Burn the American Flag?

[monsoon]

^^I love how the constitution today is defending things that somehow never got written into the constitution.

That was the intended purpose and the genius behind the document in the first place. In subsequent interviews, biographies, speeches, etc, it came out the Founding Fathers realized the country would change and the last thing they wanted was a document that was as important as the Constitution to become irrelevant. So it was designed and written in such a way that it is very relevant 200+ years after it was written. This is why the USA is the oldest Constitutional government on the planet.

The scary thing are the politicans of today's time that would suggest amendments to it solely to meet their political aims. The more scary thing are the people that support them in an endevor such as this. The Founding Fathers, who risked execution for this treasonist docoment, would be sadly disappointed.

I also find that many people, who like to cite the Constitution, have never actually read the document. That has been proven here many times on UrbanPlanet. I reccommend a read for everyone. It's the least you can do for the people who fought and gave their lives for you to be protected by the document in the first place.

[PghUSA]

Great point on both the reading of it and the flexibility of the document. But I would contend that any major re-reads of the document should be put forth the way the founding fathers intended them to be--by amendment. I doubt you would ever get 2/3rds of congress and the states to sanction flag burning.

What would the interpretation of the founding fathers words on flushing a Kuran down the toilet be? We can burn the flag they shed blood and fortune for surely we could flush down a book that meant nothing to them. Is that the America they deserve? we deserve?

[monsoon]

If you read the Constitution, your answers are there.

It is the role of Congress and the President to pass the everyday laws that protect the rights granted under the Constitution. It is the role of the Courts to decide if those laws are in fact supported by the Constitution. They can use whatever yardsticks they think are important. i.e. what do the founding fathers think or what is good for modern times.

If Congress and the President do not like the Court's interpretation of the Constitution they have two recourses. They can appoint and confirm (Senate) new members to the Court that have views that are consistant with the ones they support. Currently the Supreme Ct. is limited to just 9 members so this recourse can only be used when a current member leaves the court. The other of course is to amend the Constitution.

Now the Founding Fathers knew that bad politicians might try to subvert the Constitution for their own political gains. This is why they made if very difficult to make amendments to it. There have only been 27 successful amendments to the Constitution in the entire history of the USA. They cover important topics such as slavery, who can vote in this country, and the rights of States vs the Federal government. In light of this, a flag buring amendment seems to be a trival exercise and a waste of the people's time.

[PghUSA]

So the theory of the imperial judiciary might hold sway after all. I'd love for the Supremes to cite where any of the founding fathers were out there burning Union Jacks.

[monsoon]

So the theory of the imperial judiciary might hold sway after all. I'd love for the Supremes to cite where any of the founding fathers were out there burning Union Jacks.

Why would you say this? They can't make laws, they are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. And they can't even challenge a law. They can only decide if a law is Constitutional or not IF someone challenges it. And from a Constitutional perspective, they don't have to cite anything in the rulings of cases that are brought in front of them. This is hardly imperialism.

What do you suggest that is better?

BTW, I have heard this rethoric before from politicians that are again putting forth laws that are not supported by our constitution.

[Cotuit]

Also no matter how much the founding fathers hated the British Empire I don't think any of them were disrespectful enough to BURN the symbol of what made it great but evil.

No, we did not burn the king. But that's kind of the point. As a free republic, we don't have sacred symbols, our freedom is the ultimate symbol of our republic. Repressive regimes have rules about things such as burning flags, not countries that purport to be a beacon of freedom.

[PghUSA]

If we don't have sacred symbols it kind of takes the whole thrill out of ticking off a vet that lost a leg for your and my freedom, don't it. I mean why burn the flag then, wouldn't it be the same punishing blow to American imperialism and hypocrisy to burn a copy of MAD magazine or the movie poster of DieHard? There is a reason some feel they HAVE to HAVE a right to burn the American flag, somehow it sacredly symbolizes something that today's issue of the Wall Street Journal can't.

[Cotuit]

I'd love for the Supremes to cite where any of the founding fathers were out there burning Union Jacks.

Not burning, but a quick Google search brings up this:

The first recorded case of flag desecration on American soil was in 1634 in colonial Massachusetts when the commander of a military company named Captain John Endicott protested the King

[PghUSA]

Nice find, as a history buff I find that fascinating, but your right burning is a bit different. "Torn apart" could have meant it was between them and the 1700's version of the Beatles and no one realized it till it was too late .

[Cotuit]

If we don't have sacred symbols it kind of takes the whole thrill out of ticking off a vet that lost a leg for your and my freedom, don't it.

Well, first of all, if someone burnt a flag, I don't think their ultimate goal is to piss off a vet, it's to express some sort of dissatisfaction.

