitution subcommittee by a vote of 6 to 3. […]

“There are limits on speech, and the balance is tipped in my mind that so many people are so grossly offended by the burning of the flag,” said Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Arlen [tag]Specter[/tag], who heads the Judiciary Committee.

Oh, I see. If a lot of people find certain speech offensive, we should alter the Constitution and amend the First Amendment, for the first time in American history, to make people feel better, right? Never mind that flag-burning protests are exceedingly rare, or that veterans’ groups don’t really care about the proposal, or that every year, veterans and Boy Scouts dispose of old flags in public flag-burning ceremonies nationwide. Arlen Specter — the “moderate” — will not break party ranks on this one.

By the way, the AP story on yesterday’s subcommittee vote is accompanied by a picture of a guy burning a flag. Just for the record, the guy is in Guatemala, not the United States, and would be able to burn our flag whether Congress backed a constitutional amendment or not.

If grossly offending a large portion of the population is grounds for overriding the first amendment, does this mean we can make Pat Robertson STFU?

  • jhupp – IOKIYAR

    If I ever run into anyone stupid enough (yes, on this one, I will say stupid) to support this, I will recite my mantra:
    The Republicans are desperate. This is no real issue.
    The Republicans are desperate. This is no real issue.
    The Republicans are desperate. This is no real issue.

    I am even tempted to troll the right wing blogs with this.

  • Talk about tyranny of the majority. That’s precisely
    why we have our Constitution, so this kind of
    thing doesn’t happen.

    Say goodby to the establishment clause of the
    First Amendment – most people find that
    grossly offensive. They want the government
    to force their version of Christianity down
    everybody’s throat.

  • Well, Specter is right that all rights should have their restrictions. Not causing a riot or a stampede are restrictions on free speech.

    But considering that the free speech clause is supposed to protect political speech, and there is hardly anything more political than burning the symbol of a political system you want to critize, this amendment would be the STUPIDEST THING EVER.

    Also, as a good Christian, I find the idea of elevating a piece of cloth to the status of an protected idol just blasphemous. I mean, we already have children praying to it every school day, now they want to protect it from burning. It’s Idolatry, I tell you, and every senator who votes for it is going straight to hell (which means both of mine, no doubt).

    Write your red state senators with that notion 😉

  • Maybe we can combine 2 issues in one – any person who burns an American flag in another country can never immigrate to the United States.

    In fact, any person who criticizes the United States or its president can never immigrate.

    The possibilities are endless.

  • So we need a Constitutional amendment to prevent people from “grossly offending” others, eh? The Republicans often use this line of argument to circumvent objections that such an amendment would restrict freedom of speech. They say burning a flag isn’t “speech”, it’s “behavior.”

    I have a great idea, then. Let’s have a Constitutional amendment that bans picking one’s nose in public.

    Amending the Constitution to prohibit “offensive conduct” is nothing but abuse of the Constitution and a worse act of “desecration” than flag-burning.

  • Also, as a good Christian, I find the idea of elevating a piece of cloth to the status of an protected idol just blasphemous.

    This needs to be pointed out more often.

  • The Democrats ought to offer an amendment to the bill (for a constitutional amendment on flag burning) to ban speaking indecent words–such as the “F”-word–in public. Then, we can count all of the Republicans who voted to protect indecent language. Of course, the Democrats could make television ads pointing to all of those Republicans (a.k.a. – the party of potty mouths) who support indecent language in public: When given opportunity to curb swearing in American society, the Republicans …

  • How about a constitutional amendment requiring a minimum IQ score for the office of President?

  • Burning a red, white, and blue cloth to make a political statement:
    un-Constitutional and treasonous

    Bribing politicians with “campaign” money, gifts and trips to influence their voting:
    free speech

    God save America, from itself

  • I love your idea slip kid no more… it is exactly the kind of thing the Dems need to do. Anything that points out the GOP hypocrisy is a good thing – and there is plenty of it.

    Really though, this is just a portion of a larger trend to criminalize everything. War on Drugs. Abortion. Contraception. Sex Toys. Flag Burning. Whistleblowers. I guess the idea is to wrap Americans up a little tighter with rules… as a manager I have seen this before in colleagues. When things start going a little wrong or they feel they are losing control they make up more rules to regain a sense of control. Big power with small minds usually turns ugly.

