House approves amendment to protect U.S. flag

[Neil D]

By Andrea Stone, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — A constitutional amendment to ban desecration of the U.S. flag moved closer to reality Wednesday when the House of Representatives passed it 286-130.

A constitutional amendment banning flag-burning needs two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate before moving to the states for ratification.

It was the seventh time the House has approved an amendment since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a Texas law in 1989 and the next year ruled the federal Flag Protection Act unconstitutional. Although the bill has been endorsed by all 50 states, it has failed four times to get out of the Senate.

Those on both sides of the issue say this may be the year. Vote counts by the Citizens Flag Alliance, which supports the amendment, and the American Civil Liberties Union, which opposes it, show the Senate could be only two votes shy of the 67 needed to send the measure to the states for ratification.

"I'm optimistic this Senate will find the handful of votes we've lacked in the past to protect the American flag," Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., said.

Senate Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Ken Salazar of Colorado have never voted on the issue, but each stated positions in their campaigns. During her 2000 race, Clinton said she opposed a flag amendment. On Wednesday, she repeated her opposition but endorsed legislation to outlaw desecration.

Salazar told the United Veterans Committee of Colorado last year that he supported the amendment. He now says he plans to "study it hard."

The amendment reads, "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States." Supporters say the flag should be protected because it symbolizes the freedoms many have died to defend. Flag burning "is a challenge to the institution that defends liberty," Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga., said. "Our flag deserves to be respected and protected because it is more than just star-studded fabric."

Opponents warn the amendment would alter the Bill of Rights to exclude an expression of free speech. It "elevates a symbol of freedom over freedom itself," Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., said. "Once we decide to limit freedom of speech, limitations on freedom of the press and freedom of religion may not be far behind."

A Senate vote has not been scheduled. Debates on Social Security and a possible Supreme Court vacancy could take precedence. Two-thirds of the House and Senate must approve the amendment. Three-fourths, or 38, of the states must ratify it.

[Neil D]

Given that this amendment has passed in the house, and given that we were in an immoral war, if you dissagreed with the current war, and feel that it is immoral, could you burn the flag to symbolically convey your distrust of the Goverment?

[Dr. Shane]

As Adventists we have a different prespective. Of course no loyal Christian would want to defy governing authorities simply to defy them. However many place a lot of value on matieral symbols - like the cross or a crucifix. Adventists don't place nearly the value on such symbolic things. So we are more apt to not understand how offensive burning the flag is to some of our fellow citizens.

Many veterans feel there are better ways protestors can show their disagreement for government policy. To them, it becomes a personal insult when someone burns the flag. Some actually consider the flag to be sacred. To them, banning flag burning would be simular to banning cross burning.

Being an Adventist, it doesn't matter to me. If someone wants to go buy a flag just to burn it, it doesn't bother me. One wonders if such a person ever gets arrested in a forgien country if they would want his or her embassy's help. I guess if I had to vote on it, I would vote to ban flag burning out of respect for verterans and those that have lost loved ones in military service.

[Nicodema]

There are lots of rules about flying a flag. One is supposed to never leave it out in the rain and never let it touch the ground, for two examples. Would legislation to "outlaw desecration" be universally applied to those who "descrate" the flag by breaking any of those rules or only to those who burned a flag? That's what I wonder.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Many veterans feel there are better ways protestors can show their disagreement for government policy. To them, it becomes a personal insult when someone burns the flag. Some actually consider the flag to be sacred. To them, banning flag burning would be simular to banning cross burning.

---

Wow!......I understand this well....

I can also say that in every case that a soldier has fallen in our battlefields, he has given the ultimate sacrifice for our constitution, which includes the right to free speach....

The right to say anything, is the right to voice those things that concern you. To restrict the right to say anything is a restriction to squelch your concerns by someone else who thinks they are superior than you.

During the Vietnam war, flag burning became a symbol as well... The US was in an immoral war. The US had the attitude that might was right, and that communism was truely an unGodly goverment set up by the devil to thwart Freedom, God and the American way.....And our leaders were wrong. And the youth, bearing the brunt of the war, KNEW it. And the only way to get heard was to do something radical, like burn the flag, a symbol. It was to tell the leaders that something was definately wrong.

The burning of the flag became a symbol within a symbol. The symbol of the US being morally right [a manifest brought about by WW2 and the Korean War], needed to be changed, and that was symbolized by burning the flag. Of course, burning the flag now is done outside the US and means something totally different than it did 25 years ago. But those radical elements don't understand US culture [past and present], and we do.

This generation has not lived under a repressive goverment that restricts the freedom of speach. It has not had to deal with displeasure with an immoral goverment and unable to say anything against it. It has not had to deal with the thought police.

I fear that because these things are not known, and have not been recently experienced, we will loose this freedom to speak as we ough, to voice our concerns, even in the face of an immoral goverement.

[Neil D]

Shane, this one is for you....

[]http://cagle.com/news/FlagBurning/Flag%20Burning/trever.gif[/]

[]http://cagle.com/news/FlagBurning/Flag%20Burning/signe.jpg[/]

[]http://cagle.com/news/FlagBurning/Flag%20Burning/rogers.gif[/]

[]http://cagle.com/news/FlagBurning/Flag%20Burning/beeler.gif[/]

This one is for me...

[]http://cagle.com/news/FlagBurning/Flag%20Burning/breen1.gif[/]

[]http://cagle.com/news/FlagBurning/Flag%20Burning/lowe.gif[/]

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

The right to say anything, is the right to voice those things that concern you. To restrict the right to say anything is a restriction to squelch your concerns by someone else who thinks they are superior than you.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

There is a difference between freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Flag-burning is freedom of expression. Cross-burning is freedom of expression. Public nudity is freedom of expression. The Supreme Court has extended the First Ammendment right to freedom of speech to freedom of expression in some circumstances. However the Court has allowed laws to stand in some cases. Examples are cross-burning and public nudity.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

During the Vietnam war, flag burning became a symbol as well...

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

And during segragation cross-burning became a symbol. For some it is a symbol of hatred but for others it is a symbol of States rights. Yet the Court has ruled that laws forbidding cross-burning are not unconstitutional.

When veterans returned from the Vietnaum War they were welcomed home with spit in their face and burning flags. For many veterans, the burning flag represents the ungratful. So just as the burning cross is symbolic of one thing to one group of Americans and another thing to another group of Americans, so it is with the burning-flag.

I wonder, if the Court ruled that cross-burning is protected under the First Amendment, would you support an Amendment to ban it?

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

The US was in an immoral war.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Your opinion about Vietnam is a topic for another discussion. Try not to take us off topic.

As I stated earlier, it doesn't matter to me. I do not consider the flag to be sacred. As far as I am concerned, if a fool wants to buy a $20 or $50 flag and burn it he can go ahead and do so. His money would be better spent donating it to a political interest group that would lobby for his concerns. His voice would be heard by more if he wrote a letter to the editor in his local newspaper. To me the flag is just cloth in the same respect as a cricifix is just wood or metal.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The US was in an immoral war.

---

Your opinion about Vietnam is a topic for another discussion. Try not to take us off topic.

---

I am sorry, but I have to call this one, Shane. This taking sentences out of context to use, as this was in the middle of a paragraph, claiming that it was off topic is an attempt to either 1] side track the issue..2] cast a person in a bad light 3] an abuse of YOUR moderational powers, especially when you are NOT the moderator of this forum.

In the future, please take instances like this, and MAKE the new thread.

And yes, I do agree with you ...This sort of thing does indeed take the issue off topic.