Flag Burning issue
Before proceeding to the actual flag burning amendment issue I will try to summary as to what is exactly flag burning. On a question whether flag burning is legal or not (regardless of the fact that most states have laws against flag burning) I answer that in Texas V Johnson (a 1989 Supreme Court decision) it was ruled that those such state laws are unconstitutional.
Regarding what exacly is at hand here with the new proposed amendment let me state that the word "desecration" implies that the flag is sacred, and the government (let me remind you that there is separation of church and state) can't say that something is sacred. Second issue is that with the passage of this amendment would result in peaceful protestors being arrested for making political statements, something that happens in totalitarian regimes. Not something that happens in America. Even the Boy Scouts burn flags and the reason is that it is the only way to respectfully retire them. When a protestor gets arrested for it, it's not the BURNING that they're being arrested for. it's the thoughts in their minds at the time. In America, we shouldn't arrest people for their thoughts. People who DO burn the flag in protest do it for one reason more than any other protest of anti-flag-burning laws. If you want to "protect the flag" the best thing to do would be to leave things the way they are and allow a handful of disrespectful people to desecrate a flag now and then. If you pass that law it is almost certain that thousands of flags will burn in protest. Finally if one was arrested under the new flag burning law, the first legal argument one could make would be one of selective enforcement. The same equality-philosopy that states that one can not go around only arresting Mexican-Americans when you want to enforce the new speeding law works against flag burning laws. If they arrested someone but they let the thousands of people with little flags improperly displayed on their car windows go, they are discriminating against my political beliefs. Hundreds of thousands of people desecrate the flag daily in the US, but only a handful would be singled out for their political belief under the new law. This makes the "flag burning law" absolutly unenforcable. Gregory "Joey" Johnson?", is a political activist and writer, is the national spokesperson for the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade, and is organizing in South Central Los Angeles. He has been running flag burning site for 10 years now and has been interviewed as an "expert" on flag burning issue by various TV news, shows and newspapers.
In the article "House Approves Move to Outlaw Flag Burning", which is written by Laurie Kellman, who is an Associated Press Writer (article is dated to Wed June 22, 2005), it is stated in the article's introduction that a constitutional amendment that focuses on flag burning has gone through the House (in 286-130 voting outcome in its favor)on Wednesday and it has still to go to Senate where it will face an uphill battle. Associated Press's informal survey suggested that it doesn't have enough Senate votes to go through. The people who support it use 9/11 as excuse since they are sensing a right time to manipulate human emotions for their ends. people on the other side of the argument see it (with a good reason as a threat to free speech. As far as the history of such move is concerned this particular amendment has a purpose to overturn a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling that occurred in 1989 that stated that "flag burning is a protected free-speech right." That ruling in turn threw out an earlier 1968 federal statute as well as flag-protection laws in 48 states. The law was created as a response to anti-Vietnam War protesters whose many activities included , among others, burning of American flags at demonstrations. The Senate could be considering the measure as early as next month.
Politics:
2A) Pro-amendment
Pro-amendment can be found in article found in
http://www.house.gov/ site which is official Internet site for U.S. House of Representatives. Article with the pro-stand views can be found in section called judiciary democrats and article is called "DISSENTING VIEWS". The pro-stand views summarized state that the problem of flag burning can not be viewed as quantitative problem (because it doesn't occur often at all) but as a qualitative problem and it is stated that even one case of flag burning endangers the interests of this country. One government official ("In subcommittee hearings on H.J. Res. 33, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Hyde" ) went so far to compare the flag burning to "hate crimes," without seeing it at all as " free speech deserving of protection." In conclusion proponents of this amendment ask themselves , "What sort of country permits its flag to be destroyed in protest by its own citizens?" "
--------
Politics:
Anti amendment
Anti amendment position can be found in article found in
http://www.house.gov/ site which is official Internet site for U.S. House of Representatives. Article with the Counter position can be found in section called judiciary democrats and article is called "DISSENTING VIEWS". Counter position views summarized state that the American flag should be honored for "the tangible ideals of freedom and democracy that gave rise to it as well as for its richness as a symbol" that basically First Amendment should be honored rather then legally violated. It is stated that three questions we should ask ourselves before such a drastic move is made (drastic considering that " Over more than 200 years, our Constitution has been amended only 27 times."). First, "is the problem of flag desecration(1) so pervasive and so incapable of regulation as to require a constitutional amendment? We answer this question in the negative". Second, "even if a single instance of flag desecration poses some harm to our national interests, does that possible consequence justify censoring our citizens out of symbolic expressions of disagreement with their government? We answer this question in the negative, as we would warn against joining the ranks of tyrannical nations." Finally, "does the precise language of this measure achieve its stated goals of fostering national unity and keeping our political discourse civil? We again answer in the negative and point out that past efforts to protect the flag by force of criminal penalty have actually instigated flag burning."
Politics:
2B) Anti amendment
Anti amendment position can be found in article found in
http://www.house.gov/ site which is official Internet site for U.S. House of Representatives. Article with the Anti amendment position and its summarizing quotes : " (From: Washington, D.C.) In response to a poll released today by Republican proponents of a Constitutional amendment to prohibit flag burning, Rep. John Conyers, (D-MI), today challenged those findings, citing a 1995 Peter Hart poll which found that American support for a Constitutional amendment prohibiting flag burning plummeted from 52% to 37% when they found out that it would be the first amendment in our nation's history to restrict the First Amendment freedoms of speech and expression. "The real news today is that once the American people really find out that this Constitutional Amendment would, for the first time, amend the Bill of Rights and restrict free speech freedoms, they are against it, overwhelmingly. And what's amazing is that like despots, we are restricting free speech for a non-problem. The First Amendment is designed to protect all forms of political symbolic speech, even speech that is unpopular. If we pass H.J. Res. 54, we will be no better than Castro's Cuba, which just last week forbade its citizens from wearing the American flag on clothing. I don't think that's the legacy we want to follow," remarked Conyers. In addition, said Conyers, "if we must do something about this"."
News:
3) Democrats Fear GOP Push on Flag-Burning
In the article "Democrats Fear GOP Push on Flag-Burning ", which is written by Ron Fournier, who is an Associated Press Political Writer (Thurs June 23, 2005), it is stated in the article's introduction that, and here I present a summarizing quote, "Symbols are everything in politics. They can get you elected — or defeated. That's why Democrats fear getting singed by a proposed flag-burning ban, forced into a vote that Republicans will cast as a test of patriotism. " Also " Democratic Party leaders generally don't want to tamper with free-speech rights in the Constitution, but they were split on whether to bow to political pressure. After all, the flag means more than ever after the 2001 terrorist attacks, and Republicans are not shy about evoking Sept. 11 in political fights." Also " But many Democrats say it's cowardly not to fight the ban, and are convinced they won't be punished by voters for doing so."
Analysis:
4) House Passes Anti-Flag Burning Bill Sponsored By Beset Congressman
In the article " House Passes Anti-Flag Burning Bill Sponsored By Beset Congressman" (article found on the site
http://www.themoderatevoice.com/) "Joe Gandelman, political independent and moderate, comments on important stories
in the news.") The sites summary quotes are: " Once AGAIN some politicians in Congress have literally wrapped themselves in the American flag, passing yet another resolution to outlaw flag burning. You know: that issue that EVERYONE you know is upset about, that issue that everyone you know is clamoring for action on — that issue that Americans are talking about as they pay higher gas prices, watch the news about Iraq, and have their bags and their grandma's bags searched by TSA security agents at airports. We could write a nice, objective analysis here, except it'd skirt the bottom line issue so let's be blunt: This is an attempt by some to create an issue that is not an issue to most Americans. It is also clearly an attempt to create a "wedge issue" to use against those who vote against the amendment on the grounds that they feel it's not necessary or violates free speech. It's not about protecting a symbol that needs to be protected right now and that Americans demand be protected. It's about p-o-l-i-t-i-c-s. PURE and SIMPLE. ."
