Coulda Sworn There Was a War on, or Something

In one of those periodic moments that make me feel sane for not belonging to any political party, the scarequote-worthy "House of Representatives" just passed the Flag-Burning Amendment, by a whopping 286-130. The Party of Limited Government (Except When We Run it) voted 209-12, and the Loyal Opposition pushed the amendment over the goal line with a disgraceful 77-117 showing. Here's the complete roll-call list of congress-dopes who should probably never be taken seriously about anything ever again.

UPDATE: Via Andrew Sullivan comes this foul quote from Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-San Diego:

Ask the men and women who stood on top of the Trade Center. Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment.

Comments

Drew | June 22, 2005, 5:24pm | #

RIP Freedom of speech.

ralphus | June 22, 2005, 5:28pm | #

This seems so obviously un-constitutional. What is the legal argument for this amendment? Could someone please enlighten me. You don't have to belive the bullshit. Just explain it.

Number 6 | June 22, 2005, 5:33pm | #

Ralphus- Making it constitutional is the point. This would add an amendment. The legal argument is that it plays well in the district.

Having said that-Fuck it, I no longer care. Where do I go to renounce my citizenship?

thoreau | June 22, 2005, 5:33pm | #

ralphus-

Well, you should probably use the phrase "anti-constitutional." If they amend the Constitution then it would certainly be Constitutional. But it would be so diametrically opposed to the spirit of the Constitution (including its various penumbras and emanations ;) that I think "anti-Constitutional" is appropriate.

FWIW, I checked www.house.gov, and the text of the proposed amendment is:

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

There are actually two versions, but in both versions the text is the same as far as I can tell, just different sponsor lists.

PintofStout | June 22, 2005, 5:35pm | #

Does that mean no more flag boxer shorts? I desecrate those all the time.

Mark Borok | June 22, 2005, 5:39pm | #

Does that mean you can burn a flag with, say, an extra star sewn on and then claim it wasn't really the American flag? Also, don't the states still have to ratify this thing?

Shawn Smith | June 22, 2005, 5:41pm | #

Lousy Porter (R-NV). Now I know why I voted against him.

Lousy Berkley, (D-NV), too. Man, I hate that cow.

Elmer Fudd | June 22, 2005, 5:41pm | #

You just can`t twust those "waskley wepublicans"

Jeff | June 22, 2005, 5:45pm | #

Activist Legistlators.

thoreau | June 22, 2005, 5:45pm | #

Mark-

The states do still have to ratify it, but apparently a lot of state legislatures at some point passed non-binding resolutions calling on Congress to send them an amendment for ratification. Granted, that doesn't mean they're guaranteed to follow through, but it's not a positive sign either.

Alas, our only hope is the Senate. Supposedly it will be a squeaker whichever way it works out in there.

dead_elvis | June 22, 2005, 5:45pm | #

power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag

How about non-physical desecration? Can I stand in the public square and swear at it a lot?

In a way, this would force protest to a whole new level of creativity (and the oft-noted irony being that without this amendment no one would bother). What if I put the flag in a position where it might be desecrated by someone else, but not physically desecrating it myself?

What about flag clothing, which has been around forever (and went through similar controversy back in the day)? If I accidentally shit my pants, am I guilty? What if I'm wearing a flag shirt, and get armpit stains?

This is yet another court clogger, as any of these cases would have to wind their way through the courts.

zach | June 22, 2005, 5:46pm | #

just the people standing on top. everyone from the top floor on down had common sense.

David | June 22, 2005, 5:48pm | #

Does Cunningham go by the name Duke? That's awful.

Is anyone else tired of politicians channeling the 9/11 dead in support of their pet peeves? If I was on top of one of the towers, a burning flag would be the least of my concerns.

zach | June 22, 2005, 5:48pm | #

if "interstate commerce" can include growing pot in your back yard, then "physical desecration" can include hanging it in a mosque.

jesus.

SR | June 22, 2005, 5:49pm | #

"Ask the men and women who stood on top of the Trade Center. Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment."

I didn't know the nameless illegal immigrants working in the kitchen at Windows on the World felt so strongly about the American flag.

thoreau | June 22, 2005, 5:50pm | #

Hell, burning a flag affects the interstate market for fibers and dyes. Clearly it is within Congress's power to ban flag desecration even without the amendment!

PintofStout | June 22, 2005, 5:50pm | #

The states should reject it just to give back to the Feds the "fuck you" the SCOTUS handed out recently. Then pass the amendment striking the 17th and get their Senate back.

Dan Koffler | June 22, 2005, 5:52pm | #

Re: The Duke: at least this will divert attention from the graft scandal he's knee-deep in.

thoreau | June 22, 2005, 5:55pm | #

I didn't know the nameless illegal immigrants working in the kitchen at Windows on the World felt so strongly about the American flag.

Those damn illegals took an opportunity for martyrdom that otherwise would have gone to good, decent Americans! ;)

Re: Cunningham's graft scandal:

I hadn't heard anything about it before now, but whenever they start waving the flag I assume they're trying to distract us from something else.

dead_elvis | June 22, 2005, 6:01pm | #

Re: The Duke: at least this will divert attention from the graft scandal he's knee-deep in.

Exactly what I thought. He's got a lot of nerve even showing his face in public, much less getting up on a soap box and exploiting 9/11.

