Yeah, pushing up the flag on Suribachi didn't convey anything to anybody

Yes, it conveyed the message that we killed 20,000 Japanese soldiers at the cost of 6800 dead Americans.

I vaguely remember that some state or other passed a law after the SC decision making the punishment for assaulting a flag burner a $1 fine.

Arson is speech for the inarticulate.

(And you dare not call flagburners "un-patriotic" or Teresa Heinz-Kerry will not be nice to you.)

Only dingbats protect a symbol more than the priciple for which it supposedly stands.

Though the recent Campaign Finance Decision repealed the 1st Amendment any way, it can't hurt to defend the principle.

Those who want to outlaw flag burning are simply wrong. The fact that the "action" bothers people is enough to protect it. No wonder we live in such strange times. Intelligent people worshiping symbols instead of values.....

Go figure.

I'll vote with Scalia over Rehnquist anyday....

The Founding Fathers recognized action as political speech by wearing cockades. Then we had Republicans waving the bloody shirt.

Action has always been recognized as political speech in this country.

That's why people put out flags in front of their houses.

Everything that communicates is not speech. Actions are limitable under the Constitution, as the endurance and near universality of such laws demonstrates.

The best way to get a lot of flag burning is to ban it.

The flag, and the ideals behind it, can surely stand the occasional burning. If it couldn't, it wouldn't be worth having.

BTW--putting words on paper is an action.

The best way to get rid of it is recognize the constitutionality of burning flag burners.

This amendment falls to my (increasingly less) rebuttable presumption that all constitutional amendments are bad.

But it is nuts to argue that we are bound to allow flag burning because we find it offensive. There is no constitutional right to offend American citizens.

For that matter, I can't burn my leaves, or shoot of firecrackers without a license -- even if I intend the firecrackers to communicate my devotion to the country. What purpose is served by (and what constitutional basis is there for) preferring obnoxious communicative action to convivial communicative action? In what other situation do we allow the subjective intent of an action to trump our prohibition of its objective nature. (Cf. Boston's attempt to punish the flying of a banner criticizing the DNC.)

If you will permit a foreign comment here, I can't think of any other country that has or ever had a practice of expressing dissent by trashing or destroying national symbols, even among the far left. Even dissidents in communist or fascist tryannies don't do that, because they distinguish clearly between the government and the nation. There is no doubt in my mind that the practice, along with a lot of domestic anti-American rhetoric, gives aid and succor to America's enemies and also sways the global "middle". Put simply, Joe foreigner think that if crowds are out cheering the desecration of the flag, things must be really bad.

The standard defense is the one Jeff gives--that such is proof of a higher order of freedom and actually strengthens the nation. That strikes me as saying my marriage is strengthened immeasurably when I whine publically at my wife about every little thing she does that bugs me. It's a nice progressive, enlightened theory that human nature turns quickly into nonesense.

Is this a result of the rare practice of combining head of state and head of government or does a political culture that incorporates somewhat messianic, "City on the Hill" values have to expect scatological reactions, just as priests in ultramontane Ireland had to cope with lots of mocking sacrilege when their backs were turned?

Peter:

Tangental, but:

We live in the only diverse neighborhood in NH--Chinese, black, mixed race, Indian, German, Spanish, English, Irish, Canadian, Eritrean, Russian, Californian--and there are six flags flying the neighborhood, all American and all on the houses where both spouses are white and American born, except for one of the Canadian couples who fly both an American and a Canadian ("because the kids are American").

Draw your own conclusions about what it all means.

If I take off my wedding ring and throw it in the trash in front of my spouse, it is 1)communication 2)protected by the First Amendment from regulation by Congress and 3) an indication that I'm going to have a bad night of it.

Not bad. Actions can be speech, and therefore regulated lightly consistent with the safety and good order of society, just as speech is (you must tell the truth under oath or you have committed perjury, and no first amendment defense applies.)

Mr. Williams:

That is, of course, a legally actionable gesture--made so by the government--thereby proving the opposite of your point.

Legally actionable how?

Peter:

Actually, my defense is a negative one. The best way to have the minimum amount of flag-burning is to resolutely ignore it.

Jeff:

Maybe. You might also argue that my best strategy if someone is insulting my wife or mother at sixty decibels in public is to ignore them, but what would that say about me?

Brian:

Louisiana tried a "Let Bubba Do It" law -- they decriminalized assault when the assault victim was in the process of burning the flag.

I like Confederate law...

Peter B:

It says you're badly in need of a testicle transplant.

The laws against cross-burning also ought to be repealed.

About the wearing of hoods in public I'm not so sure.

The 'let Bubba do it' policy regarding cross-burning has had a few successes (notably at Lumberton, N.C.) but not many.

One reason the dissatisifed burn the American flag is that it serves as a civic idol, in a way that flags don't in other countries.

The British are at least as passionate about the ideation behind the Union flag as we are about the idea behind ours, but they are not so childish as to worship the cloth the way we do.

When a Union flag wears out, they do not hold funeral ceremonies; they cut it up and use it to polish boots.

Anti flagburning movements are nothing but another example of the cowardice of US public opinion faced by noisy pressure groups.

Orrin recognizes this very easily if the pressure group is anticonservative; not so much the other way around.

Cross burning is vile and should be banned as well.

Flag burning is a lack of respect for your country. If you disagree with your government, write a letter, march, make a speech or this is a novel idea "vote".