  • Isn’t this how con men and magicians work? Get the mark/audience to focus on one thing while scamming with the other?

  • Seems to me that selecting the picture they did was just another effort to rally the base around hate of the “brown” people. Maybe I’m being too cynical. Maybe not.

  • Jeff R noted They say burning a flag isn’t “speech”, it’s “behavior.”

    Fantastic. I find unlimited campaign contributions offensive, so under the Rethugs’ theory I can look forward to them offering an amendment to override Buckley v Valeo. Writing checks is not speech, its behavior.

  • Let’s protect the symbol, not what it stands for.

    Warrantless wiretapping? Wha’eva!
    Secret prisons? Good for what ails ya!
    NSA letters? You just wish you got one too (though even if you did, you couldn’t tell me)!

  • “NSA letters?” – CJ

    That would be FBI Security Letters.

    The NSA just wiretaps without warrants, collects the tips they develop (in the thousands), gives them to the FBI, who find maybe one in a thousand has any validity.

  • That those morons have to resort to flag burning as any type of issue tells me how desperate they are. Is that all they can come up with in an election year? Flag burning? Spector is a whore and no moderate. With all of the serious and dangerous issues facing our nation, they have the nerve to waste their time in that committee sending flag burning ammendments to the floor! Are they nuts? Will anyone call them on this one?

    I agree that elevating a piece of cloth to such lofty heights is idolotry. I wish they cared about the constitution and checks and balances as much as they cared about the flag. Can we hope that some day congress will attend to the duties of their office and keep out of individuals private lives.

  • I think this is simply a distraction from the the real problem: American Flag Banana Hammocks.

    The next time you see a dude at the beach sporting one, please, overcome your revulsion and let him know he’s offending your delicate sensibilities.

    Or, better yet, just exercise your right to burn the flag. Ouch!

  • Lance: “Also, as a good Christian, I find the idea of elevating a piece of cloth to the status of an protected idol just blasphemous… It’s Idolatry”

    Bingo, Lance.

    Jeff R: “So we need a Constitutional amendment to prevent people from “grossly offending” others, eh? The Republicans often use this line of argument to circumvent objections that such an amendment would restrict freedom of speech. They say burning a flag isn’t “speech”, it’s “behavior.”

    “I have a great idea, then. Let’s have a Constitutional amendment that bans picking one’s nose in public.”

    And a lot of other offensive behavior: spitting, cutting in line, interrupting conversations, cussing, “snapping” gum, chewing with your mouth open, etc., etc.

    Kali: “How about a constitutional amendment requiring a minimum IQ score for the office of the President?”

    ::Giggle::

  • Anyway… I meant to add that the R’s have no real agenda this year except re-election – why else bring up this meaningless legislation? The House is only in session, what, 25% (???) of this year, they don’t give a rat’s ass about helping anyone but themselves. (OTOH, maybe it’s good they aren’t in session more… less harm done.)

  • “Spector is a whore and no moderate.” – gracious

    Oh, Spector is a moderate! Moderately willing to stand up for his principles. Which means, up until somebody named Frist or Cheney gets into his face.

    I suppose it’s difficult to be extremely moderate 😉

    I’m glad everybody likes the Idolatry point!

  • Does the amendment specifically define “American Flag”? What if I burn a piece of cloth with 11 stripes and no stars? Could I get arrested for burning the old stars and bars? What if I have a white piece of cloth with a picture of an American flag in the middle(with a border around so the cloth is more than just the flag)? What are the limits? Have any of those people thought about these questions?

    (OT: Why do I get “posting closed” when I try to comment? If I come back and comment it works)

  • Just for the record, the guy is in Guatemala, not the United States, and would be able to burn our flag whether Congress backed a constitutional amendment or not.

    Maybe we can invade Guatamala and install a friendly regime there that will enforce laws friendly to us, like not burning our flag.

  • Then if this passes the Republicants can fall back on a ban on urinating on the flag. Probably just as rare, still a non-issue to vet groups, and just as ridiculous as flag-burning.

    Then tearing the flag into pieces, then … you get the idea. There’s a lot of offensive behavior out there to consider.

    Those Republicants and their devious plans…

    • Comments are closed.