MSNBC is reporting that the amendment went down by one vote.

Questions for debate:

1.)Was the true intention behind this effort to protect the flag, or was it to rile up the conservative base?


2.)Should we have an amendment against flag burning?

3.)Is the flag the equivalent to federal landmarks that are protected, and thus, deserving of protection?

Allow me to be the first to say: *PHEW!*

Anyway, on to the debate questions:

1.)Was the true intention behind this effort to protect the flag, or was it to rile up the conservative base?

I don't think the Republicans were trying to "rile up" the base. This amendment has been introduced regularly since 1995, regardless of whether the Republicans were in trouble or not. They're just representing the views of their base.

2.)Should we have an amendment against flag burning?

Definitely not. It sets a very troubling precedent to amend the Bill of Rights for something as largely inconsequential as this. The incidence of flag desecration in this country is very low. Public scorn is a much better way of dealing with it, and it seems to be working rather well.

3.)Is the flag the equivalent to federal landmarks that are protected, and thus, deserving of protection?

No. Individual landmarks are unique. There's only one Washington Monument, only one Mount Rushmore, etc., etc. But there are innumerable copies of the flag. Therefore, desecration of an individual copy will not diminish the flag's stature in any real way.

1.)Was the true intention behind this effort to protect the flag, or was it to rile up the conservative base?

Well, I think many Republicans in Congress are honestly thinking that they're protecting an American symbol, knowing at the same time it will rally the troops.

2.)Should we have an amendment against flag burning?

Are you trying to get me nominated for Best Quote 2005-2006, Nebraska?

No, and I can't stress that enough.

As much as I respect the flag, and as much as I find disrespect of the flag distastefull, what is more distastefull, and what is more of a danger than Zippo or Bic lighters is Congress making a "Restricted Speech Amendment", cause that's what almost was begun today.

I will never say that the flag is merely a symbol that is not worth of respect. men and women have died under it and for it and it should be revered, but is the flag itself the reason for their sacrifice? That flag represents over two hundred years of not just a nation, but a cause; an ideal that embodies all the great and growing potential of mankind. The ideal: Freedom. It's foundation: the unalienable, unabridged right to express your thoughts and feelings without repercussion or repression. That is what our brave men and women for over two hundred years have died for, not a collection of colored fabric. In the end, what is more offensive? What is more of a threat to American tradition and culture? The destruction of a piece of cloth, or the slow destruction of the right to speak your mind, no matter who it upsets?

3.)Is the flag the equivalent to federal landmarks that are protected, and thus, deserving of protection?

No, because if that's the case any replica of any federal landmark, which includes statuettes of the White House, Washington, Lincoln, and Jefferson monuments should be protected, and that would just be silly.

There is irony here. Instead of working to protect the men and women that currently fight for the flag, that live under it everyday, that enjoy it's presence in the home, Congress is busy trying to protect the flag itself. The flag isn't the one that needs protecting, members of Congress, we do.

2.)Should we have an amendment against flag burning?
In a word - you'vegottobekiddingmeohhellno!

I may go out on a limb and make the very subjective and biased statement that nobody reveres and respects the flag and what it stands for, than I do. And I think that referring to lighting something fire as speech, is a stretch of the word. And it fills me with disgust when I see images of someone burning or desecrating a flag. An act that represents spitting on the symbol of a free nation that allows one the right of spitting on the symbol of a free nation. Those people are, in my eyes, children throwing a tantrum. Children who are incapable of rational debate and adult conversations.

But, having an amendment that could lead to banning the act of desecrating the flag is ridiculous. I would be more in favor of a ban of burning a copy of the constitution than the flag, but I don't believe either is in the best interest of a free society. Our legislators should not be tying up congressional time and money on laws to prevent people from acting like fools.

I wear the flag on my right sleeve every day that I put on a uniform in garrison, and it symbolizes a great many core ideals that free people should be able to enjoy. One of those is the ability to mock those very freedoms.