I think Libertarians need to get on the bandwagon, if we want to get anything done. How do these soundbites sound?:

"Ask the men and women who stood on top of the Trade Center. Ask them and they will tell you: Repeal the income tax"

or "Ask the men and women who stood on top of the Trade Center. Ask them and they will tell you: restore the commerce clause to its original meaning."

David T. Beito | June 22, 2005, 6:03pm | #

The heroic Ron Paul shows his true colors yet again. A giant in a sea of Republican pygmies.

Brett | June 22, 2005, 6:07pm | #

I can't get Matt's roll call link to work. I knew Ron Paul would vote against, but am curious to know what other 11 Pubbies also voted nay. Can somebody throw the 11 names on here or provide an alternate link?

Thanks...

dead_elvis | June 22, 2005, 6:11pm | #

Re: Cunningham's graft scandal:
I hadn't heard anything about it before now,

Long story short:
Defense company not doing so great. Company founder and CEO buys congressman's house at WAY over value, taking a huge loss. Congressman also gets to stay on CEO's Yacht in D.C. Magically, perhaps a little too magically, said defense company starts rolling in the contracts.

No smoking gun yet, but if it looks like a rat, smells like a rat, and acts like a rat...

SR | June 22, 2005, 6:14pm | #

"Alas, our only hope is the Senate."

Yes, but to paraphrase Count Dooku in Star Wars - Episode II - Attack of the Clones: "Dozens of senators are now under the influence of a Sith Lord called... Darth Frist."

Mo | June 22, 2005, 6:16pm | #

Well, my Rep, the spineless Jane Harman, voted for it. Between this and the library search bill she voted for a few months ago, I've been sending her some nasty letters since I moved into her district.

Randolph Carter | June 22, 2005, 6:17pm | #

The repubs are:
Dreier
Ehlers
Flake
Gilchrest
Hoekstra
Kolbe
Leach
Paul
Petri
Shadegg
Shays

tarran | June 22, 2005, 6:26pm | #

So long as the act of wrapping one's self in the flag is included in the list of "desecrations" I think I could support it. :)

I don't see this as a major issue in that flag-burning is a very limited way to influence people to support ones cause. I hove much bigger fish to get upset about.

As far as Sen Cunningham's nickname goes, it was his callsign when he was a U.S. Navy fighter pilot, a referece to John Wayne, I believe. He pulled off some pretty spectacular victories, including driving off a flight of MiG 17's that had trapped his squadron's XO, and winning a a one-on-one engagement with North Vietnam's top ace. Whatever else one might say about him, he must be a great fighter pilot - the MiG 17 is almost impossible to beat by a Navy F-4 (which lacked guns and depended on unreliable missiles that the MiG could often outturn). Surviving until the MiG runs low on fuel is a remarkable feat.

Having listened to him talk extensively on a Nova documentary in the 80's, I think the guy's a scumbag though - he habitually would turn off his RIO's microphone on his missions because he didn't want to hear him. I find that unforgivable.

Gene Berkman | June 22, 2005, 6:27pm | #

Rather than passing a Constitutional amendment to ban flag burning, Congress could just do what we do in California:require an environmental impact statement before you torch anything.

Peter K. | June 22, 2005, 6:29pm | #

Has there ever been a judicial construction of the phrase from Article V of the Constitution "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution . . ."?

It seems to me that two-thirds of 435 members of the House of Representatives would be 290, and 286 is four votes shy.

A majority of either house constitutes a quorum to do business (Article I, Section 5), and "two-thirds" can expel a member (also Article I, Section 5), but where an impeachment is tried, the Constitution specifies "And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present." (Article I, Section 3), and when treaties are ratified it specifies that "two thirds of the Senators present concur" (Article II, Section 2).

So if the founders specified that two-thirds of the members of the Senate "present" would be enough to convict and two-thirds of the Senators "present" can ratify a treaty, but did not specify any number less than two-thirds of the actual membership of the body would suffice to propose an amendment, how can we read into Article V that two-thirds of those voting or those present is enough?

Inasmuch as Article V lacks the qualifier "present", does not two-thirds mean two-thirds of the full membership of 435, i.e., 290 flag fetishists?

Shem | June 22, 2005, 6:44pm | #

pintofstout makes a good point; any use of the American flag that doesn't involve putting it on a regulation flagpole that's lit in the event of night flying and taken down in the rain is against the US government's list of rules for flying the flag, and therefore desecration. So that means no more flag napkins, no more flag shirts, no definitely no more miniature American flags on 8 inch dowels. Does anyone actually think before they pass these laws?

R C Dean | June 22, 2005, 6:49pm | #

RIP Freedom of speech.

Too late for that. McCain Feingold killed it off years ago.

R C Dean | June 22, 2005, 6:52pm | #

Peter K - I would read it the way you do. However, since those are the plain words of the Constitution, I am sure that our betters in Washington have arrived at a meaning that is more sophisticated and easier for them to live with.

Brett | June 22, 2005, 6:59pm | #

Randolph, thanks a ton. I didn't expect to see mine on there, but held out a sliver of hope. Oh well...

Jim Walsh | June 22, 2005, 7:08pm | #

Ask the men and women who stood on top of the Trade Center. Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment.

Cunningham just wants to be sure nobody's burning the flag while he's wrapping himself in it...

Happy Jack | June 22, 2005, 7:10pm | #

Peter K- I suspect that their reading is that the members not voting were not "in the house."
Kinda like "Elvis has left the building."