If people didn't get so crazy about it, people wouldn't do it, which brings up a good point. When was the last time you saw an American citizen, in America burn a flag as a form of protest? People just don't do it, for two reasons. They're afraid a red neck will beat them to death if they do, and it's a poor form of expression. If you are so angry about something that you feel the need to burn a flag to express it, your message will never be heard. People will be so foaming at the mouth insane about the act of burning the flag, that they won't stop to listen to what grievance you had that caused you to burn it in the first place.

So where is this panic about flag burning coming from. If only the most idotic fringe people are the only ones who would even consider doing it, why the need for a ban? Could it be a distraction, like oh I don't know, gay marriage?

While we have a war that's not going well, while we have Al Queda entrenched in Afghanistan and Pakistan and regouping in Somalia (anyone who doesn't watch the BBC hear about that?), while medicare and social security are crumbling, while the gap between the rich and the rest of us becomes a chasm, while oil prices skyrocket and little to nothing is being done to invest in alternate fuels and public transit, while home prices climb out of reach of most Americans, while schools continue to fail our children... our Congress is worried about flag burning and gay marriage. Pathetic really.

[damus]

If we let the 1st Amendment slip, then I don't see much to defend and much need for arms. The 1st Amendment is the core of our society. Without it, we might as well just give up. There's a reason why its first.

Without the 1st Amendment, we would not be having this discussion.

Indeed, but that doesn't make the 2nd amendment any more important. People complain about the 1st amendment freedoms being compromised every day. Without the 2nd amendment, those freedoms would probably be completely gone.

I also find that many people, who like to cite the Constitution, have never actually read the document. That has been proven here many times on UrbanPlanet. I reccommend a read for everyone. It's the least you can do for the people who fought and gave their lives for you to be protected by the document in the first place.

My biggest peeve about the constitution is when people say "separation of church and state" thinking that those are the words that are in the constitution. I'd bet most of these people do not even know it's from the 1st amendment.

[monsoon]

Indeed, but that doesn't make the 2nd amendment any more important.

I don't think anyone here has said that.

[Mikejesmike]

This whole thing about burning the flag misses one fundamental argument-who has the right to tell you that you can or cannot burn your own property? When you pay for a flag at a store, you OWN it. If you want to use it as toilet paper,head scarve, grease monkey rag, or pillow cover it's YOUR property. The government has no right what so ever to dictate what you can do with your material possessions. Now if you steal your neighbors flag to burn it then I have a problem, after all that's theft and destruction of property.

What right would a redneck have to attack me because I'm burning my own property? What business is it of theirs and of anyone else's? If someone were to attack a person over that then they might as well as attack them for throwing away a sweater.

The only thing I would be in favor of in regarding to burning the flag would be a law against burning the flag that's on government property, like if someone decided to light up the flag at the US Capitol. Aside from destruction of government property there should be a flag burning charge thrown in, but as it relates to private citizens and their private property they should keep their noses out of it.

[damus]

I don't think anyone here has said that.

I meant to say any less important.... I'm flipping between this and work and didn't see the typo. People have said that the 2nd amendment is less important here.

This whole thing about burning the flag misses one fundamental argument-who has the right to tell you that you can or cannot burn your own property? When you pay for a flag at a store, you OWN it.

It's illegal to burn your own house. It's illegal to burn leaves and brush in my hometown without a permit unless it's after 5 and it's "campfire" sized, and in most places I'd assume burning brush is illegal without a permit all the time.

[MJLO]

I have missed a big part of this discussion, but I still don't understand why it's illegal the burn a flag? Perhaps I just don't care, but I don't see how it hurts anyone. I obviously offends people, but I don't understand why that flag incites such emotion in people. I don't think it should be illegal. It's all symbolism. So if someone does something that is symbolic and offends you. There is always something you can do to counter it. But blanketly saying you can't do this as an expression, I think is bordering on consevative socialist tactics. It's as bad as the people who want to ban Ann Coulters new book.

[Mikejesmike]

I meant to say any less important.... I'm flipping between this and work and didn't see the typo. People have said that the 2nd amendment is less important here.

It's illegal to burn your own house. It's illegal to burn leaves and brush in my hometown without a permit unless it's after 5 and it's "campfire" sized, and in most places I'd assume burning brush is illegal without a permit all the time.

I would expect it's illegal to burn your house and then expect an insurance payout. Especially if you lived in the city where there is a risk of your neighbors house catching on fire. However if you lived out by yourself somewhere remote and removed everything and burned it down, I don't see the problem. Especially if you're going to build a new house (don't ask me the logic of this, people do a lot of stupid things) on the same property. If no one is hurt,the house is paid for and you're not trying to collect insurance then I don't see what the harm is.

I mean it's legal to own a gun, but walk down the street in some cities holding a shotgun, which is your legally bought property, and you're likely to be arrested.

Laws against burning leaves and brush are there usually for 2 reasons

1- Pollution

2-Out of control fire

However no one complains when people have their fireplaces going. What's wrong with dropping another flag wrapped log on the fire?

