Faded Glory
on 06/28/2006 at 04:57 AM
No, no, hell No. 1) Here is how it actually reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
2)No where does it say - an Ammendment to the Constitution is protect the Flag is not allowed. No where does it say - a law limiting time, place, or exact speech by State or City laws is not allowed.
No where does it say - anything can be said about anyone, anywhere, anyway.One cannot go into a theater and yell ‘Fire’ - we need to stop this stupid, vapid idea that Freedom of Speech means anything goes.
The NYTs is hiding behind it, all the turncoats and traitors (be they leakers or Murtha) are hiding behind it, and now this.
I will not stand for the destruction of America . . . bit by bit by bit.
Keep presenting this bill - I think that after the fall 2006 elections - the usual suspects will be GONE. Thank goodness my two guys voted YEA.
I think there is a fine line in there. Say whatever you want, but some things you say have consequences. That’s why we have libel laws, isn’t it? Are they an abridgement of free speech, ex post facto, or merely retribution in a civil court for saying things mean and untrue?
I think the flag burning ammendment - with it’s gray area use of “desecration” (who sets that definition?) - is much ado about almost nothing. It merely makes our useless representatives look as if they’re doing something meaningful and being all patriotic at the same time. BalderdaSh!
You want to burn our flag, go right ahead. Know that you then put on the indelible label of Enemy. Enemy of Me, if not Enemy of Most of the People. This is pretty much the ultimate non-violent protest; if you do such a thing and you’re a citizen here then I think you had best make a one way run for the border. ASAP. That’s my opinion, but my opinion isn’t law. Law should have more wisdom than I do. Law should not be spontanious or emotional.
What if you reject so much of what being an American is that you burn the flag all the time ... and yet you stay here and remain a citizen? Sure, that seemingly makes you a total hypocrite ... though you could have your own warped kind of love of country and be working for major changes from within ... but should you go to jail for this? Should your neighbors have the right/duty/moral obligation to do violence against you for the expression of your views? I don’t think so, but I don’t think we have to associate with you either. In our highly cross-connected world, would the old practice of shunning have any effect? What other course of action do we, the objectors, have to such a person?
So, bottom line, SCOTUS said flag burning was an expression of free speech a long time ago. Yes, that decision can be overturned by a new ammendment. Is this really wise? I don’t think so. Same with the gay marriage thing. Everybody sounds off, everybody vents some anger and frustration, a consensus opinion is formed, then we all go home.
I think that this is BAD law, it is WAY too broad.
THis law would disallow bandannas that look like the flag, t-shirts that have the flag on them would also become illegal. ANYTHING with the flag on it that was worn in any way shape or form, besides flag pins of course, would be considered desecration.
It is WAY TOO BROAD, and some pinhead Beauracrat that was having a bad hair day could come down on you like the wrath of god if they wanted to.
uh, uh, don’t like it, have NEVER liked it, say burning the flag, and hey, no problems, but desecrating, who creates that definition, and HOW will it be abused.
No, if someone burns the flag, they show me that they are an enemy of the state, and my country, and that person is and will get their ass kicked.
Haven’t looked into this myself but whadya wanna bet that none of the assclowns who voted no particularly the three RINOs aren’t up for election this cycle.
Jag, we’ve had the Flag Act for many years now, and it says that most of the things you mentioned are acts of desecration. But that’s the difference between Acts and Laws. About a million years ago, when I was in Boy Scouts, they taught us the right and proper ceremony to burn a flag; not as an act of protest but as a nearly holy act of reverent disposal for those flags sullied beyond use.
This ammendment would generate laws that would specify legal ass kickings, whereas currently, your boot being used to express your opinion is a crime. If a line in the sand really does need to be drawn, then where do you draw it?
If you have the right to burn an American flag as a protest, then I should have the right to break a baseball bat over your head for daring to do so. See, everybody wins my way! Especially me.
Would have won money on Hillary, Kerry, and Kennedy, had I bet.
ibm, you are correct in your thinking...NJ ‘s 2 clowns split the vote, The pulseless , half dead Lautenberg voted nay and fill in Senator Menendez who is running for a Senate seat this fall voted yeah. Wsn’t hard to predict this crap, NJ’s only hope is a corruption scandal that might wake up the brain dead voters.
In a perfect world, this amendment wouldn’t even be necessary.
As a member of a family with long standing military traditions, and the grandson of one Marine who was AT Iwo Jima (since you used that image), I am saddend and angered at the same time that the two worthless senators from Washington (Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell) voted against this. Though both are democrats, so I am not SURPRISED. God forbid we actually give the PEOPLE a say in this.
