Flag-burning amendment

[RandFan]

Stuff like chip, chip chipping away at Miranda.

Stuff like chip chip chipping away at search and siezure.

Just a couple more points. As I said in another post, Republicans are pro victims rights. It is damn frustrating to see an arrest that was made in good faith tossed out on a technicality. Personally I am for leaving Miranda just the way it is but I understand the motivation to make some changes.

I'm a bit more for making changes to search and siezure for the reasons mentioned above.

Our government is based on a struggle between ideals. I see little value in painting one ideal evil and the other good. Instead I see the wisdom in protecting civil liberties while trying to balance the needs of victims.

Our system seems well suited to deal with these issues. I used to have a friend who assisted families whos loved ones were arrested on the Mexican side of the border. Having heard a few horror stories I am very glad I live in these United States. I don't believe we are in danger of any slipery slopes nor do I think the right is going to chip, chip away all of our rights.

But again, I respect your opinion

 

[Silicon]

Why can't Californians expect our immigration laws to be enforced and demand that finite resources be spent on those who came here legally?

The 14th Amendment defines an American Citizen as any person born in America.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Got a problem with providing School to school age american citizens, you have to go through the US Constitution.

Other remedies are required. But our Republican Governor didn't take it upon himself to educate the voter on trivial matters like the US Constitution.

Note that Republican Mayor Riordan strongly opposed 187 on these grounds. He went against State Republican leadership on this one. He won a lifetime supporter in me for that.

 

[RandFan]

About this time, the Republican party started a fierce anti-gay push, and I had it up to here with them when Buchanan declared cultural war on the first night of the republican convention. The way the crowd booed and hissed after he sneered the words "Gay rights", I fumed.

I'm a member of the Log Cabin Republicans. I'm not gay but I champion their fight against the tyrrany of both the right and the left.

And to see the republican crowd hiss and boo and sneer the very idea of "gay rights," openly and unashamedly, I wanted to vomit.

So that's when they just about lost me for good. The republicans used to be about better ideas than that. Ronald Reagan stood up for gay rights as a governor, and the Log Cabin Republicans were born.

Spoke to soon. Log Cabin Republicans believe in changing the party because they can't go to the Democrats.

Is it me? Or is there something about the Republican party that makes it the party of the Proposed Constutional Amendment?

I don't know. But, with appologies to Gays and Lesbians. I'm here and I'm not going anywhere.

 

[RandFan]

Got a problem with providing School to school age american citizens, you have to go through the US Constitution.

Not per se. I'm happy to deport their parents if they are here illegaly

Other remedies are required. But our Republican Governor didn't take it upon himself to educate the voter on trivial matters like the US Constitution.

Note that Republican Mayor Riordan strongly opposed 187 on these grounds. He went against State Republican leadership on this one. He won a lifetime supporter in me for that.

I admired the hell out of Riordan. Bill Bennet also was against 187.

I have no problem with making changes to 187. I have a big problem with throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Illegal immigration is a real problem and any efforts to resolve the problem are demagogued by the left.

 

[Silicon]

Good for you, RandFan.

I don't know if you have an answer for my question about the Republican Party being the one of the Proposed Contitutional Amendment.

But at least you listened to me vent on the subject. Thanks for that!


My theory is that it's a way to keep fighting for popular issues even when they've been "lost", like teacher-led prayer in public school.

It rallies the troops, rather than educating them on why the issue was lost, and why perhaps Americans are better off with the status quo.

Maybe nobody wants to hear that, and they just want to think they were right, and America's going to hell in a handbasket except for the good 'ol boys hanging Commandments in the courtrooms and fighting to change the Constitution.... if they can just get the votes.

Maybe these folks aren't a real threat, while we have an independent judiciary.

But every now and then a law passes like 187, or the Colorado Amendment 2, or the Communications Decency Act, that so fundamentally runs counter to what I learned in High School Civics, that I wonder if they even teach that class in Red State America.

