About Flag Burning

Status
Not open for further replies.
Frank, and whoever else, i too, get upset when i see somebody burning the flag, yep! i do. but you said it yourself"The founding fathers saw free speech as the ability to speek out politically without being silenced by the government." sadly, that is what the flag burners are doing. The same thing happens to another flag that i hold dear, the Confederate flag, in some states groups are/have tried to keep it from flying, another kick in the ass for freedom of speech. Also, i don't believe we need more conservatives in office, what we need is more constitutionalist in office. people that go by the Constitution. the problem w/ conservatives is that they want to legislate morals, and while i firmly believe we need more morals as a country, i do not believe in trying to legislate them. in another thread, i stated that i like the idea of the 10 Commandments being posted in schools, but the community(re; parents) in which the schools are in should be the one who decides that or not. not the government.
this can go on and on, and i've heard a bunch of good stuff on both sides, but in the end, i guess we'll have to agree to disagree!!

------------------
what me worry?
 
The facts are Frank regardless of whether you agree or not...burning the flag is political thought/speech/expression. Otherwise whats the point in burning it? Tell me that huh? Using pornography is a lame liberal arguement, further your "naked child in a sexual position" is illegal and not protected by the 1st amendment

That said, the Fed. gov't shouldn't be involved in it in anyway or form. There are local laws and regulations that deal with all this crap. I can't walk out in the middle of the street or on my neighbor's lawn and set fire to a pile of newspapers or a sack of garbage. The same goes with "hate crime"...its illegal to murder or assault someone whether he/she is black, white, gay, brown, yellow...why does it have to have a Federal law attached to it? All these laws do is build greater power and control in the gov't.

A lot of people seem to believe that the old tired saw about "crying Fire in a crowded building" is Federal...it ain't. The defense tried to use the 1st Amendment as a defense...the Court only found that since such an action can not be related to anything political, its not protected by 1st Amendment. Thus whatever local jurisdictional laws may be applied. Period. "Incite to riot" or "disturbing the peace" works for fire and for burning a flag. We don't need a Federal law about it, much less a Constitutional amendment.

Whether you like it or not Frank, quite a few anti-gunners feel the same about guns and gunowners just as strongly as you feel about flag burners...you want to amend the Constitution to eliminate flag-burning, they want to amend the Constitution to eliminate guns...who is right? Neither of you are right. You either honor the Bill of Rights in its entirety or forget it...anything else is hypocracy and tyranny.

My father is dead...when he was alive you'd never find a more patriotic man. He enlisted in the Marines at age 17 and fought the Japanese, was wounded twice on separate occasions. He was also a very intelligent non-kneejerk kind of guy; wise enough to determine the reason's for an act before passing judgement. Different folks have different reasons for burning a flag...either some Socialist liberal against America or some Conservative against the Federal government's tyranny.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"



[This message has been edited by DC (edited June 26, 1999).]
 
Constitutional amendment is the issue.

If flag burning is something that we want to be illegal then we should have our representatives pass a law against it. If such a law will not hold up to the scrutiny of the Supreme Court then we have either a bad court or a bad law.

What we do not have is a bad Constitution.

If we allow our selves to alter that document for the sake of doing an end-run around the court (what ever the noble cause may be) then we weaken it.

The end doses not justify the means.

The Constitution of the United States should remain as unaltered as possible. The Constitution should remain as a hedge against what the government cannot do and not in any case evolve into infringements of what the People may not do.

Many may love and respect our Flag as much as I do but none of you love it more … not even Frank. Today if I was confronted by flag burners I would, as most of you would, do what I could to stop it. However, if this becomes an amendment to the Constitution of the United States I may sacrifice that which I love greatly (the Flag) for that which I love most (Liberty) … and burn it my self.


------------------
to locate, close with and …
 
45King, DC, great posts. Frank, I hate to be the one to tell you this, but, you are part of the problem. Your values aren't mine, your "patriotism" isn't mine, and your idea of rights is a tad skewed, to say the least.

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." from that slack jawed faggot, Thomas Jefferson. Of course, while Jefferson didn't explicitly say flag-burning, I think we can see the implied message in that quote. Are your feelings hurt when I burn the flag? Too freaking bad. Some anti-gunners want gun control because their feelings are hurt that we own guns.

The absolute last thing we need is an amendment making it illegal to torch a symbol. To me, that flag is beginning to represent all that is wrong with America: oppressive gov't; whining, needy people; complete lack of freedom.

We all have a right to our opinions; I'll even defend your right to yours, Frank. Will you do the same for me?

