July 29, 2004

A Modest Solution to the Burning Flag Issue

flagburn.jpg
Flag Burning Done Right

I NOTE WITH SOME DISMAY THAT THE FLAG BURNING ARGUMENT is back again in order to bore us to death in August just in case we survive death by boredom at the Democratic Convention:

A joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment to prohibit physical desecration of the U.S. flag was passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday by a vote of 11-7. Republicans expect to bring it to a vote in the full Senate before the summer recess.

The resolution was introduced in 2003 by Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and states, "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."

"I think we really have an opportunity to get the 67 votes necessary to pass the constitutional amendment," Hatch told the Deseret News. -- Senate to Vote on Flag Burning Ban

In general, I think anything proposed by Orrin Hatch should be voted down regardless of content just because he is one creepy-looking guy.

But, upon reflection, I recognize that there are two sides to every argument.

Those that oppose burning the flag are insensitive to the feelings and self-esteem issues of those that would burn it. They want there to be no time or place or situation where a flag can be burned at will. This does trample on Free Speech, no doubt about it.

At the same time, those that love to burn the flag want there to be no time or place or situation where a flag cannot be burned at will. They seek a state of complete freedom where they really have no skin in the game. This is wussy.

Since these positions are mutually exclusive I would like to propose a compromise.

THE AMERICAN DIGEST "IT IS OKAY TO BURN THE FLAG IF..." AMENDMENT Resolved: it shall be seen as an assertion of basic human rights, and shall be taken as a justified expression of free-speech, to burn the American flag if, and only if, the person so burning dowses self with gasoline and is inside the flag at the time of ignition.
This modest measure both allows free expression, removes all doubt as to the sincerity of the burner, and really puts some skin in the game. It is a compromise that should be acceptable to both sides. I look forward to early passage. Posted by Vanderleun at July 29, 2004 9:53 AM
Bookmark and Share

Comments:

HOME

"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." -- Karl Popper N.B.: Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately. Comments that exceed the obscenity or stupidity limits will be either edited or expunged.

I am reading this post and really wondering just
what you were saying. However, your idea has a
great deal of merit. Very good!
I, too eagerly await the passage of this well
thought and constructed admendment.

Posted by: Carole at July 29, 2004 10:28 AM

well thought out!
Whoops.

Posted by: Carole at July 29, 2004 10:29 AM

Excellent comments. I love the thought behind this amendment!

Posted by: John at July 29, 2004 11:18 AM

Lovely idea, but of course it would never get passed (think of the CHILDREN!).

However, we could shut down flag burning in a New York minute by simply requiring a $25 burn permit for each flag, and enforcing it.

Posted by: slimedog at July 29, 2004 11:35 AM

Ethanol!! Think of the earth!

Posted by: Walter E. Wallis at July 29, 2004 12:11 PM

Prohibiting burning of the flag has *no place* in the Constitution, however offensive that act may be.

The Constitution is where the limits on the powers of the government are laid down, *not* the limits on the freedoms of the People.

Posted by: John Hardin at July 29, 2004 1:39 PM

Dear Mr. Hardin,
There is a French aphorism addressing this issue but I shall not burden you with the French. The English translation would be, roughly, "Dogs don't get jokes."

Other than that I quite agree with you concerning the meaning of the Constitution on this point.

I was merely trying to suggest an acceptable compromise on a thorny issue. Isn't compromise also what the Constitution about?

Posted by: Gerard Van der Leun at July 29, 2004 4:08 PM

Stop this plan to Nationalize anything that looks like an American Flag.

Does this mean I can't get a flag tatooed on my ass?

Supppose it has 51 stars will it be expemt? 12 stripes? 14? How bout Red, White, Magenta? In fact why not do it in complimentary colors. Will that count?

How bout I write "This is an American Flag" on a sign and burn it?

Newspapers regularly print flags on their front pages. Is using those pages for parakeet cages an offence? I suppose it depends on intent. In addition to flag police we will need thought police.

Will we have to get flag licenses to go with our gun licenses? After mandatory flag veneration classes?

Will the Government be collecting royalties on flag use (this is Hatch remember?).

How many ways can this law be evaded?

And finally. I can understand why I can't burn your flag. Please explain again why I can't burn mine?

Posted by: M. Simon at July 30, 2004 1:58 AM

Gerard:

Okay, you got me. :)

Woof!

Posted by: John Hardin at July 31, 2004 12:54 PM

Okay, you got me. :)

Posted by: Master at March 26, 2007 3:49 AM