OK...OK... just how the hell do you write an "flag-burning amendment?"

I haven't seen any preliminary copies of the GOP's proposal, but I don't think simply saying you can't burn the American flag will do it. Wouldn't the amendment have to describe the flag and include information like the "official dimensions" per Executive Order No. 10834?:

Flag Proportions
According to Executive Order 10834, official flags (not personal flags) must meet these standards.



Standard proportions
A Hoist (width) of flag 1.0
B Fly (length) of flag 1.9
C Hoist (width) of Union 0.5385 (7/13)
D Fly (length) of Union 0.76
E 0.054
F 0.054
G 0.063
H 0.063
K Diameter of star 0.0616
L Width of stripe 0.0769 (1/13)

http://www.ushistory.org/betsy/flagetiq.html

So I want to burn the flag to make a point...what do I do. I deviate slightly from these official dimensions and viola!, I don't have "an American flag" anymore. But you better believe I can take that flag out in public and throw it around, stomp on it, spit on it, and set fire to it, and do you know what the reaction from the public will be? That's right, the same reaction I would get if I used the "official flag," but I won't get in trouble because my flag is not covered under the new Constitutional amendment! Right?

But wait, you say "Let's write language in the amendment that says something to the effect that "no one will burn a flag that resembles the official American flag." Whoa-oh-oh!!! I'm not a lawyer, but I can see where this would go. Constitutional protection for anything that kinda looks like the American flag? No way this will ever be enforced.

And what about this statement from the above-reference website: According to Executive Order 10834, official flags (not personal flags) must meet these standards.

"Personal flags?" Will the new Constitutional amendment cover "personal flags?" Or just "official flags?" Will I still be able to burn my "personal flag" without fear of it being "unconstitutional?"

So perhaps there is no way one could write an amendment "protecting" the American flag, without opening a whole, large can of worms...

I'm going to have to take it to the Capitol steps and burn it! It will be a Double Duty statement. LOL!

which touches the ground.

And what about desecration by making a pair of ugly jeans or a shirt with the flag, which is technically already wrong - if someone catches themselves on fire while wearing a Tommy Hilfiger shirt, will they be fined?

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. (Introduced in Senate)

SJ 12 IS

109th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. J. RES. 12

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

April 14, 2005

Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. THUNE, Mr. TALENT, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. ALLARD, Mr. ALLEN, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. BURNS, Mr. BURR, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. COBURN, Mr. COLEMAN, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. DEWINE, Mr. DOMENICI, Mr. ENSIGN, Mr. ENZI, Mr. FRIST, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. KYL, Mrs. LINCOLN, Mr. LOTT, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. SANTORUM, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. SHELBY, Mr. THOMAS, Mr. VITTER, Mr. WARNER, Mr. BOND, Mr. BUNNING, Mr. DEMINT, Mrs. DOLE, Mr. GREGG, Mr. HAGEL, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. MARTINEZ, Mr. NELSON of Nebraska, Ms. SNOWE, Mr. SPECTER, and Mr. STEVENS) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within 7 years after the date of its submission by the Congress:

`Article --

`The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.'.

prohibit the physical desecration of the flag, and give the specifications of such flag. Then they would not have to amend the constitution every time the flag is changed.

First of all, the 1st amendment (freedom of speech) has very little to do with what could be loosely construed as desecration of federal property.

It's nuts and thoroughly devisive and relatively impertinant with all else that's at stake.

They trifle over flag burning which is sort of idolatrous and anti Christian in a way, and gay marriage and immigration, which is bigotry, while we have utterly lost even a remotely representative legislature and our measurable votes (aka a democracy.)

What's more frigging important than those things. . .?

And PAID FOR by the burners!!!!

To say nothing of the fact that the STATES must approve the change...good luck with that! Who remembers the ERA????

Everyone got pissed off at Senator Clinton and a few others who put forth that law about not burning the flag on federal lands, but the purpose of that little tap dance was to AVOID this Constitutional amendment horseshit.

I'll tell ya, the way to nip this shit in the bud is to have a bunch of armless, legless, blind and disfigured VETS in their desert fatigues, purple hearts, and assorted combat decorations get together every weekend to sing AMERICA THE BEAUTIFUL and burn flags to end the goddamn war. That will make the GOP heads explode---support the wounded troops, or wave the flag???

But would the corporate media even give it a mention in these times?

I wonder. . .

If you burn the flag because you need to dispose of it, then it's okay. If you are burning it for a protest, apparently that's not okay.

What if someone holds a full-on flag disposal ceremony on the Capitol steps? If they salute it while burning it, will they be charged?

flag...and I burn it.

End of story.

The proposed "flag burning amendment" simply declares that Congress shall have the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag.

If this amendment became part of the Constitution, then it would be up to Congress to enact legislation defining what constitutes an act of desecration. It would have to try and distinguish between various types of behavior. The interesting question is whether the product of this effort could itself be challenged on constitutional grounds. One argument is that it could not...that the amendment gives Congress unfettered authority. In this regard, the amendment is somewhat unusual, since most constitutional amendments are "thou shalt not" type amendments rather than conferrals of authority to do something. However, the 16th amendment gave Congress the power to levy an income tax and I'm fairly certain that if Congress tried to levy an income tax in a way that penalized speech it would be held unconstitutional, notwithstanding the fact that the power to levy an income tax is relatively "unfettered".

So even if a "flag burning" amendment is ratified, the fight will still go on and on. (So there is no doubt -- I think the amendment is a horrible idea).

onto a screen and then light the screen on fire? I'm not saying I would, just playing with the hypothetical possibilities inherent in such lunacies as amendments that contradict other amendments.

I wouldn't begin to guess at what sort of crazy provisions a bill implementing the proposed amendment might contain. The flag desecration bills (as opposed to constitutional amendments) that have been introduced in recent years define what constitutes a flag pretty broadly, but wouldn't encompass an image on a screen imo. Moreover, they would require that the desecration be done with intent to incite, so if you're sitting at home, it wouldn't do much.

More interesting would be if you created an image of a flag being set on fire and posted on a website with the intent of "inciting" those who click and view it. Don't think it would be covered by the proposed language, since an actual flag wasn't burned, but who the hell knows!

In that case, I could make a case that I was actually desecrating a flag desecration. (Brings to mind the hilarious loyalty oath episode in "Catch 22," now that I think of it.)

I'm not saying I actually would, but I'd like to retain the privilege just in case the urge to flag burn ever overtakes me.

unless of course the state you were in had a law against it...

warned me that, were I to try to vigil with my anti-BFEE\anti-imperialism signage there, I would probably be shot.

I wonder if we'll still be allowed to burn copies of the Ten Commandments?

And I tell a really big lie about, let's say, 9-11 and Iraq being connected? Through said lie, my pants would then be on fire. Would I be in violation????

Their objective is to change the subject away from things that actually matter. Welcome to "Wedge-Issue June."

You're absolutely right in your analysis. But the fact that you're correct is also completely irrelevant.

Don't even dignify this bullshit by wasting even an ounce of your energy trying to make sense of it. Better to focus your energies on calling them out on their shameless, transparent tactics.

The gay marriage amendment backfired. Their meaningless Iraq War vote is giving them no traction. I'd like to see them continue to shoot themselves in the foot.

-MR

It's something to discuss in election years.

...in which the filmmaker burns a brown paper grocery bag with an American flag on it, but not before wondering if he is indeed flag-burning, and whether or not the corporation that owns the grocery chain is defacing the flag by using it as a crass marketing ploy.

You had to be there.

NGU.