Okay, now this line I KNOW was from Comedy Central. On last night’s “Daily Show” Jon Stewart, in reporting on the House voting for an amendment banning flag burning, quoted a pea-brained politician who showed so much disdain for the Constitution he’s supposed to be upholding that he actually said, “Some people like hiding behind the First Amendment.” To which Stewart riposted, “That’s because they keep being shot at by people hiding behind the Second Amendment.”
PAD
• 
I don’t know why anybody ever expects intelligence from government. Elected Offices require less qualifications than most jobs in the country: In fact, except for president and VP, all they require is Citizenship. The president and VP must be older than 35, as well. Hëll, to get a job in Starbucks these days, you need previous experience and a Master’s degree.
I don’t know about you but I’m sick and tired of the First Amendment. They need to get rid of it so we can shut-up those hippy types and establish The Church of Christian America.
Just in case your from a small planet near Betelgeuse, yes that was sarcasm.
Hey. I AM from a small planet near Betelgeuse and even I knew it was sarcasm.
What I don’t get about flag-burning is that we do it all the time. My church holds a memorial every Memorial Day (natch) where people burn their tattered flags in order to buy new ones. It’s a ceremony for those who have died in the miliary in the past year, as well as those who have ever died in defense of America.
The flag-burning amendment would have to say something like, “You cannot burn the American Flag in such a way as to show distain for the American Government.” That kind of law would be an embarassment.
I think the USA has way too many laws nowadays. You cannot cross a street without breaking 13 rules. This is a result of stupid people not knowing how to conduct themselves in public. Instead of new laws, we just need to identify the stupid people and tax them a bit heavier than the rest of normal society.
Actually, I seem to remember some comedian a few years back proposing a stupidity tax, collectable by any citizen upon witnessing a stupid act. “Pay up. Stupid tax.”
The great thing, he observed, is that anyone dumb enough to pay it can get double-taxed immediately. 🙂
As for the politician concerned about everyone hiding behind the First Amendment … sheesh.
TWL
Every law, no matter how small, is a restriction of human freedom and should be naturally resisted. The onus should be on the lawmakers to prove to us that such a law would benefit the public in such as way as to be worth sacrificing freedom. Flag burning doesn’t cut it. Abortion doesn’t cut it. Banning guns doesn’t cut it. The War on Drugs definitely doesn’t cut it. Smoking bans doesn’t cut it.
The biggest crime is how we roll over on these laws. It’s sad.
That’s why we *have* the second amendment… in case anyone ever tries to do away with the first one.
Londo, pardon me for asking, but were you being facetious, or does your churck actually do this? If so, that’s very surprising to me, as I’ve never heard of such a thing. If you don’t mind my asking, which church is this, and where is it? I’m very curious.
I don’t know about from a church perspective, but burning a tattered old flag is the correct way to dispose of it. Probably some stupid ceremony associated with it to distinguish it from the “America sucks right now, the politicans and lawyers have destroyed the meaning behind this great country!” type of flag burning. Although more and more the latter types have it right these days…
The exact wording is:
“The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States”
Keep in mind this is the fifth run at this in 8 years. It’s always died in the Senate. However, Clinton opposed it. Bush favors it.
PAD
It’s about time someone is looking out for those poor, defenseless flags…
Just so long as the new judge nominee doesn’t get in (and I’m speaking as a Republican.) He’s just looney enough to come out and say, “Fág burning? You bet I’m in favor of it. Light ’em up! What? You mean Old Glory? Well, that’s a different story, ain’ it!”
Well, what if you set fire to a piece of material roughly the same size as the flag with the words “This is supposed to represent the American flag” stenciled on it. Would that be okay?
This blog reminded me of a great Doonesbury strip from many years ago (yes, Trudeau’s done several strips on the subject, but this one was always my favorite). It took me just a little searching to find it; it’s from Nov. 5, 1989. Go to this site:
http://www.doonesbury.ucomics.com/strip/dailydose/index19891105.htm
Two of the funniest jokes I think I might have EVER heard came from The Daily Show:
1) A couple years ago, after some women’s soccer team won some championship match–“We’d like to make more jokes about this, but unfortunately our writers know nothing about sports. They spent their teen years playing Dungeons & Dragons and trying to get their hair to look like Morrissey’s.”