"Faced with the pain of freedom, man begs for his shackles." Gerry Spence
 
Just wondering... Why has this come up again in Congress? Has there been a rash of flag-burnings lately? Or are they just "doing something" because the hoopla surrounding gun control has gone to the committee?

I certainly have mixed feeling about flag-burning as a freedom of speech, but it certainly does not require an amendment to the Constitution.

Another question...

Should it pass through Congress don't the states have to ratify it?

------------------
John/az

"They come, they eat, they leave...
"They come, they eat, they leave...NOT!!

Bill Clinton (aka: Hopper) Al Gore (aka: Molt) Janet Reno (aka: Thumper)

Ants UNITE!
 
The American Legion is one of the veterans' groups pushing for this amendment. I believe the VFW supports it, as do other groups. Their intentions are honorable.

However, I believe they have carried forward some of the mentality that helped win WWII - "make the government control it".

From my limited experience with the local VFW post, I find many people of the WWII era feel powerless and somewhat confused by the so-called progress we have made since the '40s.

During WWII everybody was a "joiner", in one way or another, in supporting the war effort. False and needless shortages of goods were implemented to create a need for rationing to further unite America.

By comparison, we seem to be a nation of wierd, strange individualists. This makes the "joiners" uncomfortable as they now feel like "outsiders".

The flag issue has become a rallying point for many of these fine people who feel united, and empowered for the first time in decades.

I also believe this is one reason so many of our local WWII veterans strongly support gun control. They equate guns with WWII. We won, therefore there is no need for guns.

Also, many of them feel uneasy about guns:
- Many have lost their firearms skills.
- They are frightened and offended by all the violent TV shows, movies, music, etc.
- The change in concept from "guns are tools" to "guns are weapons of violence" seems needless and harmful.

Therefore, they want to eliminate the perceived threat and cause of their discomfort.

Now, before you "eat my lunch" on this one, bear in mind I am speaking in generalities from what I have seen locally. I fully realize YMMV. But I am surrounded by true heroes from that era that now seek total government control. They are honest but so emotional that they create, modify, and perpetuate any argument (however untrue) that supports their emotional needs. It's heartbreaking.

Y'all have no idea how alone I felt (politically) before I found TFL.
 
From: Ivan88836-27-99 1221PM EDT I believe I know the reason our "Governmink" is pushing this flag burning amendmen. When or if people ever learn the simple fact that the flag that flys in the courts and elsewhere is a Admiralty Flag and represents the US Government Corporation, they may want to burn it. The real AMERICAN FLAG ,which are not gold fringed, represents THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,not THE UNITED STATESLEGAL CORPORATION. If you go into Federal courts and complain that your Constitutional rights are being violated, the judge will tell you to shut up and sit down. Why? Because the courts are part of the legal US Corporation Government and legally do not recognize the Constitution. Look at a court and how it is set up. The judge sits up high like a god and the jury is below him.And the judge tells the jury how to operate. The Founders would be amazed at what we have allowed our court system to become: a corporate whorehouse with tons of corporate lawyers to defend the corporarte state. I am sure this will be considered craqzy talk,but there are people in this still great land that could explain this better than I can. People need to do the research on what is really going on in our Nation. Sure, the flag burning amendment is a smoke screen,but for a different reason as the Corporate US Government gets the few loose ends put together for complete control. Ya, I am a veteran,but you waste your time talking to people in VFW or American Legion. In fact ,few have a clue that we have been living in a corporate state for decades.Sorry for getting carried away,but it is how I feel Ivan8883
 
I have heard this before outside of this forum, and there have been several people on this forum that have said that the gold fringe on the flag represents a "corporate state" and not the true United States. However, my request for references to substantiate this has brought forth nothing.

Where did you get this information? I have searched the web for this information and come up with a blank.

Others say there is no significance to the fringe...

Clue me in if there are such references, and documentation.

Thank you!

------------------
John/az

"They come, they eat, they leave...
"They come, they eat, they leave...NOT!!

Bill Clinton (aka: Hopper) Al Gore (aka: Molt) Janet Reno (aka: Thumper)

Ants UNITE!


[This message has been edited by John/az2 (edited June 27, 1999).]
 
