Looking forward to a culture-war summer

March 8, 2006

Two weeks ago, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist announced that the Senate will vote in June on a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. It doesn’t have the votes to pass, and Senate Dems don’t see the point in wasting time on a measure that will simply help a few far-right groups’ fundraising efforts, but we’ll see the amendment on the Senate floor in June anyway.

Apparently, it’s going to be that kind of summer. Yesterday, Frist announced that he’s scheduled a vote on a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning for the same month.

Sen. Orrin Hatch’s proposed amendment to the Constitution allowing Congress to ban desecration of the U.S. flag will be brought up in the Senate in June, setting up a dicey campaign-year debate over free speech rights.

Majority Leader Bill Frist announced Tuesday he will bring the Utah Republican’s proposed amendment to the floor at the end of June, just months before voters hit the polls.

Observers say it’s a tried-and-true method to boost Republicans’ election prospects, and one that is needed this year as the GOP wages one of its toughest campaigns in years to keep control of Congress. Critics of the amendment, including many Democrats, say the act of burning or desecrating a flag is protected under the First Amendment.

“For the Republicans, it’s a golden oldie,” said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics. “It always works, at least in part. . . . It never loses its punch.”

When we last visited the subject, the measure had 58 co-sponsors and observers on both sides of the fight said the effort is a vote or two shy of 67, which for supporters, is the magic number to pass the Senate and go on to the states. Since then, nothing’s changed and supporters have not found any new allies.

To their credit, the Republicans told us this was coming. Last September, Senate GOP leaders freely admitted that they would cynically exploit this nonsense as a campaign issue, which is why they would wait until the summer to bring it to the floor.

That’s right, after six years of Republicans dominating every branch of the federal government, the one thing they’re really counting on in the 2006 cycle is a vote on a constitutional amendment that addresses a problem that does not exist.

Will anyone actually buy into such cynical nationalism? We’ll find out in June.

Flag Desecration ^ Images of the Prophet
———————–   —————————–
                               ^

So when is someone going to notice the parallel march to Theocracy here?

  • “For the Republicans, it’s a golden oldie,” said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics. “It always works, at least in part. . . . It never loses its punch.”

    Are there any Dem “golden oldies”? If not, why not? If so, how come we don’t cynically trot them out every so often? Its time we start bringing guns to the knife fight instead of the other way around.

  • Since everyone, including the media, knows that this is a poltical ploy, and Republicans admit about as much, why can’t this FACT (that its a cheap political stunt) itself be turned into the issue.

    Ie., Republicans aren’t serious about addressing the nation’s needs, can’t rise above meaningless cheap partisan politics, divisive non-issues, blah blah blah…

    Or am I just being a rube.

  • I had read a few years ago that the Supreme Court could outlaw flag burning by saying it is NOT protected speech because flag burning could be considered as ‘fighting words’.

    Just like I don’t have the right to say things that I know will provoke a fight, I can’t shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater, and I don’t have the right to burn the flag.

    I am not sure why the Supreme Court didn’t go that way.

    It seems that if the Republicans really wanted to stop flag burning they could try and write a law that would squeeze the action of flag burning into an area of uprotected speech. Of course, if they behaved reasonably then they would no longer have the campaign issue

  • How can burning the symbols of political institutions against which you have major disagreements ever not be regarded as Protected Political Speech?

    And how can elevating a flag to the position of non-desecrateable symbol not constitute heretical idolitry?

    It is both unchristian and unamerican to have a flag-burning amendment.

  • Burning the middle class is o.k. and so is burning the bill of rights, our national security, burning our trade deficit, as is burning the military state of readiness, and so is burning new orleans, as well as burning our education system, and social security, and health care… but for God Sake…
    Save the flag… but not the country?

    I pledge allegience to the flag of the United States of America, AND TO THE COUNTRY FOR WHICH IT STANDS…

  • I cut out a 1990 Herblock cartoon from the Washington Post showing Bush 1 in a nightgown holding up the Bill of Rights, which is in flames and illuminates the American flag. Below the flag is a sign that says “In case of emergency take down and wave.” Frist and company are as predictable as the waves hitting the shore. Divide and conquer.

  • Typical…

    If you aren’t anti-flag burning, then you are pro-flag burning…

    with us or against us…

  • Jon Stewart said something along the lines of ‘Since the majority of flag burnings happen overseas, this is kind of like a constitutional amendment to ban the metric system’

  • “And how can elevating a flag to the position of non-desecrateable symbol not constitute heretical idolitry?”

