Flag burning should be unconstitutional!

Did you know that there is absolutely NO mention of "the seperation of church and state" in the Consitution? Its also true that the First Amendmant merely prohibits the support of an official church.

Darth_Snowdog said: Burning a symbol of something is not equal to burning the thing itself. What's funnier is that many of the people who have been arguing in favor of flag burning are also in favor of the 1954 Act of Congress that changed the Pledge of Allegiance, despite it's unconstitutionality.

DARTHPIGFEET said: I would agree to changing "Under God" to "Under the Creator" but will not budge on this issue for anything.

That will say the government supports only the "Creator" of the religions. What about those religions with mulitple dieties? Not all dieties are creators, some are dieties of War, Poverty, Heatlh, Marriage, etc etc. It would be offensive to those people who do not worship dieties of creation.

The word "God" does not appoint an offical religion. The word "God" is used by Musliems, Jews, Christians, Catholics, Hindues, and thousands of other religions. Not everyone calls the diety they believe in by the name they have been given, they call them "God".

Therefore, "Under God" is NOT unconsitutional. But "Under the Creator" would most definately be unconsitutional.

So, Darth_Snowdog, no one is being a hypocrit when they support both flag burning and the 1954 Act of Congress.

 

Actually, I meant to say when they support banning flag burning and the 1954 Act. (I thought I clarified this on the previous page.)

By the way, it's not the pledge that's unconstitutional. It's the Congressional Act itself... which of course implicates the pledge, but does not identify it in and of itself as unconstitutional.

"Under God" cannot be enacted by Congress because it makes direct reference to a particular type of religion (tbat being Christianity... Hinduism, Islam and other religious scriptures do not refer to their supreme being as "God"...even if western followers are predisposed to say it out of social conditioning--the desire to fit in with the western world, or the fear of ostracism for one's difference of belief), nor can "under the creator" be constitutionally adopted via Congressional acts for the reasons you already stated. The confusion here is that we often treat "god" as a common noun because of its proliferation in western theological discussion... but the reality is that Eisenhower chose it specifically to combat what he thought was an atheistic perspective.

Atheism was singled out, as was any non-monotheistic faith... so even if "god" is used as a common noun (which it is clearly not, as it is capitalized in every Congressionally chartered reference to it...), that fact would be irrelevant to the unconstitutionality of an Act passed into law for the explicit purpose of introducing a religious construct into a pledge of allegiance, which is also described in Title IV of the US Code using the proper noun "God", not the pronoun.

At any rate, flag burning as a means of protest is not and should not be deemed unconstitutional... Flag burning is not therefore meant to be taken lightly, but the US Supreme Court has defended this pre-eminent right of the people because of the nature of the behavior. Flag burning is a means of protest against one's government and not necessarily all those who serve our country or live in it. That being said, it is not meant to be taken lightly. Still, we need to protect such a freedom in order to have checks and balances in place that prevent our nation from falling prey to tyranny.

Patriotism and the fear of ostracism for one's lack of patriotism have been used throughout history as a weapon to maintain tyranny over people. The forefathers knew this, and so it is our paramount priority to respect the flag, the ideals behind it, and the nation for which it stands by protecting the right to demonstrate in protest of our government.

If idealism and freedom are killed in favor of the flag... what then does the flag stand for?

 

How about "Under the Deity"? It doesn't appoint a single religion and it doesn't specify a deity.

*recites the pledge* Heh, sounds funny though.

 

That is right during the Civil Rights movement where you had a class of people in this nation being treated as second class people and you didn't see them burning a American flag now did they.

We both agree on that, so far, Piggy. But tell the other side of the factoid, too, lest you appear biased. I do not recall any public Communist party flag burnings occurring in the 50's either, as you have implied (as only Commies would have burned flags in the 50's, allegedly).

Allright are you ready to quote me this time.
Of course I'm ready! I've been quoting you verbatum from the start of your tirade.