Maybe I should be comforted that all three of those laws were immediately struck down before even being enforced, because they were so blatantly unconstitutional.

I agree with you, that the point is consensus, not demonization. And I really agree on that point. I hate the democrats too, for being the only party that stands up for this stuff, and wrapping it in their other crap.

I wish there were a Log Churches Republicans group that fought for freedom of and from religion.

I wish there were a Log Libraries Club that fought for freedom of the press, even the indecent press.

I wish there was a Log Flag Club that fought for Freedom of Speech, even when it was offensive speech.

But when the Nazis wanted to march in Skokie, it wasn't the conservatives who defended their right to speak. It was the ACLU.

It shouldn't only have been the ACLU.

 

[Silicon]

[B
I have no problem with making changes to 187. I have a big problem with throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Illegal immigration is a real problem and any efforts to resolve the problem are demagogued by the left. [/B]

Sure, agreed.

But it wasn't the Democrats who planted the poison pill of unconstitutionality in 187.

And if that wasn't demogoguery, I don't know what was. Nobody forced Pete Wilson to hitch his re-election wagon to it, and beat 187 like a drum around the state.

It was a bad law. And it had a bad message.

It was about kicking kids out of school. That's a bad image to run on.

 

[gnome]

I'm a member of the Log Cabin Republicans. I'm not gay but I champion their fight against the tyrrany of both the right and the left.

I cooperated with some Log Cabin republicans back when there was an effort to change the civil rights laws in Tampa (or was it Hillsborough County?--can't recall exactly) so that there were no longer prohibitions on discriminating based on sexual orientation. I carried a sign at the precinct located near USF and everything... unfortunately nobody showed up for the entire time I was there.

The measure passed, though, because the bastards that wrote it, instead of saying, "This provision of the civil rights statute is hereby removed" or something straightforward, they simply proposed a civil rights law banning all kinds of discrimination, of which sexual orientation was a conspicuous ABSENCE, and having that law replace the current law. I was as appalled at the deceptive phrasing (to the uninformed voter it looks like a nice law that prevents discrimination) as much as I was by the intent.

But the point is, I found them a rather educated and articulate group, and admired that, though we had our differences.

Spoke to soon. Log Cabin Republicans believe in changing the party because they can't go to the Democrats.

I hope they succeed... but how can they, if they make it clear they will vote for Bush even with his anti-gay politics?

 

[shanek]

I don't recall any flag burnings in the past several weeks or several months or even years. I wonder why this bill made it out of committee today?

This is almost enough to make me believe in numerology—these issues always seem to flare up on years divisible by 4! What are the chances???

 

[shanek]

Many who support the amendment feel that the flag is one thing that should be protected against desecration. Some would argue that it symbolizes those who died to make us free.

And so the last thing we should do is undermine that freedom by banning flag burning.

 

[Silicon]

I hope they succeed... but how can they, if they make it clear they will vote for Bush even with his anti-gay politics?

Honestly, I don't think they can.

They just don't have enough votes to turn the issue around. Split the gay vote between 2 parties and neither is worth fighting for.

They need to change the perception of morality in order to win Republican support. Notice how in the current debate, even the far right talk about "dignity" and "respect" for gays. No, this isn't about bigotry, it's about "activist courts".

As if the hisses and catcalls from the floor of the 1992 Republican Convention were for the activist courts! How loudly do they protest that liberals wrongly call them bigots. I heard the hisses myself. They were hissing at my mother. They were hissing at my cousin. They were hissing at the very idea of my family.

Now the "moderate" view is support for Civil Unions. My, how times have changed.

The way to get the Republican party to support gay rights is not to withhold gay votes. It's to make it immoral not to support gay rights, and let the general public withhold THIER votes.

After all, even Dick Cheney has a gay daughter!

 

[shanek]

I'm talking about CORE, Bill of Rights type freedoms. And by and large, these are fought against by Republicans.