Next up, we need to have an amendment banning the burning of money. Here in Ohio, the government has a tendency to desecrate money at an amazing clip.

Rick Barton | June 22, 2005, 7:15pm | #

"Ask the men and women who stood on top of the Trade Center."

"It's for the 9/11 victims" can be used with the same demagogic utility as "it's for the children".

This vote was like a question on a "understanding the essence of American liberty" test. We can see those individuals who are in need of further study.

Ken Shultz | June 22, 2005, 7:17pm | #

I think anyone should be able to burn the flag if so inclined, but I also think that if you want to make your case to the American people, burning the flag is about the stupidest thing you can do.

...I also suspect that an amendment will result in more burning flags.

Anonymo the Anonymous | June 22, 2005, 7:22pm | #

"Ask the men and women who stood on top of the Trade Center."

As logicians since the time of Aristotle have noted, being one of those randomly selected to be killed in a terrorist attack makes any argument you might advance (were you not dead) automatically correct. Further, any sentiment that a dipshit legislator posthumously ascribes to you is equally indisputable - even if, being in the World Trade Center, you were likely a professional Manhattanite, and therefore likely a liberal, and thus probably believed exactly the opposite of what your tragic death is being invoked for.

How come it's OK for jerks like this guy, or Bush, to cheapen the name of the dead to promote their pointless partisan policies, but if you dare suggest that perhaps policies like these might have been a major factor in the events of 9/11, you're being disrespectful to the dead?

Jon H | June 22, 2005, 7:22pm | #

Maybe they should just write a law that anyone who burns a flag can be punched once.

Mo | June 22, 2005, 7:23pm | #

Ken,
Considering there was all of 1 flag burning in the US last year, I'm going to need some intense odds before I bet you on that.

kmw | June 22, 2005, 7:36pm | #

Matt sez:
the scarequote-worthy "House of Representatives" just passed the Flag-Burning Amendment, by a whopping 286-130.

Constitutional amendments need at least 278 votes to pass the House, currently. It just barely made it. Just though I'd point that out.

Surely there are 34 Senators who have the brass knockers to vote against this. But I'm not holding my breath.

kmw | June 22, 2005, 7:44pm | #

Quoth Peter K.
It seems to me that two-thirds of 435 members of the House of Representatives would be 290, and 286 is four votes shy.

There are several members of the House from US territories, and they aren't allowed to vote on Constitutional matters.

thoreau | June 22, 2005, 7:50pm | #

kmw-

1) Those Reps from the territories aren't included in the 435 count. They have no real power, but they are allowed to hang out and speak their mind now and then.

2) 286 is more than 2/3 of the number present during the vote, but less than 2/3 of the total number of seats. It seems slightly dubious to let an amendment pass with 2/3 of those present rather than 2/3 total, given some of the phrasing in the Constitution, but I'm not the official parliamentarian of the House. My hunch is that if this thing passes the Senate and gets ratified by 38 states (3/4 of 50), no court is going to strike it down over the quorum in the House.

Johnny Clarke | June 22, 2005, 7:56pm | #

I believe Peter Fonda got pulled over and hassled by the police for wearing his flag-emblazoned jacket and helmet while practicing to film "Easy Rider". I find it amusing that the morons in DC are setting us up for a re-make.

Not David | June 22, 2005, 7:58pm | #

If "statesmen" can't compare stuff to Hitler and the Nazis why can they still invoke 9/11?

Were the Supreme Court to say that an amendment couldn't take force because 2/3 of the total Reps did not vote for it but only 2/3 of a quorum, I wonder how many other amendments would be automatically nullified. Be careful -- Prohibition might suddenly come back into force!

Derek Ashworth | June 22, 2005, 7:58pm | #

SR: Funny, but I thought of another SW exchange:

Sidious: Begin landing your troops.
Haako: But, is that legal?
Sidious: I will make it legal!

I think I'll just live inside my own mind from now on. Hope it has something better than dialup. Wish me luck that it lives in Ron Paul's district.

grylliade | June 22, 2005, 8:10pm | #

Inasmuch as Article V lacks the qualifier "present", does not two-thirds mean two-thirds of the full membership of 435, i.e., 290 flag fetishists?

See, you're forgetting that the meaning of a "quorum" is defined in dictionaries, which are sold over state lines, and therefore is interstate commerce. Congress, as given by the "necessary and proper" clause, can thus give any meaning it pleases to "quorum." Q.E.D.

kmw | June 22, 2005, 8:11pm | #

Thoreau, thanks for the corrections. I didn't know the territorial folks weren't among the 435.

So uh, yeah, hopefully the Senate will make this whole thing moot.

RTL | June 22, 2005, 8:31pm | #

It's bad, but hardly a crisis. It's not likely to go any further. They could have voted for something that might actually effect our lives.

blammo | June 22, 2005, 8:47pm | #

Don't bother with the usual freedom of speech, life, liberty and property schmaltz. Nobody in our country, aside from a few depraved souls who visit this site regularly, believe in that stuff.

I say we fight fire with fire. We burn some other countries' flags, don't get arrested, claim discrimination and overturn the amendment on the grounds of federal civil rights violations.

Peter K. | June 22, 2005, 8:47pm | #

Another thought, this time on the substance of the proposed amendment:

Suppose this thing somehow makes it into the Constitution, and Congress exercises its new power to punish folks for desecrating the flag of the United States:

What if I burn a peice of cloth with thirteen red-and-white stripes, and a field of blue in the upper left corner, and in that field of blue are 49 white stars and one white polka-dot?