Can we convince our representatives to finally start work on meaningful reforms and programs?

Conservative base? If this joke of a proposed amendment received 66 votes, it wasn't just conservatives who were voting for it. This was an attempt to look patriotic for the mid-term elections, period. This has nothing to do with the flag or anything that was debated on the floor of the Senate, it was about getting re-elected. It never ceases to amaze me how little work our elected representatives actually do.

No, this will go down as one of the most meaningless wastes of Congress' time in the history of American government, a close second to the investigations of steroids in baseball by the House Comittee for Government Reform.

No, I can't buy the Jefferson Memorial and blow it up, it isn't my property. If I buy a flag it's mine and I can do whatever I want to it. There's no comparison.

CP

1.)Was the true intention behind this effort to protect the flag, or was it to rile up the conservative base?
I won't pretend to know what was on the mind of the authors of this amendment. It sure seems like that somebody was trying to make the opposition seem like they are 'un-American' for opposing it.

2.)Should we have an amendment against flag burning?
I will join the rest of the above and say heck no!!! Do we not have some real issues that do need some effort on the part of Congress? Last time I looked there was a war going on, an Imperial Presidency that has decided that there are no checks and balances anymore, a huge trade imbalance, global warming, 2nd hand smoking, FEMA, etc. etc.

Yet what does Congress have time for? Gay marriages, and flag burning! Maybe if Congress spent more time on important issues there wouldn't be time to waste on non-issues

3.)Is the flag the equivalent to federal landmarks that are protected, and thus, deserving of protection?
Not even close. I spent 9 years of my life defending the constitution of the United States, not the flag. My eldest daughter is currently serving. That piece of paper included a thing called Free Speech. I may not like somebody says, but I will defend their right to say. Just don't ask me to sit on a jury if the response to a flag burning incites a riot. I won't be on the side of the burner.

1.)Was the true intention behind this effort to protect the flag, or was it to rile up the conservative base?

There was probably a little from Column A, a little from Column B, and a LOT from Column C. Column C being "make Democratic Senators up for re-election in key states take a stand on this issue before the '06 election."

2.)Should we have an amendment against flag burning?

I think it is unnecessary and I do not support it.

3.)Is the flag the equivalent to federal landmarks that are protected, and thus, deserving of protection?

This is an interesting POV that I have not heard before. But I don't believe it works. I think it should be against the law to burn a public flag (i.e. hanging from a post office, just as I think it should be illegal to vandalize a federal landmark). But burning a privately-owned flag negates this analogy. Also, the flag is a symbol. The landmark itself, while a symbol, is an actual physical structure. A flag is produced en masse and each duplication is a flag. So no, I don't believe a flag should be protected under the same analogy that protects federal landmarks.

As the usual lone detractor on this issue, first let me state that this entire exercise was political posturing. And I agree that there should not be a Constitutional amendment dealing with flag burning no more then there should be amendments for lying, cheating, stealing, and a host of other issues we have other ways to manage.

With that being said, I wish they'd drop the Constitutional ban and go for a federal law stating that flag-burning is considered hate speech much like burning a cross. In my mind, the mayhem that results in yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater is not unlike the mayhem that could result (just because you yell "fire" does not automatically mean mayhem will occur) in violently destroying an object that has deep symbolic meaning to some groups of people.

A flag is no more simply cloth and a stick than a cross is two sticks nailed together. However, burning one is considered hate speech.

I know....I know...I heard it already. You don't care so I shouldn't care. It doesn't harm you so it shouldn't harm me. Blah blah blah. But in my mind, torching important symbols such as flags, crosses, or whatever is not peaceful assembly. These are designed to intimidate groups of people and incite more violence.

But hey, that's only me. A middle class white male who has no right to ask for tolerance. I'm supposed to only provide it.

I agree with you DR...in part.

