December 06, 2005

There are two ways to appear moderate to the American people. 1) pick up the flag of a few issues of your opponent's base and run it up the nearest flag pole with zeal, or 2) have some good old American common sense in everything you do and hope people pay attention. It looks like Hillary Clinton has chosen the first option.

Clinton, D-N.Y., has agreed to co-sponsor a measure by Republican Sen. Bob Bennett of Utah, which has been written in hopes of surviving any constitutional challenge following a 2003 Supreme Court ruling on the subject. Her support of Bennett's bill follows her position in Congress last summer, when a constitutional ban on flag-burning was debated. Clinton said then she didn't support a constitutional ban, but did support federal legislation making it a crime to desecrate the flag.

In her public statements, she has compared the act of flag-burning to burning a cross, which can be considered a violation of federal civil rights law.
[Sen. Clinton co-sponsors anti-flag burning law - Newsday - 12-05-05]

I don't have any desire to burn an American flag, but I don't want pandering politicians placing asterisks in our nation's constitutional protection of civil liberties, especially free speech.

This is a democracy, not a totalitarian regime where the government can haul individuals before a court claiming the government is the victim and has been violated by an individual's speech.

Sen. Clinton opposed a previous attempt to amend the constitution to ban flag burning.

"I support federal legislation that would outlaw flag desecration, much like laws that currently prohibit the burning of crosses, but I don't believe a constitutional amendment is the answer," said Clinton. Her aides said there was no contradiction in being against the flag-burning amendment and for a flag-burning law.
[Flag amendment may lack votes to pass Senate - First Amendment Center - 06-13-05]

Here is what the "Flag Protection Act of 2005" says.

`(b) ACTIONS PROMOTING VIOLENCE- Any person who destroys or damages a flag of the United States with the primary purpose and intent to incite or produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace, and under circumstances in which the person knows that it is reasonably likely to produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace, shall be fined not more than $100,000, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

`(c) DAMAGING A FLAG BELONGING TO THE UNITED STATES- Any person who steals or knowingly converts to his or her use, or to the use of another, a flag of the United States belonging to the United States, and who intentionally destroys or damages that flag, shall be fined not more than $250,000, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

`(d) DAMAGING A FLAG OF ANOTHER ON FEDERAL LAND- Any person who, within any lands reserved for the use of the United States, or under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction of the United States, steals or knowingly converts to his or her use, or to the use of another, a flag of the United States belonging to another person, and who intentionally destroys or damages that flag, shall be fined not more than $250,000, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
[S 1370 IS "Flag Protection Act of 2005"]

Sen. Clinton doesn't want you to burn a flag for the purpose of inciting violence. She's totally against people burning someone else's flag. And she doesn't want you to burn that stolen flag on federal property. The last I checked, inciting violence, theft and disposing stolen goods is already criminal. Is this attempt to remain constitutional a joke?

Take a look at the "Flag Protection Act of 1989" which the Supreme Court of the United States said was unconstitutional.

Whoever knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon any flag of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
[Flag Protection Act of 1989]