    Doesn’t matter. Our national Taliban will always tout the Flag as a thing to the worshipped. And the elected Dems will remain silent rather than be thought heretical.

  • I used to live in this big condo complex in SoCal. Every Memorial Day this one realtor would stick little plastic American flags in front of everybody’s front door. It was kind of problematic what to do with the damn things. Leave them outside till they faded, local dogs pooped on them, or neighborhood kids destroyed? Or bring them inside to pile in the load of unwanted junk in the garage or discretely deposit in the bottom of the kitchen trash? Or (gasp!!!!!) touch a match to it and watch the thing melt away?

    I do hope this proposed Amendment covers such idiotic eventualities.

  • I am not sure why the Supreme Court didn’t go that way.

    Neil, burning a flag is a political statement, while “fighting words” are specifically personal and insulting. Letting the fact that people get angry about flag burning determine what is and is not protected will essentially undermine free speech if only because most political rhetoric pisses lots of people off (try watching Bush deliver a SOTU).

    “Fighting words” has to mean more than “words that make people want to fight” or the first amendment means nothing. . . the whole reason we needed it was that people got angry and tried to use government to stop people from saying things they got angry about.

  • The flag is a representation.

    If I draw a flag on a napkin & burn the representation, will I be violating their precious amendment?

  • What about “FREEdHEM” (pronounced “freedom”)? If it is not a political statement to burn the flag, shouldn’t it this be banned as well? I mean, if flag-burning is offensive, I think people dying for hemorroid cream in the middle east is offensive.

    http://www.freedhem.com/

  • Re: flag burning, I think this is almost a bullshit kind of an issue, and maybe one that Democrats have to start thinking differently about.

    If we prohibit some flag burning, it’s a compromise. It’s one narrow corridor of speech-like-activity that’s taken away from the public. It doesn’t directly benfefit anyone to preserve a right to burn the flag, except for people who might be prosecuted for doing it if we didn’t have such a right.

    What I mean is, the main substance of this issue is a rhetorical point, a rhetorical fulcrum for conservatives. They get to posture about how patriotic they are, and to cast doubt on liberals when we argue for allowing flag-burning. Maybe the best thing to do is to say, ‘”You know what, I really don’t care either if people can be fined for burning the flag. It’s an important national symbol, it’s important to a lot of people, and it’s not really giving up a lot if we don’t protect flag burning. But what I’m really concerned about is real security. Like economic security. take for instance…”

    Imagine those words coming out of Jon Stewart’s mouth on his show. Imagine how much credibility he would gain in the eyes of a lot of people who are easily misled by highly dramatized issues like the legal status of flag burning. This might be a way to start re-establishing ourselves in the eyes of a lot of people who have been tricked into thinking that it’s actually the Republicans who listen to the concerns of regular guys and gals, and the Democrats who don’t.

  • It’s just to keep the base in line, nothing more. The 40%
    who pound on their Bibles, worship the flag, hate gays,
    hate anything intellectual, don’t accept evolution and are
    still terrified of communism and socialism. The Repubs
    just drag out the same old props whenever they need
    to fire these people up in time to herd them to the polls.
    Nothing to get upset about, or try to talk rationally about.

    No doubt new tricks will be needed this time around,
    given how far down the Repubs are against faceless
    opponents – although that may change once the faceless
    become the spineless, clueless wonders of the Democratic
    Party.

  • So, what exactly, is the definition of a flag? Does a crayon on construction paper version made in kindergarten class that is used to get the fire going at home mean that the federali will be kicking in the door?

    I’d bet that there’d be only specific vendors with contracts from the government to create “official” flags that fall under the “no burn” law.

    Another contract to friends for the bozos in charge… pissing away tax money as usual.

    That’d be great.

  • The Rethugs are just “fishing” for issues to divide Democrat voters and as a diversion while they “prepare” the voting machines for our next questionable election.

  • What I can’t understand is the focus on flag-burning, when the flag is being abused, allowed to fade & suffer the effects of weather all over the country.
    It used to be, that a flag had to be illuminated if it was left up after dark. Flags are now placed in all kinds of positions, where they sustain great damage. I see lots of tattered flags flying – these should be properly disposed and replaced. The post-9/11 flurry of flag-flying was especially disrespectful to the flag – all the firetrucks with faded, tattered flags streaming off the back end.

    Isn’t there a standard for handling and flying the flag? Maybe we should focus on getting people to comply with that, rather than making grand laws outlawing something that is not a problem!

  • CW said:Isn’t there a standard for handling and flying the flag? Maybe we should focus on getting people to comply with that, rather than making grand laws outlawing something that is not a problem!