2) After Sonny Bono died in a skiing accident–“Ironically, at the same time Sonny was going headlong into a tree, Chastity was going headlong into a bush.”
Heh. Heh. Heh.
PAD gets dissed in aintitcoolnews.com’s review of the Hulk movie. Harry Knowles who runs that site is an idiot.
Trying to figure out how to phrase this, so bear with me…if you have a flag that has become torn, worn, generally past its prime, unsuitable for display, etc., you can contact your local boy scout troup and they will dispose of your flag…yes, they burn it, but they do it in a perfectly legal, respectful, non-Viking funeral kind of way…
I remember that Doonesbury – iirc people actually mailed their flags (papers) to Gary Trudeau in a “You deal with it, genius” gesture.
Well I know that I’ve work at a Boy scout camp for years that does a Flag _retirment_ ceremony. While it might be burning a flag it is done in such a way that it is only about respect. I don’t know how many adult leaders have walked away from that and shook my hand on the way out thanking us for the way we did it.
The flags we retire are old sun bleached and often torn. Almost every one in attendance is whearing a uniform and the flag is carried in by a well trained flag crew who presents it one final time. We sing the national anthem and then still with everyone standing and saulting the flag is carried over the fireand as it is lowered a lone rifle sounds just before taps is played.
I’ve seen other retirments that are not done as well and they are a bit desturbing. Its something that if it is goign to be done needs to be done right.
I’m in favor of proper disposal of the flag. I’m also in favor of an amendment prohibiing flag burning done in a manner to desecrate it. Why do so many weak-minded people think the best way to protest is to burn the very symbol of the nation that allows you to protest? To me, that’s the mark of a hypocrite. You wanna burn Bush in effigy? That’s fine, you’re railing against the man himself. But that’s a far different cry from burning the flag.
PAD gets dissed in aintitcoolnews.com’s review of the Hulk movie. Harry Knowles who runs that site is an idiot.
ME? Why? I didn’t write it.
PAD
>Why do so many weak-minded people think the best way to protest is to burn the very symbol of the nation that allows you to protest? To me, that’s the mark of a hypocrite.
Why are so many weak-minded people offended by the exercise of freedom of speech? To me, that’s the mark of a hypocrite.
If you love the country, and believe in it’s strengths, then someone torching the flag should be something to be tolerated. No one says you need to enjoy it, but it seems like we could live with it and see it as people expressing themselves under their 1st Amendment rights.
PAD – Looks like he was using the review to get a little jab in at you. Sounds like he couldn’t wrap his head around the whole colour change and is still carrying this issue around as baggage years later.
But as I said, he’s an idiot (read any one of his reviews and it becomes quite obvious).
Why do so many weak-minded people think the best way to protest is to burn the very symbol of the nation that allows you to protest?
Why do so many weak-minded people think it’s wrong to use the viscereal image of a burning flag and think it should be illegal?
Sure, burning Bush, Cheney, and Ashcroft would be more effective, but since burning people is illegal, learn to deal with speech and expression you don’t like, although if you work yourself into an aneurism and die over flag-burning, be my guest…
Burning the flag is the ultimate sign of protest towards the government. The government must never limit such action. The government should be protecting people’s ability to protest its actions, not limiting them. People who support a ban on flag burning support banning speech just because they don’t like it. That is the most anti-American position possible.
If they ban burning the flag, I’ll burn a copy of the Constitution. Because if they can ban flag-burning speech, then the Constitution is worthless, anyway.
If the government wants people to stop burning flags, it should stop doing the things that drive those people to hate it so much.
The second Robin and I heard that line, I said, “Well, that one will be all over the blogosphere tomorrow.” Congratulations – yours is the first blog I’ve read to use it!
