Some Republicans in Congress on Friday reintroduced a proposal calling for a ban on burning the American flag – and they’ve already won an endorsement from President Trump.
“All in for Senator Steve Daines as he proposes an Amendment for a strong BAN on burning our American Flag. A no brainer!,” the president wrote in a Twitter message Saturday.
All in for Senator Steve Daines as he proposes an Amendment for a strong BAN on burning our American Flag. A no brainer!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 15, 2019
The proposal is being sponsored in the Senate by Sens. Steve Daines of Montana and Kevin Cramer of North Dakota and in the House by Rep. Steve Womack of Arkansas. It calls for the U.S. Constitution to be amended so Congress would have “constitutional authority to ban the desecration of the United States flag.”
“The American Flag is a symbol of freedom – and it should always be protected,” Daines wrote Friday.
Today, #FlagDay, I introduced a Constitutional amendment w/ @SenKevinCramer to ban the desecration of the American Flag.
The American Flag is a symbol of freedom – and it should always be protected. 🇺🇸
— Steve Daines (@SteveDaines) June 14, 2019
Added Cramer: “A flag worth dying for is a flag worth protecting.”
Joined @SteveDaines on #FlagDay in introducing a Constitutional amendment to prohibit the desecration of the United States flag.
A flag worth dying for is a flag worth protecting. 🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/4NjedOSjDK
— Sen. Kevin Cramer (@SenKevinCramer) June 14, 2019
“Adding a Constitutional amendment to protect this symbol of freedom and liberty is not an attack on another Constitutional amendment,” he continued, “rather, it is an affirmation of the unifying principles our nation stands for.”
While we should always be mindful of First Amendment rights, the American flag signifies the founding principles that countless men and women have given their lives to preserve.
— Sen. Kevin Cramer (@SenKevinCramer) June 14, 2019
The amendment would be necessary because the Supreme Court has ruled in the past that flag-burning is a form of free speech protected by the First Amendment.
The new proposal was reintroduced Friday, which was Flag Day – and coincidentally President Trump’s 73rd birthday.
Critics on social media were quick to attack the proposal. Here are some samples:
please not this stupidity again. the supreme court has ruled that flag burning is constitutionally-protected speech. any such legislation would be unconstitutional. that a loudmouth internet nobody like me has to explain this to the president of the united states boggles the mind
— Jeff Tiedrich (@itsJeffTiedrich) June 15, 2019
Is there an outbreak of flag burning I’m just not aware of? https://t.co/H6q2xRGg67
— Bradley P. Moss (@BradMossEsq) June 15, 2019
People like Senator Steve Daines and Donald Trump love to play demagogue and are eager to “virtue signal” their patriotism by banning flag burning. In reality, they’re the ones burning the whole spirit of the flag by suppressing freedom of speech and promoting state censorship.
— Eugene Gu, MD (@eugenegu) June 15, 2019
According to the Washington Times, amendments can be added to the Constitution if two-thirds of both the House and Senate agree on a proposal and then three-fourths of the states ratify it, or if two-thirds of state legislatures call a convention to propose changes to the Constitution, and then three-fourths of the states ratify the change.
(Source: Fox News)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
13 Responses
Love that “according to the Washington Times”, why not just according to the “U.S. constitution”!?
I strongly disagree with this proposal, but why do you cite idiots like Jeff Tiedrich. Yes, of course “he supreme court has ruled that flag burning is constitutionally-protected speech”. That’s why Sen Daines is proposing an amendment. To use Tiedrich’s own words, does a loudmouth internet nobody like him really not understand what an amendment is?
The writer of this article is also an ignorant fool. “According to the Washington Times“?! Does he think there might be some other possibility, and this is just the Times‘s opinion?! Did he really need the Times to explain it to him? How does a professional reporter write about the constitution without knowing this? Does he also cite a newspaper for the idea that the president is elected every four years?
Tim W has it right: “America is not a flag”. The whole way many Americans treat the flag, as if it were the country, is avoda zara. The map is not the territory. A symbol is not the thing it stands for.
No flag is “worth dying for”, and I hope no US serviceman has ever been so foolish as to die for a flag. Our servicemen fight for our freedom, not for the flag. The flag merely stands for that freedom. Burning or disfiguring it is a symbolic attack on our country and our freedom, and a declaration that the person doing it is our enemy, but in itself it harms nobody. And one of the core values on which the USA is built is that everyone has the right to express such enmity, if they choose.
Conservative stalwart Antonin Scalia was the deciding vote in Texas vs. Johnson which found that flag burning is a protected form of freedom of expression. Scalia was a legend of the court and an icon of intellectual conservatism. The issue is hardly a no brainer for those who have the capacity to actually think through their opinions before they hit send.
why i am not surprised that crazykanoiy supports US flag burning?
No amendment passed in the last 100 years has taken away a right from the general population. The last amendment to do so was the 18th, and that didn’t go too well. (I say general population because the 22nd Amendment took away a right from a very limited number of people.)
No brainer: The perfect proposal for our president to understand.
MIG – Protecting the first amendment does not equal support for flag burning. Try reading Scalia’s opinion on the case before preaching fake patriotism and faux conservatism. True Conservatives protect the constitution. They dont just preach about the constitution and then ignore it when it doesnt jive with their political will and desires.
true “conservatives” like crazykanoiy support burning US flag.
Moshe In Golus –
Lets start with some basics.
First amendment protects freedom of expression.
The Supreme Court decided that flag burning is a protected form of expression in Texas vs. Johnson.
Do you know who Antonin Scalia was?
Do you know that Antonin Scalia was a leading conservative jurist?
Do you know that Antonin Scalia was the deciding factor in that descion?
Antonin Scalia was more of a conservative than the Trump Hannitty populist riff raff.
True Conservatives believe that the first amendment is no less important than the second.
Trump is not a conservative. If he had his way he would ban the desecration of his brand name and image. He would mandate that every house display an image of him alongside the flag just like his dear friend Kim. Trump’s dream of an America that consists of military parades, censoring of the free press, and banning of flag desecration is not Conservative or American.
crazykanoiy, burning American Flag is not free speech, it is attack on America,, get it in your pseudo “conservative” head.
Moishe and CK, you’re both wrong.
Moishe, you’re wrong; burning an American flag is speech, and the first amendment absolutely protects the freedom of speech. No legislature has the right to make a law against it.
CK, you’re wrong too, because this proposal (although wrong-headed) does not ignore the constitution, it proposes to amend it. That’s the exact opposite of ignoring it. The constitution is not perfect, and from time to time it has been amended. Were those who proposed amending the constitution to limit the presidency to two terms, or to abolish slavery, ignoring or disrespecting the constitution?! Of course not. And neither are those who support this proposed amendment.
Moshe In Golus – Flag burning is protected free speech. That is the law of the land irrespective if you agree with or not.
Milhouse – I make no argument regarding the legality of an amendment. Obviously their is a process to amend the constitution and it has been used sparingly. My point is that amending the constitution to remove a protection afforded by the constitution is not something to be taken lightly. It is no different than amending the constitution to outlaw gun ownership or limit freedom of religion. True Conservatives respect the protections of the constitution and approach change with thought and humility it is not “a no brainer” to amend the rights afforded in the constitution.