    The irony is that burning the flag was once the proper way to dispose of a desicrated flag. Go figure.

  • Re: the Supreme Court decision, I believe that the post above is focused on Rehnquist’s dissent from the majority opinion. Rehnquist’s writes: “as with “fighting words” so with flag burning , for the purposes of the 1st amendment…” But of course fighting words are aimed directly at another person and flag burning could be done in the privacy of my own backyard with no intention to offend. So, Rehnquist’s analogy is a false one. For a good laugh, look at Texas v. Johnson to see the foolish argument made by our former Supreme Court Chief Justice

  • How can any symbol be more important than what it stands for? If the American flag stands for freedom, then the freedom to burn it is implicit.

  • I my opinion, there’s always been some confusion over freedom of expression and freedom of speech. Expression can take many forms, including actions. Speech is just speech. So, while I’ve never favored an anti-flag-burning law, I never quite saw how it was protected as speech.

  • Hillary was going to back a law or an amendment ( I can’t remember which) banning flag burning. It burned my ass when I first thought about it, but now …. Think. If this passes quickly with a lot of support by Dems, it takes the issue off the table. The Ferengi can’t use it as an issue anymore.

  • Typical Republican trap: either lose votes or abandon principles.

    I do think, however, that there is some reason to hope that the country in its discontent will, at last, call bullshit on this tactic. The Democrats need to keep asking, loudly and repeatedly, till we’re sick of it, just why the Republicans are pushing this so hard. Eventually the answer will become clear to most.

  • There is not a single government employee, elected or appointed, who took an oath to defend the flag. They pledge to uphold and defend the Constitution. I say let ’em pass all the amendments they want and just wait to see how many of them, if any, get ratified by the States. It would totally screw Rethugs as far as allowing them wedge issues goes, and their hate-filled agenda will never pass muster in 37 states.

    It would further forever enshrine how petty, evil, bigoted, and ill-fitted they are to serve in government at all.

    It always amazes me that, if you don’t like flag-burning, arrest people for starting fires without a permit. That wouldn’t make for a very good, divisive wedge issue, though. It’s always hard to rally around anything that makes sense

  • Wouldn’t it be a whole lot easier if we just made the flag out of flame-retardent material?

  • Why don’t the Democrats try pushing through an amendement making it illegal to burn, shrink, or dismember a flag? Yes, make little flag logos and pins, and of course neckties and sweater-vests illegal, too?

  • Its not just the Neocon GOP fascists who are pushing this flag burning ban.

    DLC Dinos like Hitlery are also pushing it.

    You can buy a US flag that has flown over the Capitol by writing your Senator.

    If this stupid amendment ever passes, I will buy one and BURN IT on the steps of the Capitol…because it means we have lost our freedom.

  • So we know its coming.. the flag burning/ gay adoption/ prayer in school express….
    and we know they’ll use media bias and big tv ad budgets to market and project these negative images
    and we know it’s fatal to let the repubs trap us into a negative soundbite which is then is used to discredit… (Dean’s scream)..

    The battle will not be over issues but images.
    What the Dems need is a sophisticated counter propaganda unit that understands media and mass psychology to craft skillful responses
    and develops an aggressive counterpunch. A media campaign with the discpline to stay on message.
    Until the Dems understand what is happening to them at the hands of well financed rabble rousing technology, they are doomed to be swiftboated every time.

  • Burning the flag is still the proper way to dispose of worn-out flags. The American Legion does this very thing on Flag Day of all days. Obviously, the supporters of a flag dessicration ammendment don’t intend to outlaw such disposal ceremonies. So it isn’t the act of burning that would be outlawed, it’s what the person is thinking when they are burning the flag. What’s that old saying… When thoughts are outlawed only outlaws will have thoughts….

  • How about a Constitutional amendment banning desecration of the Constitution? Oh Yeah! That’s right! Desecrating the Constitution is all the radical right lives for.

  • IU hate to say it, but this news reminds me (once again) that H.L. Mencken had it right when he said:

    Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.

    Unfortunately.

  • The Dems need to introduce an ammendment that prohibits flying the flag in foul weather, or at night, or touching the ground, or in tatters (where it would be burned). It also must be folded properly when not in use.

    Why not fly the flag upside-down with a burning pyre of bibles at the foot of the flag pole?

  • If nothing else, these bogus issues that seem to crop up every election year prove that way too many Americans are too easily manipulated and, sadly, just plain stupid. Republicans know it and they exploit it, time and time again.