If flag burning (or cross burning) is indeed speech, it seems to me that in most places it would qualify as "fighting words" which basically means that you're inviting physical retribution upon yourself.

Yes. So.

That's the 'let Bubba do it' argument.

It's odd. When lefties complain that everything isn't just copacetic, according to the way they like to see the world, Orrin (and now Jean) spot the whining right away.

When it's their ox being gored, somehow the whole principle of ox-dom changes.

Lots of things in a free society will be vile, but none as vile as unfreedom.

The notion that burning things is a freedom that needs to be protected would strike every classic republican as lunatic.

Banning flag burning is placing the symbol (a flag) above the principle for which it stands (there is reason it is the FIRST Amendment).

Symbolism over substance - there is nothing more liberal than that - and so-called "arch conservatives" support it.

It is time to question how dearly you really hold your beliefs if you can't allow some morons to burn some cloth.

"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech" If Bubba wants to beat them up, though, that's fine with me.

BB:

You're just making a fetish of "free speech" instead of the symbol of the nation. No one trult believes all speech should be free--in a democracy we're entitled to decide where to draw the line and due deference should be paid to universal laws of considerable duration.

Peter:

That comparison thuds a bit. By analogizing flag burning with insulting your female relatives, all criticism of the country in any form is out of bounds.

Unlike shouting "fire" in a theater, burning a flag endangers no one. (Unless, it is that fire in the theater someone is shouting about.)

BB has it right--there is no fetish to free speech here; but for some there is a fetish about the symbol which stands for, among other things, the ability to make such statements without fear of government retribution.

The best way to stop a fire is to deprive it of oxygen. As far as flag burning goes, there is no purer form of O2 than the publicity attending such an amendment.

Why would a nation protect the right to say it should be destroyed?

Because it believes in its own idea?

Yes, Article III expressly makes it illegal.

You grasping.

The Constitution does not even recognize, much less require, that there be a flag.

It's always amusing when folks insist on the communicative power of flag-burning and that therefore it should be protected, then deny that it means anything.

I can understand why I can't burn your flag. Please explain again why I can't burn mine.

If this fool Amdmt. passes. I'm going to burn all my flags the day before it goes into effect and never fly another until it is repealed.

Honoring the symbols of a Nation of Free People ought to be totally voluntary at least for the people. I can accept that there ought to be more severe restrictions in this respect on government. And for that so far laws have been more than sufficient.

This whole bit seems so totally against the spirit of America and Liberty.

Why do we wish to make a religion out of the State? With objects of mandatory veneration.

Some people told me I wasn't going to like Bush's Flags and Fags campaign. They were correct. Bush gets my vote. Then post election I'm going to work with every Democrat, RINO and communist I can find who will oppose Bushes domestic policies.

You know. Looked at the right way Bush really is a uniter. Despite what the democrats say.

It is an alpha male thing. Alpha males with too much power get reduced. Which is why hubris in human affairs often leads to downfall. The religious conservative are full of themselves. They ought to be. Their power is near its peak. It will not survive the election.

Think about this clearly: what happens to your main program without RINO support?

Well I predicted the party of Santorum and Sullivan couldn't hold together on 16 May over at Winds of Change.

In 2003.

M. Simon - Tonkin Bay Yacht Club '66

BTW I am always hearing how Republicans are closer to reality. How come they don't get the alpha male thing? What is it they don't understand about balances of power? I know you get it when the Ds are in power. Why forget it when you have the reigns? Too much power makes people nervous and they start working against you.

Which probably explains 3/4 of the animosity towards America in the world.

M:

Because we decided long ago that you can't.

Wait. I get it.

The Communist Republicans want to Nationalize All American Flags owned by Americans. Is this kind of a micro reversion to Nixon?

Do you think we could get the courts to extend this and apply it to all American Flags everywhere?

Orrin is big on copyright. Perhaps he could copyright the Flag in the Name of The US Goverment. Forever. Then prosecute peope for unauthorised use.

How about issuing flag licenses?

I mean think of all the money the government could make off of this.

Perhaps it could be worked so that only incumbents could use the flag in political campaigns. Just think of the possibilities.

=========================================

Harry E.,

You do not get the spirit of rebellion in America. Which generally is strongest outside the States of the 1860 Rebellion. Go figure.

Well actually they were rebelling against a cultural shift. So in that sense it was a conservative rebellion. It figures. Sort of.

The rules agreed on were changing. Not necessisarily to their advantage. A lot of property changed classification to humanity.

Any way has this taught the rebels the advantage of gentle cultural shift when possible? Uh, nope. We still make the same dumb mistakes apes have always made. One of these days we will get smarter about ourselves. Obviously not for a while.

Good thing we have a political system that is both conservative and radical. Conservative in that change, except in an emergency, is slow. Radical in that change is not beyond hope - for most reasonable changes.

M:

It was the law in 48 states. Just because 5 justices disagree with 70% of living Americans and nearly all the dead does not make them right. The Republic is more important than any reading of the 1st.

I don't deny that flag burning means something.

It's been a while since I read the Ten Commandments. I was the First, wasn't it, that condemned idols?

The flag isn't a religious symbol, but a civic one.

It's an idol that people worship.

Not Christians. It's a symbol of the nation. Destroying it expresses the desire to destroy the nation. No coherent national charter protects the "right" to try to destroy that charter.

And yet, you could print and distribute a pamphlet calling for the destruction of America.

Michael:

Tell it to the militias, the CPUSA, the Black Panthers, etc.