I think in MY OPINION that if a mob or large group of protesters start lighting flag or flags on fire then deadly force should be used **** ONLY **** if it is to put down the mob which could turn into something worse like a riot in which you can use by law deadly force.

If you're talking about an angry mob bent on death, destruction, and mass chaos, I actually agree with you, only because they are proving themselves to be a very plausible threat to the general public. That has nothing to do with the flag burning, itself. I assume we are to disregard your previous comments and insinuations regarding beating or shooting said individuals (I believe "shot on sight" was the term used). So be it.

You have given your opinion only. If your broad opinion on the 1st ammendment and other laws granting free speech which are also "broad" in description means your not stating facts rather "interpretation" of what you think your free speech rights stand for. I've done the same thing.

What???? You lost me. You're quoting my statement that says: I believe that is why I said that I CANNOT speak for others, then gave my own opinion. Then you tell me that this is just my opinion... and a broad one at that? Are you arguing my side now???

Although I did catch the inferance that I am misreading (and not giving facts about) the 1st amendment and free speech laws. Okay, whatever you say.

 

I am not Un-American. I love my country.

But...

NO ONE EVER DIED FOR A FLAG!!!!! ITS JUST A FLAG!!! SO MUCH CLOTH FLAPPING IN THE WIND!

I would never die for a flag.

I would die for more important things, like in defending this nation from a foreign invader.

or...

Trying to help someone in grave mortal danger, such as a fire.

Burning the flag is a RIGHT guaranteed by the CONSTITUTION...maybe Darthpigsfeet should read it.

"But, the flag is the symbol of our nation."

NO

The true back bone of this great land of ours is a little phrase that goes like this...

LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPINESS

But, what about all the people who died for the flag?"

No one EVER died for a flag. These poor souls who gave their life in the many wars died so that "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" did not change into "Sieg Heil" or Thou shalt do what thy King commands thee."

Also, I believe it stated in the constitution that BURNING is the proper way to dispose of the flag.

Darth pigsfeet, you should hope that I don't catch you robbing someone of their constitutional right.

That isn't a flame. Just a response to Darthpigsfeet's rather callous threat to anyone who dares have an opinion other than his.

Bottom line:

It would be better to shoot on sight, any person who tries to take away a citizen's GUARANTEED right.

That is more treasonous than burning a flag that has "MADE IN TAIWAN" stitched on it.

 

Thank you. No one died for a piece of fabric.

And about the pledge, remember, atheists pay taxes too. That is why God should not be mentioned in a TAX PAYER FUNDED place such as a PUBLIC school. Case closed.

 

"If you're talking about an angry mob bent on death, destruction, and mass chaos, I actually agree with you, only because they are proving themselves to be a very plausible threat to the general public. That has nothing to do with the flag burning, itself. I assume we are to disregard your previous comments and insinuations regarding beating or shooting said individuals (I believe "shot on sight" was the term used). So be it."

Yes that is what I'm refering to when I say use deadly force if a flag is burned in that manner. That is what I meant for the onset of this debate.


You have given your opinion only. If your broad opinion on the 1st ammendment and other laws granting free speech which are also "broad" in description means your not stating facts rather "interpretation" of what you think your free speech rights stand for. I've done the same thing.

What???? You lost me. You're quoting my statement that says: I believe that is why I said that I CANNOT speak for others, then gave my own opinion. Then you tell me that this is just my opinion... and a broad one at that? Are you arguing my side now???

You said that all your posts have been factual and I'm telling you that your argument has been based on your "INTERPRETATION" of freedom of speech nothing more. Just as I have given my "INTERPRETATION" of free speech and how flag burning is not and shouldn't be. That is what I'm talking about in that post. So your not quoting any facts just interpretation which is what I'm pointing out.

"We both agree on that, so far, Piggy. But tell the other side of the factoid, too, lest you appear biased. I do not recall any public Communist party flag burnings occurring in the 50's either, as you have implied (as only Commies would have burned flags in the 50's, allegedly)."