Pardon this mini-rant, but the rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights are NOT the core rights. They're actually fairly minor. Core rights are things like, the right to eat food—the government cannot commit forced starvation, for example. Those are the BIG rights. That includes things like, the right to build on my own property the way I see fit (something the Democrats and Republicans have always worked to stop) and the right to use the fruits of my labor (something Democrats and Republicans alike both violate with their oppressive income and inflation taxes). The idea of the Bill of Rights was to look at some of these lesser rights and completely restrict the government from doing ANYTHING to abridge them, so that there'd be no way they could justify abridging the big ones.

When it comes to the really important rights, both the Democrats and Republicans share equal blame in making us unfree.

Stuff like the state sponsoring a prayer to ram down your kids' throat at school.

The Democrats do plenty of ramming in the schools.

Stuff like the Communications Indecency Act, which would have made a private love letter to my wife a Federal Offense!

Um, the Democrats supported that bill, and Clinton signed it.

Stuff like chip, chip chipping away at Miranda.

Stuff like chip chip chipping away at search and siezure.

You mean, like with the USA PATRIOT Act, which plenty of Democrats sponsored, helped author, and voted for?

They can have all the tax breaks they want. Seriously. I'm all for low taxes and small government, if it can actually get government out of my bedroom and out of my doctor's office.

Then the Democrats aren't for you, either. They've been the worst ones involved in infiltrating your doctor's office, making it more difficult to practice medicine (thereby reducing the supply, thereby making it MUCH more expensive).

Sounds to me like you want a Libertarian! Gee, and I think there's one running, too!

 

[shanek]

Got a problem with providing School to school age american citizens, you have to go through the US Constitution.

And where does the Constitution give the Federal government the power to fund and even run a school system?

 

[Silicon]

Sounds to me like you want a Libertarian! Gee, and I think there's one running, too!

Who you?

Or somebody I've never heard of?


;-)

 

[shanek]

One more comment about flag burning: I keep hearing from these military and ex-military types about how they swore an OATH to protect the flag. Funny, but the only military oaths I can find are here:

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/faq/oaths.htm

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

Someone help me out here...because I don't see any mention of flags in either of those. But hey, what's that red hilighted part all about?

 

[shanek]

Who you?

Or somebody I've never heard of?

;-)

Oh, and I'm sure EVERYBODY knew John Kerry before he ran for President...

 

[RandFan]

I agree with you, that the point is consensus, not demonization. And I really agree on that point. I hate the democrats too, for being the only party that stands up for this stuff, and wrapping it in their other crap.

I wish there were a Log Churches Republicans group that fought for freedom of and from religion.

I wish there were a Log Libraries Club that fought for freedom of the press, even the indecent press.

I wish there was a Log Flag Club that fought for Freedom of Speech, even when it was offensive speech.

But when the Nazis wanted to march in Skokie, it wasn't the conservatives who defended their right to speak. It was the ACLU.

It shouldn't only have been the ACLU.

Good post. Thanks Silicon.

 

[Meadmaker]

True story:

Madison Heights, MI, where I lived in 1989, had a local ordinance against flag desecration. (1989 was about the time that the Supreme Court most recently ruled that flag burning could not be considered a crime, so it was in the news a lot at the time.) The ordinance was very broadly worded, basically desecration involved any show of disrespect.

I learned about the ordinance reading a local paper. In the court news was a story about a guy who got a ticket for violating the ordinance. It seems that the Harley Davidson company put out a version of the American flag, with a Harley stamped on it. Most people probably would have taken it to be a semi-patriotic statement about Harleys being made in America, and one guy hung it in his window. However, his neighbor thought that it was inappropriate, complained to police, and the police ticketed the man for flag desecration.

The ticket was thrown out by the local judge, citing the recent Supreme Court decision.

It's nice to be part of an online community where this topic comes up, and agreement is unanimous. This is one turkey of an idea.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Rand Fan

It is damn frustrating to see an arrest that was made in good faith tossed out on a technicality.

It’s also frustrating to see people refer to the Constitution as “a technicality”.

