Hillary and a ban on flag-burning

December 5, 2005

The New York Post reported today that Sen. Hillary Clinton “has quietly signed on to a Republican measure that makes it illegal to desecrate the American flag — a move that will boost her credibility in the conservative ‘red’ states.” At first, this seemed like horrendous news for those of us who hope to see the amendment fail. As of last month, supporters of a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning were a vote or two short — and Clinton was considered an opponent of the bill. Had she switched?

Fortunately, no. Clinton has signed on to a measure sponsored by Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah) to avoid a constitutional amendment. Bennett — who has said, “When my Senate career is over, I don’t want the most important constitutional vote that I have cast to be one that weakens the First Amendment” — has come up with his bill as an alternative approach to the issue.

U.S. Sen. Bob Bennett, a longtime opponent of amending the Constitution to ban flag-burning, has introduced a bill that would criminalize certain cases of flag desecration.

The Flag Protection Act (S. 1370), introduced on July 1, would make it a crime to damage someone else’s flag — including those owned by the federal government — or to damage a flag in a way that promotes violence. The Republican senator from Utah said he wanted to make it clear that he doesn’t support flag-burning, but he does support the constitutional rights of expression symbolized by the United States flag.

“My objection to a constitutional amendment should not be construed as demonstrating indifference to the issue of reverence for the flag,” he said.

I don’t blame Clinton for signing on to the Bennett measure; in fact, I’m surprised more Dems haven’t done so already.

First, it’s federal legislation, not a constitutional amendment. Second, I’m fine with protecting others’ flags, since destruction of private property is illegal anyway. I’m not quite sure how they’d enforce flag damage that “promotes violence,” but since this whole mess is about crass political exploitation anyway, I’m happy to let Judiciary Committee lawyers hash it out.

What’s more, Senate Republicans don’t like the bill, so it’s basically an easy thing for Senate Dems to sign onto with impunity. It may be cynical, but it’s hard to blame a Dem planning a presidential run for pursuing this approach.

You know I used to like Hillary, but her constant pandering to everyone is really beginning to seriously annoy me.

  • I agree with ET. She lost my respect when she started making a big deal out of violent video games. As if government doesn’t have enough issues to worry about she has to go attack something that is due to bad parenting and not with the industry.

    Pandering to the right [or left] is such a sign of weakness in a candidate for me.

  • When Bill ran the first time for president, in 1992, I proudly wore a large button which said “Vote for Hillary’s Husband”. During the 1996 campaign I put an animated webpage promoting Clinton/Gore with a somewhat tongue-in-check pre-promotion of a Gore/Clinton (Hillary) ticket for 2000.

    My view of Hillary has soured a great deal since her entry into the Senate. She’s obviously as committed as Kerry and Gore were to (1) polls (which measure things which wouldn’t exist if they weren’t measured) and (2) focus groups (the replacement for creative, gutsy, imaginative, insightful political operatives). I see no future in that, at least not one which excites me.

    I’d like to think there’s someone out there with a fire in the belly, damn the polls, full speed ahead, let the campaigner lead the way view of politics. But I fear that died in Dallas, Nov 22, 1963, if not earlier with the end of the buck-stops-here presidency of Harry Truman. We seem to have crossed some kind of Rubicon into an impersonal, managed, boring and ruinous era with no way back to anything human or even humane.

  • Hillary is no longer on my dance card.

    I also think this legislation is ill conceived.
    It doesn’t satisfy the extremists (although
    there’s a hell of a lot of them) who simply
    hate flag desecration. They don’t care
    whether it’s intended to incite violence
    or not. It’s the act that drives them crazy,
    and the Supreme Court has ruled that
    the act by itself is Constitutional.

    Only a Constitutional Amendment will
    satisfy these crazies, so we go on and
    on pandering to them, until they get
    their way.

  • If we already have laws that protect private property, such as a person’s own flag, why do we need to have duplicative laws?

    The Republicans in Wisconsin are pushing to amend the state constitution to define marriage as a ‘man and a woman.’ But state law already defines marriage as a ‘husband and wife.’ Part of the democrats argument is that this is an unnecessary duplicative effort….. You are taking away one of our arguments Steve.

    😉
    If the Demos nominate Hillary, I’m pledging right now to cast a write-in vote.