Am I then still under the umbrella of the First Amendment? Or would it be "necessary and proper" for Congress to ban desecration of anything that looks sorta like a flag?

And is not the entire Bill of Rights a restriction on Congress' powers, whether enumerated in the original Constitution or added thereafter? So if I descecrate a flag with the intent of expressing contempt for the United States, as opposed to a negligent desecration, am I thus immune from prosecution because I exercised my right of free speech?

If a post-bill-of-rights grant of power trumps the First Amendment, would not that mean the Congressional power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment, for example, enables it to put the pre-emptive muzzle on a state legislator who attempts to propose something which would arguably violate it?

I think not. Thus, an amendment merely stating that Congress has the power to punish flag desecration, without expressly making an exception to the First Amendment, would empower Congress to do no more than punish people who descrate flags WITHOUT an intent to communicate an idea.

Ken Shultz | June 22, 2005, 8:48pm | #

"Considering there was all of 1 flag burning in the US last year, I'm going to need some intense odds before I bet you on that."

Well there you go then...there's gonna be more than one!

...I can feel it!

Tim Higgins | June 22, 2005, 9:11pm | #

Well, you all beat me to it, but I would like to add . . . what do the men and women atop the Trade Center have to say about Rep. Cunningham's recent real estate transactions. What a tool.

Jammer | June 22, 2005, 9:39pm | #

This is a stupid bit of "lawmaking", and I plan to write my Senators about it (woo!) but I agree with RTL; compared with lots of perfectly Constitutional legislation, this amendment is damn small beer.

Carry on with the ridicule, though. It deserves it.

thoreau | June 22, 2005, 9:49pm | #

There's one significant difference between this amendment and some other idiotic act of Congress: This isn't just an ordinary law. This is a Constitutional amendment. For those who take the Constitution seriously, it's a bad idea to deface it with amendments that infringe individual liberty, no matter how trivial they might be.

If this was some small town passing a law against shouting on Sunday, or riding a bicycle in a swimming pool, or serving apple pie without cheese, or some other idiotic thing, I could shrug it off. (Entire books are filled with examples of inane legislation like that.)

But this is the Constitution. And the amendment is designed specifically to punish a form of dissent. Admittedly a trivial and rare form of dissent, but it's still like spraying graffiti on the Constitution.

Given a choice between lighter fluid on flags and graffiti on the Constitution, well, gentlemen, start your torches!

Jon H | June 22, 2005, 9:51pm | #

Does it apply to old versions of the flag?

Confederate flags?

Inverse-color flags?

I suppose protesters could just start burning a poster-size facsimile of the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence.

Maybe that facsimile could be held in the hands of an effigy of Mary, mother of Jesus. Burn it all. That'd really piss them off.

Jon H | June 22, 2005, 9:56pm | #

RTL writes: "It's bad, but hardly a crisis. It's not likely to go any further. They could have voted for something that might actually effect our lives."

It could get worse, depending on how broadly they define "desecration".

For example, if you have a flag on your building, and you engage in some innocuous activity they don't like, could that be construed as "desecration"?

If a porn store hoists a flag out front, could the association of porn + flag be construed as "desecration", as a way to shut the store down?

shearic | June 22, 2005, 10:01pm | #

FWIW - it strikes me that the quote hasn't been interpreted correctly. I took "who stood on top of the Trade Center" to mean the rescuers that erected the flag at "Ground Zero".

thoreau | June 22, 2005, 10:06pm | #

I just checked, and the Rep. whose district I'm moving to (van Hollen) voted against it. I know nothing else about the guy, but that's something.

No doubt I'll soon discover that he's otherwise awful, but the Rep. whose district I'm leaving (Capps) voted for it, so for the moment I'm allowing myself to think that this move is an improvement.

And yes, I know, everybody here (Rick Barton especially) can dig up info on how awful van Hollen's voting record is. I could too, but for the moment I'm savoring this one small consolation in comparing Capps and van Hollen.

I'm prepared to treat this amendment as a litmus test. If this were ordinary legislation I'd put it on the scales and weigh it. But when somebody wants to amend the Constitution, well, that's only been done 27 times in the history of the Republic. It's something we should take pretty damn seriously.

Randolph Carter | June 22, 2005, 10:16pm | #

Just a quick note to let you know what happens to letters, e-mails, and faxes that come to congressmen/senators:
1. They are received by an intern, and put in the appropriate mailbox of the Legislative Assistant who reads them
2. They are glanced at by the L.A., and if they are from someone important, they are read. If not, they are labelled with the appropriate form letter name and given back to the interns
3. They are re-read by the interns, entered into a huge database called Capitol Letters (or some other inane pun) and recorded, many times emblazoned with "DNR" (Do Not Respond).
4. After all the communication enters the database, a gigantic printing of all the form letters responding to the griefs you have takes place.
5. The interns laugh at your funny names like Thibaux Morrcroft etc. as they fold your letters.
6. The letters (or "robos" - short for robotic) are sent out to constituents, and it takes two weeks to get to them.

God damn, I knew gov't was effeceint, but I thought it would give some care to the people who it "represents" (scare quotes come liberally from me).

Anyways, who'll be burning a flag with me in CT if this amendment passes?

Akira MacKenzie | June 22, 2005, 10:42pm | #

Anyways, who'll be burning a flag with me in CT if this amendment passes?

