I'm an Amendment to Be, Yes an Amendment to Be...

Kerry Howley | June 15, 2005

It's flag burning amendment time in the Senate again. USA Today reports:

The Senate may be within one or two votes of passing a constitutional amendment to ban desecration of the U.S. flag, clearing the way for ratification by the states, a key opponent of the measure said Tuesday.

"It's scary close," said Terri Schroeder of the American Civil Liberties Union, which opposes the amendment. "People think it's something that's never going to happen. ... The reality is we're very close to losing this battle."

An advocacy group that supports the amendment says reported "flag desecration incidents" in the U.S. declined last year. To one. Regardless of how far the measure goes, which I doubt will be very far at all, burning a flag just isn't a very popular or interesting form of dissent.

Whole thing here.

[Via Rational Review.]

Comments

|6.15.05 @ 1:58PM|#

Boy: But if we change the Constitution, then we can make all sorts of crazy laws!

|6.15.05 @ 1:59PM|#

I completely share the last sentiment. Instead of burning the American flag, one should think of waving the Gadsden or, better yet, Culpeper Minutemen Flag ..

BattleAx to grind.

|6.15.05 @ 2:01PM|#

Don't worry, this amendment is just some campy 70s throwback that appeals to Gen-Xers. We need another Vietnam to thin out their ranks....

|6.15.05 @ 2:04PM|#

This is trickier than it seems. If the amendment says something along the lines of "You people can't burn flags anymore," the court might take "burn" to mean "say anything with heated speech" and "flags" to mean "any symbol of US government power"

|6.15.05 @ 2:05PM|#

I'm 34 years old and I've never in my life seen a flag burnt in person. Videos yeah, but it's not like I'm dodging burning flags as I'm walking down the sidewalk.

However, it's not uncommon to see yahoos attach flags to their SUVs, which prompty fall off into the street and get ground into a greasy black clot in a few hours.

So if they'll get sent to Gitmo, I'm for it.

Y'all is desecratin' the flag my forefathers rebelled against!

|6.15.05 @ 2:05PM|#

In light of the new meaning of "commerce," y'know

|6.15.05 @ 2:05PM|#

Holy crap, I didn't think the states would touch such an amendment, which would make passage through the Senate king of a moot point.

But then I read in the article that state approval would be a "foregone conclusion."

Man, what an embarassment if this gets ratified...

|6.15.05 @ 2:07PM|#

You know I can think of many amendments that I'd like to see tacked onto the Constitution. For instance, a balanced budget amendment. And I'd like to think that those Republicans, who are supposedly far more serious than Democrats and far more concerned with limiting the power of government, would join me in that stance.

Instead, they're pushing for bans on flag burning and men kissing each other.

Yep, them Republicans are real grown-ups!

|6.15.05 @ 2:08PM|#

I am all for it if desecration of the flag were to include (as I believe the current rules state) putting flag on your car (only allowed for heads of state), not taking your flag down at night, letting the flag touch the ground, etc. In other words all the crap that the fake patriots in our midst do on a daily basis.

|6.15.05 @ 2:09PM|#

I remember when this last came up for discussion, when I was in college, some guy supported the amendment on the grounds that "Marines FOUGHT and DIED to plant that flag on Iwo Jima!"

"No, they didn't," I said. "They fought and died to take control of Iwo Jima away from the Japanese. If all they wanted to do was plant the damn flag, don't you think Roosevelt and Tojo could have reached an agreement? 'Hey, Tojo, you guys can keep the island, but we'd just like to send six marines and a LIFE Magazine photographer there to plant the flag and take an iconic picture. How does that work for you?"

I felt so sorry for that guy; it was after the Cold War and before 9-11, so the poor devil had no idea which enemy to accuse me of being in cahoots with.

|6.15.05 @ 2:10PM|#

Regardless of how far the measure goes, which I doubt will be very far at all, burning a flag just isn't a very popular or interesting form of dissent.

Kerry, baby, you're killin me here. How can you be so sanguine about the loss of yet another one of our civil liberties? Sure, sure, McCain-Feingold fucked over the first amendment more than this would. But they're something about having an anti-free speech measure in the goddamn Constitution that just sets my scrotal hair on end.

Please, don't let this happen.

i love you always...

|6.15.05 @ 2:11PM|#

Whoops. Forgot the whole point of my last post--the reason I don't like national symbols is because way too many people confuse the symbol with what it's supposed to symbolize. Like that guy, who truly believed that the whole point of World War Two was to plant the flag on enemy territory, not take control of said territory.

|6.15.05 @ 2:17PM|#

Well, I guess the right-wing talk radio idiots have to have something to talk about...

|6.15.05 @ 2:17PM|#

Thorea wrote: "Instead, they're pushing for bans on... men kissing each other."

Which proposed amendment is that?

|6.15.05 @ 2:19PM|#

Jennifer wrote: "I remember when this last came up for discussion, when I was in college, some guy supported the amendment on the grounds that "Marines FOUGHT and DIED to plant that flag on Iwo Jima!"

"No, they didn't," I said. "They fought and died to take control of Iwo Jima away from the Japanese. If all they wanted to do was plant the damn flag, don't you think Roosevelt and Tojo could have reached an agreement? 'Hey, Tojo, you guys can keep the island, but we'd just like to send six marines and a LIFE Magazine photographer there to plant the flag and take an iconic picture. How does that work for you?"

--------------------------------------------------

That's pretty silly. You're normally better than this. Your scenario is no more likely than Roosevelt approving the the rising sun flag be flown over California after Pearl Harbor.

|6.15.05 @ 2:20PM|#

Does it make it illegal to cut a hole in the middle of a flag and wear it as a pancho? If so Kid Rock is in deep trouble.

What if sequined Confederage Flag prom dress girl's date wanted to wear a sequined American Flag tux (complete with a sequined red white and blue top hat)? That's far more of a desecration of the American Flag than burning it.

Actually, in all seriousness. I heard the amendment mimics the original flag desecration laws which included things like making clothing out of the flag or depicting the flag on clothing. There are going to be a lot of pissed of people with that one. Especially the guy making the "We Remember" tshirts. He'll lose a bundle.

|6.15.05 @ 2:22PM|#

Forget about the flag part; keep your eye on the fine print.

The flag stuff is what will be discussed in the media, but the actual language of the amendment probably won't be.

A real abomination could slip through if people aren't careful.

|6.15.05 @ 2:24PM|#

Borat-
If Hirohito said "We'll end the war right now, because ALL we want to do is plant our flag in California, your land and mineral wealth has nothing to do with it," then yes, I do think that would have happened. Planting a flag isn't what either leader wanted; it's a SYMBOL of what each leader wanted.

|6.15.05 @ 2:24PM|#

And what the fuck is Feinstein doing voting for this thing. Is there anything positive about the woman?

drf|6.15.05 @ 2:25PM|#

what about buring the flag as part of its disposal ceremony?
(snicker)


borat: c'mon. the main point of what jennifer is saying should be well-taken. it's the whole symbol/ that which is symbolized thing. getting rid of the symbol doesn't have to change what is symbolized. c'mon.

|6.15.05 @ 2:26PM|#

Jon,
Do you have a link to the actual language?

|6.15.05 @ 2:30PM|#

The link didn't have the text of the proposed amendment. The last time flag-desectration as a big issue came around (mid 90's?) I recall asking what about the cancelled flag stamps?

Is that not a desecration of the flag? Some stamps are more idealized graphics than others, so maybe it depends on the art. But the action, "to cancel", is clearly desecration.

Would this amendment forbid the use of flag stamps? Or does it not count when a government agency desecrates a flag image?

|6.15.05 @ 2:30PM|#

I hope it passes. THen we can have a huge flag-burn cookout, all get arrested/fined, and use the event to draw attention to the fact that most of the lawmen in DC are clearly a bunch of fucking idiots... wasting our tax dollars sopeona-ing baseball players, preventing terminally ill people getting "high", and futtering over whether homosexuals might officially promise to love and cherish one another forever.

god it's enough to give you a headache.

|6.15.05 @ 2:36PM|#

When this amendment gets tacked onto the Constitution, will the federal government give me just compensation for the price of the flag I have at home under eminent domain, since that flag is my property?

