Why would they need a Constitutional Ammendment on flag burning

if they could just simply pass a law as Hillary wants to do? Something is amiss here. Republicans realize it is a Constitutional Right and they want to take that right away by changing the Constitution. Hillary on the other hand does not seem to realize or accept that it is a constitutional right and just wants to make a law against it which anybody should realize will immediately be challenged. What is her motivation here or is she just being stupid?

segment of the voters and then when the SCOTUS rules the law unconstitutional you beat up on SCOTUS for messing with the will of the people.

I guess I am just dense today. I don't see the up side. I understand your logic I just don't see it playing out that way. I see it playing out like "I thought she was smart but apparently she couldn't see how illegal her choices were." :shrug:

we obviously aren't in that group of voters.

> Why would anyone want their name on an unconstitutional law?

She thinks you won't notice what she did and, furthermore, she's
*SURE* that even if you do notice, you'll still support her because
she's not running on the Republican side of the ticket.

Sooner or later, we've got to start disabusing fake Democrats of
that certainty that we'll vote for them just 'cause they ain't Rs.

Tesha

openly admitted it yet. It grants the rights to unreasonable search and seizure without probable cause.

This is nothing but craven pandering. The flag-burning issue comes up about as often as prayer in school and then it dies away when the Next Big Thing comes around.

Senator Clinton is bending over real far to make sure she's letting the far right know what an ass she is.

That is one Senator who'll never get my vote for President. I just hope she won't embarrass the party by making a grab at it, but, given how power-mad she's shown herself to be (after I spent a decade rooting for the Clintons and defending them against all charges), I suspect she's going to give it a shot.

Poor us.

Here is why.

At our local VFW club flag burning is a BIG issue one which will turn out single issue patriotic tears in eyes voters. A law against burning will de-fuse the issue.
An annual move to change the constitution will never pass and it is a safe way for one to appear to be against flag burning and yet 'wave the burning issue' in the face of the tired old veterans.

Let it pass. Let the phony issue die a quiet death.

180

and should never be passed.

All the teary-eyed veterans ought to snap out of it and rememer why they fought: to protect things like free speech, and if they don't understand the symbolism inherent in flag-burning - hell, even our Supreme Court understood THAT - they should go learn about it.

It's not ever righ to let anything "pass." Challenges to our Constitutional rights must always be challenged. That's one of the responsibilities of living in a democracy.

Here's a very good summary of the legal history of this flag-burning sham that's periodically paraded out by politicians with nothing better to do - http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/flagburning.htm. I urge you to recommend it to your VFW buddies, and remind them that Americans applaud them for their efforts to protect our - and their - Constitutionally-guaranteed rights, such as symbolic free speech.

Never, NEVER let anything pass. Not ever. Thomas Jefferson said "...the condition upon which God hath given
liberty to man is eternal vigilance."

Mr. Jefferson was right.

and big mouth (me) was invited to leave the local VFW post because of this non-issue and some others like it.

These people may sit around crying beer tears but they vote and flag burning is a major issue maybe even greater than VA benefits.

180

My old man, rest his soul, a WWII veteran, quit the American Legion in which he'd been very active (mostly in terms of community projects) because of their stance on the Vietnam War.

I don't know that I was ever prouder of him than when he did that.

You're in good company, sir.

combat. It was my actions protesting the Vietnam War (As an active politician) which first got me into trouble with the local VFW. Been down hill ever since. To be honest I am an 'At large' VFW member.

180

I'm an anarchist, really, but I always figured I could make greater progress by being inside the establishment than outside. I was right.

Stay under the radar and keep up whatever you're doing. It's first rate, and so are you.

that it's so nakedly opportunistic. I don't believe for a SECOND she really thinks there should be a law against flag burning. I mean, come on! But she's sponsoring this law in order to "moderate" her liberal image.

I'm so mad about this I could scream!

I will support (almost) anyone else in the primaries. She used to be my top pick, but not anymore. She's sold out her values (and mine) in order to gain the support of the the vague middle.

I know Bill did this to some extent, but that was after he was elected and needed to keep things running (though it disappointed me at the time). And I don't think he would have sunk this low.

because she knows the law would be overturned. This is nothing but a political stunt.

She gets to be on board against flag burning to show her "patriotic" (aka bullshit) side, yet she damn well knows it would be unconstitutional, and thus, no damage is actually done.

This is exactly why I don't like Hillary. I hate the way she plays the game.

Hillary Clinton - fought the Supreme Court in order to respect our veterans by banning flag burning. Her opponent, John McCain, seems to think it's OK for a bunch of long haired socialist intellectual hippies to burn flags!

Hillary Clinton - fighting for veterans, fighting for Republican values, fighting for big corporations.

...paid for by the Democratic Leadership Council.

....that it requires so much attention?

i haven't heard/seen anything... maybe they are expecting it.. reverse psychology.


either that


or they're just trying to take away more rights.

:shrug:

This is an "answer" in search of a problem. Why not ban ghosts from the law? Makes about as much sense.

neighborhood it would kill everyone within a 4 block radius ;-)

That would be the end of that.

"Hillary on the other hand does not seem to realize or accept that it is a constitutional right"
I doubt most Americans do.

"What is her motivation here"
Maybe, like many Americans, she is sickened and angered at the notion of somebody burning a flag--or disgusted by the blatant hypocrisy of someone who burns a flag to show they reject Americans and all things American, including the First Amendment, and then demands that the rest of us accept his peculiar twisted interpretation of that First Amendment.

Burning a flag is not free speech. It's a violent hate crime.

(I've stayed out of all of these I Hate Hillary threads, till now.)

From what I've seen though, the Bill she's supporting makes it illegal to incite violence via burning a flag. To me, that is different than a simple 'you can't burn a flag'. There are times when burning a flag IS an expression of free speech.