No I know Commies didn't burn the flag back in the 1950's here in America because they knew they would have been probably killed quick back then anyway. I was commenting on a post that someone said the following. "So you would call someone burning the flag back in the 1950's a commie" that was the original question asked to me and I answered that yes I would have if I lived back in the 50's during the cold war.

"LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPINESS"

and how is burning the American flag going to insure you of any of this???????

"Burning the flag is a RIGHT guaranteed by the CONSTITUTION...maybe Darthpigsfeet should read it.

"But, the flag is the symbol of our nation."

NO"

No it doesn't. In your broad interpretation of the your freedom of speech rights it may say "burning the flag is constitutionally protected" but I think anyone who has served in any branch of the United States military in War time or peace time and I think about 90% of America would say your full of poodo!!!!


"No one EVER died for a flag. These poor souls who gave their life in the many wars died so that "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" did not change into "Sieg Heil" or Thou shalt do what thy King commands thee."

Do you know anything about history? Several documented soldiers have died protecting the America Flag in battle but I guess they don't matter. The American flag is the symbol and rights you have in this country
and to go ahead burn the flag in some sort of protest is not respectful towards your country or those who HAVE DIED for the flag.


Also, I believe it stated in the constitution that BURNING is the proper way to dispose of the flag.

If you would go back and read my posts I addressed this issue, but you were lazy and didn't. Yes burning the flag is the proper way to get rid of OLD, RIPPED, OR WORN FLAGS. It is done in a ceremonous way. Not with a bunch of people burning it out of protest or hatred for some policy that they don't like. BIG DIFFERENCE.

Darth pigsfeet, you should hope that I don't catch you robbing someone of their constitutional right.

Bring it on, because I will stop them from burning the flag if I'm ever in a situation where I see it in my presense and they will not like the con

 

In earlier forms of warfare, flags were carried prominently into battle. Some of the most prestigious positions in a unit were those that bore the National Ensign or Regimental Standard on the march and into battle. As well as identifying the group of soldiers and providing a rally point for the unit, the flags represented the honor and spirit of the unit. This is where we get expressions like, "Forward with the colors!" If the bearer was killed or wounded to the point where they could no longer carry the flag, someone else took it up and continued on. If the flag was lost, it was very bad for morale.

If I remember correctly, all this came from Roman times in which each legion, and probably cohorts and centuries as well, had a standard identifying the unit as well as bearing an image of the emperor, "SPQR" insignia, and topped by the image of a deity. The deity was usually an eagle, although I think I've seen examples using various other animals as well. The deity was the patron of the unit and was worshipped by the members. So to lose the standard in battle was to lose the favor of the deity and ultimately the battle.

Anyway, it's safe to say that quite literally many people,including Americans, died for the flag.

Personally, I abhor flag burning. However, I believe that it is a very poignant way for someone to express their dissatisfaction with the current state of the government. Rather than representing contempt for the ideals the flag represents, I feel that the act is saying that the course of action followed by the government at home or abroad has effectively killed those ideals. This makes sense as burning is the proper way to dispose of the flag, making a flag burning a sort of "funeral".

 

U.S. Supreme Court

United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990)

United States v. Eichman et. al.

Appeal from the District Court for the District of Columbia

Decided June 11, 1990

We are aware that desecration of the flag is deeply offensive to many. But the same might be said, for example, of virulent ethnic and religious epithets, see Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949), vulgar repudiations of the draft, see [496 U.S. 310, 319] Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971), and scurrilous caricatures, see Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988). "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." Johnson, supra, at 414. Punishing desecration of the flag dilutes the very freedom that makes this emblem so revered, and worth revering. The judgments of the District Courts are affirmed.

This is the supreme law of the land. If you don't like it, you have several options... Darthpigfeet, either write your Senators and Representatives, deal with it... or move to another country.