Wouldn’t it be a bit easier and more logical for police to arrest a flag-burner on the grounds he’s setting fire to a flammable object and then waving it around? That’s kinda dangerous; I remember seeing a picture of a flag-burner in Pakistan accidentally set fire to his clothes while protesting. We’d arrest someone if he was wildly waving a gun or knife around during a protest, so why not what physically is a giant torch? (And no, I’m not a legal expert, so humor me if the answer is obvious.)
“That’s why we *have* the second amendment… in case anyone ever tries to do away with the first one.”
Hehe, this made me think of the obvious solution to flag-burning: Arm the flags!
This blog reminded me of a great Doonesbury strip from many years ago (yes, Trudeau’s done several strips on the subject, but this one was always my favorite). It took me just a little searching to find it; it’s from Nov. 5, 1989.
You HAD to pick a strip with an upside last panel, huh. Do you have ANY idea how much of a pain it is turning the monitor upside down?
Seriously, while we’re all busy discussing flag burning, keep in mind, the amendment goes much further than that. “Prohibit the physical desecration.” What does that mean exactly? It’s not defined. Unless I’m misreading it, it means that if you take a flag and turn it into a t-shirt, or a kerchief, or embroider your pants backside with it, Congress could make a law banning that. For that matter, what is “the flag?” Are a fourteen foot cloth jobbie and a small cardboard pennant size to be treated with the same reverence? If you’re at a parade, wave a little flag, and it gets torn or a stain on it and you dump it in the nearest garbage can, can you be arrested for it?
No wonder the Senate’s always kicked it back. Let’s hope they have the sense to kick it back, rather than being emboldened by the current administration’s support of the idea.
PAD
PAD said :”No wonder the Senate’s always kicked it back. Let’s hope they have the sense to kick it back, rather than being emboldened by the current administration’s support of the idea.”
Probably not an issue. The House is too busy harassing them by revising their tax cuts for low income families bill with special provisions for families earning between $15,242.11 – $15,243.68, or have 3.4 – 4.32 children and/or yellow spotted dogs named fred, if they live on a numbered street ending on a vowel, or sometimes y.
Actually, I seem to remember it being illegal to put the flag on anything meant to get dirty or be thrown away — so paper plates, napkins, and toothpicks with the flag are already illegal, as is the whole clothing idea.
Oh, and using it in advertisements is also waaay out.
(For the curious who’d like more details, please see Title 4, Chapter 1, Section 8, especially paragraphs (d) and (i) of the U.S. Code.)
Not that such things get enforced, of course. And they want to make an additional law, when they’re not using existing ones? Sure, that’ll be effective.
So you’re saying I shouldn’t sell my American-flag toilet paper?
I seem to remember it being illegal to put the flag on anything meant to get dirty or be thrown away — so paper plates, napkins, and toothpicks with the flag are already illegal, as is the whole clothing idea.
To the best of my knowledge the items you mentioned aren’t flags but bear images of a flag. I believe the law is in place to prevent using actual flags as raw material rather than using an image of the flag. Something akin to the painting “This is not a Spoon.”
To Matt Rigdon:
The code which Jarissa mentioned has this provision (the Section (i) she specifies):
The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever. It should not be embroidered on such articles as cushions or handkerchiefs and the like, printed or otherwise impressed on paper napkins or boxes or anything that is designed for temporary use and discard. Advertising signs should not be fastened to a staff or halyard from which the flag is flown.
Two things:
1. (For the curious who’d like more details, please see Title 4, Chapter 1, Section 8, especially paragraphs (d) and (i) of the U.S. Code.)
Not that such things get enforced, of course. And they want to make an additional law, when they’re not using existing ones? Sure, that’ll be effective.
The last part of that section refers to these as “rules and customs.” I don’t think it’s meant to be enforceable as law, at least not for people outside government entities in their official capcity.
2. I’m also in favor of an amendment prohibiing flag burning done in a manner to desecrate it. Why do so many weak-minded people think the best way to protest is to burn the very symbol of the nation that allows you to protest?