Ironically, when this thing is passed--I'm not as optimistic as the rest of you, there is mid-term election coming up--and there is an increase in flag burning (as there usually is an increase in contraversial speech when government tries to supress it) the conservatives will stand up and scream "See! See! We told you we needed this amendement to punish those dirty, un-american, pot-smoking, hippies and their epidemic of flag buring!"

Akira MacKenzie | June 22, 2005, 10:43pm | #

Edit: "epidemic of flag burning.

Randolph Carter | June 22, 2005, 10:45pm | #

Akira:
Maybe you're right. However, if we look at the precedent the SC has set (haha), then they will most probably stand up to the legislature and hold their previous precedent re: flag burning. At least I hope so. And I hope the Institute for Justice covers my court fees. Otherwise, no fuckin way I'm paying for grad school.

Randolph Carter | June 22, 2005, 10:47pm | #

Oh yeah, by the way I'll be burning the flag in madras pants with my collar popped. Maybe two or three collars popped, just for effect.

Hmmm | June 22, 2005, 10:48pm | #

It's actually rather amusing to see that conservatives, who naively believe that out country is the freest on Earth (whereas Libertarians naively believe that it could someday be true), wish to limit one of the freedoms in which the U.S. actually does a considerably better job than most other industrial democracies.

Can we at least insert a Ukranian sign language interpeter into the First Amendment in all textbooks to communicate, "This is a lie," to all schoolchildren who may otherwise believe that U.S. citizens and the institutions in which they live do not have a fascist orientation?

Randolph Carter | June 22, 2005, 10:50pm | #

And again, PS for those of you who don't know how legislators' offices work: The LAs learn how to do the signature from your office (goddamn, it's killing me not to say who's office I worked for) so if there's a sig in marker on your letter, chances are it came from the "child labor in derkaderkastan" LA. Just so you know.

RandyAyn | June 22, 2005, 11:14pm | #

Last dying gasp of this breed of opportunistic leech.

Jack | June 22, 2005, 11:21pm | #

shearic wrote: "it strikes me that the quote hasn't been interpreted correctly. I took 'who stood on top of the Trade Center' to mean the rescuers that erected the flag at 'Ground Zero'."

You're probably right, but it's much funnier to read it the other way.

RandyAyn | June 22, 2005, 11:23pm | #

This changes the nature of the protest which the flag burning represents from a slap against America to a slap against flag-burning amendment supporters, no?

Any thoughts about whether this now makes it more attractive for Libertarians to burn their national symbol?

And is there a "burn the flag to save it" pun in there somewhere?

CAT_Violations | June 22, 2005, 11:24pm | #

Grandstanding. But the fact that it is a proposed amendment to the Constitution is alarming.

Do you think they're analyzing the mechanics of how this shakes out so they can grease the skids for other despotic measures? As in "we slipped that through and the hayseeds didn't even blink".

Captian Awesome | June 22, 2005, 11:28pm | #

The really scary thing is that the purpose of the constitution is to protect us, the average Joe, from the big powerfull government (who ironically is also supposed to be protecting us). But THIS amendment suggests that it should be in the business of forcing us to kneel and worship it. False Gods indeed!

kmw | June 22, 2005, 11:33pm | #

The west coast is losing Thoreau to Maryland? So that's what all those earthquakes are about.

Jim Lowney | June 22, 2005, 11:55pm | #

That my Congressman voted against the ban makes me feel slightly better.

I am still beside myself about the foul quote from Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-San Diego. How dare he! Has he no shame? Is he so sick and out of his mind that perhaps he enjoys standing on the voiceless dead from a city he knows nothing about?

js | June 23, 2005, 12:34am | #

I suggest we protest this amendment by obtaining a flag and burning it (in the privacy of your own home if you must).

dead_elvis | June 23, 2005, 1:49am | #

False Gods indeed!

Perhaps that's the angle to take to get this defeated. If the bible-thumpers can be convinced that it would be wrong to give the flag more protection than, say, the cross or a bible, perhaps they'll be convinced to throw their lot in with those that would like this defeated.

The Real Bill | June 23, 2005, 1:58am | #

Flag burners are idiots.
Those that ban the burning of the flag are too.
Ban the burning banners!
Burn the banning burners!?!?!?

Ron Hardin | June 23, 2005, 2:36am | #

As logicians since the time of Aristotle have noted, being one of those randomly selected to be killed in a terrorist attack makes any argument you might advance (were you not dead) automatically correct.

According to Aristotle, someone who dies crushed by a column does not die a tragic death.

In fact the non-tragic dead here are being used as a flag, literary-criticismwise.

It's to protect that literary turn that it is necessary to pass rules against mockery.

The real argument against protecting the flag is that the flag belongs to everybody, in particular snake oil salesmen and promoters, as well as you and me and the Veterans Against Everything Fun. Its aura goes where it goes as the popular culture takes it, not looking to any flag etiquitte authority.

Strictly speaking, a law against flag desecration makes it worthwhile again.

Rick Barton | June 23, 2005, 2:38am | #

The Real Bill,

A good start but it needs a little work toward the end.

Rick Barton | June 23, 2005, 2:51am | #

And to paraphrase the Sex Pistols: "Congress people, boring old farts-set light to them...". Ok not literally to them but perhaps in protest, to pictures of them.