Vache Folle|6.15.05 @ 2:39PM|#

Some of my neighbors are flag desecrators. They put small flags near their mailboxes right where my dogs like to piss. The old red white and blues are now orange yellow and violets.

Would burning a picture of a flag count as desecrating a flag? What if your flag had 48 stars or 11 stripes and wsn't really a flag at all? Could you blow your nose on it, then?

|6.15.05 @ 2:43PM|#

Paraphrasing A. Whitney Brown: "What better way for a country to show its love for liberty than to allow its citizenry to burn their own flag?"

Or something like that. I've tried in vain to find that original quote from his "Big Picture" segments on SNL.

|6.15.05 @ 2:45PM|#

Last time it came around, the text looked like this:

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

|6.15.05 @ 2:46PM|#

Vache Folle - Don't forget the Malaysian flag!

|6.15.05 @ 2:46PM|#

Borat-

Fair enough, the amendment wouldn't actually ban men from kissing. My point is that the GOP isn't trying to amend the Constitution in response to, say, massive deficits or campaign finance laws (an infringement of free speech). No, they're trying to amend the Constitution in response to men kissing and a few hippies burning flags.

Good to see where their priorities are.

|6.15.05 @ 2:49PM|#

a few hippies burning flags

Correction: One hippy.

Freedom's just another word for nothing left to burn...

|6.15.05 @ 2:52PM|#

Jennifer's right; confusing the symbol with what it represents is, to my (Christian) mind, idolatry. This is why some Muslims come unglued if someone doesn't handle the Koran to their liking; I think a flag burning amendment would be analogous to that. And yeah, if you're cool with wearing it, slapping it on your bumper sticker, hanging it on your garage door, etc., but not cool with burning it, then you're against the expression of the sentiment, not the action itself, and you're just another free-speech-for-me-but-not-for-thee asshat of a type entirely too common on both the left and the right, donkey or elephant.

|6.15.05 @ 2:52PM|#

I agree with some of the other posters: outlawing flag burning is probably about the only thing they could do that would make me actually want to burn one.

|6.15.05 @ 2:54PM|#

Borat's comment makes me realize why we lost in Vietnam. See, we actually won the war, and were about to establish a permanent democracy over there, but unfortunately the guy in charge of the flag was so zonked out on cheap Indochinese heroin that he forgot to bring it, and so the Army said, "Well, FUCK! (because soldiers have foul language) If we can't plant our fucking flag in the fucking city, what's the fucking point of fighting a fucking war? Let the fucking Commies have the fucking country, then."

I swear to God, that's the fucking truth.

drf|6.15.05 @ 2:55PM|#

"This is why some Muslims come unglued if someone doesn't handle the Koran to their liking"

hell, some christian thumpers go off on that sort of thing. that is more a trait of the fundamentalist, uncertainty-avoiding zealot than to christianity or islam...

(i know that's a current event, Stubby, and i'm not trying to be difficult on this. it's just that many people i'm around who are for the war have exactly that double standard you mention - and they are the worst types of hypocritical fundamental missouri synod lutherans. and i'm related to several of them)

|6.15.05 @ 2:58PM|#

"I felt so sorry for that guy; it was after the Cold War and before 9-11, so the poor devil had no idea which enemy to accuse me of being in cahoots with."

LOL! She comes back with a corker!

|6.15.05 @ 3:07PM|#

The Republicans can read polls, too.

It's going to be a flag burning, man kissing, terror alerting, mission accomplishing madhouse from now until the 2006 elections.

My mind goes back to the Libya bombing in 1986. I wonder, can you gin up a military confrontation to salvage your poll numbers from the last military confrontation?

Rodney Austin|6.15.05 @ 3:11PM|#

Looks like the inanimate objects rights movement is at it again. No cloth, no matter its importance, should get ANY rights before ALL humans (like sick med marijuana patients, homosexual couples, immigrants, etc.) get theirs.

Here, in Fresno, the City Council unanimously passed a motion that directed the city attorney to draft an ordinance that prohibited burning ANY object on city property. This was an effort to find a constitutional way for the City of Fresno to ban flag desecration. The city counsel was instructed to return to the city council when such an ordinance was complete for them to pass that would not bring a lawsuit. As chair of the Libertarian Party of Fresno County, I (and a few local liberal activists) warned the council that they will never be able to draft such an ordinance.

That was in 1998. We are still waiting!!!

|6.15.05 @ 3:13PM|#

The Republicans can read polls, too.

joe, didn't you get the memo? This President doesn't pay attention to polls! That's what they said last night at the President's dinner event. I was lying on the couch sick, watching CSPAN while I waited to vomit, and then some idiot speaker said that this President doesn't pay attention to polls.

For a moment I thought that this disgusting sight might finally push me over the edge and make me vomit. Alas, no. I had to wait a few more hours for the blessed relief of vomiting. Then I was finally able to sleep. Today I'm still wiped out but much better than yesterday.

A silver lining: I had to cancel my class last night. Two of my students called to wish me well, and one called to recommend some herbal remedies. I'm not a big fan of the herbal stuff, but I was deeply touched by his concern. It let me know that I'm doing a good job.

|6.15.05 @ 3:19PM|#

My favorite A. Whitney Brown line:

"Hi, I'm A. Whitney Brown. I'm getting a gun, so one day I will be THE Whitney Brown!"

|6.15.05 @ 3:20PM|#

I know an herbal remedy that works on nausea. Really well, too.

Just sayin'.

|6.15.05 @ 3:21PM|#

Some of you have raised the same points I have thought of with the whole flag burning thing--

If you are making your own flag at home (and I bet as many people do that as burn them) at what point does the flag-in-the-making become a sacred object? Right after you stitch the 50th star on it? Can you wipe your ass with it before then? Do those half-assed fake flags that a lot of foreigners burn on CNN even count? The ones that have like 5 stripes and one star?

Is this really going to mean if I go to Wal-Mart, and buy my own damn flag, that I can't do what I want to with it? I just threw an old US flag I had in the trash because it was faded and torn-- will the flag amendment also have a provision allowing for ex post facto prosecution? If not, why not? Why stop at free speech?

Are these Democrats really voting for this? How ineffective can an opposition party be? VERY, obviously, but they keep sinking to new depths of spinlessness.

I can't remember who it was who said "freedom has no constituency," but they are being proven righter by the day.

|6.15.05 @ 3:24PM|#

Jennifer-Congrats on capturing the way fucking military people fucking talk. Holy fucking shit, I thought I was back in the fucking Corps for a second.

|6.15.05 @ 3:25PM|#

Serious question: if this amendment goes through, what are the chances of it being followed up with amendments protecting other sacred objects? Religious artifacts, maybe? It's already illegal to even joke about illingkay the esidentpray; will it also become illegal to desecrate his image? Just how far can this go?

Larry A|6.15.05 @ 3:28PM|#

Perhaps as a retired infantry officer I have a different perspective than most folks. When I took the oath all those years ago, and administered it to others since, there wasn't anything there about bleeding and dying for the American flag.

What all those soldiers actually swore to do was to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

Including the First Amendment.

Even that isn't the absolute. From the Declaration, as I remember it, "That to protect these rights governments are instituted among men, drawing their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government..."

As Jennifer says, it isn't the symbol that's sacred.

|6.15.05 @ 3:28PM|#

So, if somebody burns a flag, that has a clear effect on interstate commerce: He either had to buy a flag (affecting demand and hence the price of flags) or he made his own flag rather than buy one (and by not buying it he reduced demand ever so slightly, once again affecting commerce).