The problem with that logic is if you can’t burn the symbol of the First Amendment, the Amendment itself is meaningless. Is it a special kind of stupid to burn the symbol of free speech in the name of free speech? Hëll, yes. But the point is that the First Amendment protects our right to be that stupid if we desire.
Why does the senate always entertain adding someting to the constitution that TAKES AWAY A FREEDOM ???
The constitution sole purpose is to outline our freedoms,is it not?
While I dont think anything othere than writen or spoken speach should be covered under the 1st amendment, I don’t believe that flag burning should be illegal.
There’s a great Jon Stewart interview in this week’s Rolling Stone (Christina/Justin cover).
Recommended.
Thank you kindly, Joseph; great minds think alike.
Quoth Bladestar:
So you’re saying I shouldn’t sell my American-flag toilet paper?
I’m not saying what you should or shouldn’t do, Bladestar. I’m just saying that it is illegal to do within the borders of the United States of America, and has been for quite a while now.
If I were talking about what people should do, why, I’d be quoting Henry David Thoreau, on the topic of Civil Disobedience, whereby a conscientious objector deliberately refuses to obey an unjust law — and is willing to suffer the consequences of that choice, whether that means going to jail or some other punishment.
Privately, I’ve always thought that a flag burner is nothing more than someone who commits public pollution in the hope of becoming the center of attention; and that which he burns has no more meaning for me than any other piece of cloth. I see symbolism in a properly honored flag, such as my father’s.
Quoth Laney:
The last part of that section refers to these as “rules and customs.” I don’t think it’s meant to be enforceable as law, at least not for people outside government entities in their official capcity.
How interesting. Yet we do expect Title 3 (The President) to be enforced, throughout its chapters on how our nation’s executive shall be elected, what we’ll do if the elected candidate is somehow unable to serve, what the President’s monetary compensation will be for the job we gave him, all the way down to what freedoms he has in arranging his own staff. We expect Title 5 (Government Organization and Employees) to be enforced. We expect Title 11 (Bankruptcy) to be enforced, no matter whether the creditors or the bankrupt party may be government employees or not. Speaking of creditors, Title 12 is all about banks and banking; we expect it to be enforced. There’s Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal Procedure), Title 26 (Internal Revenue Code), Title 46 (Shipping), and Title 49 (Transportation), all originally written and signed with the intention that they’ll be enforced as law.
In fact, Laney, we even enforce Title 4, Chapter 3, Section 71: All that part of the territory of the United States included within the present limits of the District of Columbia shall be the permanent seat of government of the United States.
If one ever wants to find out beyond a shadow of a doubt whether Title 4, Chapter 1 is enforced, I suppose one could go out one brisk, sunny afternoon and deliberately raise a flag so that it’ll be upside-down. I would, however, emphasize to the experimenter Thoreau’s advice on being prepared for jail and fees as a minimal consequence.
So why isn’t Section 8 wholly enforced? More laws by Congress on the same topic shan’t make the situation any less illogical.
So why isn’t Section 8 wholly enforced? More laws by Congress on the same topic shan’t make the situation any less illogical.
I was just trying to make the point that the section quoted earlier in the discussion listed behaviors that “should” or “should not” be engaged in as a rule or custom. The statutes that you mentioned, OTOH, discuss that which “shall” or “shall not” be done — these being the enforceable laws. (My bad that there are some of these in Chapter 8 — particularly as relates to flag-related behaviors in D.C., which is controlled via federal statutes.)
I know that the slight shift in verbage seems meaningless, but legally, it is quite meaningful. Additionally, the “rules and customs” do not quote penalties, also suggesting that they are not enforceable in the same way as other statutes. Sorry if I wasn’t very clear about the distinction I was trying to make.
Which shows more respect for the flag–burning it in protest or leaving it out in tatters? I think the protester shows more respect because the act acknowledges the flag is a symbol of the United States of America. Whereas flags that just hang become a meaningless decorative afterthought, especially if they’re left out and never taken down.
I like the flag just fine. But it seems a little primitive to me to worship a piece of cloth. It’s almost like treating it like gang colors. Disturbing.