Anyway, I was stirred enough to fire off this e-mail to Berg:
Thanks for articulating the correct conservative position on the flag-desecration amendment. But I think you were too dismissive of the caller who asked how you would distinguish between flag burning as an act of respect for a tattered flag and flag burning as an act of desecration. You may think you can tell the difference, but that isn't good enough: The law is going to have to define the difference.
Supporters of the amendment say it would punish conduct, not speech. But if the law is going to allow flag burning for one purpose and prohibit for another, then it has to distinguish between those two similar acts of conduct. So what will be punished is not flag burning itself, but the attitude and motives of those doing the burning. That's dangerous power to give the government.
You are correct that the amendment likely would increase rather than reduce flag burning. Suppose, for example, I want to protest the amendment by burning a flag. Suppose I take a flag that is slightly tattered, burn it gently while playing taps, and then make a speech arguing that the flag should be burned because the amendment has made the flag into a meaningless symbol. Would that behavior be protected or barred by the amendment? How far would the government allow citizens to stretch the limits of the amendment?
One more point: Although it's referred to as the "flag-burning amendment," the amendment actually says nothing about burning flags. It prohibits "physical desecration" of the flag. What courts might construe that to mean I can't predict, but it's conceivable that it could mean that all sorts of behavior could become a federal crime: wearing a flag patch on your blue jeans, flying a tattered flag, flying a flag in the rain, waving tiny flags at parades, etc. Do we really want all of these offenses to be constitutional issues?
5 comments:
One must be an ASS to support this amendment! Does Bergy boy support it? If so, he is an ASS!
Larry Kralj, Envrionmental Rangers!
Go ahead & burn the flag if you want Kralj - just make sure you wrap it around your head first!!!
How bout if I wipe my arse with it first! I mean, it's just a damn piece of cloth! If the presidunce can whizz on another man's Holy Book with impunity, why CAN'T I wipe my arse with his flag?! THAT is the question! What is little king george gonna do? Is he gonna start dishing out actual punishments for people who desecrate the flag, JUST LIKE the radical fundamentalists who retaliate for desecration of the Koran? Oh OK, I see the similarities now. Now it's clear. The presidunce has a NEW crusade..........AGAINST FREE SPEECH!
LK
Crisp didn't call it 'just a piece of cloth' did he?
Be advised - anybody I see trying to burn a flag in protest will find himself on his 'arse' if I'm there. After he picks himself up we'll discuss the constitution.
Main Entry: des·e·crate
Etymology: de- + -secrate (as in consecrate) to violate the sanctity of
The problem with this amendment is that when one speaks of "desecration", then one is referring to a sacred object such as the Koran or the Bible. The flag is NOT sacred, no matter how much the religious right wants to ignore the separation of church and state. It may be in questionable taste to burn the flag, but it is not a desecration.
US Code, Title 4, Chapter 1 states that flags shall not be used as wearing apparel, or on cushions, handkerchiefs, napkins and the like, but I sure don't see that being honored very much these days.
Post a Comment