Under the flag amendment , we can still burn confederate flags

The people behind the flag amemendment are mostly right-wing lunatics. I bet that if the thing passes, their personal flag will be the subject of lots of bonfires.

If you burn all 50 state flags, that's pretty much the same thing.

May as well throw Puerto Rico and Guam on there, too.

And the U.S. Virgin Islands, if there's room.

On edit: This should work.

It isn't really their fault that they're part of the US. They get burned anyway, figuratively speaking :)

You know, the button down kind, made in a flag motif? Burn that and see what they say.

would intend to call the cops every time I see a Republican abusing the flag in any way.

For example, all those tattered and worn flags attached to their cars.

When they forget to take their flag inside out of the rain.

And how do they intend to dispose of those American Flag t-shirts and bumper stickers?

And if you spray-paint a flag on the side of their house, are they allowed to remove it?

If you laminate it onto their windshield?

If you run up to someone and stick an American flag in their hand, don't they then become obligated to take proper care of it?

If you give them an American flag on a balloon, aren't they then required to keep that balloon from deflating? Or flying away?

You know, we could actually have fun with a flag desecration amendment!

Proposed Anti-Flag Burning Amendment

The Congress and the States shall have Power to Prohibit the Physical Desecration of the Flag of the United States.

Flag Burning and Other Acts Deemed Disrespectful of
American Symbols

The Issue: Does the First Amendment allow the government to punish individuals who mutilate flags, burn draft cards, or engage in other acts deemed disrespectful of patriotic symbols?

Introduction
"Symbolic expression" is a phrase often used to describe expression that is mixed with elements of conduct. The Supreme Court has made clear in a series of cases that symbolic expression (or expressive conduct) may be protected by the First Amendment. Several of these cases have been highly controversial--perhaps none more so than Texas vs Johnson (1990) reversing the conviction of a man who expressed his strong displeasure with U. S. policy by burning an American flag.

It was a case involving the burning of another symbol, however, in which the Supreme Court announced the test it would use to analyze expressive conduct cases. Paul O'Brien's burning of his draft card led to his conviction for the "knowing destruction or mutilation" of a draft card. The Supreme Court, over only one dissent, affirmed O'Brien's conviction, but in so doing offered a test that would later be used to protect other protesters. Specifically, the Court said that a law regulating expressive conduct would be upheld only if it furthered an important governmental objective unrelated to the suppression of speech, was narrowly tailored to achieve the government's legitimate objective, and the law left open ample alternative means for expression. In O'Brien's case, the Court found the law to be narrowly tailored to its important objective of "smooth and efficient functioning of the selective service system." (Many commentators were critical of the Court's decision, arguing that the law was really an attempt to suppress a dramatic form of anti-war speech.)

Daniel Schact, who performed an anti-war skit at Houston's draft center while wearing a military uniform, had better luck in 1970 in reversing his conviction for wearing a military uniform in a production other than one that "does not tend to discredit that armed force." The Court found that the statute used to prosecute Schact made an impermissible content-based distinction and violated the First Amendment.

A few years later, Harold Spence, a student at the University of Washington, was prosecuted under a state flag "improper use" law for displaying a flag in his dorm window with a peace symbol attached to it. The Court rejected the state's argument that promoting respect for the flag or preserving the flag as a symbol of the nation constituted important governmental interests unrelated to the suppression of speech, and reversed Spence's conviction.

More:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/flagburning.htm



Also:

Cracking the Flag-Burning Amendment

I've gone on before about why any Constitutional Amendment to ban burning or otherwise desecrating the flag of the United States of America would be cracked the very second it was passed, but apparently asking the members of the House of Representatives to read is too much to hope for. So for the members of Senate, who vote on the proposed Amendment soon, and the members of the 50 state legislatures here in the US, allow me to offer this visual primer on How to Crack the Flag Burning Amendment.

<snip>

If you want to get fiddly about it, here are the actual government specs for the flag, dictating what the standard dimensions of the flag would be, down to the Pantone colors used in the flag.
http://www.usflag.org/flagspecs.html

As the proposed Amendment allows Congress and the states to prohibit desecration of the US Flag, let us assume -- for the sake of argument -- that the flag is defined by these standard dimensions. Got it? Fine. Here we go:




An American Flag? Hardly. It has only 49 stars! There's a circle where a star should be. Certainly an American Flag had 49 stars, but it didn't look like this (it looked like this).The true 49-star flag would likely be covered by the Amendment, but this one, not so much. Use it for kindling!



Three cheers for the Red, White and Gray? I think not -- use this one to swaddle a horse. Then feed that horse lots of grain



The 13 red and white stripes represent the original 13 colonies of the United States -- but what's this? One of the stripes has gone flaming pink! Clearly it's the stripe for Massachusetts. But whichever former colony it represents, we don't salute the pink, white and blue. Use this one to mop up vomit after a Socialist Party USA beer bash!

<snip>

"Protecting" the flag with a Constitutional Amendment won't solve the not-at-all pressing problem of people burning flags for political protest. They'll still do it. They'll simply do it in ways that will now additionally mock the stupidity of those who love the symbol of American freedoms more than they love actual American freedoms. And no matter how expansively Congress defines "the American Flag" there will always be something that is not the flag, but is close enough in its shape and structure to feel just like the flag. And there will be the people who will use that not-quite-flag-like object to protest.

And you know what? Good for them. They're being better Americans than those who would pass a flag-burning Amendment. Real Americans don't take away the freedoms of other Americans.


More:
http://www.scalzi.com/whatever/003585.html

Flag-Burning Amendment Is Deeply Flawed
by James Ostrowski

The House of Representatives has passed and the Senate is considering a proposed constitutional amendment which would allow the Congress "to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States." This is a well intentioned, but gravely flawed proposal. Its most obvious flaw is its use of the term "desecration" to limit flag-protective legislation. Ironically, use of this term will be used by lawyers to argue for loopholes for their clients who have destroyed flags.

To desecrate means to use a religious object in a manner that would displease God. For example, the Bible states in Daniel 11:31
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/dan/11.html

"His armed forces will rise up to desecrate the temple fortress and will abolish the daily sacrifice."
Note(mine): Is James Ostrowski a 7th Day Adventist?"
http://danielrevelation.com/text/index.php

Unlike a temple, a flag is not a religious object. It is no more possible to desecrate a flag than it is to desecrate a football. The concept of desecration does not apply to these secular objects. Thus, no one could ever be convicted of physically desecrating a flag, except perhaps the flag of Vatican City.

The use of the term "physical" to modify "desecrate" is equally problematical. Even if a flag could be desecrated, the proposal only prohibits "physical" desecration. A long list of non-physical acts of desecration would surely be fastened on by flag-haters and their clever lawyers to defeat the purpose of the amendment. For example, a stand-up comedian could make jokes about the flag while the helpless flag waves mute on the stage of some anti-American theatre. Worse yet, scantily clad dancers could perform lewd acts in front of (or behind) the flag. Such unpatriotic acts and more and worse could not be stopped under the proposed amendment.

Other loopholes would surely be found. Perhaps those who would destroy American values would attack previous flags of the United States and argue that the law applies only to the present version of the flag. Perhaps they would burn large photographs of the flag. The amendment clearly applies only to "flags" and not to images of flags.

More:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/ostrowski1.html

"I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks. We can't beat George Bush unless we appeal to a broad cross-section of Democrats."
Howard Dean

Get it? Cross section?

So do you agree with him or not.

If he had said "pickup truck driving" and/or "NASCAR Dads," and not mentioned confederate flags,he would have been home free.