Conference back40::soapbox

I don't like it, but agree with the SCOTUS ruling.

Bob

Ditto.

ME

    
    
    Me too.
    
    
    Paul

Yup.

Yep.

    okay, i'll jump the fence... i don't like it either, but i would
    support some legislation making it a misdemeanor.
    
    IMHO, it's a vile and crude act. it's something i'd expect from middle
    eastern fanatics. 
    
    it simply crosses the line for a U.S. citizen. i rally don't understand
    why (if disallowed) you'd be trampling on constitutional rights. child-
    ish and immature behavior (while protected) shouldn't always be right.
    
    come and get it...
    
    Chip

    
    
    Not me, Chip.  I don't like it at all, but it is nothing but childish
    behavior.  You can burn the flag, but you can't burn what the flag
    stands for and the memory of those who gave their life so that some
    idiot can act like an idiot.  
    
    
    Mike

    -1 i agree with you. i guess my comapassion lies in a place where
       there are things that demand respect. things that are rooted
       so deep in dedication and commitment to cause, that the line
       of protection that is drawn by law and the line of individual
       tolerence needs to be somewhere.
    
       idiot is an extremely conservative tag for people who do this.
    
       Chip

    To me the flag represents the ideals of the coutry. I personally revere
    the flag and what it stands for: The freedom of speech, the freedom of
    religon and just the freedom to live in peace and to raise your family.
    That being said that means we have to protect others rights to express
    their views, no matter how we feel about them.

    As an active member of the American Legion we have been fighting hard
    to get the law changed to ban burning the flag except when the flag is
    in poor condition. Evan this burning is not a public event.
    
    Now, as a person who was in the service willing to fight and die for
    this flag I don`t have any issues with burning it in protest but to
    burn it for the hell of it doesn`t make much sense to me. You will not
    see me strike the first match to burn it but it is your right to do so
    as a citizen expressing your opinion. 

    
    Let's consider this First Amendment thing.  Define the term
    
           "Freedom of Speech"
    
    Why is it obvious that burning a flag is part of its exercise ?
    
      bb

    "I fought so you could be free, but I get to choose how free that is."

    DOH!

    This seems like a nobrainer.  You buy the flag, you can fly it, you can
    burn it, you can make a dress out of it if you want.

    If you succede in restricting what can be done with it, you've "killed"
    all those wonderful things you claim it stood for in the first place.

    \john

    
    IMHO there is a line to this exprssion thing. i guess i'm not as
    paranoid about it eroding rights.
    
    Chip

	.13  right.  the idea that making flag burning illegal somehow
	erodes rights or kills all the things that the flag stands for is
	pretty preposterous, in my opinion.

    <<< Note 322.14 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "no, i'm aluminuming 'um, mum" >>>

>	.13  right.  the idea that making flag burning illegal somehow
>	erodes rights or kills all the things that the flag stands for is
>	pretty preposterous, in my opinion.


	Hardly. Countries that allow open protests against the government
	are the minority in this world. Of that minority, the US is among
	the most liberal in what protests it will allow. We should be
	thankful that we live in a country that is secure enough to allow
	such protests.

	Burning the flag in protest of some government policy or another
	is most certainly "protected speech". Any law, or in this case
	a Constitutional Amendment that says, " All political speech is
	absolutely guarunteed, EXCEPT for....", opens a door. A door
	that should forever remain closed because, once open, it can not
	be closed again.

Jim

    Don't like it, but agree with the ruling.  Don't like people
    protesting at abortion clinics either, but they've got every 
    right to be there and to have their say.
    
    A free country should mean exactly that.  I may not like what
    you are saying, but you have as much right to say it as I do to
    disagree with you.
    
    Mary-Michael

re: .14 (and .13)

I'd like to respectfully disagree;  the idea that making it illegal
to burn the flag will somehow preserve that which the flag stands
for is also rather perposterous.

A law like this is nothing but a feel-good measure.  It won't change
how people feel, and if you think it'll actually STOP flag-burning
(that's what you want to prevent, right?) then I don't think you've
been reading the civil disobedience topic.

And harkening back to a Doonesbury strip - what is a "flag"?  Can
it be printed on paper?  Is that burnable?  What about a flag patch
for a jacket?  Burnable?  A flag bumpersticker?  What's an appropriate
punishment for this?

\john

	John, I agree with the argument that it would be nigh-on
	impossible to enforce such a law, and that it could be conceived
	of (by some) as a "feel-good measure", but to suggest that
	it would threaten our rights still seems ludicrous to me.
	I fully realize that's an unpopular stance, but it's a pragmatic
	one in my view.

    Re: .10
    
    >but to burn it for the hell of it doesn`t make much sense to me
    
    Bungee jumping doesn't make much sense to me; let's ban that, too.
    
    You'll have to come up with a more compelling reason than that.

    Disagree with the act itself, agree with the ruling.  
    
    

    .19
    I think the phrase was taken wrong. Bungee jumping shouldn`t be banned.
    I`m thinking along the lines of Fire Marshal Bill: Lets say ya have a
    can of gas that you tip over on the flag and you just happen to get
    struck by a bolt of lightning... To burn it and not make a statement
    over something isn`t right. IMO

    I think that the people should be able to burn the flags as long as
    they're castrated and can't procreate.
    
    -Jack

    .10
    
    > die for
    > this flag
    
    crap.  you didn't put your life on the line for a piece of cloth, you
    put your life on the line for the PEOPLE and the IDEALS of this
    country.  one of which rights is that of saying and doing stupid things
    so long as no one else and no one else's property is violated.
    
    flag burners are scum.  but voltaire had it right:
    
    	i disapprove of what you say, but i will defend to the death your
    	right to say it.
    
    anyone who claims to support the right of free speech and yet wants to
    ban flag burning is a hypocrite or a fool - but that's his/her right.

    
    I am always amazed at the Supreme Court Rulings related to "Freedom of
    Speech or expression":
    
    If one utters a sexist or racial epithet one may be guilty of violating 
    anothers civil rights because it is hurtful or offensive to the victim.
    Violaters can be criminally prosecuted, jailed and/or be subject to civil
    suits.
    
    It is, according to the SCOTUS, legal to burn the American Flag, as freedom
    of expression, even though that is hurtful or offensive to more than just a
    few Americans.
    
    IMHO, there is already more than enough latitude for individuals to 
    express their dissatisfaction with the government, it's policies or any 
    other matter without burning the flag. Protestors are routinely allowed
    to disrupt other citizen's rights by obstructing the normal flow of
    pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Police are severely restricted in how 
    they can enforce the rights of those citizens being impeded by protestors.  
    
    The irony of it is that any support or feelings that I might have had
    for some protesting group is immediately and irrevocably reversed when
    they use flag burning to emphasize their position. To me the Flag of
    the United States does not represent the government or it's policies or
    the position of any one organization as much as it does the people of our 
    nation who as citizens and soldiers have given and maintained these rights 
    for all of us. I believe that burning the flag is an insult to most people,
    even those veterans who fought and watched their buddies die and say that's
    the kind of freedom they fought for. I could care less about any insult to 
    the government. That is why I support an amendment that would make flag
    burning illegal. 
    
    Burning the White House as a symbol of protest is illegal, blowing up
    the Lincoln Memorial as a symbol of protest is illegal, so why not
    include OUR flag in these categories. After all, the first two are just
    things, symbols, they are not humans with feelings and lives, and they
    could be replaced just as a flag can, albeit at slightly more expense.    
    
    IMHO this is just another example of a SCOTUS ruling, that caters to the 
    very few at the expense of the feelings of the vast majority of citizens. 
    Pursuing an amendment should show what I believe is the overwhelming number
    of citizens who are opposed to flag burning as an expression of free
    speech. It's time for some laws to be passeed that protect the rights of 
    the majority of citizens. If the majority doesn't agree the amendment
    will never become law.
     
    JLB
                          
      
    
    

    .25
    
    > It is, according to the SCOTUS, legal to burn the American Flag, as
    > freedom of expression, even though that is hurtful or offensive to more
    > than just a few Americans.
    
    you're a fat, ignorant git who ought to get a new set of teeth and a
    face transplant.
    
    there, i've written something that is hurtful or offensive to
    potentially more than just a few americans.  shall we make it illegal
    for me to say it?  get a clue.

    
    Re: .26  Binder
    
    I guess I didn't make my point with you.....
    
    Since nothing in your commentary of what you described is true it's not 
    hurtful or offensive to me. Besides since there is no sexual or racial
    epithets it's also not illegal.   
    
    You have the freedom to keep on trying though if that's what spins your
    wheels.
    
    Are you concerned that the majority of citizens might just support such an
    amendment or even be given the opportunity to make that choice? Sure
    smells like it.
    
    JLB

    RE .25 
            I'd agree with you're making flag burning against the law as
    long as a majority of the citizen of the country wanted it that way, if
    it was put up to a national vote, with debates by representatives from
    both sides and it was the true will of the people and not just a
    political wim by congress just to score points for an election. IMHO I
    don't think it would get the support you'd think, i feel patriotism is
    at an all time low, with PC history telling our children how we stole
    our land off the Native Americans and how we're destroying the world
    ecology.

>    Burning the White House as a symbol of protest is illegal, blowing up
>    the Lincoln Memorial as a symbol of protest is illegal, so why not
>    include OUR flag in these categories. After all, the first two are just
>    things, symbols, they are not humans with feelings and lives, and they
>    could be replaced just as a flag can, albeit at slightly more expense.    

However, burning a model of the White House is fine. As would be blowing
up a replica of the Lincoln Memorial. These are symbols, like the flag.
The others are more than symbols - they are real property.

    
    
    As Jack said.  Now, if you go and try and burn someone elses flag, you
    should be charged with arson.

    .27
    
    so what i said isn't true for you.  it is for wannamonkey, right, mike? 
    :-)
    
    it's the simple point that expression that is offensive to some subset
    of the population is not ipso facto a candidate for being banned under
    the law.  if you can't see that, i pity your comprehension skills.
    
    what the majority of citizens would do has no bearing on such an
    amendment.  the only people who actually get to vote on it are, in
    order:
    
    	members of the us congress
    	members of the individual state legislatures
    
    legislators are by nature demagogues, and they don't necessarily listen
    to what the people really want, they tell the people what the people
    want and then give it to them.  right now, the nation is on a course
    toward jingoistic nationalism and 1930s-style isolationism, and our
    legislators in washington are spurring us onward.  it's not what we
    really want, because we have to get along with the rest of the world in
    a far more intimate way than we did even in the '30s, when the same
    course ended in near disaster.

    Re: .28
    
    You may be right and it won't pass but that will still reflect the
    people's thinking on the subject.
    
    Better to give it to the people and let them decide then to the
    politicians and the judges who rarely reflect the will of the people
    these days.
    
    JLB

(I don't think he heard you, dick.)

    
    
    Look beandirt, enough of the wannamoney stuff.... ;')
    
    
    If I see someone burning the flag, I think what a horses hindquarter.
    
    If I see a bunch of KKK members protesting, I thing what a bunch of
    horses hindquarters.
    
    If I see the Farakahn followers spouting their hate, I think what a
    bunch of horses hinquarters.
    
    
    Last I looked, it ain't a crime to act like a horses arse.
    
    
    
    Mike

    .19 i expected a little more than that from you... sort of a pot
        and kettle remark doncha think Chels?

    blunder boy, i take personal offense at your "you can't support banning
    the burning of the flag and support freedom of expression with being a
    fool." then again, you may have a problem going deeper than that...
    
    BTW, get yourself to an electrologist and get that hair across your 
    butt removed...
    
    Chip

    Re: .35
    
    >i expected a little more than that from you
    
    I am not responsible for living up to your expectations.  Someone made
    a poor argument; I pointed it out, as is my wont.  Succinctly, as is my
    wont.  What more could anyone require?

>    As Jack said.  Now, if you go and try and burn someone elses flag, you
>    should be charged with arson.

Question.  If you deliberately burn down your own uninhabited house can you
be charged with arson?

    re .38 Yes you can.

    Re: .38
    
    At the very least, it's a bonfire without a permit....

    but you probably won't if you take the precaution of canceling the
    insurance, disconnecting the utilities, and having the fire department
    stand by.