The Supreme Court ruled in 2003 that you can't burn a cross. What's the difference between a cross and a flag? Each represents something sacred to a large group of people. The burning of each is deeply offensive to this large group of people. The act of burning is comparable in motive: to make a deep seeded, emotional point.

If one is not protected speech (cross burning) why should the other be?

1.)Was the true intention behind this effort to protect the flag, or was it to rile up the conservative base?
It wasn't to rile up any conservatives. Its intention was to find out who supports it. It was, of course, a political move as all things in Washington are.

2.)Should we have an amendment against flag burning?

The question is: should we need one? States should be allowed to regulate this activity in the same way that they are allowed to regulate cross burning. Burning something is not speech.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/speech

No actions there, only the utterance of words--which burning something is not. The Supreme Court disagrees with me and has done so on numerous occasions. This is just my personal opinion on "speech".

3.)Is the flag the equivalent to federal landmarks that are protected, and thus, deserving of protection?
No. Landmarks are property and the reason for protecting them is different than that of the flag. The Supreme Court has held that the flag, as a symbol of the United States, is not entitled to such protection, which is the sad part of this whole affair. It is these court decisions which make a Constitutional amendment process the only avenue to resolving this issue which many regard as an important protection of the symbol of the United States.

1.)Was the true intention behind this effort to protect the flag, or was it to rile up the conservative base?

I’m sure there’s a certain element of conservative play here. Since the GOP has had control of congress there has been six attempts for this amendment. As an issue it certainly has all the credentials of conservative ideology, with the notable exception of “less government intervention in your personal life”.

2.)Should we have an amendment against flag burning?

No. I’d be the last person to burn a flag but might consider if this amendment was ever passed. Would agree this has to be a considerable waste of time and it’s pure political posturing, we all just need to remember this in our next elections.

3.)Is the flag the equivalent to federal landmarks that are protected, and thus, deserving of protection?

Night and day difference as pointed out.

Had a bit of a problem finding the exact text of the amendment, but one source cited the following:

The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.

It’s being debated and reported as “The flag burning” amendment. However if the above is the actual wording of the amendment than it could have far reaching implications. So no more “flag-ish” related shirts, shoes, apparel, deely-boppers that you wear on your head for Fourth of July celebrations, and we can’t drape Old Glory around our proud selves when we win the 2014 World Cup? A case could be made that it’s physical desecration of the flag.

So, leave it up to the Supreme Court? Why not, this group just slid another civil liberty eroding decision past us by making it ok to enter your house with a search warrant without knocking on the door or any prior notification. I’m sure they’d have fun with one.

I’ve said it dozens of times, our civil liberties won’t disappear over night, they’ll gradually fade into oblivion.

1.)Was the true intention behind this effort to protect the flag, or was it to rile up the conservative base?

Neither. It was a political ploy to divert from more pressing issues. Such as the war in Iraq. Such as the state of education in this country. Such as border control. Etc.

2.)Should we have an amendment against flag burning?

No. Free speech and all that. However, regarding the very interesting argument about how flag burning should be classified as hate speech as burning crosses is. I don't think either one should be illegal. Free speech is free speech, whether it's hateful or not. I'm not sure I want the govt telling me what I can and can't say, or how. That said, one should not be able to burn a flag or cross that belongs to someone else, including the govt, or on someone else's property.


3.)Is the flag the equivalent to federal landmarks that are protected, and thus, deserving of protection?

No. A federal landmark belongs to the govt. You can't burn their flags either. you can only burn your own.

It seems like this is an annual debate where almost nothing changes in the way people feel. The last time this was brought up there was very little support for it. As I recall it was a bunch of "no's" and "this is free speech." And lo and behold, the exact same thing has happened.

Now as for why this keeps getting introduced if most people on AD (who are most likely smarter and more well versed in politics than the average person) are against it. I can only assume that this is either a diversionary tactic by the republican, our representatives don't actually represent us, or that mainstream America actually does want this amendment. I'm not sure which it is, and it may be a mixture, but I (still) don't think we need this amendment. What a surprise.