From: Ivan 6-27-99 605 PM EDT John AZ, that is an excellent point on verification on what I and others are saying on gold fringed Admiralty or Martial Law Flag. Brent Johnson who has a show called American Sovereign on short wave W-Fri 4-5 PM EDT 12.160 can explain it better than I can. I will try to get proof and put it on this forum because it may be the most important proof of what this government really is about. Ivan
 
The gold fringe around the flag, I have heard, is to signify the flag for the District of Columbia. The "federal flag", if you will, and is supposed to be a symbol that circumscribes the power of the feds. The American flags which all others may fly does not have the gold fringe and represents the unfettered rights of the states....as though the gold fringe is meant to somehow limit the power of the feds but not the states. I don't know the truth of this but this is what I have heard.

I have included a few quotes from the founding Fathers that, I hope, will give you all insight as to where I get my beliefs from. I assure you, I did not pull them out of thin air.

"On every question of construction (of
the constitution) let us carry
ourselves back to the time when the
constitution was adopted, recollect
the spirit of the debates, and instead
of trying what meaning may be squeezed
out of the text, or invented against
it, conform to the probable one in
which it was passed." Thomas
Jefferson

I entirely concur in the propriety of
restoring to the sense in which the
Constitution was accepted and ratified
by the nation. In that sense alone it
is a legitimate constitution. And, if
that be not the guide in expounding
it, there can be no security for
consistent and stable government."
James Madison

With these words from the founding fathers themselves how can you possibly come up to me and say that pornography is free speech?? How can you come up and tell me that abortion being legal is somehow called out for in the constitution?? Let me repeat these words again........."and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed". Do you see this? Do you understand this? Can you see what Thomas Jefferson meant when he wrote those words? Let me say it again so it really sinks in....... "and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed"

The liberal supreme court has redefined the constitution from its original intent to "more thoroughly address what it sees as the direction society must go". Freedom of speech has been corrupted to encompass things like pornography is legal, flag burning is free speech, the "piss Christ" is freedom of expression, etc. Other areas or rights have been redefined like being able to stop you and search you anywhere and anytime. Until recently your property could be confiscated without the need for your day in court.....CLEARLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Other things have been done by our government and the courts especially that goes against the constitution because of their NEW FOUND INTERPRITATIONS.

A good example is environmental law. Though well meaning, they can have the effect of government confiscation of your property to protect things like the yellow bellied sapsucker without you having recourse or redress of grievances at the loss of value to your property. They have made it illegal for you to do anything with your property,............... you cant build on it, you can't plant crops on it , you can’t do anything with it except leave it as it is. Your property value becomes virtually nothing, no one wants to buy it and because of a government law you cannot ask the government to pay you for the loss of value to your land because of a decision the courts have made through "creative interpritation". That is paramount to the government building a freeway through your house and then telling you "TOUGH LUCK BUDDY".

These "CREATIVE INTERPRITATIONS" of the constitution have done more to take away your freedoms then you know. Let me say the words of Thomas Jefferson again....."and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed". Pornography, flag burning, the piss Christ, marketing violence to our children, gun control, magazine bans, semi-automatic weapons bans, de-facto confiscation of property without compensation, the income tax, closing off of public lands to camping, hunting, hiking, horseback riding, suing the gun manufacturers, tort law, the war powers act, a presidential directive allowing the US government to spy on its own citizens and a whole slew of things have been "CREATIVLY INTERPRITED" to effect a gradual loss of your rights and freedoms. Little by little, bit by bit, you are loosing your constitutional freedom to CREATIVE INTERPRITATION where you all now think it is OK to burn the flag, confiscate peoples property without compensation, close off public land, ban guns, spy on Americans, give queers equal rights....etc. "let us carry ourselves back to the time when the constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit of the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." Now go ahead and tell me the founding fathers meant abortion to be legal, flag burning to be free speech, environmental law allows confiscation of property without compensation, sexual deviancy to be normal, pornography to be free expression, (that’s another good one "FREE EXPRESSION" , Where the hell does that appear in the constitution?) etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

DC, look at the level of comprehensive, thoughtful and intelligent posts. Has this issue stimulated heartfelt responses?? It’s a good thing!

I would also add that CREATIVE INTERPRITATION has caused much strife, greif, and damage to this country....look at the abortion issue and people killing each other over it. Look at the effect of the supreme courts definition of flag burning as free speech. Has this been good for our country? Do we really want CREATIVE INTERPRITATIONS? What's next? CREATIVE INTERPRITATIONS OF OUR GUN RIGHTS??

Here again a few words from our founders bear repeating.....

"In that sense alone it is a legitimate constitution. And, if that be not the guide in expounding it, there can be no security for consistent and stable government." James Madison.

There can be no security for consistent and stable government........ if we continue to creativly interprit the constitution....look at the abortion fight, look at the gun rights fight, look at the flag burning issue......Geez are those words as true today as they were then or what???