    .36
    
    it's already been said, chip.  "you're free, but i get to decide how
    free 'free' really means."  it won't wash.

    .31 Binder
    
    Someone correct me if I'm wrong but the last time I looked a
    Constitutional Amendment is passed when:
    
    	1. The House and Senate pass it,
    	2. Some number of individual State Legislatures pass it,
    	3. The citizens pass it in a referendum vote in their state during a 
    		national election,
    
    Yes, you are correct, in that there are a lot of politicians in between
    the people and the passage of an Amendment and that still allows their
    personal agendas to interfere with the will of the people. When it does
    survive and get on the ballot it is, however, one of the few times the 
    voters get to vote yay or nay on an issue of national importance. The last 
    one this controversial was the ERA amendment which failed because enough 
    states failed to pass it in the referendum stage.
    
    JLB  
                             

    .43
    
    not quite correct.  article v of the constitution provides that:
    
    o   an amendment may be proposed by a 2/3 majority in both houses of
        the congress or by a convention called on application by a 2/3
        majority of the state legislatures.
    
    o   once proposed, an amendment must be ratified by a 3/4 majority of
        the state legislatures or by conventions (not plebiscites) in 3/4
        of the states, the mode of ratification to be specified by the
        congress.
    
    the article hasn't been superseded or amended.  what happened with the
    era was that plebiscites (not referenda) in more than 1/4 of the states
    failed to approve the calling of conventions.

                      <<< Note 322.27 by LIOS01::BARNES >>>

>    Are you concerned that the majority of citizens might just support such an
>    amendment or even be given the opportunity to make that choice? Sure
>    smells like it.
 
	Actually, yes. But then the whole point of the tryanny of the
	majority would probably be lost on you.

Jim

.25>    The irony of it is that any support or feelings that I might have had
>    for some protesting group is immediately and irrevocably reversed when
>    they use flag burning to emphasize their position. 
    
    	This is one solution -- societal peer pressure.

	.26
        
>    you're a fat, ignorant git who ought to get a new set of teeth and a
>    face transplant.
>    
>    there, i've written something that is hurtful or offensive to
>    potentially more than just a few americans.  shall we make it illegal
>    for me to say it?  get a clue.
    
    	OK, Dick.  Now tell me why you wouldn't have been able to
    	write something hurtful and offensive about certain specific
    	groups.  Why would doing so be illegal, but what you did
    	above is not?  It should be all or nothing.

    .47
    
    it's called inconsistency in the law, joe.

    	And so why couldn't that "inconsistency" be extended to
    	flag burning?  (To play the devil's advocate...)

    .49
    
    it could, can, and probably will.  which doesn't make it right or
    honorable.

      <<< Note 322.49 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

>    	And so why couldn't that "inconsistency" be extended to
>    	flag burning?  (To play the devil's advocate...)

	Joe, do you teach your children that two wrongs DO make a 
	right?

Jim

    
    
    
    	While I agree that it's protected under freedom of expression.
    	
    	There is a flip side to the arguement that keeps this
    	from being as someone said "A no brainer"
    
    	
    	Everyone knows that Freedom of speech does not protect you
    	from yelling "Fire" in crowd when there is no fire NOR
    	does it protect fighting words.
    			______________
    
    	The courts could have declared that the burning of the flag
    	a symbolic equvilant to "Fighting words"
                                                  

    .52
    
    > Everyone knows that Freedom of speech does not protect...
    > fighting words.
    > --------------
    
    what an arrogant arsehole you are if you believe that.
    
    there.  them's fighting words, and you better believe i have the right
    to say/write them.  you have the right to respond.  each of us must be
    prepared for the consequences of what he's done, however, and if you
    assault me i will see to it that you have a nice conversation with a
    judge and twelve good men and true.

    
    
    People get arrested all the time for flipping off cops.
    Your simple wrong. "Fighting words" are not recognized by the
    constitution.
                                                          
    

    .55 (formerly .54)
    
    i liked your first title better.
    
    > -< Please don't speak from ignorance >-
    
    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
    
    > People get arrested all the time for flipping off cops.
    
    but they don't get CONVICTED of flipping off cops, because flipping off
    cops is not a crime.  it just pisses them off enough so that they think
    one up for you.  it's all part of the golden rule; them as has the gold
    gets to make the rules.

    
    Your still wrong. They do.
    

    
    No.  I don't like folks burning our flag.  And I would support an
    amendment prohibiting it.
    
    jeff

    .58
    
    would you support a law prohibiting the burning of the flag of
    miyanmar?

  I'd be against a law banning the burning of the flag. As others have said,
such a law would do far more damage to the values for which the flag stands
than burning the flag itself would do. 

  Oddly enough, the most common reason given for a flag burning law or
amendment is "those veterans who have fought for the flag", yet it is most often
disgruntled veterans who are the ones arrested for burning the flag.

  If there ever is a law against burning the flag, should veterans of foreign
wars be exempted from the law?

  George

    .59
    
    miyanmar?

    
    
    
    I once swore a few times in conversation with a cop (actually he used a
    few choice words in his dialogue first).  He threateded to arrest me if 
    I did it again.  I said F this and walked away.  The guy kept yelling
    come on back here, but I just kept walking.  I was waiting for him to
    come after me, but he didn't.  I wanted to see him run, he had
    definitely been to dunkin donuts on more than one occaision.  That was
    some 10 years ago, I don't look for conflict any longer.  I don't see
    how they could arrest you for flipping them off.  If someone flips me
    off these day, I usually get quite a chuckle out of it.  

    .61
    
    it's a country.  with that bit of new knowledge, are you able to answer
    my question?

Myanmar.  Formerly Burma.  Famous for its shaving cows, from which they get
shaving cream.

    
    Burma?!?
    

	.51
    
>>    	And so why couldn't that "inconsistency" be extended to
>>    	flag burning?  (To play the devil's advocate...)
>
>	Joe, do you teach your children that two wrongs DO make a 
>	right?

	No, but I often *DO* challenge them with devil's advocate
    	questions.  How about you?

Don't tread on me.

      Long may it wave.

           Preserve Old Glory.

	       Burma Shave!

    
    Why did you say Burma?
    

    
    I panicked.
    

    
    Oooooh. Let's see what's on the television.
    

    Looks like a penguin.

    
    I can _see_ that! I mean what program is on the television set!
    

    Ooh, I better switch it on.
    
    {hummm numm numm numm humm allumm nummm}

    
    How'd that penquin get there anyway?
    

    
    Perhaps it's from the zoo.

    
    Penquins don't come from the zoo, they come from the Antarctic. If it
    was from the zoo it would have property of the zoo stamped on it!
    

    
    No, it wouldn't - they don't stamp animals "Property of the Zoo"!  You
    can't stamp a huge LION!

    
    They stamp them when they're *small*.
    

    
    What happens when they molt?!

    
    Lions don't molt!
    

    
    No, but penguins do!  See, I run circles around you logically...

    
    Ohhh...INTERCOURSE the penguin!!
    

    
    It's ten O'clock and time for the penquin on top of your television to
    explode.
    
    			{BOOOOOOOOOM}
    

    
    ...how did he know that was going to happen?

    
    'Ow did 'e know that was going to 'appen?
    

    It was an inspired guess.

	A friend's father (the one who was in a POW camp for two
	years during WWII) has a t-shirt with a flag on it and
	a line that reads "Just try to burn this one.".

	I kinda like that, when I see it on him.  It's an
	understandable and extremely patriotic sentiment, despite
	the obvious threat to free speech implied.  ;>

RE    <<< Note 322.87 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "no, i'm aluminuming 'um, mum" >>>

>	A friend's father (the one who was in a POW camp for two
>	years during WWII) has a t-shirt with a flag on it and
>	a line that reads "Just try to burn this one.".

  The irony of the situation is that if someone did try to burn that flag most
likely it would be another veteran.

  Since veterans are most often used to justify this law the question remains,
if such a law is passed, should veterans of foreign wars who wish to burn
the flag be exempt?

  George

>>if such a law is passed, should veterans of foreign wars who wish to burn
>>the flag be exempt?

	Nope.

    
    
    RE: .87 Another vetran????????  I'd like to know the logic you used on
    that one George.

RE    <<< Note 322.90 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "NRA member in good standing" >>>

>    RE: .87 Another vetran????????  I'd like to know the logic you used on
>    that one George.

  Back around '89 and '90 when George Bush was pushing his flag burning laws
the cases of flag burning that were most often reported were cases where
veterans, usually from the Viet Nam era, were charged with burning the flag. 

  So while veterans are most often cited as the reason there should be a law
against burning the flag I was wondering if they should be exempt from being
charged with burning the flag?

  George

    I don`t think they should exempt any one. Perhaps the people in this
    country need to re-evaluate how Viet Nam Vets are treated by their
    neighbors and country (another topic altogether).

    re; most likely to be veterans... George, that remark is way too
    "broad brush" and narrow in it's explanation. VN vets are not the
    only veterans in this country and there is nothing that would support
    the majority of VN vets would burn the flag.
    
    Chip

  ... but I still say that vets should be exempt from any flag burning laws.

  If these laws are based on showing respect for those who have fought for
the flag, what sense does it make to put one of those vets who fought for
his country into prison?

  Better yet, make no law at all. What's wrong with freedom anyway? Should we
really be incarcerating even more people and making them wards of the state
just for expressing a political opinion?

  George

>>just for expressing a political opinion?

	What "political opinion" do you think they're expressing?

Re    <<< Note 322.95 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "no, i'm aluminuming 'um, mum" >>>

>	What "political opinion" do you think they're expressing?

  Well I would imagine they are expressing disapproval of the flag and the
government or values for which it stands.

  Then again maybe they are just trying to toast marshmallows, who knows.

  In any case, in a "free country" it seems that you should be allowed freedom
of expression.

  George

>>  Well I would imagine they are expressing disapproval of the flag and the
>>government or values for which it stands.

	I'd be willing to bet that would have been viewed as somewhat
	treasonous behavior by the Founding Fathers.  That's just a hunch,
	though.

    .97
    
    
    >I'd be willing to bet that would have been viewed as somewhat
    >        treasonous behavior by the Founding Fathers.  That's just a
    >hunch,
    >        though.
    
    
    I don't know, I think I'd be willing to take you up on that bet.
    When you remember that the Constitution was written, In a time when
    open rebellion against English Rule was in vogue.
    
    And if you consider each Freedom was written to protect from and express
    disdain for the goverment, this is a natural extention.
    
    Like the right to bear arms, isn't there for hunting. It's there to
    provide arms against an oppresive goverment. The right to assembly,
    speech, privacy. All stuff that yaks off an oppressive goverment.
    
    This is just one more yank on goverment's chain. Outright disrespect.
    Sounds like Jefferson to me.
                                                    

>>           -< You make it sound like the f-fathers liked goverment >-

	i don't think of it as being an act against the "government" so much
	as against the country, which two things i don't think can be equated.
	the flag is a symbol of the country, not the government, no?

	so does that mean that you don't think the Founding Fathers would
	have considered any act treasonous?

    .99
    
    > i don't think of it as being an act against the "government" so much
    > as against the country
    
    ah, but what you think is not necessarily congruent with what the
    flagburner might think.  the government is often the most visible
    symbol of what's wrong with the country.

    
>>    ah, but what you think is not necessarily congruent with what the
>>    flagburner might think.

	Yes, I'm aware of that, particularly considering that the
	flagburner might be just toasting marshmallows, as mentioned.
	Whether or not the act _could_ have been or _might_ have been viewed
	as treasonous, by the FFs, is what I'm wondering now though.

>>    the government is often the most visible
>>    symbol of what's wrong with the country.

	Yes, that is undeniably true.  It is a very fine line I'm trying
	to drawing between country and government, and I could easily be wrong,
	since that happens with alarming frequency.  ;>

RE    <<< Note 322.97 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "no, i'm aluminuming 'um, mum" >>>

>	I'd be willing to bet that would have been viewed as somewhat
>	treasonous behavior by the Founding Fathers.  That's just a hunch,
>	though.

  The Founding Fathers gave us the 2nd amendment to give us the capability of
carrying out a violent revolution against the United States Federal Government
and it's standing army if it became necessary.