The difference would be a person that runs into a Freeper Convention, torches an American flag, and gives a one finger salute to the gathering. Violence can be and is likely expected by the burner...the purpose isn't to exercise his/her Constitutional right but to get punched! A little common sense goes a long way.

and it's perfectly Consittuional to put legal limits on such actions.

By the way, since you want to twist the arm of logic behind its back, who don't you give us an example of a flag burning protest that does not enrage Americans who believe the flag belongs to all Americans and not just one political faction.

"There are times when burning a flag IS an expression of free speech. "
Not so. It is an action, not a speech. Andn the only possible statement it makes is "I hate and violently reject my fellow citizens and all things American."

versus expanding freedom and rights?

If you see it as a "hate crime, pure and simple" then it's a waste of time in even attempting to discuss it with you.

eta: A good editorial on the bill, IMO
http://www.harktheherald.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=70939

"Bennett's proposal (the one co-sponsored by Hillary, Robert Byrd, Kent Conrad and Byron L. Dorgan) allows flag-protection groups to get what they want without undermining the First Amendment. If approved, the bill would make the destruction of a flag a crime if it is done with intent to provoke violence. It would also outlaw the defacement or destruction of a flag belonging to someone else (either the federal government or a private party) and destroying a flag on federal property.
This is a more reasonable approach, and one that doesn't saddle the courts with contradictory constitutional law."

It's a hate crime pure and simple. And it's noticeable that you refused to provide a for instance when it couldn't be perceived as anything else.

Why oppose an Amendment if you believe in the cause? It is nothing but political posturing and shows no true depth to her beliefs.

I don't think the Constitution needs to be changed one bit...and I think the law is a pretty good idea.

us for the nomination. That's the difference here.

It's horrible how the pro-Hillary forces are keeping you from having your own candidate to support.

Does burning a Nazi flag indicate a hatred against all things German? The American flag is a symbol of greed, oppression, neo-colonialism, murder, genocide, racism, and nationalism. Not to mention mom and apple pie.

"Congress shall make NO law abridging... the freedom of speech". Which part of NO don't you get?

"Does burning a Nazi flag indicate a hatred against all things German? "
It sure did during World War 2. Now that it's no longer a symbol of the German people (in fact, swastikas are banned by law there), burning a Nazi flag would connote hate against the sort of fuckwits who promote Nazism now. You know, the Randy Weaver wannabes who peddle hate literature at gun shows.

"The American flag is a symbol of greed, oppression, neo-colonialism, murder, genocide, racism, and nationalism."
It's a wonder that anyone who hates this country so much sticks around to burn the flag in the first place.

Incidentally, I think the sort of toxic hate for America you just expressed does a lot more damage to the Democratic party than anything the DLC does or doesn't do.

You tell US what speech a violent hate crime conveys.

My heart similarly bleeds for the Democratic Party and the DLC.

"Patriotism is the most foolish of passions and the passion of fools". Schopenhauer

Apparantly, America loves yours. Anti-free speech, pro-war, pro-collaborator Dems, etc. You must feel gratified to be in the majority.

with our "Junior Joe McCarthy" Club brandishing gibberish and howling for the blood of other Democrats.

I can think of lots of poison pills they could try to surf in on a Wrap Yourself in the Flag Amendment.

Hillary's stupid law is meant to avoid provisions that the supreme court has already deemed unconstitutional.

Perhaps it makes it look like the Dems are supporting the flag, so they defuse that political issue, knowing full well that eventually the law will be challenged and the SCOTUS will overturn it. Kind of playing from the top and bottom of the deck.
The Professor

Byrd has said he is doubtful there will be a filibuster over Alito.

And, state laws have been challenged, and lost, in the past. The precedent is clear. Just a guess on my part, anyway.
The Professor

it's the old carny huckster side of American politics, where a sleazebag, or just a clown, in a straw hat and a bowtie puts his arms over the shoulders of maw and paw on their porch, she in her gingham dress and apron, with a fresh pie cooling on the railing, he in his flannel shirt with shotgun in crook of arm, and all three standing under the comforting colors of Old Glory, the pol flashes a winning smile and a wink for the camera as the powder in the flashpan ignites.

Completely meaningless, wastes government time, and public money and attention all of which could be spent on a few issues confronting us which actually matter, but damn, the media op is too good to turn down. It's the politics of symbolism and involuntary conditioned responses (which are precursors of fascism): old maw and paw are bamboozled into thinking "dang, he's a red-blooded Merkin" (this reflecting on the low esteem in which media oppers hold maw and paw's mental faculties), pol gets his annual revalidation of his creds as a "patriot" (another one of those poor words which has been shat upon and defiled so much of late), and for those into that sort of thing gets as close to appearing to be a down-home cracker as someone who still has to carry with the effete Beltway crowd can afford to get.

More defilement of American politics, courtesy of its practitioners.

The Bill is also co-sponsored by Byrd, K. Conrad, and Dorgan but I'm not seeing the railing against them. :shrug:

Here's a good editorial on the bill should anyone care to take a look. It clearly states the differences, which is what most people seem to be missing (IMO, anyway).
http://www.harktheherald.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=70939

Who has naked political ambitions and for whome the media and the DLC has already given the nomination to?

Quit playing dumb.

Till then, I'm not going to swallow the Hillary hype that's been pushed by the media and GOP since the day she was sworn in as one of NY's senators.

I don't wish to single her out though. I agree with you that I was unfair in only mentioning Hillary and others also cosponsored the bill. I feel exactly the same about them and I have a deep and abiding respect for every single one of them including Hillary. I am just baffled at their rational at times...

They should be fighting the "war on Christmas". :rofl: