Flag Amendment
Steve and Carla Engels
The Flag Amendment, which makes it a Federal offense to desecrate the American
Flag is full of loop-holes.
1. The Amendment applies to "images of the flag" as well as the standard
cloth standard. This means if your 14 year-old Johnny has a flag tatooed on
his butt, you could face a stiff penalty if you have him remove it.
2. If you were to burn an old Time magazine that happened to have a newsphoto
of a flag in it, BATF stormtroopers might be bashing down your door at
anytime.
3. If you accidently spill gasoline on your flag and then some careless pot
smoker drops a hot ash on it, well the Amendment gives no leeway for cases of
accidental ignition.
4. Though rare, humans have been known to spontaneously combust. If you
happen to be marching in a Veteran's Day Parade and you suddenly explode into
flames and the flag you are carrying ignites and you somehow manage to
survive, well you are likely to be prosecuted.
Write your Congressperson.
Stop this ill-conceived Amendment.
carla
"Why isn't Janet Reno in jail?"
Ken Heatley
reads only that Congress shall have the power to prohibit flag
desecretion. It does not in itself ban anything. As for the other stuff,
use some comon sense! There were laws against flag burning for over 100
years until the Supreme Court struck them down. No one had any
difficulty in telling a flag from a tattoo on someones butt (which in
iteself shows disrespect).
JC Cooper
Ken Heatley wrote in message <6n8gc5$r...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>Steve and Carla Engels wrote:
>>
>> The Flag Amendment, which makes it a Federal offense to desecrate the
American
>> Flag is full of loop-holes.
>>
>> 1. The Amendment applies to "images of the flag" as well as the standard
>> cloth standard. This means if your 14 year-old Johnny has a flag tatooed
on
>> his butt, you could face a stiff penalty if you have him remove it.
In Texas, you face a stiff penalty if your under 18 year old has a tatto of
any kind.
>>
>> 2. If you were to burn an old Time magazine that happened to have a
newsphoto
>> of a flag in it, BATF stormtroopers might be bashing down your door at
>> anytime.
>>
>> 3. If you accidently spill gasoline on your flag and then some careless
pot
>> smoker drops a hot ash on it, well the Amendment gives no leeway for
cases of
>> accidental ignition.
>>
>> 4. Though rare, humans have been known to spontaneously combust. If you
>> happen to be marching in a Veteran's Day Parade and you suddenly explode
into
>> flames and the flag you are carrying ignites and you somehow manage to
>> survive, well you are likely to be prosecuted.
>>
>> Write your Congressperson.
>> Stop this ill-conceived Amendment.
>>
>> carla
>>
>>How could you pack so much disinformation into one post? The amendment
>reads only that Congress shall have the power to prohibit flag
>desecretion. It does not in itself ban anything. As for the other stuff,
>use some comon sense! There were laws against flag burning for over 100
>years until the Supreme Court struck them down. No one had any
>difficulty in telling a flag from a tattoo on someones butt (which in
>iteself shows disrespect).
There is an Email address on the web that sends a letter to every Senator at
the same time, if anyone wants it.
Go ahead. Burn my flag.
Just don't try that with
my freedom!
JC Cooper
Mayor
Gnat Flats, Texas
Old Sarge
I'll put this issue to bed. Here is the actual text of the bill. There are
two versions of it as noted below.
VERSION NUMBER 1:
HR 15561H - Flag Protection Act of 1997
105th Congress - 1st Session - In the House of Representatives May 8, 1997:
Mr. BOUCHER (for himself and Mr. GILCHREST) introduced the following bill;
which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary:
To Provide for protection of the FLAG of the United States
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled,
(a) ACTIONS PROMOTING VIOLENCE - Any person who destroys or damages a flag
of the United States with intent to provoke imminent violence or a breach of
the peace, and in circumstances reasonably likely to produce imminent
violence or a breach of the peace, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
(b) left out
(c) left out
(d) left out
(e) DEFINITION - As used in this section, the term 'flag of the United
States' means ANY flag of the United States, or any PART THEREOF, made of
ANY substance, of ANY SIZE, in a FORM that is COMMONLY DISPLAYED as a flag
and would be TAKEN to be a flag by the REASONABLE observer'.
Old Sarge Comment: This to me means a pocket patch, or any other thing that
has the stars and stripes on it and can be construed to be the US Flag.
VERSION NUMBER 2:
S982IS
Congress finds that
(1) The flag of the United States is a unique symbol of national unity and
represents the values of liberty, justice, and equality that make this
Nation an example of freedom unmatched throughout the world:
(old sarge comment - then why in the hell make a law prohibiting destruction
of the flag as a means of protest and an example of freedom of expression?)
(2) The Bill of Rights is a guarantee of those freedoms and should not be
amended in a manner that could be interpreted to restrict freedom, a course
that is regularly resorted to by authoritarian governments which fear
freedom and not by free and democratic nations;
(3) Abuse of the flag of the United States causes more than pain and
distress to the overwhelming majority of the American people and may amount
to fighting words or a direct threat to the physical and emotional
well-being of individuals at whom the threat is targeted; and
(4) Destruction of the flag of the United States can be intended to incite a
violent response rather than make a political statement and such conduct is
outside the protections afford by the first amendment to the Constitituion.
(old sarge comment: The key word here is 'INTENDED'. Burning the flag can
be inteded to be directed either way, however, it is still freedom of
expression just like giving someone the finger and as long as it doesn't
physically hurt anyone, it should be permitted without restraint.)
The complete bills are online and the url is posted somewhere in these
threads. I'll be archiving each and every comment on this subject in case
someone wants them to give to the press or whatever.
I have also requested that JC post that email address where you can send
email to ALL representives on the Hill at one time. Would be nice to attach
all of these responses as well. Looking for ideas.
Also, might help if everyone got their local media folks on this thread as
the general feeling is that Veterans are all for this bill and we can see
that by judging by the responses, we are not.
Please note cross posting to other newsgroups. Let's not break the thread
elsewhere. This isn't Spam.... it's information.
Ken Heatley wrote in message <6n8gc5$r...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>Steve and Carla Engels wrote:
>>
>> The Flag Amendment, which makes it a Federal offense to desecrate the
American
>> Flag is full of loop-holes.
>>
>> 1. The Amendment applies to "images of the flag" as well as the standard
>> cloth standard. This means if your 14 year-old Johnny has a flag tatooed
on
>> his butt, you could face a stiff penalty if you have him remove it.
>>
dma...@webtv.net
I would like to offer an exemption ammendment.
I think it should be legal to burn the flag whenever a politician wraps
himself/herself inside one.
cw...@ret.cpo.usn
First, this post is, perhaps, the stupidest compilation of BS I've
seen in a long time - not even worth comment.
Second, we have laws protecting trees, state flowers, spotted owls,
wolves, certain fish, ...etc, etc. And yet you folks have a problem
with the same kind of law that prtects our Flag. Makes no sense to
me...
On Sun, 28 Jun 1998 20:08:13 GMT, Eng...@arcanenospam.net (Steve and
Carla Engels) wrote:
>The Flag Amendment, which makes it a Federal offense to desecrate the American
>Flag is full of loop-holes.
>
>1. The Amendment applies to "images of the flag" as well as the standard
>cloth standard. This means if your 14 year-old Johnny has a flag tatooed on
>his butt, you could face a stiff penalty if you have him remove it.
>
>2. If you were to burn an old Time magazine that happened to have a newsphoto
>of a flag in it, BATF stormtroopers might be bashing down your door at
>anytime.
>
>3. If you accidently spill gasoline on your flag and then some careless pot
>smoker drops a hot ash on it, well the Amendment gives no leeway for cases of
>accidental ignition.
>
>4. Though rare, humans have been known to spontaneously combust. If you
>happen to be marching in a Veteran's Day Parade and you suddenly explode into
>flames and the flag you are carrying ignites and you somehow manage to
>survive, well you are likely to be prosecuted.
>
>Write your Congressperson.
>Stop this ill-conceived Amendment.
>
>carla
>
dana raffaniello
cw...@ret.cpo.usn wrote in message <359b936c...@news.mctcnet.net>...
>First, this post is, perhaps, the stupidest compilation of BS I've
>seen in a long time - not even worth comment.
>
>Second, we have laws protecting trees, state flowers, spotted owls,
>wolves, certain fish, ...etc, etc. And yet you folks have a problem
>with the same kind of law that prtects our Flag. Makes no sense to
>me...