  Somehow I doubt that they would have batted an eyelash at someone who wanted
to burn the flag.

  George

RE    <<< Note 322.99 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "no, i'm aluminuming 'um, mum" >>>

>	i don't think of it as being an act against the "government" so much
>	as against the country, which two things i don't think can be equated.
>	the flag is a symbol of the country, not the government, no?

  No, the flag is a symbol of the United States Federal Government. Remember
the United States, as the name implies, is not really a nation, it's a
federation of states. There are 50 state flags that represent the "country"
as much as "old glory" does.

  George

    
    During the Revolution, the Patriots were unbelievably brutal to
    the Loyalists, who were beaten, humiliated, killed, exiled.  Much
    of the property in the USA was seized from the more wealthy who
    swore by the king.  They were banished to Canada or England.  Read
    Kenneth Roberts, "Oliver Wiswell", a novel written from the Loyalist
    viewpoint, or see any of numerous surviving accounts or paintings
    of "aristocrats" marched in chains to the "Liberty Tree's", from
    which some were hung.  Not quite as bad as France, but you get the
    idea.
    
    After the war, it all stopped, but the hatred lived on.  Yorktown
    was 1781, Treaty of Paris 1783.  Constitution was 1787, but all the
    leaders were former patriots, and furiously anti-British.  I suspect
    the word "traitor" would have meant Benedict Arnold to them, and
    brought the muskets from the wall.
    
      bb

    <<< Note 322.95 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "no, i'm aluminuming 'um, mum" >>>


>	What "political opinion" do you think they're expressing?

	Disgust with the Federal Government comes to mind.

Jim

    Re: .102
    
    >Somehow I doubt that they would have batted an eyelash at someone who 
    >wanted to burn the flag.
    
    Obviously you've forgotten the Alien and Sedition Acts.

re: .102

>  The Founding Fathers gave us the 2nd amendment to give us the capability of
>carrying out a violent revolution against the United States Federal Government
>and it's standing army if it became necessary.

Among other reasons.

Bob

      The American flag is of much more worth if it protects the
      right of someone to burn it.

    There are those who would throw out their constitutional rights and let
    others tell them how to live, if they felt secure, but i feel you must
    fight when ever there's a threat to any of our rights, be that the
    freedom of speech, or the right to bear arms, and anytime we give in to
    even the littlest intrusion on our rights we open the door just that
    much further and the next thing you know, we'll have Orwell's 1984
    instead of the freedom we now enjoy.
    

    	Well I'd definately be against making it illegal. Since you are
    SUPPOSED to burn a flag to dispose of it, a law against burning it
    would really be a law against the IDEA behind burning it and I don't
    like outlawing ideas.
    
    								S.R.

                                   
    
    
    .106 You beat me to it. I just read about it last night.
    	 Under ADAMS and supported by The Federalists this unpopular law 
    	 made critism of the government illegal.
         Maybe CHELSEA knows when it was appealed, hopefully
    	 when then next and third president Jefferson got into power.
    
    	 
         I've been swayed. The founding fathers would have imprisioned you.
    	 Maybe we feel more comfortable today with the strength of our
    	 nation that we're not afraid so to bang on its walls.

    
    From some of these notes it almost sounds like that some of the noters
    believe that the only way some individuals can "express" themselves for 
    whatever their cause, is to burn the flag. If their cause is just, legal and
    of value there is plenty of opportunity to promote it without burning a 
    flag. In fact, as I pointed out in an earlier note, burning a flag is more 
    likely to raise opposition to the cause regardless of it's merit.
    
    An example,is California's Property Tax proposition. Whether you agree 
    with the proposition or not, the people of that state responded to the 
    ideas of a few individuals and passed an anti property tax proposition that
    the government was strongly opposed to etc.). I don't remember that anyone 
    burned a flag to promote those ideas, although some may have to oppose them.
    
    In retrospect I believe that the incidents of flag burning are not as 
    numerous as the emotions around it would suggest. I think that the 
    relatively small number of flag burners do it because they are frustrated 
    that some of their ideas are not widely supported, accepted or adopted.
    They go for the shock value and media attention to gain support and
    publicity they otherwise might not obtain.  
    
    If flag burning was the only legal way to express an opinion then I
    would be opposed to a law banning flag burning. With all the options
    for freedom of expression I think burning the flag is possibly the least
    productive in gaining support for one's cause. A good example is the
    last election; clearly there were enough people who opposed the
    Clintonian government and they expressed themselves at the polls.
    Burning 20 million flags would not have accomplished the same results
    although it would have gotten a lot of media attention.
    
    JLB
    
    
    

    .112
    
    it's not that burning the flag is the ONLY way, but it is A way.  if
    you start restricting the ways in which a person may express a
    political viewpoint, you have taken the first step toward sanctioned
    censorship of political expression.  there are some of us who won't
    accept such a restriction.  i would never burn a flag as a means of
    political expression, but i don't believe anyone has the right to
    abridge what is guaranteed by the first amendment.

	.113  <"Battle Hymn of the Republic" playing in the background...>

		;>  or maybe "The Stars and Stripes Forever"

    A flag is a symbol; it represents something. It is not that
    something it represents. A flag itself does not possess the
    virtues of America. It simply represents them.
    
    So I guess if someone is determined to burn a flag, then
    they should be able to do so. Of course, if someone else
    wants to turn a hose on them as a symbol of fire prevention,
    then I suppose that's OK too.
    
    -b

    Speech codes silenced 
    First Amendment battles at universities have
    swung from left to right over 30 years

    By Jim Puzzanghera
    Mercury News Staff Writer

    First a swastika was drawn on a dormitory wall. Then a picture of
    Beethoven -- defaced in a racist way -- was tacked to a black student's
    door. Later, a racist slur was scrawled across a black fraternity party
    poster, and pamphlets denying the Holocaust were scattered across
    campus.

    Flashback to Stanford University 1988. At the dawn of the era of
    political correctness, Stanford officials labored for 18 months to
    draft a speech code that would prohibit the words and symbols of hate
    without stepping on the First Amendment.

    Two weeks ago, a judge ruled they'd failed. And experts say the
    decision could be the final silencer for campus speech codes, which
    have become increasingly unpopular nationwide in the face of legal
    setbacks and protests by a growing conservative free-speech movement.

    More universities are scrapping their codes or just deciding not to
    enact them. The reasons are simple -- nobody seems able to craft one
    that will stand up to judicial scrutiny, and some administrators have
    found they don't work anyway. Instead of putting a quick end to an ugly
    incident, they say, speech codes can escalate the controversy into a
    broader one of censorship vs. First Amendment rights. And they haven't
    stemmed the growth of so-called hate speech incidents on college
    campuses.

    So, as the debate quiets over whether restrictions on hateful speech
    squelch the free exchange of ideas, a new one is emerging: How can
    universities protect students from racial, ethnic or sex-based
    harassment?

    Claire Fagin, former interim president at the University of
    Pennsylvania, is sure speech guidelines aren't the way to do it. She
    rescinded Penn's code in 1993 after it turned an incident in which a
    white student called a group of black sorority sisters ``water
    buffalo'' into a national controversy.

    ``It didn't work,'' Fagin said. ``In plain English . . . it was like a
    festering sore. Instead of helping us out, it made the problem
    deeper.''

    The Penn student, Eden Jacobowitz, was charged with racial harassment
    under the university's 1987 policy, which made it a violation ``to
    inflict direct injury'' on someone with a racial or ethnic insult. The
    controversy mushroomed into a debate over free speech and political
    correctness.

    `Water buffalo guy' elected

    The women eventually dropped their complaint, saying the media was
    biased and the university's judicial system was too slow. Jacobowitz
    went on to win a student government seat running as ``the water buffalo
    guy.'' And Fagin appointed a faculty-student committee that drew up a
    new racial harassment policy -- without restrictions on speech.

    ``I thought I had a perfect right to say that I expect behaviors on
    this campus that are not the behaviors on the street, that this is a
    very different type of community,'' Fagin said. ``But it seemed to me I
    could use moral suasion and that would be more effective than using a
    policy with procedures.''

    In fact, written guidelines prohibiting certain types of speech have
    plunged colleges from George Mason University to the University of
    Michigan into legal and political trouble. More than 380 public
    universities have some sort of speech code; many date back decades and
    are embedded deep in student conduct policies, according to the Freedom
    Forum First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University. Often they've
    never been challenged legally, said Paul McMasters, the center's
    executive director. Some are clearly unconstitutional; some are vague
    enough to be legal. Many are somewhere in between.

    A 1993 survey of public universities found 108 had codes that forbid
    ``advocacy of offensive or outrageous viewpoint(s).''

    Free speech in the '60s

    Legal challenges to the codes started in the 1960s, when the growing
    civil rights and counterculture movements slammed into the entrenched
    status quo, said Mark Goodman, executive director of the Student Press
    Law Center in Arlington, Va., which assists student journalists. But
    many of the new campus free-speech advocates -- including the students
    who challenged Stanford's speech code -- are conservatives who are
    striking out against political correctness. In many cases, it's these
    students who are taking speech codes to court.

    Last April, representatives from 38 universities met at Harvard and
    ratified what they called ``The Cambridge Declaration,'' which calls on
    university administrators to stop implementing speech codes and rescind
    existing ones, said Dave Gentry, president of the National First
    Amendment Coalition in Gainesville, Fla., which organized the meeting.

    ``These speech codes put in place a climate that said it was not
    acceptable to talk about sensitive issues, complex moral social issues,
    with respect to affirmative action, abortion, gay rights and issues
    involving minorities,'' Gentry said. ``I think what you're seeing is
    students are rebelling.''

    Stanford's code dates back to 1896, when its first president enacted a
    code of conduct, known as the Fundamental Standard. But like many
    codes, it was brief and vague: ``Students at Stanford are expected to
    show both within and without the University such respect for order,
    morality, personal honor and the rights of others as is demanded of
    good citizens.''

    But when incidents started breaking out at Stanford in the fall of 1988
    -- punctuated by the Beethoven poster incident -- the code wasn't much
    help, said law Professor Thomas Grey, who was head of the university's
    disciplinary board. Black students called for the two white students
    who defaced the poster to be disciplined, but the university decided it
    wasn't a clear-cut violation of the Fundamental Standard.

    `Fighting words'

    Grey drafted a detailed policy that was enacted in 1990. It prohibited
    speech or other expression ``intended to insult or stigmatize an
    individual or a small number of individuals on the basis of their sex,
    race, color, handicap, religion, sexual orientation or national and
    ethnic origin.'' Such harassment also had to be addressed directly to
    the person or persons and make use of non-verbal symbols or so-called
    ``fighting words,'' which can incite violence.

    Blair Bowman, interim director of Stanford's Black Community Services
    Center and a law student at the time, said it was important that the
    university did something. ``In fact, the policy is very narrow,'' he
    said, ``but I think its symbolic importance is more important than its
    legal weight.''

    But on Feb. 27, Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Peter Stone
    agreed with nine students who sued Stanford last May. He ruled that the
    code unconstitutionally singles out speech directed at certain groups
    and prohibits more than just the ``gutter epithets'' that the Supreme
    Court has ruled are not protected speech.

    Stanford President Gerhard Casper announced last week that the
    university won't appeal the case because of the cost and time involved.
    But the judge's decision makes the job of protecting students from
    harassment more difficult, he acknowledged.

    No student was ever disciplined under Stanford's code. Nevertheless,
    Grey said, ``universities are still going to have to protect their
    students from harassment, and what's going to count as harassment in
    speech is going to have to be defined.''

    Given the string of court cases against policies that attempt to limit
    speech, more schools are opting not to adopt them. At Harvard Law
    School, a committee working on a sexual harassment policy last year
    considered including limits on hate speech but decided not to deal with
    the issue after getting some negative reaction from faculty, said law
    Professor Richard Fallon.

    Nasty trend

    Yet there is wide agreement even among free-speech advocates, including
    the American Civil Liberties Union, that hate speech is a growing
    problem.

    ``It never used to be the case that people would say these things on
    campus,'' said Stanley Fish, a professor of English and law at Duke
    University who has written a book titled ``There's No Such Thing As
    Free Speech . . . And It's a Good Thing, Too.'' ``Now we believe that
    we can say anything we like in any setting whatsoever. The problem is
    that if you've put down a formal written code, which is designed to be
    a substitute for the internalized social decorums that are no longer
    with us, that code is not going to work.''

    The way to deter harassment is through multicultural education, which
    helps eliminate stereotypes by increasing understanding and
    appreciation for different cultures and people, some free-speech
    advocates say. Stanford has been a leader in that area, said the
    Freedom Forum's McMasters.

    With Stanford's speech code now a dead issue, Casper promised the
    Faculty Senate last week that the university would do what it's always
    done to fight harassment: ``We shall counter prejudice with reason.''

Published 3/16/95 in the San Jose Mercury News.

Germany seeks extradition of American because of literature printed in the USA.

I'm sure this turkey's literature, printed in Nebraska and shipped to Europe,
is horrible stuff.  Looks like he should have stayed home, where the first
amendment could have protected him from the German requests for the FBI to
shut him down.

    AP 23 Mar 95 19:15 EST V0660
 
    Copyright 1995 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
 
    BONN, Germany (AP) -- An American who has spread neo-Nazi literature
    across Europe was under arrest Thursday in Denmark, while German police
    seized weapons and propaganda in raids on 80 homes of his teen-age
    supporters. 

    After a cat-and-mouse chase across Europe, Gary Lauck of Lincoln, Neb.,
    was seized Monday on an international arrest warrant issued by Germany. 

    Lauck thwarted German authorities for two decades, taking advantage of
    his base in the United States to act as the main supplier of hate
    literature to German fascists. 

    The 41-year-old Lauck once said Jews were treated too nicely in Nazi
    concentration camps and claimed Jews were the "main belligerents" in
    World War II. 

    The Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Brith, the Jewish group that has
    dubbed Lauck the "Farm Belt Fuehrer," welcomed news of his arrest.
    "We're one happy group of people," Bob Wolfson, the Anti-Defamation
    League's regional director, said Thursday from Omaha, Neb. 

    Lauck's anti-Semitic material has gone to several other nations as
    well. In the United States, he has circulated videos with titles such
    as "Race And Reason." In one of them, he looks a little like Hitler
    himself, giving a stiff-arm salute as he stands in front of a swastika
    flag. 

    Germany had been pressing the FBI to shut down Lauck's printing presses
    in Lincoln, but they could not, because of U.S. constitutional
    guarantees of free speech. 

    Germany sent arrest warrants sent via Interpol to 15 European countries
    where Lauck was thought to have supporters. He was arrested in Hundige,
    a Copenhagen suburb. 

    Germany has asked Denmark to extradite Lauck for trial. 

    The warrants accuse Lauck of distributing illegal propaganda and Nazi
    symbols, incitement, encouraging racial hatred and belonging to a
    criminal group. He could be sent to jail for five years if tried and
    convicted. 

    The operation against Lauck, called "Atlantic II," was coordinated by
    German federal police and Hamburg law authorities, who have long had a
    warrant out for his arrest. 

    "This (propaganda) delivery route to Nazi sympathizers has been a thorn
    in our side for a long time and we hope we have decisively disrupted
    it," said federal police spokesman Willi Fundermann. 

    Danish officials would not say why they waited until Thursday to
    announce Lauck's arrest, but it appeared they did not want to tip off
    his German followers. 

    Before dawn, about 800 German police officers swooped down on some 80
    apartments across Germany, seizing starter pistols, ammunition for 9mm
    pistols and for shotguns and racist propaganda. 

    There was a similar crackdown a few months ago, when police in Hanau
    confiscated a pipe bomb, a hand grenade, a starter pistol, a
    medieval-style mace and reams of propaganda on raids against eight of
    Lauck's teen acolytes. 

    "We had been told they also had a bazooka, but we never found it," said
    Hanau prosecutor Jost-Dietrich Ort. 

    But Ort said he didn't think the Hanau cell had actually planned any
    attacks. "They are too dumb for that," he said. 

    Lauck heads the National Socialist German Workers Party -- Overseas
    Organization, the name Adolf Hitler gave to the Nazis' overseas
    branches. 

    Fluent in German, he has thousands of teen-age idolizers in Germany,
    which he has visited in the past. Young fascists who have met him brag
    about it to their friends. 

    Lauck says he began his organization in the early 1970s so ethnic
    Germans abroad could support the neo-Nazi movement in Germany. The
    publications he peddled from the house he shared with his mother
    included a newspaper called "NS Kampfruf," or "Nazi Battle Cry." 

    Lauck calls himself "a professional Nazi propagandist and speaker." 

    German officials had been planning the operation against Lauck for
    months, but somehow he got wind of it. 

    On Monday, shortly before his arrest, Lauck called The Associated Press
    in Bonn to say he had been tipped that U.S. or German authorities were
    about to move against him. 

    Lauck said he had shut down the Lincoln operation and was going
    underground. "Lincoln is wiped out. We moved our files and everything
    so they wouldn't fall into enemy hands," he said. 

    A Danish supporter visited Lauck on Thursday at a jail in Roskilde, 25
    miles west of Copenhagen. 

    "He is doing fine. We talked about what happened and he said (his
    arrest) came as no surprise," neo-Nazi leader Jonni Hansen told The
    Associated Press. 

    Still, he said others would take up where the American left off. 

    Lauck's U.S.-based organization "doesn't depend on Lauck. Others will
    take over his job," Hansen said. 

There are definitely extradition treaties between Germany and other
countries.  Germany won't extradite someone (citizen or not) to a
country which might apply the death penalty.  I didn't know they
also wouldn't extradite their own citizens anywhere (are you sure?).

But the guy could not be extradited from the U.S. because there is
no U.S. law which prohibits publishing Nazi propaganda.  Denmark also
has reasonable freedom of speech laws and hasn't decided to send him
to Germany yet; they might just deport him back to the U.S.

/john

    
      Both houses of the US Congress have taken up the so-called
     flag-burning amendment.  Prior to the 1960's, some states
     had anti-desecration laws relating to the US flag.  These were
     ruled unconstitutional by the Supremes, in an opinion which was
     most noteworthy for its definition of "speech".  This very narrowly
     written amendment, if passed in both houses by 2/3, then ratified
     by 3/4 of the states, would restore the situation of the 1950's.
    
      Although there never were a lot of flag desecration cases, and
     this is not a matter of crying public need, I am prepared, as you
     might expect, to argue strongly in favor of this proposal.  But
     I'll do that in a reply.  What do others think about this ?
    
      bb

    
    
    We don't need to ammend the constitution for something so petty.  As
    much as I hate to see the flag desectrated, it's just a piece of cloth.
    You can do what you want to a flag, but you can't change what the flag
    represents although our politiskunks are trying......

    
    	re: -1
    
    	agreed. the flag burning amendment is a silly waste of time. Get on
    to something substantial fer gawd's sake....
    
    
    	jim

    
      While there is merit to the view that this is trivial, I take the
     opposite view.  It is my view that the Supremes mis-defined "speech".
     All human actions have an informational content, plus a non-info
     result.  If I hit you with a stick, you get both a bruise, and new
     data, namely, that I am a donkeyhole.  Speech is protected quite
     absolutely by the First, non-speech is subject to regulation under
     the Tenth by states.  The states may not suppress the informational
     content - I can scream at you that I am a donkeyhole.  But they can
     regulate the non-content portion of my action - the bruise.  So they
     were wrong.  And they've been wrong in recent decades a lot of times,
     some of them not so trivial.
    
      The people have rarely reversed the Supremes - Dred Scott was
     reversed by the 13th.  The last time was the graduated income tax,
     I believe, nearly a century ago.  In the meantime, an arrogant SCOTUS
     has jammed a whole series of decisions down our throats.  What is
     very important about this amendment is not its effect, which is
     slight, but THE MESSAGE IT SENDS TO THE COURT.  In effect, by passing
     it, we administer a mild reproof to that institution, one it is
     sorely in need of.  Here is a wonderful chance - an issue on which
     the court's reasoning is outlandishly expansive of the Constitution,
     and on which there is broad popular disagreement with the result.
    
      Passage of the amendment will be a warning to these people.
    
      bb

    
    So we ammend the constitution to prove a point?  I don't think so,
    Tim......

This is typical of the short-sighted, poorly thought through, and narrow
focus of some of the new right.

At issues is simply a fundemental part of the constitution, the right of
free speech. In this attempt to abridge that right, the language of the
proposal fails miserably to define what they consider desecration. If'n
this was a law it would be unconsitituional because of the vagueness.

Included in the possible interpretation of desecration is the wearing
clothes that have the flag as part of the pattern. It may come down to
it's OK to wear it if'n you keep it clean but it's against the law if'n
it's dirty.

TTom

    Re .123:
    
    > But they can regulate the non-content portion of my action - the
    > bruise.
    
    So then the First Amendment does not prohibit the government from:
    
    	Banning the distribution of pamphlets in public squares.
    
    	Standing on a soapbox in public and speaking (regardless of
    	content).
    
    You are wrong because the First Amendment doesn't just guarantee
    freedom of content when one speaks; it guarantees free speech.  That
    means you can do the things that go into speaking -- the government
    can't prohibit those.
    
    Further, the Supreme Court look deeper at the laws banning flag
    burning.  They were in fact passed to ban the statements made by
    protestors in that way, not merely to preserve the flag's supposed
    respect (itself an act of speech).  Thus, the Supreme Court found that
    the legislatures intended to ban speech, not merely flag burning.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    I believe the appropriate way to handle this is not with an amendment.

    If someone has the kahonas to burn a US flag more power to him, of
    course if he does it in front of me,..... well some rights will be his,
    as well as some lefts, boots to the head, etc.... 

    In essence, if someone burns a flag, and provokes a negative reaction in
    the viewing public, the police should come in and save him from the
    crowd, and jail him for starting a riot.  Otherwise let him have at it.

    :-)
    Dan

    re ~.124
    what if you burnt a "flag" that was similar ie. more stars, less
    stripes? would that be a work around? since it's not really an american
    flag!		:^)

    .128
    
    Yeah, or how about the flag of Liberia, which just happens to have a
    blue field with a white star on it, and 13 red-and-white stripes...?
    
    If a flag deserves respect in and of itself, then the flag of every
    other sovereign nation deserves the same respect that the US flag
    deserves.  Wanna place any bets on whether it becomes illegal to burn
    the flag of any other sovereign nation?

A sorry state our politics have come to... our country is in turmoil over
dozens of issues, and our politicians are wringing their hands over the
burning of a piece of cloth.

"Pathetic".

<--------- What he said.

A great smokescreen, a pandering, populist vote-getter, and the constitution
is the victim. Let's deal with something with substance.

 Agreed.

    re: .127
    
    >If someone has the kahonas to burn a US flag more power to him, of
    >course if he does it in front of me,..... well some rights will be his,
    >as well as some lefts, boots to the head, etc....
    
	I would hope that if you did that, you would be locked up for
    	a long time. I really don't like violent criminals.
    
    			Robert.
    

Cajones.  NNTTM.

    re: .134
    
    	turd.
    

    
    	re: .136
    
    	yeah, but he's a well armed turd....;*)
    
    
    jim

    Your line of argument is interesting, but one can see an immense
    difference between the speech of you being the donkeyhole and the
    behavior of you inflicting bruises upon oithers- versus the far
    different situation of flag burning.  The behavior of burning cloth is
    trivial, not worth the bother for states to regulate (not like your
    bruises) but the speech- the trashing of the symbol- is the whole
    point - and properly protected.  Your analogy fails to convince.
    
    DougO

    
    You can judge for yourself, of course, what the "speech content" is.
    I think in the flag case it is low.  Compare with pouring blood on
    draft records, burning a cross in front of someone's house, or honking
    if you like Barney.  Somebody mentioned standing on a soapbox in the
    park and speaking.  As a matter of fact, I believe it could be quite
    extensively regulated, so long as content is ignored.  You can pass
    laws regulating when and where the box can be located, its size, shape,
    and material construction, the loudness of the speech, etc.  So long
    as it is still possible to put out the message and be publicly heard,
    no First Amendment provision is violated.  You have no right to put
    up billboards, appear on the Rush Limbaugh show, or get your letter
    printed by the Bostin Glob.  Nor do you have any right to burn the
    flag, whether you do it in front of the IRS to protest tax rates,
    or in front of a nuclear bomb facility to protest those weapons,
    although you certainly have a right to protest either, or to support
    either, both loudly and publicly.  Suppose you want to show you hate
    the US military - can you desecrate the graves in Arlington Cemetery ?
    After all, they are just trivial stones marking mere biological
    dumpsites, in your parlance.  No, DougO - actions which have a speech
    content cannot be punished for the content, but they can be punished
    for the actions themselves.  It is not a constitutional matter, really.
    Nobody was trying to suppress speech when these laws were passed.  In
    fact, if you told the legislators who passed them that in later
    generations, their law would be thrown out on First Amendment grounds,
    the would have thought you were a fruitcake.  How times change.
    
      bb

    
    
    Once again, not the same thing.  You refer to damaging things which do
    not belong to you in these instances.  Now, if you try and burn someone
    elses flag, that's destruction of private property.  Or, are you saying
    that the flag that someone buys does not belong to them?
    
    
    Mike

It is the law for the conservation of amendments... SInce the 4th amendment
is being gutted as I type (will the learned Supreme COurt judges submit
themselves to random drug testing????) another has to take its place.  Why
not one utterly inane and representative of the people who proposed it?

    
    re, .140 - well, I admit I never heard of anybody desecrating HIS
              OWN grave !  Look, you don't have a right to put up your
              own billboards on your own property.  And the courts have
              upheld the Arlington, Mass rule - only one political sign
              per dwelling during political campaigns, by town ordinance.
    
               I do not have the text of the proposed amendment, but I
              heard it is only 21 words.  All it does is return the power
              to have such laws to the states.  It writes no such laws,
              nor requires any place to have them.  Nor does it apply to
              many objects, as it should.
    
               By the way, it is given a fair chance of passage, as it has
              substantial backing among both Democrats and Republicans in
              Congress.  As always, the Preseident is only a cheerleader
              on amendments.  Dunno about the states.
    
               bb

    If it is passed, it will almost certainly fail ratification or, if it
    comes to it, the first SCOTUS challenge on Constitutional grounds.  But
    that's not what the politicos care about, they want to be seen as
    patriotic, and a certain jingoistic segment of the population will see
    them taht way.

re: passaage

If'n the vote to vote on the motion holds up, they don't have enough.
About 180 voted against the motion.

Right now, they're considering a_alternative amendment that explicitly
states what is outlawed - burning, etc. - and a section requiring
Congress to define what is a flag in terms of this amendment.

TTom

    
     Well ratification is iffy, but you are very wrong on SCOTUS.  While
    they can overrule both state or national laws, they have NEVER directly
    attempted to go against any amendment.  They have never claimed any
    such power, nor will they now.
    
     bb

>    If it is passed, it will almost certainly fail ratification or, if it
>    comes to it, the first SCOTUS challenge on Constitutional grounds.

How can a constitutional amendment be challenged on constitutional grounds?

    Well, prior to 1888, there were several possible ways to have an
    unconstitutional constitutional amendment.  The workaround was
    simple enough, maybe.
    
    Today, it is still possible to have an unconstitutional constitutional
    amendment.  But if it's ratified unanimously, such an unconstitutional
    constitutional amendment would be constitutional.  The workaround is
    still simple enough, maybe.
    
    								-mr. bill

    .146
    
    An amendment could conceivably be challenged on Constitutional grounds
    based on amendments whose provisions it does not repeal but does
    contradict; in this case, we're back the the First.  To pass muster, a
    flag amendment would have to define flag-burning as NOT protected
    speech; simply saying that flag burning is illegal is insufficient.

It should be remembered that this motion does not state anything about
free speech, what a flag is or what constitutes desecration.

It merely allows the states to make it up as they go along without regard
to conflicts, vagueries or substance.

TTom

So, will burning of pictures of American flags be outlawed?

/john

    How about cameras containing film on which there are exposed images of
    the flag?

    
    
    What about if someone's having a 4th of July celebration and is baking
    a flag cake and accidentally burns it, will they be prosecuted?
    
    
    Mike

    
    Oh, I saw a lovely flag cake recipe in the shiny bits of Sunday's
    Globe.  You ice the cake with cool whip and use strawberries for the
    red stripes and blueberries for the star section.

Mike, it usually becomes a flag cake after it's baked.  You use frosting and
stuff.

    
    
    RE: .155  spoilsport......

    JOINT RESOLUTION
    
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States
    authorizing the Congress and the States to prohibit the physical
    desecration of the flag of the United States.
    
       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
       States of America in Congress assembled, (two-thirds of each House
       concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an
       amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall
       be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution
       when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several
       States within seven years after the date of its submission for
       ratification:
    
    `Article--
    
       `The Congress and the States shall have power to prohibit the
       physical desecration of the flag of the United States.'.
    
    								-mr. bill

	hmmph.  sort of a succinct bunch, aren't they.

Coolidge-like, I reckon.

> 	sort of a succinct bunch, aren't they.

For a change.

    
      I think it is open to a bit of interpretation.  But not much.
    
      By the way, 180 against means 255-180, when you need 290-145.
     That's a long way short as this point.
    
      If it passed both houses, and 3/4 of the states ratified, and a state
     passes a law, and somebody burns a flag, and is prosecuted, convicted,
     and appeals, there is no conceivable way that SCOTUS would
     overturn the conviction.
    
      If some state sued the YS Post Office for cancelling a postage
     stamp with a flag on it, yes, SCOTUS might overturn it.
    
      bb

    Re .139:
    
    > You can pass laws regulating when and where the box can be located,
    > its size, shape, and material construction, the loudness of the speech,
    > etc.
    
    But you cannot outlaw it entirely or even unreasonably nor in response
    to speech you don't like.  Similarly, you could prohibit burning a flag
    where there could be a fire hazard, but you cannot outlaw it entirely.
    
    > Suppose you want to show you hate the US military - can you desecrate
    > the graves in Arlington Cemetery ?
    
    The gravestones are not your property -- nobody is saying you should be
    allowed to burn somebody else's flag.  If you bought a gravestone, yes,
    you could desecrate it.  And if you own a flag, yes, you can burn it.
    
    Furthermore, government does not exist to regulate things just because
    it can -- there should be some reason for it.  But government has NO
    justifiable interest in regulating flag burning except for safety
    reasons.  The ONLY reason for anti-flag-burning laws is to suppress the
    speech.
    
    > Nobody was trying to suppress speech when these laws were passed.
    
    On the contrary, the Supreme Court decided the legislatures WERE trying
    to suppress speech.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re .157:
    
    > `The Congress and the States shall have power to prohibit the
    >   physical desecration of the flag of the United States.'.
    
    Flag burners will of course respond with fire-resistant material soaked
    in the substances magicians use that burn at low temperatures.  The
    result:  nice pretty pictures of a burning flag for the evening news
    with no physical desecration.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
      

	Every living human who has a message they want put in the public eye
will be burning magic flags and be on the evening news.  It is a non issue other
than from a publicity/political hay-making standpoint. IMHO: ignore it and it'll
go away.  

Mikey 

The motion to actually define what "the flag" and "desecration" has just
been beaten badly, around 370 votes against it.

Now they're gonna have a 5 minute vote on the motion as published a few
topics back.

TTom

So how many flags have been burned since SCOTUS ruled it was OK?  Should I be
worried about the resulting global warming or something?

    The SCotUS never ruled that it was OK to burn flags.  It ruled that it
    was protected speech.  Big difference.
    
    								-mr. bill

The motion has carried 312-120, with 3 not voting.

TTom

    
    Hooray !  bb
    

    Oh, say can you see by the dawn's early light
       What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming ?
    Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight
       O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming ?
    And the rockets red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
       Gave proof through the night, that our flag was still there.
    Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
       O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave ?

    On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
       Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
    What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
       As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses ?
    Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
       In full glory reflected now shines in the stream :
    'Tis the star-spangled banner ! Oh long may it wave
       O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave !

    And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
       That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion,
    A home and a country should leave us no more ?
       Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps pollution.
    No refuge could save the hireling and slave
       From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave :
    And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
       O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave !

    Oh ! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
       Between their loved home and the war's desolation !
    Blest with victory and peace, may the heaven-rescued land
       Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
    Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just.
       And this be our motto : "In God is our trust !"
    And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
       O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave !

    Has nobody ever told you that "The Star Spangled Banner" is a lousy
    national anthem?  It's difficult to sing, and it's disgustingly
    militaristic.

    
    I don't find it difficult to sing.

    A music group in college used it as a tryout song -- which is an
    indication of how well the "average" singer can manage it.

 I like it myself, but I get more choked up on America the Beautiful (or
 the version of the SSB->AtB done by Smokey Robinson at the 86 World 
 Series (gak).




 Jim

    > I don't find it difficult to sing.

    Yes, but you, my dear, are extremely well gifted !
    
    ;-)
    Dan

    If this ammendment passes and is ratified, the flag will have much less
    meaning for me than it did.  As a POW said to his NV captors many years
    ago when they showed him a picture of people burning the flag, "This is
    why I fight for my country."  He went on to say that freedom may allow
    unpopular things to happen, but police states are not worth fighting
    for.  
    
    People, these kinds of laws/ammendments are what I grew up being told
    happened in evil communist empires.  Other countries are discovering
    the freedom we grew up with, isn't it a shame we are discarding the
    very things we used to show others about what freedom is.
    
    meg

    
    re: .171
    
    So?
    
    It's only a song.... just like the flag is only a piece of cloth...
    

      <<< Note 322.143 by SMURF::BINDER "Father, Son, and Holy Spigot" >>>

>the first SCOTUS challenge on Constitutional grounds.  

	A constitutional Amnedment can not be challenged on constititutional
	grounds.


Jim

	What Meg said.

	This amendment passes and much of what we are is lost.

Jim

    I can't believe that the three-ring D.C. circus is putting on this
    ridiculous, inconsequential show, when there are so many other
    important things that need to be done, things that we put them
    into office to do in the first place.  They have seriously lost
    touch with reality... is there something in the air there?
    
    This whole issue is a no-op with me, with one exception, the larger
    issue concerning the modern concept of merging action with "speech",
    so that anything anyone *does* (as opposed to *says*) is now considered
    to be "speech", or sometimes referred to as "expression".  This
    apparent re-definition or re-interpretation of constitutional words
    is vaguely troubling to me.  We need to consider what the authors
    intended in their original writing, rather than twist the thing
    into a semantic pretzel to suit modern tastes.
    
    Chris

    
    
    I agree, Meg.
    
    
    
    Mike

    .178
    
    > A constitutional Amnedment can not be challenged on constititutional
    > grounds.
    
    What about state laws passed under the umbrella of such an amendment?

      <<< Note 322.182 by SMURF::BINDER "Father, Son, and Holy Spigot" >>>

>    What about state laws passed under the umbrella of such an amendment?

	They could be challenged, but with the very simple wording of
	the proposal, I can't imagine such a challenge succeeding.

Jim

    Re .183:
    
    > 	They could be challenged, but with the very simple wording of
    >	the proposal, I can't imagine such a challenge succeeding.

    The part of the First Amendment that deals with free speech is only
    10 words:
    
    	Congress shall make no law ... abriding the freedom of speech ...
    
    That's only half the size of the new amendment, yet there have been
    numerous complicated challenges, successful and unsuccessful.

    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Two things.
    
    Dick, I agree with you that the National Anthem stinks and should be
    scrapped.  
    
    Meg, do you think those under the armed forces should have the same
    right to burn the flag?  
    
    -Jack

    THE WORLD WILL END TODAY!  Jack Martin and I agree on something!

    I thought this was the beginning of the great melding of energies that
    will catalyze the metamorphosis of Digital from foundering corporate PC
    wannbe to a world class social problem solver.  Maybe I have misread
    the omens again.  Anyone have a spare chicken around for an entrail
    reading?  

      I _like_ our national anthem and think it's just swell that it's
      militaristic.

    What country shall we invade next?

    
    
    How about China??
    
    After all, they should be entitled to some foreign aid too!!!
    

    I love to sing the SSB.....
    
    Software! Oh lovely software! 
    Making my computer much more than Hardware!
    
    You mean that SSB?

    
      Suppose I go home tonight and construct a large Digital logo
     out of lumber and paint.  I notify news cameracrews, then proceed
     to the public street in front of the company corporate HQ in Maynard,
     where I pour blood over my replica, and then burn it on camera.
    
      (1) Since it is my replica, can I do anything I like with it ?
    
      (2) Would you say I think my action has no victim ?
    
      (3) If I get sued, would the US Constitution protect me in the same
         way as it would if I built no logo replica, but just screamed
         epithets at the HQ using a blowhorn ?
    
      bb 

    The U.S. flag is not trademarked and copyrighted and otherwise
    protected from those actions.  

    
      It will be after Amendment XXVII.
    
      bb

Yeah, it might just have 50 or so different definitions, constraints,
etc.

What the house did yesterday in now way answers any of the questions.

TTom

>      <<< Note 322.189 by SMURF::BINDER "Father, Son, and Holy Spigot" >>>
>    What country shall we invade next?

Uh, I rather think you have the intent of the song exactly backwards.

    
        I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,
      and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God,
      indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
    
    
    

  .197  so it would seem.

Interestingly, the "one nation under God" was added by Eisenhower and was
not in the original pledge.

See it gets very confusing when you intermingle icons and idols. I think
that for the purity of fascism, we outta strike the god part so we can
just concentrate on our adoration to the symbol of the glory of the
state. Scrap that part about liberty and justice, too.

"I plege allegiane to the flag of the United States of America and to the
Republic for which it stands." Nice and simple.

Of course, it should come with no small irony that a great many flag
zealots also feel like the state/government should leave everyone alone.

So maybe we should have states' flag rights.

TTom

"It would cause 52 different definitions of what a flag is and 52 different
definitions of what desecration is," said John Bryant, a Texas Democrat
whose proposal to change the language of the amendment was defeated.

Why 52?  Congress is one, the states are 50.  Who's the 52nd?

"Peurto Rico, my hearts devotion
Let it slip back in the ocean"

		West Side Story

TTom

    
      The official American's Creed, adopted by Congess, 4/3/1918.
    
      I believe in the United States of America, as a government of the
     people, by the people, for the people, whose just powers are derived
     from the consent of the governed; a democracy in a republic; a
     sovereign nation of many sovereign states; a perfect union, one
     and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom,
     equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots
     sacrificed their lives and fortunes.  I therefore believe it is
     my duty to my country to love it, to support its Constitution, to
     obey its laws, to respect its flag, and to defend it against all
     enemies.
    
    

  .200  why scrap the part about liberty and justice?

Z    See it gets very confusing when you intermingle icons and idols. I think
Z    that for the purity of fascism, we outta strike the god part so we can
Z    just concentrate on our adoration to the symbol of the glory of the
Z    state. Scrap that part about liberty and justice, too.
    
    I agree with the part about Under God simply because it is a lie and
    makes us out to be hypocrites and phonies.  Also the liberty and
    justice part because there isn't liberty and justice for all.  Never
    has been and America is quite socialist now.
    
    -Jack

    .200
    
    No, Ike did not add "one nation under God."  "Under God" was added
    during his tenure of office - '53 or '54, I think.
    
    The Pledge before that was, "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
    United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one
    nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

>  .200  why scrap the part about liberty and justice?

So you can concentrate on worhsiping the flag.

TTom

House OKs amendment to ban flag-burning


(c) 1995 Copyright the News & Observer Publishing Co.

(c) 1995 Associated Press

WASHINGTON (Jun 28, 1995 - 23:30 EDT) -- By overwhelming vote, the
House approved a proposed constitutional amendment today designed to
ban flag-burning, brushing aside complaints the First Amendment was
being trampled in the process.

The vote was 312-120 to approve the measure, well above the two-thirds
majority needed. The measure now goes to the Senate, where it faces an
uncertain future.

The vote was 312-120, well over the two-thirds majority required to pass a
constitutional amendment.

The amendment now goes to the Senate, which also must approve it by a
two-thirds majority to send it to the states for ratification.

Three-quarters, or 38, of the 50 states must approve the amendment for it
to become part of the Constitution.

The measure, only a few words in length, would permit Congress or the 50
states to enact laws to "prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the
United States." It would effectively negate a 1989 Supreme Court ruling
that threw out state laws prohibiting flag burning and other acts of
desecration on grounds they violated First Amendment guarantees of free
expression.

In several hours of debate, supporters said the Stars and Stripes, as the
binding symbol of the nation, must be protected by law. They said 49 state
legislatures have called for a flag amendment and that 75 percent of
Americans support it.

The flag "carries great significance for me and for many veterans and for a
large number of citizens," said Rep. Gerald Solomon, R-N.Y., one of the
measure's chief sponsors. "Today we propose to restore the right of the
American people to protect the American flag."



> In several hours of debate, supporters said the Stars and Stripes, as the
> binding symbol of the nation, must be protected by law. They said 49 state

If that's all that's binding us, it ain't worth protecting.

Also from the debate, it was revealed that the current flag has never
been endorsed by the congress. The lasted flag authorized by the congress
had 48 stars. When Alaska and Hawaii joined the union, the flag was
changed by executive order.

TTom

     I came across this in a subsubdirectory.  I confess I've inadvertantly
    violated the code.  Perhaps I better brush up !

    Code of Etiquette - Prohibited Uses of the Flag

      The flag should not be dipped to any person or thing. (An exception,
    customarily, is that ships salute by dipping their colors.)  It should
    never be displayed with the union down save as a distress signal.  It
    should never be carried flat or horizontally, but always aloft and free.

      It should not be displayed on a float, motor car, or boat except from
    a staff.

      It should never be used as a covering for a ceiling, nor have placed
    upon it any word, design, or drawing.  It should never be used as a
    receptacle for carrying anything.  It should not be used to cover a
    statue or monument.

      The flag should never be used for advertising purposes, nor be
    embroidered on such articles as cushions or handkerchiefs, printed
    or otherwise impressed on boxes or anything that is designed for
    temporary use and discard; or used as a costume or athletic uniform.
    Advertising signs should not be fastened to its staff or halyard.

      The flag should never be used as drapery of any sort, never
    festooned, drawn back, nor up, in folds, but always allowed to fall
    free.  Bunting of blue, white, and red always arranged with the
    blue above and the white in the middle, should be used for covering
    a speaker's desk, draping the front of a platform, and for decoration
    in general.

      An Act of Congress approved 2/8/1917 provided certain penalties
    for desecration, mutilation, or improper use of the flag within the
    District of Columbia.  A 1968 federal law provided penalties of up to
    a year's imprisonment or a $1000 fine, or both, for publicly burning
    or otherwise desecrating the flag of the United States.  In addition,
    many states have laws against flag desecration.  In 1989, the Supreme
    Court ruled that no laws could prohibit political protesters from
    burning the flag.  The decision had the effect of declaring
    unconstitutional the flag desecration laws of 48 states, as well as
    a similar federal statute, in cases of peaceful political expression.

    Re .193:
    
    > (1) Since it is my replica, can I do anything I like with it ?

    No, you can't do anything you like with it.  You may own your car, but
    you can't drive the wrong way down the street with it -- nor can you
    burn your logo on a public street for traffic.
    
    But you are entirely free to burn it on your own property, or even on a
    suitable public property, with suitable contraints for fire danger and
    pollution.  You can even use Digital's trademark (even for burning) as
    long as you do not use it in trade.
    
    > (2) Would you say I think my action has no victim ?

    What relevance would what you think have?  Your action may have a
    "victim", but that doesn't mean it is wrong.  If a company cheats you,
    it is not wrong to tell others about it.  Even if you just don't like
    Digital for no reason, it's not wrong to tell others that, as long as
    you don't make _false_ statements about the company.  Consider that
    when you bid a higher price at an auction, the previous high bidder is
    a "victim" because they don't get the merchandise for a lower price --
    but there isn't the slightest thing wrong with bidding.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
                                                           

    
    (1) I think you are correct criminally, incorrect civilly,
       particularly where I called the newsmen.  My replica of the
       Digital logo IS NOT 100% mine.  It is the intellectual property
       of Digital Equipment Corporation.  If my use of it damages their
       business, they can sue me for their losses.
    
    (2) I agree with this 100% - you weren't the sophomoric libertarian
       who made the fantasy distinction between actions with victims and
       the supposedly existent ones with none.  All human actions have both
       victims and beneficiaries, and no practical legal system ever was
       or could be built around a distinction based on the existence of
       victims.  The answer is, OF COURSE there are victims, but neither
       the law, nor logic, nor morality, really cares if there are. 
    
    
    (3) As to number 3, I think you ignore it because you, like the
       modernists, think it obvious that "freedom of speech" includes
       say, nude dancing.  I don't.  If it meant that, the framers would
       not say "freedom of speech, or of the press...", the mere form of
       which tips you off that the word "speech" was meant very literally
       and narrowly.  This is consistent with the recorded intent of the
       framers.
    
      bb

    Re .213:
    
    > My replica of the Digital logo IS NOT 100% mine.  It is the
    > intellectual property of Digital Equipment Corporation.  If my use of
    > it damages their business, they can sue me for their losses.
    
    What makes you think that?  Can you cite any case with such a finding
    or any author who states such a thing?  Clearly it is not libel if you
    do not make a _false_ statement.  And you aren't violating Digital's
    trademark rights if you don't use the mark in trade.  So exactly what
    legal theory would grant Digital any relief from your actions?
    
    As to your item 3, I ignored it because you asked about the
    Constitution protecting speech in a civil case.  But the First
    Amendment is principally about government criminalizing speech.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
      Yes, the analogy is not perfect, since the case would be Digital
     Equipment Corp vs. bb, not people of Mass vs. bb, a civil not a
     criminal action.  It's the best I could think of - there really
     isn't any perfect analogy.  Perhaps counterfeit stamps ?
     Impersonating an officer ?  I'm not sure.
    
      I wasn't anticipating libel.  (And I'm ignoring that I'm actually
     an employee of the company, which certainly would complicate things !)
     In a civil case, intent only get you to first base, since the remedy is
     monetary restoration of whatever is lost.  If my action depresses sales
     of Digital products, and they can show malice and damage, they don't
     have to show I gained anything or had greed as my motive.  It is as
     if I blocked their driveway, or jammed their advertising channel.
    
      Yes, I know of cases where individuals have been ordered by a court
     to cease and desist using the registered trademark of a company
     without their permission.  The only cases of real monetary awards
     I know of involve large sums, and possible fraud.
    
      It's also true that people routinely escape court action even though
     they damage corporate property by protest (Greenpeace has actually
     destroyed corporations' assets), by the simple expedient of being
     impoverished.  This strategem has a way of defeating lawyers.
    
      bb

So in the space of but a few days, we hear of congressional plans to repeal
a bunch of worthless laws, we hear of plans for congressional repeal of the
Federal speed limit restriction of 55MPH and we are elated, we hear of plans
for a constitutional amendment prohibiting desecration of the flag and we
are bummed out.

I'd suggest that if they keep this sort of stuff up on Capitol Hill, we'll
soon all be looking to Mr. Newton to share his meds.

>>we hear of plans
>>for a constitutional amendment prohibiting desecration of the flag and we
>>are bummed out.

	not all of us are bummed out.

    There is a potential ammendment which makes a complete sham of what the
    flag stands for, and some people are not bummed?  
    
    The US and its symbols used to stand for freedom of the individual. 
    Now it appears some people want it to be freedom as defined by Deng
    Ziou Peng.  It is a sad time for this nation IMO
    
    meg

I'd prefer to exercise my own 1st Amendment rights  by censuring and
ridiculing those who would desecrate the flag than prevent them from
doing so by law. Allowing them this indiscretion is an aid in winnowing.

        <<< Note 322.219 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>I'd prefer to exercise my own 1st Amendment rights  by censuring and
>ridiculing those who would desecrate the flag than prevent them from
>doing so by law. Allowing them this indiscretion is an aid in winnowing.

	The burning or other desecration of an emblem is a powerful
	statement about the feelings of the one doing the burning.

	In the case of the flag, it is political statement, either of
	contempt or disgust with the government that the flag represents.

	The 1st Amendment was written specifically to protect such 
	expressions. The FFs were very careful to ensure that anyone
	could feel free to criticize the newly formed government.

	The very thought that the government would or could stifle
	such criticism was something that they could not abide.

	This amendment may pass through the process and become part
	of the Constitution. On the day that this happens this "more
	perfect Union" that the FFs sought so desperately to establish
	will have ceased to exist.

Jim

I think we're in violent agreement.

    Listening to an early-morning broadcast by FAIR a few weeks ago, it was
    pointed out that in the history of the US, there are only 45 documented
    cases of flag burning.  It seems pretty damned idiotic to muck with the
    Bill of Rights to prevent a very few people from desecrating the flag.  
    
    Also, I wonder how much of this grandstanding is being done to avoid
    dealing with important issues, such as corporate and agricultural
    welfare reform, health care reform, and real work on the deficit.
    
    meg

    
    There have been less than a handfull (1?) of people renoucing their
    citizenship to avoid taxes but the Dems are making that an issue of
    tax breaks for the rich, vote democrat.
    
    Seem like status quo to me ...
    
    Doug.
    

     As much as I agree that this is grandstanding, Meg, I must say that
    this congress has been far more active in making real progress on the
    deficit and welfare reform than any in recent or mid-term memory. So
    despite the fact that this is relatively unimportant in the global
    scheme of things, it's going pretty quickly and really isn't preventing
    work on more substantive matters.

  re, .220 -

	The burning or other desecration of an emblem is a powerful
	statement about the feelings of the one doing the burning.

   >>  The shooting of your fellow passengers on the LI railroad
       is a powerful statement aboutthe feelings of the shooter.

	In the case of the flag, it is political statement, either of
	contempt or disgust with the government that the flag represents.

   >>  In the case that actually occurred, there is no possible doubt
   >>  that the shooting of random strangers who fit a particular
   >>  profile, followed by a well-rehearsed show trial, was intended
   >>  solely as a strong statement of political views.

	The 1st Amendment was written specifically to protect such 
	expressions. The FFs were very careful to ensure that anyone
	could feel free to criticize the newly formed government.

   >>  Speech (Webster's) : "expression or communication of thoughts
   >>  and feelings by spoken words, vocal sounds, and gestures."

	The very thought that the government would or could stifle
	such criticism was something that they could not abide.

   >>  Some of the Founders shot people dead to protect flags.

	This amendment may pass through the process and become part
	of the Constitution. On the day that this happens this "more
	perfect Union" that the FFs sought so desperately to establish
	will have ceased to exist.

   >>  I dunno, the Senate is close.  I sure hope we restore the
   >> traditional rule of law in our country, which lasted over
   >> 200 years until 9 palsied geezers couldn't find a dictionary
   >> in 1989, and damaged our entire constitutional heritage.

Jim

   >>  nnttm - bb

    If they cannot prohibit the burning of a flag, can they prohibit the
    burning of a cross � la the KKK? Yes, I know, that's included under the
    "hate crime" umbrella. But couldn't vets claim that burning a flag
    causes them similar harm? 

    Burning a flag is not an part of an orchestrated incitement to commit
    violence upon the persons of veterans.  Upon the persons of
    congresscritters, maybe...

    Dick:
    
    No doubt the revolutionaries of George Washingtons time burnt many a
    Brit flag.  Burning the flag was probably equal to the Boston Tea
    Party...a revolt on the taxation from England.  
    
    If the US government wanted to be picky, they cause see the burning of
    the flag as a sign of insurrection toward our tax leeching feds.
    
    -Jack

                     <<< Note 322.226 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>

>   >>  In the case that actually occurred, there is no possible doubt
>   >>  that the shooting of random strangers who fit a particular
>   >>  profile, followed by a well-rehearsed show trial, was intended
>   >>  solely as a strong statement of political views.

	Please refer to a copy of the Constitution of the United
	States, and point out the section that protects murder.

	We'll wait.

>   >>  Speech (Webster's) : "expression or communication of thoughts
>   >>  and feelings by spoken words, vocal sounds, and gestures."

	Does your dictionary define "gestures"?

	You may also wnat to check out the wording of the 1st Amendment.
	Note in particular the words "and of the press". A fairly clear
	indication that the FFs merely discussing your narrow definition
	of speech, but ALL forms of political expression.

>   >>  Some of the Founders shot people dead to protect flags.

	References? In this context please, we are not speaking
	of enemy troops attempting to capture battle flags.

>   >>  I dunno, the Senate is close.  I sure hope we restore the
>   >> traditional rule of law in our country, which lasted over
>   >> 200 years until 9 palsied geezers couldn't find a dictionary
>   >> in 1989, and damaged our entire constitutional heritage.

	The traditional rule of law in country for OVER 200 years
	was to protect demonstrations of open criticism of the
	government. The ruling UPHELD this tradition. The proposed
	amendment destroys it.

Jim

    Re .215:
    
    > If my action depresses sales of Digital products, and they can show
    > malice and damage, they don't have to show I gained anything or had
    > greed as my motive.
    
    I don't know what your view of the law is, but there is NO legal
    principle that says if your action depresses a company's sales, they
    can recover from you.  ONLY if you do something WRONG can the company
    get damages from you.  The company has to show you committed libel or a
    tort or something.  Just saying you don't like Digital isn't wrong
    under the law; they would have no claim for damages.
    
    > It is as if I blocked their driveway, or jammed their advertising
    > channel.
    
    The former is trespassing.  The latter violates broadcasting laws.
    
    > Yes, I know of cases where individuals have been ordered by a court
    > to cease and desist using the registered trademark of a company
    > without their permission.
    
    You write "Yes, ..." as if you were answering some question.  I don't
    know what question you think you were answering.  Your statement looks
    like an answer to the question "Do you know of any awards for trademark
    violation?"  But I didn't ask that.  I asked if you could cite a case
    with a finding that because a business was damaged, the defendant was
    responsible for the losses.  Do you understand the difference between a
    court finding a person is responsible merely because they caused some
    loss and a court finding a person is responsible because they infringed
    upon trademark rights?
    
    I checked _Your Handbook of Everyday Law_ by George Gorden Coughlin,
    Junior, and it only states that trademark rights protect the use of a
    mark IN TRADE.  There's nothing at all about using the trademark
    otherwise -- You can use Digital's trademark or Coca-Cola's trademark
    or anybody else's trademark for all sorts of purposes OTHER THAN TRADE. 
    If you want to write a book about computer history and you use
    Digital's trademark in the book, that's perfectly okay as long as you
    don't sell computers with the trademark.  If you want to badmouth
    Digital in the press using Digital's trademark, that's okay as long as
    you don't lie and don't sell computers with the trademark.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.     

    
      Um, edp, this is a rathole.  The US flag is not a registered
     trademark of the USA - I was making an analogy.  All it was necessary
     to show was that there are situations in law where use of a
     distinctive marking is regulated differently from use of somebody
     else's words.  It does not matter what the distinction is.  I'm
     sure this is true, whether it is the Good Housekeeping seal, a
     figurine of Mickey Mouse, or the mask of the Lone Ranger (all subjects
     of suits in the past).
    
      The whole point is this : a distinctive marking pattern has a speech
     component, but it also has a non-speech component.  Consider s red
     octagon with the word STOP or HALT on it.  What I'm arguing is that
     this symbol is not JUST speech, but something else as well.  And so
     the flag, by analogy.
    
      Of course, now that the court has ruled flags and burning them
     "speech", and the amendment, if passed, would make them another
     exception, my point is moot - I am only fuming over what I see as
     a wrong 1989 ruling, not making a real argument for (or against)
     the amendment.  The amendment would give the states and Congress
     the right to make flag anti-desecration laws however you define
     speech.
    
      Constitutional arguments often depend upon linguistic interpretation.
     Recall the recent gun law SCOTUS ruling, where the question was
     what "regulate interstate commerce" meant.  There are many other
     such ambiguous phrases in the document, such as "reasonable", "due
     process", "equal protection", etc.  Members of the court often seek
     help with analogies, even stretchy ones, because the problems they
     are required to solve often fall on the boundaries of meanings.  I
     personally think the 1989 ruling was outside the foul line.
    
      bb
     

    	I really haven't been following all the discussion here, but
    	am I safe in presuming that lots of people in this topic are
    	up in arms about the trampling of the first amendment because
    	of this recent congressional action?
    
    	It seems to me that all congress is doing is giving the states
    	the ability to vote on the constitutional amendment.  And at
    	that, the amendment is intended to give the states the ability
    	(not the mandate) to define state law regarding flag desecration.

    Joe,
    
    I am concerned about the POTENTIAL trampling of the First Ammendment.  
    
    Making ammendments that restrict freedom, rather than restricting the
    government is IMO a pretty bad thing to do.  Playing fast and loose
    with one of the first 10 ammendments is probably going to create the
    very "cancer" in society you fear from freedom, and encourages people
    to look to the government for solutions to problems, no matter how
    petty.  
    
    There are less than 5 documented cases of public flag desecration/year.
    
    For this we need an ammendment to one of the more sacred ammendments
    in our Constitution?  
    
    meg

    	Well, Meg, it looks like you have two key times you should be
    	lobbying your politicians -- when the state is voting to ratify
    	the amendment, and if it still passes, then when (if) the state 
    	decides to try setting state policy on the issue.
    
    	I guess we all have our different dominoes that we fear...

        <<< Note 322.235 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>

>    	Well, Meg, it looks like you have two key times you should be
>    	lobbying your politicians -- when the state is voting to ratify
>    	the amendment, and if it still passes, then when (if) the state 
>    	decides to try setting state policy on the issue.
 
	Three. The Senate has not yet voted on the Amendment.

	Anyone that believes in the value of political protest should
	raise their voice against such an amendnment.

	Who knows which party will hold the majority of the future?

	What other forms of political speech may be banned?

	Be VERY careful what you wish for, you may just get it.

Jim

    An Amendment to protect the flag seems to be a bit overkill.  Though
    I'm against flag burning, I don't think it is such a big issue that we
    need to amend the Constitution over it.  One thing that  troubles me
    about the new Congress is that they seem to think that an amendment is
    in order on every agenda point they have.  I disagree.  
    
    If the fedgov would stay within its Constitutionally granted powers,
    the frivolous use of constitutional amendments would not only be
    unnecessary, but repititious to the BoR (particularly the Tenth
    Amendment).
    
    Of course, the Constitution isn't worth the paper its printed any more. 
    An overly powerful fedgov already ignores it at its leisure, so I
    hardly think all these new amendments will actually be worth much,
    either, after this current Congress.
    
    It's the band-aid on a broken arm kind of fix.  At least Congress is
    aware of our displeasure at the current state of affairs and is at
    least conscious of the fact that we have way too much government in the
    lives of US citizens.
    
    
    
    -steve              

    <-----
    
    BRAVO ! ! ! !
    
    Very well put.
    
    Dan

>    	It seems to me that all congress is doing is giving the states
>    	the ability to vote on the constitutional amendment.  

Apparently true.

>And at
>    	that, the amendment is intended to give the states the ability
>    	(not the mandate) to define state law regarding flag desecration.

Well, the wording says CONGRESS >> AND << the States, so it is trying get the
ability for itself.

-Joe

        Just in - per CNN - the amendment failed. (I don't have the
        numbers but they were substantial; ie. not a close call.
        
        

    
    	Good.  There's a smidgen of hope for this country after all.
    

And, once again, the fear of the need to call a Constitutional Convention is
assuaged.

    
    Yeah, like now that that's out of the way the congressional
    poo-poo heads might actually work on some real problems, right?
    
    -b

 > assuaged.


   Can he say that in here?

    
    I though pretty much everything that came outta my ass was sewage.
    
    -b

Of course I'm going to execute the captured enemy general!
That assuaged war against us.

It missed by three votes ...

    > assuaged
    
    How about "sausaged", then?
    
    Chris

    ass sausage?  Sounds kinky.

    Three is good enough if it puts this to rest for  bit.  I have no
    interest in desecrating the flag, but this potential desecration of the
    Constution was almost more than I could handle.
    
    

    
    Seen on a sign in rural New Hampster....

    "I got a flag and a match, if you got the guts to try it"

    Pretty much sums it up.

    This could double profits for the "This car climbed Mt Washington"
    sticker company, our largest NH industry.