The Real Bill | June 23, 2005, 4:08am | #

The Pistols were such a hoot. I think I'll leave the lyrics to folks like them.

Akira MacKenzie | June 23, 2005, 6:52am | #

If the bible-thumpers can be convinced that it would be wrong to give the flag more protection than, say, the cross or a bible, perhaps they'll be convinced to throw their lot in with those that would like this defeated.

Somehow, I doubt that will happen. If anything, the NEXT move would be to extend the power of this amendment to "protect" religious symbols from those NEA-funded artists in league with the insidious Gay Agenda, or even try to get what the British are trying to pull: A ban against criticizing religion--particularly THEIR religion.

I wouldn't put it past them.

Dan Tomkinson | June 23, 2005, 7:25am | #

Congress has extended police powers outside the boundaries of the United States, authorizing police actions by department of justice officials in foreign lands.

Taking that in conjunction with the following quote from the text of the bill as pased:

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

This wording scares the crap out of me....

It seems a small stretch for the powers that be, to extend the intent of this piece of legislation, to authorize actions be taken agains ANY individual, anywhere in the world, who would desecrate the flag by burning it. Do not forget, Congress also has the power to authorize military action.

Our federal government has been out of control for 50 years now.

ed | June 23, 2005, 8:29am | #

Depends on what the definition of "desecration" is.

independent worm | June 23, 2005, 8:36am | #

If anything, the NEXT move would be to extend the power of this amendment to "protect" religious symbols from those NEA-funded artists in league with the insidious Gay Agenda, or even try to get what the British are trying to pull: A ban against criticizing religion--particularly THEIR religion.

That's definitely on the way. Now that the backward-ass religious conservatives have perfected the art of swimming in the wake of "hate crimes" and other PC mumbo jumbo the loopy left brought us, the Criticism of Religion Act will be along shortly. Of course, this Act will still leave plenty of room for legitimate rational and objective discourse concerning religions (so long as they are not Christianity).

And I predict SCOTUS will uphold it on the grounds that those bazillions of dollars the churches snarf up every year constitute interstate commerce, therefore mooting any question about the First Amendment that might otherwise have been at issue.

Vince | June 23, 2005, 8:45am | #

By the same token, where in the constitution does it say that it's okay to murder babies in the womb?

Phil | June 23, 2005, 8:56am | #

Where does it say it isn't? Are you under the misimpression that the Constitution is a set of permissions?

Native NYer | June 23, 2005, 9:31am | #

So would this lady be eligible for prosecution?
http://men.style.com/gq

I guess even without the flag desecration she can be arrested for hate crime penalties for riding in a car with a confederate battle flag.

What about stamps with the flag on them? Do I need to bring the used envelopes to the American legion form proper disposal? What about my kid's flag pictures from first grade that stay on the apartment door for a few weeks and then are quietly tossed in the garbage, am I breaking the law? What about when he colors outside the lines or uses a color other than the official colors, is he desecrating the flag?

When we see people in foreign countries such as Iran desecrating the flag does that mean Congress has the power to prohibit the desecration by allowing an invasion of said country?

Finally, I bet more Twin Tower workers would be against the Income Tax than for this proposed amendment.

a | June 23, 2005, 9:33am | #

where in the constitution does it say that it's okay to murder babies in the womb?

Why stop there? Where does it say that it's okay to discard sperm? Every sperm is sacred too. Masturbation is unconstitutional.

joe | June 23, 2005, 9:49am | #

Sadly, there is nothing in this action that make the term "House of Representatives" scare-quote-worthy.

People love this shtick.

James Kabala | June 23, 2005, 9:51am | #

Peter K. and others:

Some Democrats objected to the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments on the grounds that the ex-Confederate states had elected Senators and Congressmen who had been denied their seats, and therefore the two-thirds majorities for these bills were not real two-thirds majorities. This argument was ignored.
The tradition clearly has been that two thirds means "two thirds of those present." As stupid as I think the flag-burning amendment is, I think it's best not to make a fuss about this aspect of its passage. No court would dare to overturn 200 years of settled practice, and you never know when some good amendment might need to take advantage of this.

phocion | June 23, 2005, 9:52am | #

Where does it say it isn't? Are you under the misimpression that the Constitution is a set of permissions?

I think his point was that the Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution says that states do not have the right to ban abortion. Some of us have trouble finding anything in there about abortion, either way.

David | June 23, 2005, 10:06am | #

If you burn down a house with a flag on it, will a desecration charge be added to your arson charge? If you burn it down at night, will the homeowner be charged too?

I hope the person in charge of determining what constitutes desecration isn't the same guy who yelled that the seven year old me for letting a corner of the flag hit the ground while folding it.

Akira MacKenzie | June 23, 2005, 10:54am | #

By the same token, where in the constitution does it say that it's okay to murder babies in the womb?

Thank you for today's non sequiter argument.

mccleary | June 23, 2005, 11:09am | #

I hope the person in charge of determining what constitutes desecration isn't the same guy who yelled that the seven year old me for letting a corner of the flag hit the ground while folding it.

I actually hope it is. I think that the only possibility for demonstrating (to politicians and the masses) that this is a terrible idea is to float examples of extreme potential desecrations. The supporters of this amendment will never rally around the rights of burners, but pass a local law defining desecrations as flags on clothing, flags on cars, etc. Then arrest some moms with magnetic flags on the back of their SUVs, right next to the W stickers. Watch as "the right to display my US flag in any manner I wish" magically becomes a first-amendment protected political speech issue.