[monsoon]

I meant to say any less important.... I'm flipping between this and work and didn't see the typo. People have said that the 2nd amendment is less important here.

It's illegal to burn your own house. It's illegal to burn leaves and brush in my hometown without a permit unless it's after 5 and it's "campfire" sized, and in most places I'd assume burning brush is illegal without a permit all the time.

Nobody here has said the 2nd amendment is less important.

You are being disingenous as those restrictions are in place because burning your home poses a clear and present danger to individuals including the firemen who have to come and put out fires such as that. House burnings and brush fires have a habit to getting out of hand. In other words it is a safety issue and not a question of a first amendment right. In the same token buring of a flag can be restricted by law if it poses a danger to other individuals such as lighting it up inside a store.

In any case these are state laws and local laws and the the States are free to pass whatever laws they like as supported by their constitutions as long as they don't interfer with the rights granted by the US Constitution Flag Burning is protected under the 1st amendment.

[Gusterfell]

Without the right to bear arms, the entire bill of rights is pointless. The founding fathers put the 2nd amendment in there so we can overturn the government whenever the public has had enough of it.

A common right wing myth, but completely untrue. The right to bear arms was established simply because the militia was the only military force extant in the infant US. This is explicitly stated in the text of 2nd amendment. Think about it, do you really think the founding fathers would have written into law the ability to violently overthrow the very government they were establishing? The purpose of the Constitution itself was to prevent the government from developing in a direction that warranted overthrowing.

For that matter, does anyone who defends the 2nd amendment on the grounds that it is necessary to defend the public against government oppression really think that the public with their handguns would be any match for the US military? Any serious attempt to overthrow the government would be quashed in minutes.

Not to go too far off topic, regarding the right to burn your own house, this was actually a fairly common demolition technique in the 17th and 18th centuries, at least in rural areas with reasonable distance between buildings. The nails and other metal hardware were too expensive to go to waste, so the house would be burned and the metal salvaged from the ashes. If I remember correctly the practice had largely fallen out of favor by the time of the revolution, but it was in recent enough memory that I doubt the founding fathers would consider banning burning your own house.

[damus]

Think about it, do you really think the founding fathers would have written into law the ability to violently overthrow the very government they were establishing?

Ummm ... YES. The Constitution was written with the purpose of creating the best government known to man, but any government can be prone to totalitarianism. The rest of the bill of rights guaranteed freedoms, and the 2nd amendment helps to protect them.

[Gusterfell]

...any government can be prone to totalitarianism.

The current government would not be tending toward totalitarianism if the system of checks and balances established in the Constitution weren't being undermined. Given that these parts of the Constitution aren't being followed, what makes you think the 2nd amendment couldn't be next?

[monsoon]

The specific amendment is.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The right to bear arms is limited to that of maintaining a "regulated militia". Many many people seem to miss the regulated part. This means the government is within it's rights to regulate gun ownership.

[damus]

The specific amendment is.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The right to bear arms is limited to that of maintaining a "regulated militia". Many many people seem to miss the regulated part. This means the government is within it's rights to regulate gun ownership.

Yes, a militia is included. It also says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". It guarantees people to own guns to protect themselves, and the right for militias to be formed to protect the people from the government. "Well regulated" is the key term when discussing the organized militia, but it's vague.

I believe part of the first amendment goes "congress shall make no law establishing a religion, or prohibiting the free practice thereof". That is another example of people picking and choosing which part to obey. Why can't students use public money to go to a private, non-secular school? How is this establishing a religion if there is a secular option available for every student?

[monsoon]

I agree that people should not pick and choose from the Constitution. And.....

The first amendment is this

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.

Using public money to support students going to a private religous school is a example of a goverment respecting the establishment of a religion, which fortunately is forbidden. I don't want to be taxed to support a school at a church. If they want to go on their own, I don't have a problem with that, but the first amendment clearly forbids it. The lack of public tax money is not prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

[Gusterfell]

Yes, a militia is included. It also says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". It guarantees people to own guns to protect themselves, and the right for militias to be formed to protect the people from the government. "Well regulated" is the key term when discussing the organized militia, but it's vague.

You have to look at the wording within the context of the authors' time, not ours. The "right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the militia, not an additional right beyond that. That's what the militia was: ordinary citizens who kept weapons, with the understanding that the government could call them for military service as necessary.

Likewise, the militia is described as "being necessary to the security of a free state." It was intended to defend the state, i.e. the government, not to defend the populace from it. How do you read exacly the opposite meaning from those words?

[Miesian Corners]

I'm late to this discussion and I did not vote at all. There should be a choice labeled "Its OK to burn it regardless of where the cloth or plastic is manufactured."

I see the flag desecrated on a daily basis by its appearance in advertising, clothing (ties, shirts, sweaters, belts, etc), and as a logo for FOX News. Burning it seems far less offensive than seeing it as a logo for an Australian's media empire.