Silicon

I'm talking about CORE, Bill of Rights type freedoms. And by and large, these are fought against by Republicans.
Stuff like …

Stuff like this flag amendment (co-sponsored by Democrats)?
Stuff like arbitrary gun laws?
Stuff like censorship in the form of campaign finance “reform”?
Stuff like affirmative action and busing?

Stuff like California's prop 187 which tried to kick American citizens out of public school if their parents were illegals.

Actually, it seems to me that the way it’s worded, it would not do so. Amazingly poor language.

But every now and then a law passes like 187, or the Colorado Amendment 2, or the Communications Decency Act, that so fundamentally runs counter to what I learned in High School Civics, that I wonder if they even teach that class in Red State America

California is a Red State?

But when the Nazis wanted to march in Skokie, it wasn't the conservatives who defended their right to speak. It was the ACLU.

Only Nixon could go to China.

But it wasn't the Democrats who planted the poison pill of unconstitutionality in 187.

So shouldn’t you thank the Republicans for giving the ACLU a basis for their suit?

Gnome

I hope they succeed... but how can they, if they make it clear they will vote for Bush even with his anti-gay politics?

It seems to me that LCRs are much, much more “in play” than Democrat gays, meaning that the former mean a lot more than the latter.

Shanek

Oh, and I'm sure EVERYBODY knew John Kerry before he ran for President...

Hey, he was on Cheers.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Going back to the beginning of the thread: I just noticed that actually two bills are being discussed, one an amendment, the other simply a bill.

Regarding the bill:

Who's ever burned a flag primarily intending to incite violence or a breach of peace? Sounds like weasel words to me. Tell the ignorant masses we've banned flag buring, but ban nothing.

It seems to me, rather, that they worded it so as to (hopefully) survive a challenge.

As for the amendment:
`The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.'.
Seems to me that even with this, there'd still be a question of whether an anti-flag burning bill would be constitutional. Just because Congress has the power to do something, that doesn't mean that it has the power to do it for content based reasons. And why is this a federal issue?

Wouldn't that be entertaining? They pass an amendment, pass a law, and the USSC strikes the bill down based on the first amendment? As pgwenthold realized, this isn't about prohibiting the physical desecration of the flag. This is about prohibiting specific points of view expressed through desecrating the flag. So would an amendment allowing Congress to outlaw flag desecration do anything about allowing them to outlaw specific points of view?

 

[RandFan]

It’s also frustrating to see people refer to the Constitution as “a technicality”.

It's frustrating when someone accuses you of something you haven't done.

Nice straw man.

The Constitution protects individuals from self incrimination. The Constitution does not spell out how that protection will be afforded.

It was not until 1966 that the SCOTUS ruled in Miranda v. Arizona.

This might come as a surprise to you but Miranda is not perfect. It does not resolve all issues that arise from arrests. There are many cases where the police aquire information innocently and in good faith but the arrest is tossed out on a TECHICALITY. This does not mean that the Concept of right to not incriminate oneself is a technicality or that I think that the Constitution is a technicality.

Consider Stansbury he was not a suspect and had voluntered to give information regarding another suspect. As soon as he had given information that caused the police to think he might indeed be a suspect they stopped the interview and read him his rights. Two lower courts ruled that his rights had not been violated.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Stansbury on the "custody" issue and the original statement was tossed.

Please note that "custody" does not appear in the Constitution. Also note that custody was only a concern when Stansbury decided he no longer wanted to confess and he used it as a technicality to get himself out of hot water.

I'm for Miranda and I think it appropriate to err on the side of protecting the accused but I understand the frustration of the police when a guy sexually molests a little girl, kills her, provides information that leads to his arrest and then gets off because the police got one piece of information too soon. They didn't try and violate his rights. They were not even treating the guy as a suspect. They immediately tried to remedy the situation as soon as they realized that the mistake had been made. And let's be honest with each other for just a moment. Is there anyone in America that doesn't know their Miranda rights?

Bottom line, the guy got away with kidnapping, molestation and murder on a TECHNICALITY.

Capiche?