    
    RE: .250  I agree, Meg.  Although there has been much done to the
    document already.  
    
    
    Mike

    
      Interesting that with Packwood resigned, two-thirds is now 66,
     instead of the usual 67.
    
      bb

> missed by three votes

I second that. Much too close for me.

> There is some hope for this country (paraphrased) ...

I find it ghastly  that OVER HALF of those idiots voted for this thing.

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I always thought the constitution (& BOR) was
supposed to guarentee the rights of the people, and LIMIT the power of gov't.

Jeezuz!!!! What pandering, populist pap!!

>  I find it ghastly  that OVER HALF of those idiots voted for this thing.

    There are probably a lot of "idiots" that voted for the measure knowing
    full well that it was going to fail, but they wanted to look good for
    the next campaign.  If the measure had a real chance of passing, some
    of them may have changed their votes (e.g., Sen. Feinstien & BB).

    -- Dave

    What I find disgusting is that the so-called Conservatives, the ones
    who claim that they want to limit government telling people what to do
    with their lives, were (for the most part) the ones pushing this limit
    to our freedoms.

    
    As opposed to myths like, say, tax breaks for the rich and huge
    cuts to Medicaire... right? Or is it that you're only offended
    by the other guy's myths?
    
    -b

> There are probably a lot of "idiots" that voted for the measure knowing
> full well that it was going to fail, but they wanted to look good for
                                                          ^^^^^^^^^

Look GOOD??
Who are they trying to impress? This is good?

    Actually, I'm offended by ALL lies, which, apparently puts me in the
    minority of this conference.
    
    (If you can't defend your position on logic, please don't resort to a
    "MY hypocrisy is better than THEIR hypocrisy because this one is MINE"
    line of defense).
    
    After all, the subject of THIS topic is the attempt to "Protect" the
    flag from the freedoms of which it is a symbol.  If you want to bash
    liberals for saying things that you don't agree with on general
    principals, there are about 150 topics in this conference that are
    centered on that theme.
    
    

        > Actually, I'm offended by ALL lies, which, apparently puts me in the
    > minority of this conference.

    It must be nice to think so highly of yourself.

    > (If you can't defend your position on logic, please don't resort to a
    > "MY hypocrisy is better than THEIR hypocrisy because this one is MINE"
    > line of defense).

    Then please don't resort to the insipid soapbox technique
    of putting words in other people's mouths...

    My position is that the amendment, if you want to talk about
    that, was a bunch of crap and a waste of time. On that we
    agree.

    However, your BS about conservatives is another matter. Ever
    heard of Diane Feinstein? This is populist politics, whoring
    for the vote.

    The amendment was extremely popular with veterans. That's where
    the push came from. Not politicians. You can't even pin this
    one on the religious/radical right. This one came from the guy
    next door who spent 2 years getting his nuts blown off in 'nam,
    who doesn't take kindly to the fact that it was considered
    his duty to shimmy up the pole and rescue that flag while
    under gunfire, but it's not his duty to do something when some
    a-hole decides to torch it in Washington. Did you ever stop
    to think about the number of people who have actually died
    not only defending the symbol, but the actual piece of cloth
    itself? How many names on that black granite wall in Washington
    DC are there because their CO told them get that flag down
    before the camp was over-run by Viet Cong? If you ever had
    your ass shot at over a flag, you think you might feel strongly
    about it?

    -b

    RE: .260  (Tom)

>    Actually, I'm offended by ALL lies, which, apparently puts me in the
>    minority of this conference.
    ...
>    After all, the subject of THIS topic is the attempt to "Protect" the
>    flag from the freedoms of which it is a symbol.  

    I'll ASSUME, without really knowing, that you're frothing at the mouth
    because I mentioned Feinstien's hypocritical lie in her campaign
    concerning the BB ammendment.

    The first question you should ask is "Why did I bring Feinstien into
    this?"  The answer is rather simple.  Back when the democrats held both
    houses of congress, they did bring the BB ammendment up for a vote. 
    Guess what.  Feinstien voted FOR it.  It had absolutely no chance of
    passing whatsoever.  Voting for it was a safe vote for her.  One that
    she emphasised heavily in her campaign.  And which way did she vote
    when her vote really counted ...

    The parallel is obvious.  People who deep down oppose the Flag Burning
    ammendment will hypocritically vote for it.  "How can you claim that a
    person would vote for a constitutional ammendment they oppose?"  Look
    at Feinstien.

>    (If you can't defend your position on logic, please don't resort to a
>    "MY hypocrisy is better than THEIR hypocrisy because this one is MINE"
>    line of defense).

    Now pray tell, where have I used this line of defense?

    -- Dave

    RE: .259

>Look GOOD??
>Who are they trying to impress? This is good?

    Politicians have always resorted to wrapping themselves in the flag,
    especially when there is little else to redeem them.  I also like the
    explanation given in .261.

    Having said all that, I personally would prefer that the ammendment die
    a quiet peaceful death, but I don't consider it a voting issue.  I
    won't vote for or against someone simply because of this one vote.

    -- Dave

Let's check out this bit of blatant partisanship:
    
>    As opposed to myths like, say, tax breaks for the rich and huge
>    cuts to Medicaire... right? Or is it that you're only offended
>    by the other guy's myths?

Instead of telling us why the conservatives would vote for such
a crap piece of legislation, our attention is drawn to the ugly
things the liberals have done.  Is there NO room for honest criticism
of "your party"?  Must the author be forcefully reminded that the
likes of TeddyK voted against this?

There'll be no good words from you for those democrats, no
acknowledgement of the poor republican judgement.  Just the "see
how bad them 'crats are!"  Now MAYBE Mark and Mike will understand
what simpleton "us good, them bad" mentality I've been talking about.

Thanks for at least being a bad exaple.
\john

    
    
    
    John, cut the friggin smugness.  What pissed me off was you acting like
    a clairvoyant thinking that you can read our minds.  The repubs who
    touted this flag burning crap are hypocrites in this case.  It's a
    symbolic piece of crap that misses the mark completely.  It's meant to
    be feel good stuff that doesn't feel very good to me at all.  Let
    people burn as many flags as they want, maybe I'll open a flag
    manufacturing plant.  The flag is one thing, the ideas behind the flag
    is something else.  What these nincompoops don't understand is that
    trying to enact this amendment, tears down some of what is behind the
    flag and what it used to stand for.
    
    
    Mike

    spoken ike a real Snub nosed Stubby.

RE: 322.265 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "RIP Amos, you will be missed"

> The repubs who touted this flag burning crap are hypocrites in this case.  
> It's a symbolic piece of crap that misses the mark completely.  It's meant 
> to be feel good stuff that doesn't feel very good to me at all.  Let 
> people burn as many flags as they want, maybe I'll open a flag 
> manufacturing plant.  The flag is one thing, the ideas behind the flag
> is something else.  What these nincompoops don't understand is that
> trying to enact this amendment, tears down some of what is behind the
> flag and what it used to stand for.

Careful,  Mike,  you are getting very close to being a Democratic Liberal 
with this note.  


Phil

    
    
    Damn Phil, I'm having an identity crisis.  :')
    
    
    Mike

    Tom Stern...You are my kind of scum!  Ruthless and vindictive.  I like
    you!  
    
    Stick around for awhile.

   > Instead of telling us why the conservatives would vote for such
   > a crap piece of legislation, our attention is drawn to the ugly
   > things the liberals have done.  Is there NO room for honest criticism
   > of "your party"?  Must the author be forcefully reminded that the
   > likes of TeddyK voted against this?
    
    Actually, I did explain a few notes later, but that didn't seem
    to alter your self-righteous juggernaut..
    
    BTW - you seem to be good at assuming what "my party" is. The
    only thing I've openly stated in here is my distaste for
    Democrats. Any other party affiliations are strictly your own
    imagination.
    
    -b

re: .270 

Having no evidence otherwise, "your party" is meant to mean "the
party you defend blindly" and "the party who's legislative actions
you support, regardless of quality."

I read your later note, too.  I mentioned your emotional "vietnam"
tug in the title.  What a tapdance that was, lemme tell you.  You
managed to rant and rave for many lines, without once saying, "yup,
what a bad, stupid piece of legislation.  I can't believe the
republicans would do that."  

Your note was perfect, really.  Mike got my point perfectly.

\john

    
      This amendment has considerable popular support, according to
     the polls.  I'm for it myself.
    
      What's the big deal ?  I never saw anybody burning a flag who
     I'd a shed a tear over if they got incarcerated for it.
    
      bb

    
    
    
    THe big deal is: 
    
    A) Giving the government more power.
    
    B) Usurping free speech.
    
    
    hth,
    

re: .272 (bb)

>      This amendment has considerable popular support, according to
>     the polls.  I'm for it myself.
>    
>      What's the big deal ?  I never saw anybody burning a flag who
>     I'd a shed a tear over if they got incarcerated for it.

Another wonderful example of why "mob rule" is a bad thing.  Most
legislators, while not exactly trustworthy, are certainly bright.
The mob includes the morons, the uneducatable, and the ignorant.

\john

    You will find the ones who burn flags usually grow up after a few
    years.  

>      This amendment has considerable popular support, according to
>     the polls.

Thankfully, "considerable" is insufficient to ever make it to being
ratified.

Personally, I'd rather have it the way it is now - where the citizenry can
make life miserable for the flag burners without the government's assistance.

    RE: .267

>>                                                            ...   Let 
>> people burn as many flags as they want, maybe I'll open a flag 
>> manufacturing plant.  ...
>
>Careful,  Mike,  you are getting very close to being a Democratic Liberal 
>with this note.  

    Actually, selling the flags is a capitalistic venture.  A liberal
    Democrat would want the government to give away flags for people to
    burn. :^)

    -- Dave

    >> What I find disgusting is that the so-called Conservatives, the ones
    >> who claim that they want to limit government telling people what to do
    >> with their lives, were (for the most part) the ones pushing this limit
    >> to our freedoms.
    
    You may have noticed, though, that many (and probably most, from what
    I can see) of the "conservatives" in this forum were against this
    proposed amendment.
    
    I don't want to give the government any more power than it currently
    has, in any area, because every new power we give them is getting
    their foot further into the door, to grease the skids for the next
    incremental power, and the one after that, and so on.
    
    Chris

>>    You may have noticed, though, that many (and probably most, from what
>>    I can see) of the "conservatives" in this forum were against this
>>    proposed amendment.
    
    And I have respect for those people who are sticking truly to their
    principles.  The comment I made was about those who seem to profess
    conservatism, and want to define liberalism.

   > Having no evidence otherwise, "your party" is meant to mean "the
   > party you defend blindly" and "the party who's legislative actions
   > you support, regardless of quality."
    
    \John,
    
    Once more, with feeling: My party, plain and simple, is
    the NOT DEMOCRATS, whatever that happens to be.
    
   > I read your later note, too.  I mentioned your emotional "vietnam"
   > tug in the title.  What a tapdance that was, lemme tell you.  You
   > managed to rant and rave for many lines, without once saying, "yup,
   > what a bad, stupid piece of legislation.  I can't believe the
   > republicans would do that."  
    
    From my .261:
    
   >> My position is that the amendment, if you want to talk about
   >> that, was a bunch of crap and a waste of time. On that we
   >> agree.

    So what part wasn't clear to you?
    
    As for the Vietnam stuff, it WAS NOT INTENDED AS A DEFENSE OF
    REPUBLICANS. I'm shouting because you seem to not be listening...
    
    I will not call it a fact, but it certainly is a widely held
    opinion, that the push for the flag-burning amendment DID come from
    veterans groups. Even CBS news, in the story about the amendment's
    defeat, said "Veteran's groups expressed dismay at the vote..."

    Please stop whining about partisanship. I was trying to explain
    why VETERANS groups might feel strongly about the amendment.
    Not Republicans. Not Democrats. THE PEOPLE WHO WERE BEHIND THE
    AMENDMENT IN THE FIRST PLACE. The politicians were, as I said in
    .261, just whoring for a vote. But politicians rarely, if ever,
    have an original thought. Someone, somewhere goaded Congress
    into taking action...
    
    Really \John, whatever you're feeding your horse, it's getting
    mighty high...
    
    -b