The fact that you're not being hauled into prison at this moment for complaining about the law as it stands is testament to the fact that the First Amendment affords you that right to protest government, even if your particular form of protest is not expressly mentioned in the Constitution or Supreme Court precedents, and even if your attitude of protest is found disgusting, vulgar or un-American by those of us who have worked to earn our citizenship.

If this were, in fact, an autocracy as you seem to desperately wish America to be, the next liberal President who were to take power could perhaps have you declared persona non grata and revoke your citizenship, or perhaps even worse.

 

The flag represents our country both foreign and domestic. When we aren't present in some other country with man power, yet we have a building like an embassy or something, what is used to show that the building is a place where Americans are located at?????? The American flag. Our embassys have been attacked a few times by these terrorist, but what is the first thing they see to identify the building as American???? The flag. When we are in War time what is the item worn or decorated on many U.S. equipment, uniforms etc???? The American Flag. What is presented to a family of a fallen soldier in battle during the funeral? A folded American Flag. What was the special item taken from Ground Zero in New York to Afganistan to be raised I believe at Fort Rhino? The American Flag. Do you see where I'm going here? Probably not, but the American flag is MORE THAN a symbol folks and to burn it in protest is a down right terrible thing to do. I don't care what your protesting you should never lower your standards that low than to burn the American Flag. As someone mentioned earlier the only way to properly dispose of the American flag is to burn it. VERY TRUE it is the proper way to get rid of old flags, however there is a standard ceremony which goes into that process, and it doesn't involve people protesting in a mob burning the American flag.

 

Probably not, but the American flag is MORE THAN a symbol folks and to burn it in protest is a down right terrible thing to do.

First, I do believe flag burning is a terrible thing in the sense that it is quite a powerful negative statement. Second, if our government is doing terrible things worth protesting, that is why we have a First Amendment protecting the right to peacefully protest our government. I say peacefully because it's clear from U.S. v. Eichman that burning someone else's property or bringing physical harm to another person in the process of protest is not protected by the First Amendment.

I don't care what your protesting you should never lower your standards that low than to burn the American Flag.

That much is obvious... but those who protest by burning the flag are not "lowering their standards", they are protesting one or several standards or practices of our government... and they have a right to do so, as much as you have a right to protest the Supreme Court's decision in these matters. Your protests and their protests may not change anything... but that doesn't mean you can't express your sentiments.

As someone mentioned earlier the only way to properly dispose of the American flag is to burn it. VERY TRUE it is the proper way to get rid of old flags, however there is a standard ceremony which goes into that process, and it doesn't involve people protesting in a mob burning the American flag.

1. I was that someone.

2. I never indicated that 4 USC 1 deals with burning flags in protest.

3. Nowhere in the US Flag Code (4 USC 1) is a "proper ceremony" explicitly described or established for the incendiary disposal of the flag.

Here is all 4 USC 1 §8(k) says:

The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning.

4. 4 USC 1 does not expressly prohibit flag burning as a method of protest.

5. While the Code empowers the President of the United States to alter, modify, repeal or prescribe additional rules regarding the Flag, no federal agency has the authority to issue 'official' rulings legally binding on civilians or civilian groups. Consequently, different interpretations of various provisions of the Code may continue to be made. The Flag Code may be fairly tested: 'No disrespect should be shown to the Flag of the United States of America.' Therefore, actions not specifically included in the Code may be deemed acceptable as long as proper respect is shown. (Source: Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War website.)

6. The Flag Protection Act and 4 USC 1 are superseded by U.S. v. Eichman in which the Supreme Court affirmed the District Court's ruling that flag burning, as disagreeable an act it may be to some, is a right of expression protected by the broad powers of the First Amendment, and further affirmed by the Tenth Amendment.

 

I knew all that to begin with, and I'm not leaving this country at all.

I think it's time for a new look and for the Supreme Court to do what is right and make a new ruling on this issue. To let this "BROAD" definition that allows the flag to be burned needs to be changed, because this is not a right if you want to call it a right that should be encouraged or condoned by our own laws.