Anyway, it seems pretty clear to me that flag burning is a matter of interstate commerce, just like some guy smoking pot that he grew on his own property. As per a recent Supreme Court ruling, Congress already has the power to ban flag burning.


joe-

LOL!!!!!

|6.15.05 @ 3:30PM|#

I'm used to Constitution being pretty much ignored, but this amendment would make it a joke.

|6.15.05 @ 3:33PM|#

jeff,

i'm pretty sure neither party is anywhere close to spinlessness. ;)

|6.15.05 @ 3:34PM|#

Jennifer-

I wonder if they'll pass an amendment with some clause like "the flag and other symbols of the United States..." I don't know if that wording has been in there thus far, but it wouldn't shock me if at some point such wording sneaks in. Then they could ban all sorts of things.

Indeed, since the effect of such a clause would be to give Congress even more power, perhaps such a clause will be necessary for the amendment to pass.

|6.15.05 @ 3:39PM|#

Number 6-
My dad was in the fucking Navy, and my grandfather fought in the fucking Big One. Then he went on to become a fucking trucker. So yes, I know what the fuck I'm talking about.

Thoreau-
I still wonder just how far this will go. With your wording, for example, would it be illegal to do parody versions of the national anthem? What about the Hendrix version of it?

drf|6.15.05 @ 3:49PM|#

Joe:

actually flag burning has other economic consequences: buying the materials, including lighter fluid and matches, so there are obvious positive externalities to f. burning :)

it stimulates the economy!!!

and after the rednecks stomp the person to death, they'll need tide (protein gets out protein) and shoe shines and...

|6.15.05 @ 3:50PM|#

I'd rather support an amendment banning desecration of the Bill of Rights.

|6.15.05 @ 3:51PM|#

drf-

Good point! When you look at the penumbra of consequences emanating from a single act of flag desecration, it's clear that flag burning is a cornucopia of interstate commerce! Congress already has the authority to ban it!

|6.15.05 @ 3:56PM|#

Zach--

I noticed the typo right after I posted and thought it was pretty funny myself. Truly, if the parties had as much spine as spin we'd be in okay shape.

The Commerce Clause interpretation affirmed recently by the Supremes does make you wonder why we need an amendment for anything anymore. Just pass a law. As long as it is part of a "comprehensive scheme" to regulate flag-burning, I think even Scalia would be on board with it. To think that not that long ago people thought we needed an amendment to let Congress tell people they couldn't buy or sell booze any more. Silly primitives.

|6.15.05 @ 3:57PM|#

thoreau,

Not only does the purchase or making of the flag affect interstate commerce, but so is the match or the trace amount of lighter fluid expended in setting it alight. And since the burning of marijuana -- a naturally occuring plant -- is interstate commerce, then presumably so would be rubbing to twigs together and burning them (note -- this analysis would apply whether or not the burning of the twigs was done pursuant to any flag burning intent, or just for its own sake).

In fact, if you look at the energy expended by the person during the act of lighting the flag, you find that this is energy that could otherwise have been expended doing something that affected interstate commerce!!! By choosing NOT to do something to help facilitate interstate commerce at that exact moment, that person has decreased supply in the overall labor pool (or supply in whatever market he'd normally participate in).

So it looks to me like there isn't one single component of flag burning that can escape the clutches of commerce clause regulation.

|6.15.05 @ 4:03PM|#

I thought it was generally illegal to light stuff on fire in the street or on the sidewalk. Isn't that some kind of hazard?

If you're so fired up about flag burning, why not just get the hippies with some kind of endangerment, air pollution or arson charge?

Congresspeeps are weenies.

|6.15.05 @ 4:07PM|#

independent worm-

Again, an excellent point!

Hey, here's a thought: Voting for Democrats clearly affects interstate commerce. Maybe the Republicans will make that illegal as well! And the Supreme Court will uphold it since this activity clearly affects interstate commerce and is therefore under the authority of the Republican-controlled Congress!

Justice Stevens can explain in his opinion that people who want to vote for Democrats can still work within the democratic process to win that right.

(And before somebody accuses me of being paranoid, I'm just having fun with the implications of a recent Supreme Court ruling. I'm not seriously suggesting that this will happen.)

|6.15.05 @ 4:11PM|#

Whoah, I just realized something else:

Anything you do in your spare time affects interstate commerce! If you're spending money, well, interstate commerce right there! If you aren't spending money, you're depressing demand! Not to mention that by not working more you're reducing supply!