I don't know which local gov't would have the balls to pass/enforce this (Takoma Park, I'm looking at you), but I don't see much hope in any other angle.

Mo | June 23, 2005, 11:30am | #

To "Duke" I would say, "I'm sure the people that were in the WTC would rather you guys focus on important things like national defense instead of defending helpless pieces of cloth." Of course, that's just me.

Crushinator | June 23, 2005, 11:31am | #

"Desecration" implies that the flag is sacred. Religious fanatics should oppose this ammendment on the grounds that it demands worship of a graven image. Could this cause a split in the Republican ranks?

Verbal insults and abuse may be included in the enabling legislation that defines desecration. A person could break the law by simply refusing to recite the pledge of allegiance at school or a ball game. What a crock of shit. Don't our lawmakers have more important things to worry about?

I wonder if flag manufacturers were lobbying against this ammendment?

Jack | June 23, 2005, 12:07pm | #

Ethan Allen, Paul Revere, Samuel Adams, hell, all those patriots must be rolling in their graves right now. They didn't just burn the FLAG of their government, they burned the whole fragging thing down! How is it that a nation born out of a violent revolution against authority is now clamping down on even the smallest act of revolution?

It's time to get out the muskets again...

dhex | June 23, 2005, 12:37pm | #

it's the eternal return, man. eliade was just being coy.

gaius marius | June 23, 2005, 12:50pm | #

Alas, our only hope is the Senate. Supposedly it will be a squeaker whichever way it works out in there.

perhaps, mr thoreau, someone in the chamber will have the integrity to show us why the filibuster is worth having.

David | June 23, 2005, 12:57pm | #

I wouldn't like to lay odds on that, gaius. The only person who could do so without being labeled a traitor might be McCain.

thoreau | June 23, 2005, 1:00pm | #

gaius-

To get technical here, it won't be about filibusters. The amendment has more than 3/5 support and supposedly very close to 2/3 support. In that situation, no filibuster will save it.

But in the bigger picture you're right: Amendments are still subject to a supermajority requirement, which amounts to a minority veto. A minority of the Senate could still block this thing. Nobody knows for sure how much support it has. However it goes, it will be close.

Tinfoil Hat Alert: I think it will fail. If it passed then it would go to the states and be ratified and Congress would lose an opportunity for grandstanding. Oh, sure, they could pass new laws to up the penalties every few years, but that would mean taking actual action. And when you take action, there's always the chance that somebody will get pissed off and you'll suddenly be unpopular. It's much safer to do a symbolic gesture that never quite passes. You get to put your patriotism on display without actually doing something that has real consequences. And if the symbolic gesture just barely falls short then you've got something to complain about when necessary. "Look at how decadent Congress has become, if we can't even get 67 Senators to defend our flag! We need to elect some real patriots!"

My bet is 65 votes.

MJ | June 23, 2005, 1:03pm | #

Flag burning just is not important enough either way to get terribly worked up about it, beyond annoyance that our politicians are willing to compromise the 1st amendment and otherwise waste our time on this bit of populist nonsense.

A person who would use the act of burning a flag as a political statement wants to be arrested, wants to be a martyr for whatever cause he is promoting. Making it illegal will result in more flag burnings, not less (if can realistically get to "less" as others have pointed out). Also, the main argument of the anti-flag burners is that burning a flag is not speech. But the recommended way of discarding a used flag is to burn it (in a special ceremony). Presumably, these type of burnings will remain legal. So burning a flag to desecrate it will be illegal, but burning a flag to honorably retire it will remain acceptable. Is not the difference what is meant by the act, and is that not speech?

thoreau | June 23, 2005, 1:11pm | #

Flag burning just is not important enough either way to get terribly worked up about it

If we were talking about legislation or a court ruling then I'd see your point.

But we're talking about an amendment. The issue here is much bigger than flag burning. Do you want the Constitution amended (a process that has only been done 27 times in the history of the Republic, 10 of those times in the early days) to ban a form of dissent? Even a trivial and rare form of dissent?

This is about legislators tinkering with the Constitution, and the more trivial the issue the angrier I get. Because the Constitution shouldn't be tinkered with for trivial shit. Especially if the trivial shit isn't hurting anybody.

I do happen to think that the Constitution needs some tinkering. For instance, some type of balanced budget amendment might be nice. But we should save the tinkering for big, important stuff like government spending restraints. Not for stuff like one hippie burning a flag and men in San Francisco living together.

Peter K. | June 23, 2005, 1:11pm | #

Hey, Peter K. is my tag, I was here first.

Rick | June 23, 2005, 1:22pm | #

I'm actually not too worried about this: I read it to mean that Congress can prvent the physical desecration of any flags "of the United States", i.e. flags that 'belong' to the government. If I own my very own flag, that flag is not "of" the U.S. in any meaningful sense.

I wonder how long I'd be able to get away with that?

gaius marius | June 23, 2005, 1:23pm | #

In that situation, no filibuster will save it.

indeed, mr thoreau -- i stand corrected.

David | June 23, 2005, 1:25pm | #

What I worry about is flag desecration becoming another ticket-writing excuse. "Good evening sir, we've noticed that your flag is flying after dusk. ID and Title of your home, please. I have to write you a ticket for $250.00."

Another thing that concerns me is that given the nearly non-existent number of flag burners, it seems like they're legislating from their imaginations.