  • HIlary has never been on my dance card for one reason: she’s a Senator. That’s part of my 2008 candidate selection algorithm. 1) No more Senators (Clinton, Kerry, etc., etc.,) 2) no more rookies (Clark, though it pains me to say so – we’ll see where he is in 2008), 3) No more insurgents (Dean – sorry, gang), 4) who’s left?

    Right now, that algorithm basically leaves Warner. I’m not totally thrilled with that. On the other hand, I am convinced that Democrats can’t win national elections without making at least some southern, suburban and other red-state inroads. It sucks, but it’s reality, and it’s what Hilary is thinking of – that and her robust approval ratings in upstate New York. I don’t like it, but I can’t blame her.

  • mxp – Good point about private property.

    I’m not quite sure how they’d enforce flag damage that “promotes violence,” but since this whole mess is about crass political exploitation anyway, I’m happy to let Judiciary Committee lawyers hash it out.

    It becomes decided that all flag desecration incites violence, thus no more flag desecration. Do you actually still have any trust this administration, in any way? Even if you argue it will be “career lawyers” writing the opinion, we have seen that non-appointed officials do not matter.

  • I use to admire Hillary Clinton. But after watching Hillary and Bill choose political expediency over what’s right, particularly with health care and welfare “reform,” I’m just disgusted. I really question Hillary’s judgement on issues like flag burning and Iraq. Taking a “stand” like this isn’t going win her the praise, affection and votes of Red States Americans. I don’t think she’ll ever win the praise, affection and votes of the red states simply because she’s Hillary Rodham Clinton. People aren’t going to forget years of Clinton bashing because she’s now for the occupation of Iraq and against flag burning.

    I’ve decided if Hillary’s the Dem choice for president I won’t be voting. Her candidacy willl guarantee a Republican landslide.

  • The idea of not burning a flag in a way that promotes violence is the same as saying things with the proper time, place and manner in consideration…while i’m not sure that it’s actual legislation; the most popular example of this is not saying ‘fire!’ in a theatre unless there’s a fire. we have free spech in all its forms (pure, plus and symbolic) as long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of someone else. the kkk can have rallies so long as they’re not in a place that would incur riot. and the same would be true for the action of symbolic speech in burning a flag. I’m not sure that I made sense, but I tried.

  • Slightly off topic. Shouldn’t prohibiting flag burning be a law in the US Code? The Constitution is basically the document that lays out the structure of government and gives us our rights and theoretically keeps the government out of our bedrooms.

    I’m assuming flag burning would be either a felony or misdemeanor, with a penalty or fine, you can’t put sentencing guidelines in a Constitutional Amendment, unless your the president of El Salvador or Pakistan.

    I think this is REALLY a nonsense wedge issue.

  • bcinaz,

    you are correct, flag burning is indeed covered by the US Code. and the irony is overwhelming…..

    4 US Code 1
    Section 8
    (k) The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning.

  • FreakyBeaky

    “…2) no more rookies (Clark, though it pains me to say so – we’ll see where he is in 2008″…”

    As the one of the self-designated Clark fan on this comment board, I request clarification. Rookie? Do you mean in politics? Clearly not as a campaigner, administrator or national figure. He ran for the Dem nomination in 2004. He was the Supreme Allied Commander for NATO in the late 90s. He currently is the de facto expert for Congressional Dems in national security matters and is a national security “expert” on Fox News.

    So you must mean a “rookie” in terms of politics. Why is having no political experience automatically a good thing?

  • The “promotes violence” clause is the hole through which the entire world would pass. As destroying the property of others, including that of the federal government, is already well addressed in our jurisprudence, I’d prefer our officials spend their time on more pressing issues. Like the BCS. ;|

  • mxp,

    Good pickup. I would also like to note that while the local boy scouts in my area have continued to make “flag disposal” services available, they now leave out any reference to the fact that they dispose of the flag by burning it…apparently they don’t want to be labelled as anti-American?

  • Yep, flag burning that promotes violence simply means it’s your own fault that Goober had to kick the snot out of you for burning a flag.

  • If you thought Kerry brought out the red flags and “fighting words” in various parts of the country, you ain’t seen nuthin’ yet in terms of the reaction to HRC’s candidacy. The reaction is not entirely visible yet, given the fact that the election is so far off and there is no assurance that she will emerge as 2007 rolls around.

    It is the ONE thing that assures the Democrats will go down in flames again. But there seems to be this death wish, or is it just the comfortable position of being loved by some while being the minority “opposition” party with little accountabililty and a whole lot of visibility.

    • Comments are closed.