Makes perfect sense if you are a liberal. Liberal's hate America and
everything she stands for. Liberals start wars to send America's poor tpo
fight them.
mbra...@my-dejanews.com
Eng...@arcanenospam.net (Steve and Carla Engels) wrote:
>
> The Flag Amendment, which makes it a Federal offense to desecrate the American
> Flag is full of loop-holes.
>
> 1. The Amendment applies to "images of the flag" as well as the standard
> cloth standard. This means if your 14 year-old Johnny has a flag tatooed on
> his butt, you could face a stiff penalty if you have him remove it.
>
> 2. If you were to burn an old Time magazine that happened to have a newsphoto
> of a flag in it, BATF stormtroopers might be bashing down your door at
> anytime.
>
> 3. If you accidently spill gasoline on your flag and then some careless pot
> smoker drops a hot ash on it, well the Amendment gives no leeway for cases of
> accidental ignition.
>
> 4. Though rare, humans have been known to spontaneously combust. If you
> happen to be marching in a Veteran's Day Parade and you suddenly explode into
> flames and the flag you are carrying ignites and you somehow manage to
> survive, well you are likely to be prosecuted.
While I don't support the amendment, I must object to the misstatements in
the above. The amendment only allows Congress to pass laws protecting the
flag from desecration, and does not address any specifics such as the
examples above. (Constitutional amendments don't make law by themselves;
they just restrict the kinds of laws that can be made and enforced.)
If this amendment is passed, Congress will then have to draft and debate
legislation that outlaws flag desecration. At that time, it would have to
work out what the law will consider a flag to be, and what would constitute
defacement of it.
It might decide that all images of the flag are covered, or narrowly define
it to be a cloth object. It might include provisions to allow for accidental
damage to the flag, and for ceremonial burnings not meant as acts of protest.
All of this debating and hair-splitting would take a lot of time (better
spent on legislation that might make some real difference in peoples' lives)
and there's no guarantee that any useful legislation would come of it. The
law would then go to the President (who could veto it) and then the really
tricky business of enforcement would begin.
I disapprove of this amendment very much, but I don't think that wild
predictions like the ones above will help people see how and why this
amendment is inconsistent with American ideals.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
mbra...@my-dejanews.com
cw...@ret.cpo.usn wrote:
> Second, we have laws protecting trees, state flowers, spotted owls,
> wolves, certain fish, ...etc, etc. And yet you folks have a problem
> with the same kind of law that prtects our Flag. Makes no sense to
> me...
Most of the laws you mentioned are intended to protect endangered plants and
animals. (I think that most state flowers are protected merely out of
tradition and reverence.) We don't protect these plants and animals because
of what they stand for, but because they serve some important purpose in
their environments, or just because we don't want to be responsible for their
extinction.
This is unrelated to the free-speech issues that are at the heart of the
controversy over the flag desecration amendment. The U.S. flag is not
threatened with extinction -- we'll always have all the flags we need. The
objection to the amendment is that, for the first time in history, government
would place limits on the way that we can protest about the government. Many
feel that this would be a first step in a gradual erosion of First Amendment
rights.
So it really isn't the same thing as endangered species at all. I hope that
this made it clearer.
J.D. Baldwin
The distinction is an important one. However, given the idiocy with
which the Congress (both parties) has approached this matter so far, are
you really all that confident that they can be trusted to draft even a
*slightly* sensible statute on the subject?
--
From the catapult of J.D. Baldwin |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
_,_ Finger bal...@netcom.com |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
_|70|___:::)=}- for PGP public |+| retract it, but also to deny under
\ / key information. |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SIS-...@webtv.net
either.
Susan F.
SIS-...@webtv.net
in the wrong direction.
Frankly, if someone burns a flag, they undoubtedly feel they are
justified to do so. No one burns a flag just for the fun of it. When
enough people of a nation burn its flag, then that nation will have to
have a change of policy or governmental change it seems to me.
Susan F.
mbra...@my-dejanews.com
bal...@netcom.com (J.D. Baldwin) wrote:
> In article <6phc9u$ifp$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> <mbra...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> >
> > If this amendment is passed, Congress will then have to draft and debate
> > legislation that outlaws flag desecration. At that time, it would have to
> > work out what the law will consider a flag to be, and what would constitute
> > defacement of it.