ChrisD | June 23, 2005, 3:01pm | #

Does this count as flag desecration? 'Cause, if so, I think we can get the ammendment defeated at the state level.

thoreau | June 23, 2005, 3:18pm | #

ChrisD-

Another urgent question: Suppose that the flag bikini itself doesn't constitute physical desecration. What about mud wrestling in said bikini?

Actually, that sort of law would have some benefits. A girl is about to mud wrestle in a flag bikini, and then the cop explains that she'll have to mud wrestle in the nude...

Clay | June 23, 2005, 3:31pm | #

Anybody want to have a flag burning party down on the mall if this goes through? It might be my best shot to earn a treasured "I violated the constitution" membership card so I can join the secret club of congressmen, presidents, and judges. I've heard its kind of like how gangs make you shoot a guy just so they know you're cool.

thoreau | June 23, 2005, 3:52pm | #

Clay-

Forget the flag burning. Let's get some chicks in flag bikinis to mud wrestle on the Mall!

MJ | June 23, 2005, 4:11pm | #

thoreau,

I agree with your position on the whole, I just don't see it as something to get particularly worked up about, particularly in the light of things like the Kelo decision today. I think that is a more substantive danger, while flag burning is trivial.

thoreau | June 23, 2005, 4:21pm | #

MJ-

What could be more dire than an amendment to ban chicks in flag bikinis from mud wrestling?

See, this is why I miss the 1990's: Ain't no way something like that would happen under Bill Clinton's watch!

(And yes, I know, Clinton wasn't the reason why the flag burning amendment failed to pass in the 1990's. I'm just trying to have some fun with images of chicks mud wrestling, OK?)

dhex | June 23, 2005, 4:44pm | #

hey, shouldn't some freepers have jumped in by now? what gives? i so enjoy their caveman (sorry, cavepeople) hijinks.

passingthru | June 23, 2005, 5:32pm | #

Flag burning is behavior not speech. The Constitution says nothing about laws abridging the freedom of behavior.

If you want to burn something that's anti-freedom of speech, why not burn the Koran?

thoreau | June 23, 2005, 5:39pm | #

And on post #115 we get our first supporter for this amendment!

Peter K. | June 23, 2005, 6:45pm | #

James Kabala ---

I believe the elected southerners denied their seats at the time the 14th and 15th Amendments were proposed were excluded pursuant to Article I, Section 5:

"Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members . . .

"Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member."

The lack of their votes, then, was due to the fact that they were not members of the body, not merely because they were absent on the days the votes were taken, and not merely because they abstained.

The cause for these particular disqualifications or expulsions was set out in the Constitution itself, in that Article V provides:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution . . ."

The very existence of the Confederacy -- as well as much of what it did -- violated the plain language of Article I, Section 10:

"No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

"No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.

"No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay."

Thus, once the 14th Amendment was ratified,
Section 3 thereof providing that "no person shall be a Senator or Representative . . . who, having previously taken an oath . . . to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof", what had been a discretionary action by Congress (under the above quoted provisions of Article I, Section 5) became a mandatory disability of any officeholder who had supported the Confederacy, a disability to serve in Congress removable only with the support of two-thirds of each House.

The other Peter K. ---

You're going to have to deal with it.

All of you ---

I am right because I stood on top of the World Trade Center.

Stevo Darkly | June 23, 2005, 6:50pm | #

On March 11, 1952, a USAF Fairchild C-82 Packet was shot down over the Soviet Union's Chukot Peninsula during Operation Falling Stars and Stripes, in which tons of American flags were airdropped over Siberia to lift the spirits of a pro-American dissident underground.

Captain Mitchell "Mitch" Smith and Co-pilot Moses "Zippy" Zippermann managed to bring down their badly damaged aircraft in a snowy mountain pass. Hunted by crack Spetznatz units of the NAKVD, they hid in the mountains for four days and four nights until they were finally retrieved by a special extraction unit of US Special Forces.

Only one thing kept Smith and Zippermann from freezing to death during those subzero Siberian nights: They burned some of the US flags they retrieved from their cargo. In an icebound waste devoid of trees or indeed any sign of life, the flags were the only inflammable material to be found. In a region where nightly winter temperatures dip as low as -175 degrees Fahrenheit, and the entire blood supply of a man in a parka can freeze solid in less than 20 seconds, it was their only way of keeping warm.

Gentlemen, ask these patriots who risked their lives to bring the symbol of freedom to those oppressed in the very heart of Soviet totalitarianism. Ask them if you should pass this amendment. And they will tell you: Jesus Christ no! Are you fucking crazy?

zippy | June 24, 2005, 12:00am | #

According to the United State Flag Code 36s 176(k): "The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem of display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning."

wataazu | June 24, 2005, 5:10am | #

DAMN! I was just about to launch my American Flag Toilet Paper company next week. All that money down the drain.

Stevo Darkly | June 24, 2005, 12:35pm | #

Just in case it wasn't obvious, the event described in my post of June 23, 2005 06:50 PM never happened. So I had to invent it.

kevrob | June 26, 2005, 2:44am | #

Here's a plan:

Hire every outcall stripper and female wrestler in the greater D.C./Balmer area. Outfit them with star-spangled swimwear. Overnight, fill the Reflecting Pool with quick-setting gelatin. As dawn breaks, before an alerted media, hold the First Fannie Foxe Invitational Tournament.

It'd be beautiful.

Kevin