This is the perfect time to change it and it should.

 

Note to self: Get Snowdog and Pigfeet to go at it like cats and dogs(or is it pigs and dogs?) in every thread you make.

 

And then record the transcripts, and sell to highest bidder.

 

The complexity of this issue lies in the fact that the flag does not stand for one clear cut thing. Yes, it stands for freedom and all of the traditional values of the United States of America. The flag stands for all of the rights that we have as U.S. citizens. You either agree with these ideals, or you don't. There really is no in between. If you don't like them, then you shouldn't be in this country. When someone burns a flag, you might say these ideals are what they are publicly attacking.

However, to many the flag stands for more than the ideals of this country. It stands for the actions the government of the United States takes. These actions change. It is possible to dislike the government sometimes and agree with it other times. This is relitive because 99% of the time that you see someone burning a flag they are doing in protest to the actions of the government, not in protest to the fundamental rights of this nation. You can love the flag, and then later hate it. I'm sure that many people who burned the flag during the Vietnam War flew it proudly during WWII. When you burn the flag, you are not dishonoring what American soldiers fought for in the past, you are protesting what the government is doing now.

My opinion is that the flag should not be burnt in protest of the governments actions because I don't think it is a symbol of the governments actions. I think it is a symbol of what the country stands for. If you don't like what the country stands for, then get the hell out. But if you don't like what the country is doing a particular moment, you should be able to protest it without being called un-patriotic.

 

That is true. If your going to burn the American flag in a symbol of protest, sure you will get some media attention, but do you really think anyone will want to do a darn thing for you because of what you did to that flag?

I think not since the majority of Americans would denounce you, and if the majority of the people don't like what your doing then guess who will follow in the bandwagon? The politicians because these are the same individuals looking to be re-elected in 4 or 6 years. So burning the flag will get you know where in this country no matter how symbolic it is. So stand outside Capital and light a flag on fire to try and get your agenda passed here in America. It will not happen and this would be the perfect way to make sure people didn't get what there asking, and that is denouncing an act like this and table their argument in our courts and let it collect dust and never be heard.

 

How many of you have written your Senators and Representatives to urge such a change to our most basic freedoms? If you haven't, then quit talking, and start writing... and don't tell us to "get the hell out" just because we stand by the principles of democracy more than we stand by the principles of idolatry.

I knew all that to begin with, and I'm not leaving this country at all.

I encourage you to stay... and speak your voice. You have a right to do so.

I think it's time for a new look and for the Supreme Court to do what is right and make a new ruling on this issue. To let this "BROAD" definition that allows the flag to be burned needs to be changed, because this is not a right if you want to call it a right that should be encouraged or condoned by our own laws.

You're entitled to your opinion, but opinions alone do not determine a person's rights... if that were the case, I seriously doubt slavery would have ever been abolished. Even though slavery has been abolished for around 150 years, the civil rights movement continues, blacks and other minorities still struggle for equality today... and racism, bigotry and intolerance towards other people still exists even in this day.

This is the perfect time to change it and it should.

Tell your senators. We've heard it already. Yelling at us louder and louder, as you have in recent posts, isn't going to change anything. You said it yourself... even burning a flag, according to you, is not going to get anyone to support your cause... so why try, right?

Speaking of which, if I burn a flag in protest, and it doesn't get your interest, and it won't change your mind... and I bought it, why do you care what I do since you cannot control what other people do?

In every discussion you seem wholly committed to telling everyone else how they ought to live... I wonder, how do you find time to focus on how you ought to live? Oh, I know... Based on something you said earlier, it seems being American to you means you should just beat up or kill anyone who disagrees with you. That way, no one will be left to notice that you're too busy preaching to take care of your own affairs, right?

 

I am tired of being told that if i don't like something in the US to leave. YOU leave! It is my RIGHT and my DUTY to question the goverment, not be a blind lap dog like some of you are.