H&R could be banned because it reduces productivity, which affects interstate commerce!

And gay weddings? You know those guys will have fabulous bashes! Lots of expensive decorations, musicians, fancy food, elaborate cakes. A gay wedding is a cornucopia of interstate commerce!

So why even bother with the amendment? Why not just ban gay marriage?

keith|6.15.05 @ 4:11PM|#

I've always felt that one of the greatest symbols of America was a hot chick in an American flag motif bikini. I hope this amendment wouldn't affect that. In fact, I've based my opinion of all other countries on whether or not they allow their flags to be worn as bikinis. Japan? Yes! Saudi Arabia? Nooo. England? Yes! Iran? Noooo.

|6.15.05 @ 4:13PM|#

keith-

But wearing an American flag thong could be construed as wiping your ass with the flag! Which would be an insult to the Marines at Iwo Jima!

Why don't we go to a military base, show them a hot chick in an American flag swimsuit (thong style) and see if they object. I'm willing to let them decide this issue.

|6.15.05 @ 4:17PM|#

why do republicans hate freedom?

|6.15.05 @ 4:20PM|#

Voting for Democrats clearly affects interstate commerce

Substantially so! Actually i think it'd be funny if the GOP went and passed this law. Just to hear what they'd have to bitch about when they hold every elected office in the country.

|6.15.05 @ 4:23PM|#

Indie Worm-

They might allow some token number of Democrats to remain as whipping boys. Whenever the GOP needs to scapegoat somebody, Joe Lieberman could be brought out to confess his sins and say "Please, sir, may I have another?"

|6.15.05 @ 4:50PM|#

Would Marvel Comics have to cancel Captain America? The old flag desecration laws had provisions against using the flag in advertising, or as a prop in a commercial enterprise. Selling Cap Underoos® would be right out, I reckon.

BTW, flag etiquette does allow for flying the banner at night, but one is supposed to light it so that it can be seen.

Section 174(a) of Title 36 states: "It is the universal custom to display the flag only from sunrise to sunset on buildings and on stationary flagstaffs in the open. However, the flag may be displayed at night upon special occasions when it is desired to produce a patriotic effect."

If flying the flag day and night, make sure the material is strong enough to withstand such conditions and is replaced promptly when it begins to show signs of wear. It is generally not desirable to fly the flag outdoors when the weather is particularly inclement because exposure to severe winds and rain may damage the flag or pole on which it is displayed.

When flying the flag at night, the flag code states that if the flag is displayed in darkness it should be illuminated. The flag code does not specify what this means but a spotlight is the usual source of light. We believe that ambient lighting (e.g. in a mall parking lot) is also sufficient if present. - according to a flag vendor.

A small county-owned art museum in my neighborhood has flown a wretched-looking Stars and Stripes in all weather, until it has become faded and tattered. They really should take that over to the American Legion so that it can be ceremonially burned. If I was flush I'd buy them a new all-weather flag. :)

Kevin

|6.15.05 @ 4:52PM|#

Well, I have a flag on my license plate holder. I suppose that would make it a patriotic duty to shoot anyone who hits my car and desecrates it.

But I don't think an amendment is necessary. I'm sure this will be covered under Patriot Act II. After all, burning flags=supporting terrorists.

|6.15.05 @ 4:56PM|#

My dad was in the fucking Navy, and my grandfather fought in the fucking Big One. Then he went on to become a fucking trucker. So yes, I know what the fuck I'm talking about.

I think I'm in love...

raymond|6.15.05 @ 4:56PM|#

I want an amendment which forbids peeing on the Bible.

keith|6.15.05 @ 5:01PM|#

It's still going to be legal to burn hippies on the street, right? That's legal now, isn't it?