News:
6) House: New try on flag burning
(mainly a pro-amendment article)
In the article "House: New try on flag burning", which is written by Thomas Burr, who is an The Salt Lake Tribune Writer (Thurs June 23, 2005), it is stated in the article's introduction that, and i quote, "The U.S. House on Wednesday passed a constitutional amendment banning flag desecration, advancing the proposal pushed by Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, who puts the likelihood of Senate approval at "excellent. This year shows we have the best chance we've ever had," Hatch said Wednesday. While the House has passed the measure five times since 1995 in the run-up to the Fourth of July, the resolution has never received Senate approval. Hatch, who has 53 co-sponsors for his Senate version
Analysis:
7) Flag Burning Amendment is a Terrible Idea
Analysis of the Flag Burning Amendment conducted by "theyellowline" site (whose description quotes: "Walking Down the Middle of the Road... a former democrat and a former republican fighting to keep vibrant debate and centrist convictions alive".) Back to article. Summary quotes: "The Senate appears very close to having the votes to pass a Constitutional amendment banning flag desecration. If they do, the matter will move to the states for ratification. First of all, exactly what problem is this solving? Has there been a rash of flag burnings across America that we haven't heard about? The only flag burnings tend to take place in foreign countries. So, really, this amendment is purely symbolic. And that makes it all the more abhorrent. What are we saying? That we are so weak a nation as to be unable to handle the desecration of our flag? Does burning a flag in any way touch our freedoms, damage our democracy? The flag is a symbol and a great one but our flag is not our country. You could burn a thousand flags on the lawn of the White House and not a single piece of a single freedom would change." Also "But this amendment would touch our freedoms—not because anyone of us would ever dream of burning a flag but because true freedom requires wide boundaries. Because freedom of speech necessarily requires us to hear and see statements we hate." Also " Let’s not trash up our great Constitution with a pointless amendment. 65% of the American public think we don't need this amendment. I would hope that the Senate would be equally as wise."
Survey data and analysis:
8) 63% oppose flag-burning amendment, new survey shows
This is the article written by www.firstamendmentcenter.org or First Amendment Center Online ("Offers one-stop access to information about the First Amendment. Useful for students, teachers, journalists, lawyers and the general public."). Back to article. Summary quotes:"The number of Americans who oppose a constitutional amendment that would give Congress the power to punish flag-burning as protest is up sharply from 2004, according to a survey released today by the First Amendment Center. The “State of the First Amendment 2005” survey, conducted in May, shows: 63% of those sampled said the U.S. Constitution “should not be amended to prohibit burning or desecrating the American flag,” up from 53% in 2004 and the highest number against the proposed amendment since the annual survey began in 1997. 35% said the Constitution “should be amended” — down from 45% in 2004. " Also "Public support for an anti-flag desecration amendment has shifted up and down each year since a 49-49% split in 1997, but the 2005 survey’s 63-35% result is the widest division of opinion yet recorded in the center’s annual polling."
My conclusion and opinion: It is clear (as far as I am considered) that the government (especially since 9/11) has been gradually moving in a more rightist (almost fascist like) direction. It is clear that any excuse and any shameless manipulation of people's emotion will be used to achieve the goal of the rightist elite. Some people are being fooled into thinking that flag burning should be made illegal (in a country that professes democracy and freedom of expression) and that in name of protecting the very same democracy and freedom we have to curtail the very same democracy and freedom. Sounds contradictory, well it is. In conclusion, just because someone is elected through democratic means it should be stated that it is no guarantee that this someone is democratic in nature or truly pro-democratic for if that was always the case Hitler would have never occurred (Hitler was elected in 1933 in democratic elections although never at the time fully disclosed his perceptions, ideas and plans which was later on to come) and hopefully it never will again.