 

My two cents on this issue is, first of all, flag burning should not be unconstitutional. The Constitution is the blueprint for how the federal government should be run, limits the government, and states the rights of the states and the people. I would say that is as silly as prohibition was, in that it tells the people what not to do, which is the exact opposite of its purpose.

Whether or not it should be illegal, on the other hand, is a different story. As far as I know, disrespectfully burning a flag is an act of treason towards whatever institution that flag represents. I don't think that is what the protesters mean to say, but that is what it represents, in the same way a white flag is a sign of surrender or a skull and cross bones is a symbol of a pirate.

 

Darth_Overlord: You are incorrect.

Article III, Section 3 of the US Constitution:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

 

OK. Nevermind. Thanks for correcting me, Darth_SnowDog.

EDIT: After reading through the thread a little, I would still strongly recommend against disrespectfully burning a flag unless you're really trying to say "I hate this country and everything it stands for." I don't think the protesters in the US are actually trying to say that, but more "I don't agree with what the government is doing," which is just fine. However, flag burning has come to represent the former statement. I don't suppose it could be made illegal, but PLEASE don't do it unless you mean it.

 

Darth_Overlord: I think your request is perhaps the most sensible proposal yet on this thread. It shows that you understand that just because we would prefer not to carry out certain acts does not necessarily mean we have the right to tell others they cannot.

This is the critical difference between American democracy and the majority of other governments. The guiding principle of our Constitution, as it was designed to prevent the kind of injustices and atrocities described in our grievances against the King of England in the Declaration of Independence, is that it governs government... not the people. This is democracy... popular government. But just because we have a government of the people doesn't alone guarantee everyone's freedom.

In a democracy, the government answers to the people. Not all democracies, however, strive to do more than give the control to the majority. As this much is obvious, our particular Constitution was also designed to prevent any one facet of government from usurping total power. It keeps the legislative, judicial and executive powers separate. It prevents government from engaging in taxation without representation. It requires majority consent of the republic to make laws, but those laws are kept in check by a President who may veto them, and courts which may weigh them against the guiding principles of the Constitution. The pre-eminent rights of the people are, really and truly, guided by a founding principle akin to the "golden rule".

All laws, ordinances, statutes and court decisions are guided by the people's pre-eminent right to live freely, provided their actions do not infringe on another's right to live freely.

This sort of counterbalancing that entitles both our people and our branches of government take only as much as they give... is what maintains our democracy as well as our freedom. The Bill of Rights was created to protect pre-eminent rights against abuse by the majority. Why? Because times change, people learn, people grow... and what is a minority opinion today may be accepted as fact tomorrow.

 

Exactly, JediLord. If its a guaranteed right to burn the flag if you want to...anyone who would "beat the tar" out of someone excercising their 1st amendment freedom is a huge-o hypocrite.

To quote the great Ice-T

"Freedom of speech-Just watch what you say"

 

Snowdog, that was a great post.

 

Piggy: Way back there, you and I were having a discussion. (My apologies, but I went on a brief vacation and have been away from the computer.) You wrote:

You said that all your posts have been factual and I'm telling you that your argument has been based on your "INTERPRETATION" of freedom of speech nothing more. Just as I have given my "INTERPRETATION" of free speech and how flag burning is not and shouldn't be. That is what I'm talking about in that post. So your not quoting any facts just interpretation which is what I'm pointing out.

It is my understanding that my INTERPRETATION of free speech is the same INTERPRETATION given by the Supreme Court of the United States (see the 1990 United States v. Eichman et. al. decision posted above--thx, SnowDog). Since Law and court rulings are factual, I apparently mistook my INTERPRETATION to be a representation of clear facts. How negligent of me.

Now to everyone: Do we know why we are still arguing this? None of us have been appointed to the Supreme Court, nor do we have the power to create laws and punishment for those who break said laws. If Piggy wants to rot in jail for assaulting a protestor, so be it. I can't prevent that with words, despite my desire.