What court in Bush's America would convict me?

|6.15.05 @ 5:19PM|#

Gary Trudeau once did a clever Sunday strip (back in the '80s during the whole Reagan falg burning amendment fracas) where he published an American flag in the strip and showed how the language of the amendment wouldn't let you dispose of your newspaper. Funny stuff, but, he illustrated to me the ridiculousness of it all.

|6.15.05 @ 5:21PM|#

I've based my opinion of all other countries on whether or not they allow their flags to be worn as bikinis. Japan? Yes!

That wasn't a Japanese flag bikini. Those were just red dots over the nipples to protect the children.

The Anti-Puritan|6.15.05 @ 5:33PM|#

But wearing an American flag thong could be construed as wiping your ass with the flag! Which would be an insult to the Marines at Iwo Jima!

Does anyone remember the SNL sketch with Alec Baldwin as the political candidate who appears unbeatable until he inadvertently shoots Lassie and wipes his ass with an American flag?

Funny and thought-provoking.

R C Dean|6.15.05 @ 5:59PM|#

keith, if you are going to play in a blog, you've got to provide links to support your assertions. I would suggest starting with this one:

I've always felt that one of the greatest symbols of America was a hot chick in an American flag motif bikini.

|6.15.05 @ 6:03PM|#

Next year is mid-term elections so expect all these GOP ammendments to suddenly become much more important. All the better to distract Ma and Pa Kettle from noticing how reappy everthing is going for them and in Iraq and to get them scared of those darn terrorists again.

Didn't anyone notice we had Flag Day this last week? They've been dusting off the flag descecration (idolotry! raising a secular symbol to sacredness) ammendment every year at this time.

|6.15.05 @ 6:14PM|#

Is a good soldier (or even the president) obligated to shoot all who vote for this amendment?

|6.15.05 @ 6:35PM|#

What if a monk wraps himself in the flag and then self-immolates?

|6.15.05 @ 6:36PM|#

I've always felt that one of the greatest symbols of America was a hot chick in an American flag motif bikini.

Ah, that explains Mary Carey.

|6.15.05 @ 7:24PM|#

It sounds like a business op. I can see the Unified State of Amazement flag company printing up the Liberian flag or modified Liberian flag and selling it to anyone looking to burn flags "legally". Come to think of it, isn't the Liberian flag a parody of the US flag? Would that be allowed? We can't let them get away with making fun of our flag! We should invade as soon as possible to keep those would be terrorismists insugarents from making fun of us...er...U.S.

|6.15.05 @ 7:48PM|#

My mom was born on the 4th of July. I seem to remember at least one family gathering where we had a birthday cake decorated with an image of a US flag.

Under this admendment, would we have been allowed to light the candles? Or cut the thing up and eat it?

|6.15.05 @ 7:50PM|#

Stevo-

Obviously it would only be illegal to desecrate a flag if it offends somebody.

|6.15.05 @ 8:45PM|#

I am very offended by the thought of Stevo's family consuming the symbol of our great nation and turning it into excrement. And I'm gonna tell.

|6.15.05 @ 8:56PM|#

Well, Jennifer, sounds like Stevo and his family just earned a one-way ticket to Gitmo.

Josh|6.15.05 @ 9:13PM|#

In the angriest speech of the angriest convention an incumbent party has hosted in recent history, Senator Zell Miller, a co-sponsor of the Flag Desecration Amendment, argued to thunderous applause, that �it is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest; it is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who gives that protester the freedom he abuses to burn the flag.� It is perverse to appeal to the sacrifices made to defend our freedoms as grounds for narrowing them. It is shameful to erase the sacrifices made at home by generations of domestic agitators to demand, defend, and extend our freedoms. Among the many lessons those agitators passed to us is that threats to civil liberty at home too often approach as wars ostensibly for freedom are fought abroad.