1. It can't be just a coincidence that three hot button issues, all appealing to social conservatives, have come up in the last few days. First the issue of same-sex marriage, then the issue of flag burning, and now the "under God" issue.

Link



The fact that an "American Values Agenda" even exists is clear evidence to me that the issue of flag burning was brought up only to stir up the conservative base of the GOP. They have the right to do this, of course, and they would be foolish not to do it. That doesn't mean I can't tell pure self-promotion when I see it. I'm just glad that all three of these recent attempts led to no actual legislation.

2. Absolutely not. Let me make it clear here that I am also opposed to "hate speech" laws in general, and that I support the right of someone to burn her own privately owned cross as an expression of opinion. It is imperative that all opinions, no matter how repulsive, be allowed expression.

3. This is a very strange analogy to make. "Landmarks," by definition, are unique. American flags are everywhere. The only possible way that the American flag could be thought of as a "landmark" would be to consider the idea of the flag; its Platonic ideal, if you will. There is no way to destroy this, so this analogy is meaningless.

I can hardly believe there are 66 idiots in the Senate that think the Constitution needs to be amended to fix a problem that isn't a problem. Hasn't anyone on the Hill heard that 40 million Americans have no health care coverage? Talk about your "do-nothing Congress."

Someone reported on the news last night that the reported incidents of flag burning rose in 2005. From three to four.

I believe this is what Nikita Krushchev meant when he said politicians build bridges even where there are no rivers.

The kind of cross-burning that is outlawed as hate speech is a completely different thing compared burning of a US flag. To quote Wikipedia: "In 2002, the United States Supreme Court ruled that while a cross burning at a KKK rally is protected by the First Amendment, a burning cross used as intimidation doesn't enjoy the same freedom due to the fact that the symbol is used as a threat."

Burning a cross near someone's home is a practice used by white supremacists to intimidate minorites and supporters of minorities. It was not intended as a desecration of the object burned (the cross) at all, any more than disposing of a worn-out flag by burning it is intended to desecrate the flag, or cremation is intended to desecrate a corpse. "Lighting the cross" (as the KKK refers to it) has historically been used as a reminder to the powerless and oppressed from the dominant majority that if minorities get too uppity, they will be murdered with impunity.

Please explain how burning a US flag (for whatever reason) is comparable to the terroristic tactic of lighting a cross in order to further intimidate a historically oppressed minority. For instance, where are the families who literally cower in their homes in well-founded terror whenever a flag is burned? (Or as this amendment may have it, when someone burns a Crayola drawing of a flag, or a T-shirt bearing a photo of the flag, or a pair of US flag boxer shorts?).

Laws against cross-lighting aren't the least bit about "protecting a symbol" (whatever that even means). They are about protecting people who have very legitimate reason to fear that the burning is a prelude to murderous violence.

1.) Was the true intention behind this effort to protect the flag, or was it to rile up the conservative base?

The true intention behind this effort was to identify the dangerous liberals who pose a threat to our country by daring to assert that poverty, homelessness, lack of health coverage, and job outsourcing pose far greater threats to Americans than having the right to destroy a symbol in the name of free speech to make their point.

2.) Should we have an amendment against flag burning?

No. While I personally find distasteful the practice of burning the flag in a demonstration, the concept of freedom of speech is an important one. In addition, flags do deteriorate from the ravages of time and weather, and burning a flag is the proper way to dispose of Old Glory before replacing it with a brand new one. This has been covered in before.

I would add that asking the question, "Who does the practice actually hurt?" must be considered before any legislation of this nature is undertaken.

3.)Is the flag the equivalent to federal landmarks that are protected, and thus, deserving of protection?

The flag is the equivalent to federal landmarks when flying over the tomb of the Unknowns or at other monuments. If a protestor scaled a flagpole at a public building to torch the flag while it is flying, then I think it is a crime much as defacing a statue would be.