  • Flag burning? How about descrating our laws? And our ideals? Whatever happened to our unalienable rights? What about the truths the the Founding Fathers found to be self-evident?

    Stating the obvious: flag burning amendments are created to portray the most dispicable traitors as “patriots”. First protect our rights! The flag isn’t in much danger, but our liberties are rapidly being stolen.

  • The Republican flag is already protected. You can’t (aren’t supposed to) burn money.

  • “For the Republicans, it’s a golden oldie,” so is the metaphorical flagburning and constitution shreading by GOP

  • Don’t give an inch. Not one lousy inch. Today the flag, tomorrow the Republican contract with America. The following day the ports contract. Burn any of them, go directly to jail.

    Sooooooooo ridiculous. I want my country back.

  • From a post I made back in December after Hillary announced her sponsorship of just such a law-Lets just say this attempt to completey gut the 1st Amendment is less than well thought out

    http://royallykranked.blogspot.com/2005/12/once-again-one-of-most-idiotic-threats.html

    The most important real-world fact with this legislation is that it’s only window dressing of the cheapest sort, only a Constitutional Amendment banning flag defilement for political reasons will pass muster with the Supreme Court

    Anything less than a constitutional amendment will get struck down with the first challenge the Supreme Court hears on the issue

    Now, the problems such an amendment would create if actually enacted

    Which US flag-EXACTLY-is covered by the C.A.?

    Is it the current 50 star version only?

    How about other counter-culture versions of the flag, say the one with a peace symbol in place of the stars?

    How about burning a picture of the US Flag, and if so, does that apply only to color photographs, or b&w and sepia toned pictures as well?

    How about drawings, would burning flag drawing be breaking the law here, and if so, would it depend on how well-done the artwork is? And if someone deliberately draws as bad & goofy a picture of the US flag as possible, is that a legally punishable offense?

    How is using napkins & paper plates with US Flags on them NOT breaking the law, for that matter, what about cakes decorated as the flag, would it now be a jailable offense to eat such an offering?

    Is one allowed to throw away those full-page US flags printed in so many newspapers on July 4th, or are we required to save them, and if so, how reverently must they be stored & maintained to avoid going to jail?

    Will the largest groups which burn flags-the Boy Scouts & Veterans Groups-now be prohibited from disposing of old & worn out flags, or will they get a special dispensation to violate the law others would get punished for breaking?

    If they get that dispensation, what kind of signal does that send to children, that a group can break the law that applies to others?

    How does gutting the 1st Amendment expand freedoms people have died for in combat, how does it make us a safer society, how does it put money in one’s pockets & food on one’s table?

    What is the difference in chemical compositions of flags defiled to make a political point vs those burned for being old & worn out, and since there is none, then how can one’s intent possibly be determined with anything short of an uncoerced confession?

    Say I videotape myself burning an old, worn out flag, and I state that I’m doing it to both show it proper respect AND to protest a governmental policy, the issue then becomes what was my intent at the moment the flame caught the fabric

    I think the term “ThoughtCrime” applies best here

    How many people have actually seen a flag burned right in front of their own eyes-NOT on tv, but something witnessed itself?

    Not many I’d venture, as this is something that happens so rarely in this country that it makes the news when it does occur, so is it really worth changing the Constitution to prohibit something very few of us ever witness in person?

    Politicians who use the flag as a political prop/backdrop at any campaign function defile it far worse than anyone else they condemn on the issue, and when people really think about what such a CA would actually entail, they end up being against the idea

    Whcih means all of us who love & use the 1st Amendment have a lot of reaching out & making our case to do with the very constituents the politicians are trying to attract with their cheap, tawdry & politically offensive pandering, we have logic on our side, and we will keep this Amendment from ever making it into the Constitution

    Now, I’m no lawyer, but if even I can see the obvious faults & flaws here, one can only imagine all the problems a really good 1st Amendment lawyer could bring up with this issue

    Lets hope the taxpayers are forgiving of the huge legal expenses these censorship efforts-by the most publicity-whorish of politicians-always bring about

  • The Rethugs are just “fishing” for issues to divide Democrat voters and as a diversion while they “prepare” the voting machines for our next questionable election.

    Comment by tko — 3/8/2006 @ 2:40 pm

    i think this post says it all. The repugs want issues that are seen as 50-50 split issues at the front and center to bullshit the people into thinking the repugs have 50% support so when the exit polls don’t match the vote they can again claim the statistics are wrong–although only in america, cause when the Ukraines exit polls didn’t match it was instantly understood to be fruad. Americans think it can’t happen here so they ignore it and go back to sleep.

    • Comments are closed.