As Vietnam veteran and double-amputee Gary May testified six years ago before the Senate Judiciary Committee, �it is freedom that will continue to keep [America] strong for my children and the children of all the people like my father, late father in law, grandfather, brother, me, and others like us who served honorably and proudly for freedom �The last thing I want to give the future generations are fewer rights than I was privileged to have. My family and I served and fought for others to have such freedoms and I am opposed to any actions which would restrict my children and their children from having the same freedoms I enjoy.�

As Hendrik Hertzberg once observed, it's impossible to burn the flag, though some may choose to burn a flag or two. Trampling the freedoms for which that flag stands, however, is all too feasible. It should come as no surprise in an era when flags are omnipresent � from newscasters' lapels to neighbors� doorsteps to the one our President was photographed autographing last year � that some are all too eager to seize on our fears and our flags and once more restrict our freedoms as a nation in the name of protecting them.

Lazlo|6.15.05 @ 9:15PM|#

Does anyone remember the SNL sketch with Alec Baldwin as the political candidate who appears unbeatable until he inadvertently shoots Lassie and wipes his ass with an American flag?

I'm partial the first-season Mr. Show sketch where David, as "performance artist" "Spank", tries to shit on the flag but fails because the founding fathers intentionally designed it with a pattern of stars and stripes that causes constipation in performance artists. Then Spank sues the flag because the constipation it caused violated his freedom of speech by preventing him from shitting on it.

|6.15.05 @ 11:36PM|#

Lazlo: Never saw that, but the description alone is hilarious.

Jon H:
What if a monk wraps himself in the flag and then self-immolates?

He should fry for that.

|6.16.05 @ 6:53AM|#

Stars and Stripes is my God and Betsey Ross is my Prophet. All bow to the power of the one true Church, the Church of Bars and Pentacles.

|6.16.05 @ 8:17AM|#

"Looks like the inanimate objects rights movement is at it again. No cloth, no matter its importance, should get ANY rights before ALL humans (like sick med marijuana patients, homosexual couples, immigrants, etc.) get theirs."

I think this statement hits the nail right on the head.

Just when I think the Republicans can't get any worse.. maybe these fuckheads are afraid that they will lose their precious power soon, so they're trying to ram in as much as they can.

If they actually get this thing through.. I swear, everyone involved will be a traitor. They will betray the very basic principles this country was founded on. And the lowest pit in hell is for traitors.

|6.16.05 @ 8:23AM|#

joe:

I'm pretty certain I can second your pseudo recommendation to thoreau. Though I'm confused because SOME people in power are very strident to the contrary.. 'cause it's baad..mmkay?

|6.16.05 @ 8:46AM|#

Who knows what the legal, proper way to "decommission" an American flag is?


Yep, burning. So what they are really doing is criminalizing intent not action...to quote my friend at NH.....we are sooooooooo screwed

|6.16.05 @ 9:38AM|#

R.B. Bob-
I hadn't thought of it that way, but you're right. Wow, that really IS scary.

|6.16.05 @ 10:45AM|#

Okay, let me see here. All Congress cares about are the symbols of freedom, not the actual freedom itself. Isn't this some sort of Star Trek episode? "Freedom is Yang worship-word--you will not speak it!"

Hey, BattleAx, I've got a license plate of the Culpeper Minutemen flag on the front of my car. I got it after 9/11 as a statement to the terrorists. . .and to my government, in case they were to, say, forget about my civil liberties in the pursuit of the bad guys.

|6.16.05 @ 11:32AM|#

"I am all for it if desecration of the flag were to include (as I believe the current rules state) putting flag on your car (only allowed for heads of state), not taking your flag down at night, letting the flag touch the ground, etc."

So... the intent of the amendment is to make flying the flag so damn problematical that people are discouraged from flying it AT ALL, just in case they do it wrong or something happens to it?

Robert Nagle|6.22.05 @ 5:17PM|#

Jennifer et al...

This is one of the funniest threads I have come across ever on the Internet. Thanks for reminding me how easy it would be to mock this amendment. Ultimately Dr. Strangelove did more to defeat the nuclear deterrence concept than any scholar.

This is one of those issues that seems so obviously ill-conceived that educated people refuse to believe it could be taken seriously. Let's hope that if the problem never gets serious enough to warrant attention. But if it ever happens, we can tear it to peices with our wit.

There's a provocatively named book, "If you see the Buddha on the road, kill him." I say, "If you see a flag protected by an amendment, burn it."