But to go to a local retailer and buy a flag before it was torched in a demonstration could hardly be compared to attacking a federal landmark, unless you think purchasing a small replica of say, the Empire State Building and then melting it in a demonstration was destroying a landmark as well.

I've got to believe that we send the politicians to Congress to ruminate and act upon weightier matters, such as why are we sending the cream of the crop of our middle and lower-income classes ostensibly to fight and die for a bunch of Iraqis, who would sooner have us leave our best and our brightest at home and try to solve their internal problems by themselves. Where is our sense of perspective? I shudder to think where our heads are these days.

Questions for debate:

1.)Was the true intention behind this effort to protect the flag, or was it to rile up the conservative base?

I have worked the midnight shift, sat in a lunchroom at 4:00 AM, and discussed this issue numerous times over a long career. It is an issue that seemed to surface among NRA members and veterans every time an American Flag was burned in a demonstration... in Iraq, in Iran, in North Vietnam, in China... No one has yet been able to explain to me how amending the United States Constitution would prevent someone from burning an American Flag on the public streets of a foreign Country.

2.)Should we have an amendment against flag burning?

If we have a serious problem in the United States, let's begin by passing a law to ban the practice. It would require a simple majority, be enforceable in the United States, and still allow politicians to wrap themselves in a now flame proof flag for the next election cycle. Someone could then arrest the VFW members who were ritually burning ragged, defaced, faded, etc. American Flags in an annual ritual to honor the flag, and the scenario would be set to have a court challenge of the practice taken to the Supreme Court. Until the Supreme Court rules that it is indeed unconstitutional to ban the practice of burning American Flags, why do we need to amend the Constitution?

3.)Is the flag the equivalent to federal landmarks that are protected, and thus, deserving of protection?

Here, I keep threatening to purchase a camera and do a photo-essay. On any given day, I can find flags that have flown at half mast since 9-11-2001. They are flown 24/7 without benefit of lighting. They are not taken down when it rains. They are faded. The stripes have separated. They are ragged. They should be taken down, burned, and replaced. Their replacements should be properly flown or not at all. I am personally far more offended by some of the rags that I see flying over businesses which want to garner the the support of "Patriotic Customers" than by a crowd of teen-agers burning an American Flag in the streets of Baghdad. Our flag means nothing more to that foreign teenager than "U! S! A!" An appropriate response to such actions might be for American Teenagers to burn an Arab Flag in the streets of Washington D. C. Such an action however, might result in International outrage as the symbols on their flags are, if memory serves me right, religious messages.

Perhaps, to protect our nation from attack by the incensed citizens of other countries, Congress should enact legislation that bans the public burning of any nation's flag within the borders of the United States. I fail to see the wisdom however of a constitutional amendment that would commit the full retaliatory force of the United States military to attack a rioting mob in the streets of a sovereign nation because a 15 year old put a cigarette lighter to an American Flag.

1.)Was the true intention behind this effort to protect the flag, or was it to rile up the conservative base?

Neither of the above. It was a show of hands as to who are the real idiots. Well, they represent people, so I guess . . . I won't go there.

2.)Should we have an amendment against flag burning?

No, it's trivial, although passage would be a hoot. I'd don an Uncle Sam costume and hand out citizen citations for anyone desecrating the flag, according to my personal opinion as to what that might be. The irony of the situation would be richer than double fudge chocolate cake.

3.)Is the flag the equivalent to federal landmarks that are protected, and thus, deserving of protection?

No. Federal landmarks are owned by everyone. A flag is owned by an individual or organization. It's up to the individual or organization to treat the flag with respect, or not. Hey, you know that property rights are involved here? Talk about a can of worms. How dare the feds tell us what to do with our stuff.

I haven't thought of it in that light before, excellent point!. I could see a law against desecrating a flag flying from a school building, courthouse, or that kind of thing. But when an individual owns it, it is their property. It would be interesting to see if the amendment were passed, if the highest court in the land would rule that you don't have the right to/of property.