>
> The distinction is an important one. However, given the idiocy with
> which the Congress (both parties) has approached this matter so far, are
> you really all that confident that they can be trusted to draft even a
> *slightly* sensible statute on the subject?
I'm not at ALL confident -- I'm sorry if my last post gave the impression
that I was. As crazy as the current debate about the amendment may seem, it
will look dignified compared to the circus we're in for if Congress tries to
enact actual legislation. I'll even make a couple of predictions:
1. After ratification of the amendment, but before legislation is passed,
expect the air to be thick with the smoke from burning flags. After all, it
won't be illegal yet, and we'll have plenty of reason to protest.
2. The legislation will be timed to force Democrats to make an embarrassing
vote just prior to a major election.
Chris Taylor
mbra...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<6pp02j$qid$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
This amendment is purely political in nature. While most Americans hate the
idea of someone burning a flag, and would beat the shit out of anyone they
saw doing it, it still remains as a measure of free speach in protest to a
Government that has offended that person. Either way, this ammendment is a
"feel good" ammendment close to an election to get votes. Our constitution
has survived so far with a minimum of ammendments, and those necessary to
ensure mostly personal rights of the people. This ammendment serves no
constructive purpose. It is devised to de divisive, pitching one group
against another. If the people of the US want to protect something, donate
to a charity, volunteer your time. Hell, most of the flags in question
aren't even made in America. There will always be flags. It is a beautiful
symbol of freedom, and that also means the freedom to protest against the
government it symbolizes. Let's protect the symbols that we can't so easily
replace, like our national monuments, redwood forests, national parks, etc.
Chris Taylor
amendment and speech.
Chris Taylor wrote in message <6pree3$o...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
Stephen B. Kimble
> >> > If this amendment is passed, Congress will then have to draft and
> debate
> >> > legislation that outlaws flag desecration. A
<snip>
> This amendment is purely political in nature. While most Americans hate the
> idea of someone burning a flag, and would beat the shit out of anyone they
> saw doing it, it still remains as a measure of free speach in protest to a
> Government that has offended that person. Either way, this ammendment is a
> "feel good" ammendment close to an election to get votes. Our constitution
> has survived so far with a minimum of ammendments, and those necessary to
> ensure mostly personal rights of the people. This ammendment serves no
> constructive purpose. It is devised to de divisive, pitching one group
> against another. If the people of the US want to protect something, donate
> to a charity, volunteer your time. Hell, most of the flags in question
> aren't even made in America. There will always be flags. It is a beautiful
> symbol of freedom, and that also means the freedom to protest against the
> government it symbolizes. Let's protect the symbols that we can't so easily
> replace, like our national monuments, redwood forests, national parks, etc.
Very well said. Exactly my thoughts. -just plain Jane
cw...@ret.cpo.usn
wrote:
snipped...
>This amendment is purely political in nature. While most Americans hate the
>idea of someone burning a flag, and would beat the shit out of anyone they
>saw doing it, it still remains as a measure of free speach in protest to a
>Government that has offended that person.
It is *NOT* free speech --- PERIOD.
> Either way, this ammendment is a
>"feel good" ammendment close to an election to get votes.
If your going to post an opinion, that's fine - but get your facts
straight first. This amendment has been offered for at least the last
3 years...maybe more.
> Our constitution
>has survived so far with a minimum of ammendments, and those necessary to
>ensure mostly personal rights of the people. This ammendment serves no
>constructive purpose. It is devised to de divisive, pitching one group
>against another. If the people of the US want to protect something, donate
>to a charity, volunteer your time. Hell, most of the flags in question
>aren't even made in America. There will always be flags. It is a beautiful
>symbol of freedom, and that also means the freedom to protest against the
>government it symbolizes. Let's protect the symbols that we can't so easily
>replace, like our national monuments, redwood forests, national parks, etc.
Let me get this straight - as a veteran, you want laws to protect a
Redwood tree and a spotted owl, but not the flag??????
It amazes me to read the posts by veterans on this issue. Never
before have I seen such rampant speculation and supposition about the
amendment and its "possible/probable" effects. You're all guessing
people -- that's not all that bad, but your guesses are *way* off
target.