[This message has been edited by Frank Haertlein (edited June 27, 1999).]
 
Frank...

I don't have a problem with your opinion. I think you have legitimate gripes, and I suspect we agree on a great many things. I do have a problem with your comprehension.

The Bill of Rights is like the Ten Commandments...they are inviolate. If they are changed (amended) they lose all credibility and meaning. The Bill of Rights is separate from the Constitution....they were formulated in order to ratify the Constitution. They are the contract that allows the Constitution to exist.
Thus, flag burning is a political statement and clearly protected by the intent, spirit and meaning of the 1st amendment. I don't like it but I'll tell you, I can see me doing it if the Fed continue on their merry way of circumventing and destroying the spirit of the United States of America....which if you have forgotten is us, our parents and our children....not the Federal government.

I want you to understand something....saying that abortion is protected, displaying a picture of Christ being pissed on is very different than amending the Constitution. Those were findings of courts but they are not Constitutional amendments.

Personally I am shocked that given a government whose employees and representatives daily violate the Bill of Rights and the Constitution and spend time trying to figure out how to do it better; and who have co-opted everything that the United States of America used to stand for and represent....and now they co-opt the very symbols of the US and make it them....you support such a banal and clearly duplicitous action.

All this has done is given more control and power to the Federal gov't through one more federal law, and given false dignity under the guise of the Constitution

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
My 2 cents: DC touched on the real danger of this law in her first post.

Once the Flag becomes a protected "symbol", expansion of law is sure to follow. What's next? "Objectionable" placards in Washington protests? Protests at the Capitol? Demeaning" the Commander and Chief? Questioning the actions of Federal Police Agencies?

Our forefathers were radicals. I suspect they might not respect a flag burner, but would respect his right to protest without harming others. Take that right away and you open the door for the widest variety of "thought crime" legislation since the "conspiracy" crimes opened by the War on Drugs. And I though we'd learned our lessons. ;)
Rich
 
It's funny how you guy's are so scared of laws. Wether it's a state law or federal law you cringe at the thought that someoe is telling you what to do. You seem to assume that because one law is passed a whole slew of unwanted laws will follow. Forgive me if I'm missing something here but don't they have to be approved as well, and don't we have a say by contacting our representitives on which are good and bad. The Flag burning law is a good law as it stands. If you assume others laws will follow or start loosely interpreting "free speech" like all the liberals do it's very easy to make it sound bad. It's funny how when some gay guy, in the name of free speech, desides to push his sexual desires in our face, you cringe with disgust at how they misuse that term. But know when you think it's to your advantage free speech can apply to the desecration of what symbolizes our country. That flag symbolized our country long before politicians corrupted it. It seems your solution to saving our country is to abandon ship. A law to ban flag burning is not going to destroy our freedom. People that burn the US flag are of the same breed that would blow up a government building (McVey). That's not to say they would but it follows the same thought process. This is not a law passed because flag burning offends people. It offends the country. It demonstrates a willfull desire to desecrate our country. The flag does not represent corrupt government but rather the country we are trying to protect from corruption.

------------------
"It is easier to get out of jail then it is a morgue"
Live long and defend yourself!
John 3:16
 
we need to remember one thing in this discussion. respect must be EARNED, it cannot be commanded. legislation of this type is of "the king is coming, bow down before him" variety. it is foolish to suppose that legislated gestures of respect are genuine, or that real patriots won't feel demeaned by forcing them to comply with something they would have done willingly.
IF congress does pass an amendment, it still must be ratified by 38 states. passage in congress does not make it binding automatically.
flag burning is a gesture of disrespect and/or defiance . while i have strong feelings about our flag, you cannot command my respect for it . my respect was earned.
my respect for the government today has not been.
if we want to see change, it will come from hard work, convincing people to exercise
their right to vote and participate in government. if and only if enough people do so, will we ever hope to see this country stand as a free nation. if we are not willing , then we will fall.

cmore

"treason doth never prosper, what's the reason? for if it prosper, none dare call it treason" sir john harington,

[This message has been edited by cmore (edited June 28, 1999).]
 
The flag is a symbol. When you burn it you make a statement. You may not like it but its a expression of freeom of speech to do so.
The president is also a "symbol", will the next step outlaw criticism of the president?

What about criticism of the government in general?

Its a dangerous game we play here.

------------------
Keith
The Bears and Bear Maulings Page: members.xoom.com/keithrogan
 
I think I am going to burn a flag today. Ooh look out govt buildings! Same mind set as McVey. What a load of hockey. This is getting really silly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top